Commons Sitting of 17 July 1871

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolution [July 14] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Public Lands and Commons* [252]; Small Debts, &c. (Ireland)* [253].
Second Reading—Juries (Ireland)* [231]; Intoxicating Liquors Licences Suspension* [234]; Sunday Observance Prosecutions* [235]; Maynooth College* [243]; Metropolitan Tramways Provisional Orders Suspension* [236]; Tramways (Ireland)* [245].
Referred to Select Committee—Coal Mines Regulation (re-comm.)*
Committee—Elections (Parliamentary and Municipal) (re-comm.) [103]—R.P.
Committee—Report—East India (Bishops' Leave of Absence)* [237]; Owens College* [246]; Municipal Corporation Acts Amendment* [193].
Considered as amended—Public Libraries Act (1855) Amendment* [229].
Withdrawn—Debtors (Ireland) (re-comm.)* [171]; Inclosure Law Amendment (re-comm.)* [212]; Pilotage* [82]; Pharmacy* [206]; Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment (re-comm.)* [172]

IRELAND—ASSISTANT BARRISTERS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether he can now state to the House what augmentation is proposed to be made to the salaries of the Assistant Barristers in Ireland, in consequence of the additional duties thrown upon them by the Irish Land Act?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. DOWSE)said, he was not in a position to state what augmentation it was proposed to make to the salaries of the chairmen of counties in Ireland. A full Return on the subject not being in the possession of the Government it was impossible to come to any definite conclusion this year with respect to it. He might, at the same time, state that he was authorized to say that whatever augmentation might be proposed next Session would include the present financial year, so that the chairmen would not be losers by the delay which would occur.

PARLIAMENT—HOUSE OF COMMONS POST OFFICE.—QUESTION.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Postmaster General. Whether he sees any objection to entrusting the Postmaster at the House of Commons with the duty of stamping (on payment) all letters posted there with an official stamp, as is done at Government offices, without putting Members to the trouble of placing stamps upon them?
MR. MONSELL, in reply, said, he had given directions to the Postmaster of the House of Commons, when letters were handed in with money sufficient to pay for them, that he should himself put a stamp on them. That would probably meet the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view, and it would at all times give him great pleasure to carry out the wishes of hon. Members by endeavouring to carry out any plan which they might think conducive to their convenience.

ARMY RECRUITING.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESasked the Financial Secretary of the War Office, Whether, in the Return No. 311, Session 1871, headed "Army Recruiting," the following sums—namely, £756,611 8s. 9d. for 5,536
1872
Cavalry recruits for Home Service, and £1,760,054 19 s. 4d. for 27,752 Infantry recruits for Home Service—enlisted in the years 1867–68 to 1870–71, both inclusive, are not merely multiples of the estimated charge to India for each Cavalry recruit of £136 13 s. 11 d., and for each Infantry recruit of £63 8s. 5d., and have not any relation to actual outlay; and, whether, as far as relates to the years 1867–68, 1868–69, and 1869–70, the now completed Recruiting Accounts in the War Office could not give the actual outlay instead of an Estimate to be laid upon the Table of the House?
CAPTAIN VIVIAN: Sir, the "actual cost" of a recruit cannot be given. No separate record of the cost of a recruit, as distinguished from a trained man, has ever been kept in the Army. It is not and cannot be known in the accounts when a man passes from the status of recruit to that of a trained soldier. Added to which, recruits and trained soldiers occupy the same barracks and consume the same stores, and are under the same superintendence, so that the cost of these items, as divided between the two classes, can never be anything but "estimated."

UNIVERSITY REFORM.—QUESTION.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to deal with the question of University reform by the appointment of a Royal Commission, or otherwise?
MR. GLADSTONEreplied that the view of the Government was that there was a step which might be adopted either by them or by Parliament, as might seem most expedient, without any delay and with great advantage to the interests of the Universities; and that was, to take effectual means by a Commission for establishing and bringing to the knowledge of the public the real, and, as far as might be, the exact revenues and property of the Universities and Colleges. As far as the Universities were concerned, that was a simple matter; but with reference to the Colleges, it was more comprehensive and complex. The Government had had some preliminary consultation with some of the authorities of the Universities upon the question whether it was probable that that could be done by a Crown Commission, or whether it would be necessary to resort to Parliament. Of course, he

1873
need not say that if it were to be done by a Crown Commission, the Government would not attempt anything of that kind until they had ascertained that there was a general disposition to comply with the inquiries which would be made by the Commission, and indeed even a little more, that there was a disposition to prefer that to a statutory and compulsory Commission, so that they might be able to rely upon voluntary and cheerful co-operation. As far as these inquiries had gone, they tended to lead the Government to the conclusion that there would be that cheerful co-operation in the work of bringing out information of great interest and importance which had never yet been fully placed before the world. Of course, his noble Friend knew very well that the present season of the year was not one in which anything effectual could be done, the members of the Universities being dispersed; but when the October term commenced, the Government would endeavour to inform themselves fully upon that subject, and if the result were such as they had some reason to expect it would be, they should proceed at once to advise the Crown to issue a Commission for the purpose of bringing out clearly the whole of the facts. In that case he hoped no very long time would be occupied by the inquiries of such a Commission, and he was likewise disposed to believe that many Colleges in the Universities would be very much inclined to co-operate with the Government, by making use of the powers which they possessed, subject to a certain control of the Privy Council, for the purpose of introducing important reforms into their administration, especially in connection with the tenure and the emoluments of Fellowships.
In reply to Mr. SPENCER WALPOLE,
MR. GLADSTONEstated that the exact purpose of the inquiry would be entirely confined to the elucidation of facts with reference to the property of Universities and Colleges. The question as to the issue of any further Commission to inquire what changes might be made, especially with regard to Fellowships, would stand over.
In answer to Mr. BERESFORD HOPE,
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Commission would make no Report as to opinions beyond what was necessary to present a clear statement as to the state of the property of the Universities
1874
and Colleges; while, in reply to Mr. RATHBONE, he stated that the Commission would furnish the public with information as to the application of the emoluments of the University of Oxford, which, however, had, he believed, in the main been brought out by a former inquiry.

RAILWAYS—THE ROPE SYSTEM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EASTWICKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Rope system of communication between passengers and the officers in charge of Railway trains has been reported on; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay a Copy of such Report upon the Table of the House; whether there is any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of Colonel Yolland's Report on Major Wethered's system of communication, which has been declared by the Board of Trade to be a Report not unfavourable to that system; and, whether the Board of Trade is using or intends to take measures to discover the best means of communication between passengers and officers in charge of trains, and to encourage its adoption?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that the power of the Board of Trade with reference to the establishment of a means of communication between railway passengers and guards consisted in signifying their approval of any particular arrangement. Under the authority which they possessed, they had approved the rope system in most instances, the exceptions being the South-Eastern and the South-Western Railways; in their cases the electric system had been approved. There was no Report within the last two or three years of the Inspectors of the Board of Trade with regard to the rope system; but there were elaborate Reports of Colonel Tyler and Colonel Yolland on the whole question of communication between passengers and guards, including that system. Colonel Yolland, he might add, had also reported on Major Wethered's system; but he was bound to say that he, as well as other Inspectors, considered it as being by no means the best mode of communication. The hon. Gentleman could see Colonel Yolland's Report if he wished; but there was this objection against laying it on the Table of the House, that if it were produced the same

  1875
  course should be pursued with respect to the Reports of the officers of the Board of Trade upon the plans of other inventors.

VACCINATION CONTRACTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HEYGATEasked the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether it is the practice in certain Poor Law Unions to arrange their Vaccination Contracts for the months of April and October only; whether an application recently made by the Guardians of the Hambledon Union to the Poor Law Board, to sanction such an alteration of their Vaccination Contract as would enable vaccination to be performed in the month of July in addition to the months of April and October, has not been refused; and, if he considers an arrangement safe by which children born shortly after the months fixed for public vaccination remain unvaccinated for nearly six months?
  MR. STANSFELD, in reply, said, it was the practice in sparsely-populated Unions to sanction vaccination contracts for the months of April and October only. The object of that arrangement was to secure the attendance of a sufficient number of children for vaccination and the supply of fresh lymph. It was true an application had been recently made to the Poor Law Board by the Guardians of the Hambledon Union to sanction such an alteration of the vaccination contract as would enable vaccination to be performed in the month of July; but the Privy Council had advised them not to assent to the arrangement.

PARLIAMENT—KNIGHTS OF SHIRES— DISQUALIFICATION OF "MEN OF THE LAW."—QUESTION.
MR. G. B. GREGORYasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he considers that the Ordinance of 46 Edw. III., printed in the first volume of the Statutes Revised is an existing Statute and operative as law; and, whether, if so, he is prepared to bring in a Bill for the repeal of the same?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALreplied that in his opinion no valid Statute, properly so called, was ever passed excluding lawyers from the representation of counties. That was the opinion of Lord Coke, who said (4 Inst. p. 48)—
1876
"Any of the profession of the law which is in practice of the law is eligible. For he which is eligible of common right cannot be disabled by the Ordinance in Parliament in the Lords' House in 46 Edward III., unless it had been by Act of Parliament; and if it had been by authority of Parliament, yet had the same been abrogated by the Statutes of 5 Richard II., stat. 2, cap. 2, and 7 Henry IV., cap. 15, which are general laws without any exception."
He had looked at those Statutes, and he found that though they did not expressly repeal the Ordinance of Edward III., they did so impliedly. Lord Coke further stated that—
"At a Parliament holden at Coventry, anno 6 Henry IV., the Parliament was summoned by writ, and (by colour of the said Ordinance) it was forbidden that no lawyer should be chosen knight, citizen, or burgess, by reason whereof this Parliament was fruitless and never a good law made thereat, and therefore called 'indoctum Parliamentum,' or lack-learning Parliament. And seeing that these writs were against law, lawyers ever since (for the great and good service of commonwealth) have been eligible, and lawyers might have been elected in that Parliament."
Lord Coke acted on his opinion by sitting for the county of Norfolk. It appeared that afterwards, in 1649, an attempt was made to revive the Ordinance, and a speech, to be found in the 19th volume of the Parliamentary History, page 226, was made by Whitelock, denying the validity of the Ordinance, and its operation to exclude lawyers from the representation of counties, on the ground, amongst others, that the King did not assent to the prayer of the Petition in its form—Statutes taking the form in those days of a Petition to, and answer from, the Crown. The Petition was to the following effect—
"That no man of the law following business in the King's Courts, nor Sheriffs, be returned or accepted for Knights of the Shires."
The answer was—
"The King willeth that knights and esquires be from thenceforth returned to be knights in Parliament, and that they be chosen in full county,"
an evasive answer which gave the go-bye to the Petition. The Parliamentary History proceeds—
"We presume that the foregoing arguments put a stop to this attack upon gentlemen of the long robe, for we hear no more of it."
From that time until last Monday nobody questioned the right of lawyers to sit for counties. He might add that Blackstone (Vol. I., p. 176) observed on the supposed Statute—
"It was an unconstitutional prohibition, which wsa grounded on an Ordinance of the House of Lords, and inserted in the King's Writs for the Parliament holden at Coventry, 6 Henry IV., that

1877
no man of the law should be elected a Knight of the Shire."
He had looked through the various editions of the Statutes, and this Ordinance was not to be found in the ordinary editions, he believed, with the exception only of Ruffhead's Collection of Statutes, where it is inserted in the Appendix. It is referred to in the Preface to Cay's Abridgment of the Statutes, 1739; and it is printed by the Record Commissioners in their edition of the Statutes. As the gentlemen charged with the preparation of the Revised Edition of the Statutes found it in the Record Commission Edition, and could not discover that it had been entirely repealed, they did not feel themselves at liberty to omit it. He did not believe it to be valid; but to remove all doubts it would be inserted among the Statutes repealed by the Bill now pending in the House of Lords. It only remained for him to correct a remark made by the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck), who said that it was in virtue of this Ordinance that Sheriffs were excluded from sitting for counties. The Sheriffs were only disqualified for sitting for the counties to which they acted as returning officers, and this not by statute of the general law of Parliament, for, as Blackstone observed, no returning officer could return himself.

CUSTOM HOUSE CLERKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PIMasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Lords of the Treasury intend to extend to the clerks in the Custom Houses at the large outports the new classification adopted in London, as promised in Treasury Minute of the 10th December, 1868; whether their Lordships propose to pay to the clerks at the outports the arrears of the increase of salaries from the 1st of April, 1869, as has been, or is to be done, under Treasury Minute dated the 6th of March last, in the case of the clerks in the London Custom House; whether their Lordships intend, in making out the scale of salaries under the new classification, to pay any regard to the present cost of living and maintaining a family in the outports; and, whether it is their intention to make the salaries of the Customs clerks at the large outports equal to those of the clerks in London?
  MR. BAXTER: Sir, the Treasury Minute referred to in the first Question of my hon. Friend approved a scheme of establishment for the Customs clerks in London, and fixed their salaries; but as regards the clerks at the outports the Minute merely authorized the Board of Customs to prepare a plan, and no promise was given to sanction it. On the 1st of January, 1869, the Lords of the Treasury stated that it was not expedient to take any steps with reference to the clerks at the outports; but subsequently they have directed an inquiry to be made into the state of the Customs establishments at the outports, which inquiry, however, has been delayed pending a decision on the Warehousing Departments in London. Instructions have now been issued to proceed with the investigation, commencing with Liverpool, and then probably taking Dublin. The House; I am sure, will agree with me that it would be quite premature to offer any opinion on the measures which may hereafter be recommended by the Special Commissioners and sanctioned by the Treasury; but no doubt all the circumstances of the case, including those stated in my hon. Friend's third Question, will be duly considered.

REV. D. SMYTH—SIEGE OF PARIS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CADOGANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the distinguished and devoted services rendered by the Reverend D. Smyth to British subjects during and subsequent to the late siege of Paris; and, whether any Report of the administration of the "Cave" Fund by D. Smyth and others in Paris can be laid upon the Table?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, the humane and praiseworthy exertions of the Rev. D. Smyth, as well as those of Mr. R. Wallace, Mr. E. Blount, Mr. Alan Herbert, and others, have been gratefully recognized by Her Majesty's Government, and Lord Lyons some time ago was informed of the high sense entertained here of the conduct of these gentlemen during the siege of Paris, and if my hon. Friend will move for this despatch I shall be happy to present it to Parliament. With regard to the Special Report of the British Charitable

  1879
  Fund, I have a copy of it in my hand which I will leave in the Library for the Printing Committee of the House to decide as to whether it should be generally circulated; but I apprehend it would not be convenient for the Foreign Office to be called upon to print documents of this character.

THE LATE CONSUL AT RESHT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, To state what amount of money has been recovered from the Government of Persia on account of the debts of a late member of the Persian Legation in this Country, and to ask him to state whether, under the circumstances, he does not believe it will be just to repay the debt incurred by Mr. Mackenzie, late Her Majesty's Consul at Resht, to a Persian subject, the bond having been secured under the Consular seal?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Sir, the late Minister of Persia in this country has remitted, since his departure, about a third of the whole sum that was claimed from him to meet certain specified liabilities in England. The case of Mr. Mackenzie was as follows:—When Consul at Resht he borrowed a sum of money, to be repaid in four months, of a merchant of Teheran, named Mirza Jafir. He was recalled within the four months, and left without paying. The Persian Government intervened on behalf of Mirza Jafir; but Her Majesty's Government have stated on several occasions that they could not hold themselves responsible for debts incurred without their knowledge and sanction. The case for the creditors was re-opened in March, 1870, by their lawyer, Mr. Pringle, who forwarded a copy of the bond on which the seal of Her Majesty's Consulate was visible; but in the copy of that document presented to the Foreign Office by the Persian Minister, the seal is the private seal of Mr. Mackenzie, and the copy is certified as correct by Mr. Abbott with the Consular seal, Mr. Abbott having been Mr. Mackenzie's superior Consul at Tabreez.

ARMY—THE JOBSON FUSE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LEAasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, If a specimen of a
  1880
  new time fuse was not submitted to the War Office by G. F. Jobson in 1869; if since that time large numbers have not been made upon this principle; and, if any reward has been given to Jobson for his invention; and, if not, why such reward has been withheld?
  SIR HENRY STORKS, in reply, said, Mr. Jobson submitted a modified time fuse in 1869; but there is no proof whatever that his proposals or suggestions led to the introduction of any improvements into the service fuse. His claims to reward have been frequently considered and rejected. They were finally submitted to the Ordnance Council in January last, and it was decided that they were inadmissible.

NAVY—CHAIN CABLES.—QUESTION.
MR. CAWLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether any and what tests are applied to chain cables used in the Royal Navy; and, whether any inspectors are appointed by the Admiralty to visit the works of contractors during the manufacture of such chain cables; whether the testing involves the rejection of all cables which prove unequal to the test; and, whether from experience the Admiralty have found the existing system of testing satisfactory and efficient?
MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, the Admiralty had the power to appoint inspectors of cables; and if chain cables did not bear a certain strain they were rejected. The existing system was working successfully, and secured the supply of trustworthy cables.

PARLIAMENT—RULES AND PRACTICE OF HOUSE—POWER OF THE CLERKS AT THE TABLE TO ALTER NOTICES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TOMLINEsaid, he had placed on the Paper the Notice of a Question in the following terms:—
  "To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is still prepared to affirm 'that the Revised Statutes published by the Queen's printers, by authority, in 1870 to 1871, were authoritatively given to the people in accordance with the Report of a Royal Commission appointed by the Lord Chancellor, are now the binding Statute Law of the land"—
  but as he had to make an explanation he should move that the House adjourn.
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that the House would doubtless permit the hon.

  1881
  Member to make an explanation without requiring him to move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. TOMLINEsaid, that the Question he intended to put to the right hon. Gentleman was not that which stood in his name on the Paper. The Question had been changed by the clerks, and the change annoyed him, because the Question was now made to appear discourteous and like the question of a cross-examining counsel, who asked a witness whether he was still prepared to affirm that which he had before stated. He had not the least wish to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman. He had been for many years, together with the right hon. Gentleman, a follower of Sir Robert Peel, and, though his support of the right hon. Gentleman's policy might now be called discriminating, he should be sorry to be thought capable of putting a question in a taunting style to the right hon. Gentleman, who himself set an example of courtesy which perhaps in time all his Colleagues would follow. The right hon. Gentleman, before he answered the Question the other night, probably consulted the Statute Law Commissioners, one of whom was Sir Erskine May, who could confirm the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that the Statute of Edward III., which had been referred to, was still the binding law of the land.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he felt bound to say that the hon. Member's observations extended to such a length that they could not property fall within the compass of a Question.
  MR. TOMLINEsaid, he would more the adjournment of the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that if he understood the case, it might be disposed of in two minutes. The hon. Member's Question was drawn in a certain form of words, and a slight alteration had been made in those words, leaving the substance entirely unchanged. As to the point whether the hon. Member is in Order in moving the adjournment of the House on such a matter, that must be left to the hon. Member's own discretion. There were certain Orders of the House which were distinctly contravened by the course now pursued. One Order was that on Mondays Orders of the Day should have precedence of Notices of Motion; and if the hon. Member chose to move the adjournment of the House and
  1882
  raise a discussion on a Notice of a Question, he contravened that Order. Another Order was that on Mondays the Government should have the right to place at the head of the list of business such Orders as they thought it necessary to bring forward; but that rule would be contravened if, by moving the adjournment, an hon. Member gained precedence for a Notice he had put down on the Paper.
  MR. TOMLINEsaid, it was quite clear that by the decision of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair he had a right to move the adjournment.
  MR. BAGWELL MR. BAGWELL moved that the hon. Member be not heard.
  MR. TOMLINEproceeded to say that, according to the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, the two volumes of Revised Statutes contained the law of the land; and the Attorney General admitted that the Statute of Edward III. was binding, when he said that it should be inserted in the Bill brought in to repeal certain existing statutes and parts of statutes. As had been remarked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the law should have no favourites, and, least of all, ought it to favour lawyers. The Attorney General said he meant to introduce a Bill to repeal that which he admitted to be a statute; but until he did so, in what position were those hon. Gentlemen whose sitting in the House was a breach of an Act of Parliament? But the object of his Question was to appeal to The Speaker, as the guardian of the privileges of the House, if the Clerks at the Table were allowed to do what they liked with the Notices which Members placed in their hands. The results of such a usurpation might become serious, and therefore it was that he addressed himself to The Speaker, who inherited the traditions of the Chair he occupied, that the practice ought to be checked before it became so common that it could be claimed as a right. He had been referred to Lord Brougham and Sir John Rolt with respect to the other Question which he had raised; but they were not charged with the care of the privileges of that House.
  MR. PEMBERTONrose to Order. He wished to know whether an hon. Gentleman was in Order in stating over and over again as a fact a disputed question of law, and by which it would

  1883
  seem that he (Mr. Pemberton) committed a breach of the law by sitting in that House as a Knight of a Shire?
  MR. SPEAKER: The House has not delegated to me any power of preventing hon. Members repeating the same argument over and over again.
  MR. TOMLINE, whose observations were rendered inaudible, concluded by calling the attention of The Speaker to the fact that the terms of the Question of which he had given Notice had been altered by the Clerks at the Table without his consent or knowledge.
  MR. SPEAKER: I should be very unwilling to believe that the hon. Member put his Question on the Paper with the view of moving the adjournment of the House, and thereby introducing a discussion of the merits of a Question which has already been considered. I think that would have been a great invasion of the Rules and practices of the House. I understand that the hon. Gentleman objected to an alteration which has been made in certain words of his Question. I hold in my hand the Notice in its original form as given in to the Clerks. It appears that the only alteration made is by striking out a reference to a past debate by substituting for the words "whether he still adheres to the statement officially made by him in the House of Commons" the words "whether he is still prepared to affirm." It is the duty of the Clerks to follow the Rules of the House, and these provide that in Questions all reference to past debates shall be avoided; and on the present occasion they have altered the Question of the hon. Gentleman with the view of keeping it within the Rules. I cannot but much regret that the House has been occupied with this subject.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, to answer the Question of my hon. Friend, and to thank him for the courteous terms in which he has been pleased to refer to me. With regard to the subject relating to the Clerks at the Table, I trust I do not go too far when I state parenthetically for myself, after long experience, in regard to Motions which have been put in by myself and others, that nothing more affects my admiration than the extraordinary precision, as well as rapidity, with which the miscellaneous Questions handed in to the Clerks are reduced to order and circulated all over London nest morning in a manner that
  1884
  forms a perfect masterpiece of Parliamentary machinery. As to the other point of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I believe the case is this—that the point on which his Question turns is one of those points which, as a legal question, must be considered to be doubtful. My hon. Friend is perfectly right in stating that I represented to him, acting on the best information I could obtain, that the volumes to which he referred contained the binding Statute Law of the land. The Commissioners who compiled these volumes have, of course, no authority to rule doubtful questions. All they could do was to act to the best of their judgment; they were not armed with any legislative power. No doubt they so acted; but in determining the question whether any statute or ordinance should or should not be printed that would not affect the legal question, which must remain for the decision of the proper authority, whether the statute is law or not. My hon. Friend has given his opinion upon it, and I am extremely sorry that any remark of mine has caused him any trouble; I gave him the best information. I could, but I have no power to deliver an irrevocable judgment ex cathedrâ.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has said that he would move the adjournment of the House, but he sat down without doing so.
  MR. G. BENTINCK: I rise for the purpose of seconding his Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Gentleman sat down without moving. I hold it would be the wish of the hon. Member, as well as of hon. Members generally, that the matter should now conclude.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he understood the hon. Member to move the adjournment of the House, and he himself had risen for the purpose of seconding the Motion, when the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government rose to answer the question of his hon. Friend (Mr. Tomline). If he was in Order he would second the Motion; if he was out of Order, he would be glad to hear the grounds of his being held to be so. He would not detain the House long; but he wished to make a few remarks. He would merely say in reference to this statute—[Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE: The statute does not exist.] If that was the case nothing

  1885
  further could be said on the question; but with regard to the other point, the alteration of Notices by the Clerks, it was one of which the House should take some account. He was the last man to impugn, and he was the first man to inquire into the way in which the Business of the House was conducted. He maintained that no man had a right to alter any Question which was put into the hands of the Clerk to be inserted in the Orders of the Day.
  Motion negatived.

IRELAND—ROYAL MILITARY SCHOOL, DUBLIN.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN GRAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What specific charges of interference with matters outside his duty was alleged against the Reverend John Leonard, Roman Catholic officiating clergyman of the Royal Military School, Dublin, previous to the 1st March 1871, upon which day the Committee of Governors recommended, and the General Board of Governors decided, that the services of the reverend gentleman be dispensed with; whether the alleged case of interference was communicated to the reverend gentleman prior to the adoption of the said recommendation or since the date of its adoption; whether the Reverend Mr. Leonard has been afforded any opportunity of refuting the allegation made against him, and on which the recommendation was adopted; and, whether, if such opportunity was not afforded to him, the Government is prepared to give him an opportunity of having a full and impartial inquiry into the truth or falsehood of the complaint made against him?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that the Rev. John Leonard, a Roman Catholic clergyman officiating at the Royal Military School, Dublin, had been dismissed in the terms of the Board of Governor's resolution for neglecting to furnish an explanation required of him, after forbearance which had been extended to him without good result, so that his further continuance in the office was inconsistent with the maintenance of discipline. Any further reply would canvass matters which would be brought before the House in a more regular manner when certain
1886
Returns were moved for. It was not the intention of the Government to make further inquiry. From the Papers before him he was satisfied that the rev. gentleman had interfered with matters outside his duty, and had been treated with lenity.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAINESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How soon the Report of the Commission on the Contagious Diseases Act will be in the hands of Members; and whether it is the intention of Government to propose any legislation founded on that Report during the present Session?
  MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, the Report of the Commission would be in the hands of Members in the course of a few days. It was signed by 23 of the 25 Members, two being absent, one from illness and the other on duty. The number of dissents detracted from the unanimity of the Report. Two-thirds of the Members were in favour of qualified compulsory application of the Acts, one-third—or rather, seven—were in favour of strengthening rather than weakening the Acts; six were in favour of repealing all compulsory legislation, and all were in favour of further legislation, with a view of modifying the law to make it applicable to the whole country. Such a Report was intended for the information of Government, of Parliament, and of the whole country; and at this period of the Session it would be impossible for hon. Members to give due consideration to the Report so as to be able to pass a useful measure founded upon it. It was therefore not the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill. Strong feelings had been created in the public mind by the frequent repetition of statements that in carrying out these Acts outrages had been committed upon innocent and virtuous women; but those statements had not been confirmed. Had they been confirmed, it would have been the duty of the Government, under any circumstances, to repeal Acts capable of such abuse; but the Commissioners said that the result of inquiry was to satisfy them that the police were not chargeable with any abuse of authority; that they had discharged delicate and difficult duties with moderation and

  1887
  caution; and that there was no foundation for the charges which had been so rashly made and repeated, and which had contributed to excite public indignation against these enactments. That finding was unanimous, and an examination of the facts showed not only that many of these statements were gross exaggerations, but that the greater part of them were sheer inventions. The House would therefore see that the substitution of legislation for that now in force was a matter which required on the part of the Government deep and anxious consideration, which could not be given to it either by the Government or by private Members at this period of the Session.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DISRAELI: I wish to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government with respect to the order of Business. The House agreed to the Irish Education Vote on Friday night on the understanding that the discussion might be taken on the Report, and I see that the Report is fixed for an hour to-night, which would render discussion quite impossible. There was also some intimation on Friday that there might be a Supplementary Vote, and that the discussion might be taken then; but it is not within my Parliamentary experience that discussion should be postponed till a Supplementary Vote is brought forward which is not even on the Paper. I have no wish to interfere unnecessarily with the conduct of Public Business; but, as I am afraid that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) will fail to gain the opportunity of raising the fair discussion he wishes on the question, I would suggest that the Report should be taken at the Evening Sitting to-morrow.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) has misunderstood in some degree what took place on Friday night last, because the arrangement then was that the discussion should be taken on the Supplementary Vote, and that Vote is now on the Table; but we shall be happy, if we can, to fall in with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and take the Report of the Vote
  1888
  on Account to-morrow evening. As the right hon. Gentleman has raised the question of the course of Business, I may, perhaps, be allowed to refer to the subject, and for the sake of order I will move the discharge of the Order for Committee upon the Debtors (Ireland) (Re-committed) Bill, which stands for tonight. It will be all the more convenient that I should state the views of the Government, because rumours have appeared, with more or less apparent belief on the part of the writer of the paragraphs, in print, which may naturally tend to raise doubt and misgiving in the minds of hon. Members, with regard to the intention of the Government to abandon, in particular, the principal and most important measure now before the House. These rumours are founded upon a misapprehension—an agreeable misapprehension, but one which I am desirous to remove. It is assumed, I admit, in strict conformity to the practice of the last few years, that we are rapidly passing, or have almost passed, by that period of the Session when, in conformity with Parliamentary usage, Votes may be taken upon the principal Estimates for the services of the country, the Army and Navy, or when measures may, with advantage and propriety, be sent to the House of Lords. Now, Sir, I have looked into the matter, and I find, from instances to the contrary, that neither of these suppositions is supported by invariable custom; but that their existence has given rise to the presumption that there is a uniform rule as to the time after which there will be no proceeding as to voting money, or doing legislative business. It will be found, however, as might, perhaps, have been anticipated in a practical Assembly of this kind, that the House has in years of pressure met that pressure by devoting more time to the discharge of its Business. That, however, I know, is not a convenient or an agreeable course to any of us, nor perhaps, Sir, to yourself, and very glad should I be if you and we could be relieved from the inconvenience; but duty must come before convenience, and I wish to refer to the rule applicable to such a case. In the year 1862, which was not a year of pressure at all, the Army Estimates were only closed on the 22nd of July—not the Supplementary, but the original Estimates. In the year

  1889
  1861, which was a year of some activity, though certainly not one of great legislative pressure, the Army Estimates were closed on the 27th of July, on which day the Navy Estimates were also closed. In 1860, which was a year of great legislative pressure, the Navy Estimates were not closed until the 20th of July, and the Army Estimates not until the 18th of August. In 1853, which was likewise a year of much business and activity, both the Army and the Navy Estimates were closed on the 9th of August. I have not had a search made into a long series of years, but was guided by my recollection of the years of 1853 and 1860, as indicating the manner in which the House adapted its convenience to the exigencies of Public Business. That is the state of the case as far as regards the Estimates, and it is not necessary for me to go into other cases where there have been Supplementary Army and Navy Estimates. Then, with regard to Bills, it appears to be an illusion with which hon. Gentlemen not at all unnaturally please themselves—and I feel, myself, a fond temptation to suppose that it is a thing without precedent, or almost without precedent, for Bills to be prosecuted in this House after we have reached what may be roughly called the middle of July. Again, I have looked back to two years within my own recollection, when the affairs of this country were conducted by the £10 Parliaments, as they may be called, and not by the Householders' Parliament, and I do not suppose that, in proportion as the constituency becomes more popular, either the zeal of the House of Commons or its disposition to make sacrifices for the public good is likely to become more slack. The two years to which I refer are 1833 and 1835, and in both of them I was myself a witness of and a participator in the whole of the proceedings. I will mention three of the most important measures of that very remarkable Session of 1833. The Irish Church Temporalities Act and the Irish Coercion Act had been passed at a comparatively early period of the year, but the East India Charter Act was read a third time in this House on the 26th of July, 1833; the West India Slavery Bill was read a third time on the 7th of August; and the Bank Charter Act Bill was read a third time on the 19th of August in
  1890
  the same year. Hon. Gentlemen will see, therefore, that there is still a large margin available, though I hope we shall not require to make use of it. One other case of legislation I will quote, because it is a remarkable one. It is the case of the Municipal Corporations Act, which those who sat in this House at the time will recollect was regarded as a measure of immense constitutional and political importance at the time it was passed, though the case and smoothness with which it was worked may diminish the liveliness of our recollections. Two of my hon. Friends who are sitting opposite will remember the occasion very well, and will agree that I have given a correct description of the measure. The Municipal Corporations Bill was introduced into this House on the 5th of June, 1835, it was reported from Committee on the 17th of July, read a third time on the 20th of July, and then sent to the House of Lords. With exemplary patriotism the House of Lords went thoroughly into the particulars of that Bill, and I believe they heard evidence and counsel on the subject. Their Lordships sent the Bill back to this House on the 31st of August, and the Lords' Amendments were not considered here until the 1st of September. They were considered for four days, during which time a conference ensued; a second Conference was held on the 7th of September, and the Bill was finally disposed of and made an Act of Parliament on the 12th of September. Therefore, there is time available for every reasonable purpose, and more, I trust, than is likely to be required for reasonable purposes under the present circumstances. I need not say, with these considerations in our mind, that the rumours which have been propagated as to the intention of the Government to recede from the prosecution of the Secret Voting Bill are wholly and absolutely without foundation. They rely upon the known and proved views of a large majority of the Members of this House, and they adhere without the slightest reserve to the intentions that they have hitherto declared. This being so, it has been their duty to review the Orders from time to time, and we have found that the number of Bills of secondary importance is so great that we think it will not be in the power of Parliament satisfactorily to dispose of

  1891
  them during the present Session. The Orders for to-night, so far as the Government are concerned, number 33, besides which there are several in the charge of private Members. We have examined that list with a view of ascertaining what measures it may be in our power to prosecute, for we are desirous to relieve those hon. Members who take a special interest in any of those measures from uncertainty in regard to them. First of all, there is the 15th Order for the re-committal of the Debtors (Ireland) Bill, which I shall move to discharge. The 16th Order relates to a subject which has been already discussed in this House on a point of form, though not upon its merits. It is a Parliamentary proceeding with regard to the Black-water Bridge Bill, and we think it better not to go on with it, because the subject is one which will require more consideration. The 17th Order refers to the Inclosure Law Amendment Bill, and it is with regret that we have arrived at the conclusion that it will not be possible to have that measure satisfactorily disposed of during the present Session. I may say the same of several other Bills—the Pilotage Bill, the Coal Mines Regulation Bill, and the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Bill. These are Bills of great importance, but they are likewise Bills requiring very considerable discussion of details, and we do not think it will be possible to obtain for them that full and thorough discussion which we desire. Then there is the Pharmacy Bill, which evidently could not be passed without a great deal of discussion, and that we propose also to withdraw. The next Order is the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Bill, which is an important measure, likely to be beneficial to Ireland; but my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, who has charge of it, does not think he can fairly expect the House to pass it during the present Session. These are the eight Bills which it is not our intention to go forward with. After this statement of particulars, which I thought it desirable to lay before the House, I will conclude by moving that the Order of the Day for the re-committal of the Debtors (Ireland) Bill be discharged.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he wished to correct an erroneous impression of his right hon. Friend at the head of
  1892
  the Government with regard to the division on Friday night, in reference to the Irish Education Grant. He wished to state that no factious opposition was raised on that side of the House. His hon. Friend proposed to move the reduction of the Vote, leaving a portion of it to stand over, in order that there might be a subsequent discussion; but the Chairman ruled that his hon. Friend, not being a Minister of the Crown, could not make that Motion. He confessed that hon. Members on that side were surprised at his right hon. Friend not moving that which as a Minister he might have moved.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am extremely sorry that there should be any misunderstanding as to the proceedings on Friday night. The Chairman of Ways and Means undoubtedly did rule that no one but a Minister could move a Grant of money, and I do not wonder that my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge should have expected us to bring forward a Motion. The fact, however, is that we had ascertained from the Chairman that that could not regularly be done, and if we had simply diminished the Vote we should have crippled the service for the year.
  MR. CORRYpointed out that up to this time only two Votes in the Navy Estimates had been taken. Consequently, the House had no opportunity of discussing important questions respecting dockyards and the supply of stores and ships.
  MR. CRAWFORDinquired what the Government proposed to do with the Chancery Bill, which for the last three months had been placed on the Paper once, and sometimes twice, a-week.
  MR. GLADSTONE: We do not abandon all hope of proceeding with it; but some further statement on the subject will probably be made shortly.
  MR. LIDDELLexpressed his deep regret at the withdrawal of the Coal Mines Regulation Bill, which both masters and men had looked forward to with anxiety.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had been prepared for some such announcement from the Government with regard to the course of proceeding as had just been made to them, because, during the past six weeks, he had calculated that every Monday the Government Orders had numbered more than 30. That

  1893
  day there were more than 40 Orders on the Paper, and they were chiefly Government Orders. If that were the first occasion on which the Order Book was so crowded, he should have thought little of it, but should have regarded it as preparatory to the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that he was about to sweep off the list eight of his Bills. Now, with 33 Orders of the Day still remaining upon the list, he held that it was totally impossible for hon. Members of that House to know what business was to be proceeded with and what was not; and he took that opportunity of humbly and respectfully representing to the House that, if they intended to understand the business which they were expected to proceed with, the House ought to remonstrate against the practice of thus thronging the Order Book, and rendering it impossible, amongst such a large number of Orders, to discover those which were to be prosecuted further. He had looked into the public newspapers, and with shame he saw that their playbills were distinguished from other playbills by nothing but their excessive variety. But he wished to comment, for an instant, upon the course which had been taken by the Government. It was this—they had now swept from the list various Bills, in particular the Mines Bills had just been adverted to, to which numerous sections of the population had been looking with anxiety; and they treated the present occasion as one of urgency, he might say as an emergency; but who had created that emergency? Who but the Government themselves? And what, he would ask, was their object in creating that emergency? It was this—they were determined that the country should not, during the Recess, if they could prevent it, have the opportunity of considering the Secret Voting Bill, which was, in itself, either a new Reform Bill, or the matrix of a new Reform Bill. Well, he presumed that that was the result of some arrangement entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the majority on the other side, whose conduct on that subject had been so unprecedented—unprecedented, that was, in their determination to vote, and their determination not to discuss. Why, they seemed to represent the very essence of secrecy themselves. They had
  1894
  entered into a secret understanding with the Government to coerce the House of Commons, and it was impossible to avoid that which they appeared most to dread—the reference of that measure to the country for mature consideration during the Recess, before they had the opportunity of forcing it through the House of Commons. But he also thought that they had another object. There was manifestly a desire on their part to produce a collision between the Houses of Parliament, and a desire to avoid a reference of that measure to the country before that collision was produced. He could not help thinking, then, that the only exigency which impelled the Government to act in that way was a party exigency; and, in his judgment, a party exigency was but a poor excuse for retaining in Session the Houses of Parliament, as though there were some great emergency which rendered it necessary.
  MR. RODENsaid, he hoped the Government would re-consider their determination with regard to the Coal Mines Regulation Bill.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, he should like to take notice of one observation which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government as to the practice of that House, and the course of proceeding with regard to postponing the Committee of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned precedents for postponing Committee of Supply until the end of July, or even until August; but the unusual occurrences soon after the passing of the Reform Act would account for some of those postponements; and with regard to the later ones, both 1853 and 1860 were exceptional years in consequence of the change which had taken place in the Government. He was anxious that the House should bear this in mind, and that the attention of the Government should be called to the matter, because if Committees of Supply were postponed, two consequences must follow; one of which was that of late years it had led to the growing practice of taking Votes on Account, which was a most objectionable course, for it did not give the House the opportunity of considering the grievances connected with those Departments for which the money was taken. The other consequence was that so far as regards the two great services — the

  1895
  Army and the Navy—he did not believe that the Government could produce any instance in which the Votes had been postponed so late as in the present year. Now, if that proceeding were to be drawn into a precedent, a most dangerous consequence might be established, because at a future time the peculiar duty of the House to superintend and control the expenditure on the Army and Navy would be postponed to a period of the Session when there was not that large attendance of hon. Members which led to the Estimates being properly criticized. For those reasons, he hoped the House would impress on the Government the necessity of going into Committee of Supply at an earlier period of the Session.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he agreed with his right hon. Friend that the practice of taking Votes on Account was inconvenient; but that which had occurred this Session was still more objectionable, for money had been taken on account of the first two Votes in the Navy Estimates, which had been applied to other matters, without the policy of the Government as to those matters being either stated to the House or sanctioned.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, the "Massacre of the Innocents" had that year been accompanied by threats and worthless precedents. The right hon. Gentleman had said he withdrew those measures because they required more consideration; and the same argument would apply to the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, which was likely to be made a good one if the opinion of the constituencies interested could be taken on the subject. That Bill might be withdrawn, and brought in again next Session.
  MR. MUNDELLA, in supporting the appeal of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), said, he should protest most strongly against the withdrawal of the Coal Mines Regulation Bill. There never had been an occasion when the question was more ripe for legislation; both employers and employed had fully discussed it, and the question might be settled in a shorter time than it ever could have been before. He believed that two Saturday Morning Sittings would finish it. It was a matter affecting the welfare of thousands of their countrymen, and they had spent hundreds, if not thousands,
  1896
  of pounds to bring the Bill to the present stage. The greatest mortification and dissatisfaction would be felt if it were now thrown overboard.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, he would make a similar appeal, for he was equally certain, with the hon. Member who had last spoken (Mr. Mundella), that there existed no difference of opinion as to the principle of the Bill. The only variance was as to details.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, in consequence of representations which were made to me, and with which I greatly sympathise, I promised to support these Mines Regulation Bills when they were brought before the House. No Bills have been brought forward in which a large number of people take a greater interest, and I think it one of the first duties of the Government to make arrangements that such Bills should be passed. One of the first duties of this House, we have always been taught, is to redress the grievances of the people, and these are real grievances of the people. This portion of the working classes looks with confidence to Parliament for redress; and I am authorized to say not merely on their part, but on the part also of some of the most important employers of labour whom I have seen, and others interested in mines, that there never was a happier moment for settling the question, for there never was a period when a better understanding prevailed between employers and employed; when all the questions arising out of this matter have been more thoroughly scrutinized; or when they have arrived at a more satisfactory solution of them. It is therefore with great regret I hear those Bills are to be withdrawn; and I must say that I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and his Colleagues, in order to carry not only those but various other measures of great interest, would make up their minds to withdraw the Bill for secret voting. That Bill is the great obstacle to the progress of useful measures in which the people feel the deepest interest, because they know that if they are carried they will materially benefit their position; and I do not think that they will be satisfied to see them sacrificed in order to carry a measure which, after all, is a mere political speculation. But if it be one of our chief duties to redress the grievances of the

  1897
  people, certainly our first great duty is to attend to the due expenditure of their money, and I cannot at all agree with the conclusion at which the right hon. Gentleman has arrived about closing Committees of Supply. Speaking without notes, but having a tolerably clear remembrance of what has occurred in reference to this subject since I have been a Member of this House, I think I may venture to say that there never was a period when the Committee of Supply, especially with regard to the Navy Estimates, was in such an unsatisfactory state of arrear. Only two Votes out of 19, I think, have been passed; and of the remaining 17, some clearly involve discussion, and I hope settlement by this House, as important questions connected with the administration of the Navy will then be brought forward. Irrespective of that, there is the Motion of my noble Friend the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) with regard to the loss of the Captain, and it would be disgraceful to the House of Commons if Parliament were to be prorogued without going into that matter. A national catastrophe has happened, and when it has been asserted, and asserted upon authority, that that catastrophe can be clearly traced to mal-administratton in our Navy—without giving now any opinion of course myself but speaking of it in a desultory manner, it would be disgraceful to this House to separate without investigating that matter, as far as a Parliamentary discussion will permit us so to do. Here are the grievances of the people. Year after year a measure with respect to the miners, from whom I had the pleasure of receiving a deputation at my house on the subject, has been thrown aside, and it is again withdrawn, although the miners have been led to expect and believe that nothing could this Session prevent a satisfactory settlement of a question in which they are deeply interested. We are, moreover, told that there is no prospect of any arrangement by which we may go at an early day into Committee of Supply. When the right hon. Gentleman rose to communicate to us the decision of his Cabinet, I certainly thought it was not for us to question on this occasion the propriety of their judgment with respect to proceeding with the Ballot Bill, though I regretted their decision; but I supposed that
  1898
  that notification would be accompanied by an intimation being made to the House that fair and constitutional opportunities would be given to the House, particularly as regards the expenditure of the country, by going at an early period into Committee of Supply. But, as regards both these matters, we find that there is no prospect of our doing our duty to our constituents and the country generally, and I think it most unsatisfactory. It is certainly for the Government to decide how long they may think proper to postpone Parliamentary discussion; and when we remember the great responsibility of the Government, no one can seriously maintain that so long as they sit upon that bench they are not the best judges of that question. But we have a right to make conditions, and to say that we expect the business of a great nation as this is, if it is carried on by a large and an unusual sacrifice of time, will be conducted with a due deference to the constitutional privileges of Parliament. The bonâ fide control in Committee of Supply is one of our most valuable and important privileges, and if the right hon. Gentleman insists on proceeding with this Bill for secret voting, we have a right to expect that he should have secured to the miners of the United Kingdom the passing of these Bills, which they have regarded as a certainty, and which would have been accepted by all classes connected with that important branch of industry with the utmost satisfaction. I adverted earlier in the evening to another point, in the hope that I might have made a suggestion which would have removed some of the embarrassment of the Government, and at the same time have satisfied the representatives of Ireland as to that matter of education in which they are so deeply interested. I made the suggestion that we might probably take the Report on Tuesday evening, and then have the discussion; bat I find my efforts have been quite unavailing, for it cannot be brought forward at any hour which would give us a fair prospect of any satisfactory discussion, and therefore all I can do is to suggest to the Government to give to-morrow morning to that subject. The discussion will probably conclude at an early hour, and we could then resume our duties in Committee on the Bill for secret voting.

  1899
  After what occurred on Friday night, the right hon. Gentleman is bound to secure a fair consideration of the question of Irish education, and I am sure that the Government will not refuse Irish Members an opportunity of speaking upon a question which so deeply interests them. I deplore the state of Public Business, for our position could not be more unsatisfactory. I will not say that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted a minatory tone to-night; but the adroit intimation which he made that if we do not meet him exactly as he wishes he will secure for us a great deal of personal inconvenience is to be regretted; because I am quite convinced that to attempt to force down a measure which no one can say is one of exigency or emergency—which is an unexpected measure—which is a different measure from that produced by the Government last year, and therefore, from the nature of that circumstance, an immature measure —I say, I think to attempt to force a measure of this kind upon Parliament by such a sacrifice as this—the sacrifice of the highest constitutional privilege of the House of Commons, in checking and controlling public expenditure, and the sacrifice of the most important interests of the miners, and compelling those industrious classes to forego that redress of their grievances under which they have been so long suffering, and which now might be terminated with the happy concurrence of their employers, is, in my mind, fraught, or soon will be, with great disaster to all concerned.
  MR. BRUCE: I rise with the intention of making some proposition on the part of the Government with reference to the Mines Regulation Bill. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the removal of the grievances of the miners is a matter of the first consideration, for although those grievances are deeply felt, it appears to the majority on this side of the House, whatever may be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman and his followers, that there are also grievances connected with the freedom of voting in which the people of this country take a still greater interest. I readily admit that the feeling in reference to the Mines Regulation Bill is great; but the Government must at this period of the Session be allowed to select which measures shall be advanced and which shall be withdrawn. However, there
  1900
  appears to me to be a chance, of which I would gladly avail myself, of passing this Bill which has been so long before us. There is, I believe, a general desire to settle this measure, which involves some questions of considerable difficulty. It is said that both masters and men are interested in the passing of the Bill, and that is true; but they are interested from different points of view, and, therefore, there may be a difficulty in disposing of them, except in Committee of this House. I would, however, propose that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, which should be so constituted as to represent all interests, in the hope that their efforts may succeed in narrowing to the smallest extent the differences which still prevail. It may then be possible to reduce the number of Amendments which now appear on the Paper, and, should there be then sufficient time still remaining at the disposal of the House, we might pass this Bill.
  MR. BROWN, who had some Amendments on the Paper, was understood to approve this suggestion.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, he could not consent to go into Committee on the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Bill unless it could be fully and fairly considered. There were many points on which the miners of particular localities were specially interested; but their opinions would have little weight at the end of a Session. Under the circumstances, he should prefer to go on with the Ballot Bill.
  MR. GREENEremarked that the subject of regulating mines had been before the House for many Sessions, while the opinion of the country had never been asked about the Ballot Bill, on which not one-third of hon. Members were pledged to vote. It seemed, however, that all the legislation of the country must give way to that paltry, contemptible Bill. It was becoming clear to the country that the Government were theoretical and not practical, and were incompetent to conduct the affairs of the nation. Was not the position of the House becoming ridiculous? He recommended hon. Members to go home to their constituents, and to return to this House determined to pass measures of a more sensible character than the Ballot, which would destroy the straightforward character of Englishmen.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Government could not accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), to take the Irish Education Vote the first thing to-morrow morning instead of the evening. After the Ballot Bill the first business that would be taken would be the Navy Estimates.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsuggested that the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, as was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the Mines Bills.
  MR. C. B. DENISONdesired to know whether it was the intention of the Government to postpone the consideration of the Navy Estimates until the Ballot Bill had passed through Committee? He could only say that if the Government persisted in any such intention, it would tend to produce on the House a feeling of uncommon exasperation.
  MR. GOSCHENreplied that, as far as the Government could at present see, the Navy Estimates would be taken the first time the House went into Committee of Supply.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXcontended that the Question put by the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. C. B. Denison) had received no answer. Would the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government do him the favour to give him a distinct reply? He might also observe that he could confirm what had that evening fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone—that the statement made by the Prime Minister was calculated to give rise to a very erroncous impression, for the fact was that as yet the Navy Estimates were almost untouched.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTdesired some information with respect to the course to be taken in connection with the inclosure schemes which had been before the House for the last three years.
  MR. BRUCEreplied, that one of the difficulties connected with the subject was that it was impossible to proceed with the inclosures until the House had decided the principles upon which the inclosures were to be made.
  MR. G. BENTINCKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty to give an Answer to the Question that had been put to him relative to the Navy Estimates, or whether
  1902
  it was to be understood that the right hon. Gentleman declined to state when he should be prepared to go into Committee. The House ought to have a clear understanding on the subject.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the House should be distinctly informed whether the Navy Estimates were not to be brought forward until after the Ballot Bill had been disposed of.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was impossible then to name a day.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had intimated across the Table that it was impossible then to name a day. That was not the Question that was put to the Government, but whether the Navy Estimates were to be delayed until the Ballot Bill had been disposed of. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would inform one of his Colleagues, and let him state it to the House.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the only answer the Government could give was, naturally, that they would make the Business they had in hand their first consideration. They could not say how long the business would take, and therefore it was impossible to say, until they found what time they had at their disposal, what other business they would be in a position to take.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the Government appeared to make the Business of the House as disagreeable as they possibly could. The question of the unfortunate loss of the Captain, concerning which Motions had long been on the Paper, as well as the great question of the construction of our ships, were at least as important as the business that they were nightly in the habit of discussing. Owing, however, to what he might term the obstinacy of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman had hitherto not yet been able to pass a single measure; and the right hon. Gentleman, to punish the House, had determined to keep them there as long as his royal pleasure dictated, and to inflict upon them as great inconvenience as possible to induce them to submit to the course prescribed by his tyrannical Government.
  MR. ST. AUBYNasked, whether it was the intention of the Government to refer the Metalliferous Mines Bill to the same Committee as that which was to be appointed to deal with the subject of Coal Mines?
  MR. BRUCEreplied, that the same reasons for referring the latter Bill to a Select Committee did not prevail in the case of the former measure. In any case they would not be referred to the same Committee.
  Bill withdrawn.

ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL.) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]
(Mr. William Edward Forster, Mr. Secretary Bruce, The Marquess of Hartington.)
ELECTIONS (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL.) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 103.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 14th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mode of taking the Poll.
  Clause 3 (Regulations as to polling.)
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, in rising to move the substitution of the word "each" for "the" in the first line of the 2nd sub-section, said, that the object of this and the other verbal Amendments he proposed to make was that the returning officer should provide a separate voting paper for each candidate. He believed that this would be a convenient opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of this measure to explain what mode he intended to employ for the purpose of taking this vote by ballot, for upon that point the Committee were still in the dark. The Times of that morning, in an article on the subject, had described it as
  "The rudest form of compulsory secret voting that it was in the power of a Parliamentary draftsman to imagine,"
  and that description he maintained to be thoroughly accurate. He might add that in spite of the chaos in which they were left on Friday afternoon last, none of the Law Officers of the Crown were now on the Treasury bench, and the right hon. Gentleman was deserted even by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. James), who had hitherto so frequently acted as amicus curiæ. He maintained that the Amendment he now begged leave to move would tend to avoid mistakes, and would be more easily dealt with by the electors.
  THE CHAIRMANintimated that the Amendments placed in his hands were not those to carry into effect the objects which the hon. Gentleman contemplated.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would not attempt to defend the drawing up of the Bill in all its details, but would be ready at any moment to answer any questions respecting it. The objects of the Government, shortly, were that the voter upon going in should receive from the returning officer, and from no one else, his voting paper; that the same official paper should be used by every voter; that the voter should vote in secret; and that the vote should be finally stamped before being put into the box. It was possible that the mode of voting suggested by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) might be more easily understood than the Government proposal; but the vote, if so given, would also be more easily detected by those who might desire to influence the voter, and it would have the effect of degrading vote by ballot, as it would destroy the secrecy of the proceeding; and for that reason it was impossible for the Government to agree with the Amendment.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEthought the hon. Member's (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck's) proposition worse than the Government's. It was open to two objections. The stupid voter would not understand it, and the knave would find means of getting unused voting papers into the box.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, his experience at the last election for the Corps Legislative proved that the vigilance of the returning officer's representatives would prevent fraudulent voting.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was in favour of prescribing the form in which the votes should be given to prevent a recurrence of what occurred in connection with the voting for the school board, when in Marylebone alone 600 votes had been lost. The word "Ballot" having been struck out in the Lords the Amendment was agreed to on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), who, on the eve of the election, issued purely on his own authority a ukase, prescribing minutely how the votes should be given and recorded, and making infringement of his orders penal.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsuggested that a simple form of ballot paper ought to be issued by the returning officer; that they should be all printed in the same type and on the same paper; and

  1905
  that there should be some precaution taken to guard against the use of spoiled papers.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERremarked that his object was to make the process of voting as simple as possible, and asked that any suggestions hon. Members might desire to make with that object should be put in writing.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he should support the Amendment because he believed it would secure to the voter that power of discrimination among a number of candidates from which he would be practically debarred by the evil practice of ticket voting as it prevailed in the United States.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, on the contrary, said, the proposition in the Bill would more surely prevent ticket voting, because the official voting paper handed to the voter would contain the names of all the candidates instead of only those put forward by a single party.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, in explanation, he desired the paper to be official, but to contain only one name.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not think the objection of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) had yet been met—namely, that a voter would have the opportunity of helping himself to spoiled papers, and of using them dishonestly. As a proof of the danger attaching to that proposal, he might mention that in the progress of the plébiscite, in reference to the transfer of Savoy and Nice to the French Empire, the official presiding over one division, finding that the voters did not come to the poll, assuming that "silence gave consent," placed all the affirmative papers into the electoral urn. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council would guard against any difficulty of that kind. The regulations should be put in some conspicuous position, for no object could be gained by printing minute details upon the actual paper. ["Order!]
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKconsidered that his Amendment raised an important principle. In past Sessions the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. E. Potter) and his friends had frequently advocated the adoption of the system in operation at Maryport and some other seaport towns, and therefore his proposition was entirely in accordance with precedent.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. KAVANAGH, in the absence of his Colleague the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Bruen), proposed an Amendment to insert in page 3, line 19, after "shall," the words, "be endorsed personal-tender ballot paper."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he understood that the hon. Member for Carlow intended to bring up a new clause on that point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. G. B. GREGORYsaid, an Amendment appeared on the Notice Paper in his name on the subject of personation. The question had been really discussed, however, on an Amendment previously moved, and he would not, therefore, re-open the discussion, though he thought his scheme simpler and more effective than that which had been before the Committee. At the same time he wished to repeat his impression that personation was one of the most serious defects of the Bill.
  MR. CHARLEYproposed at page 3, line 20, to leave out "as near as may be in alphabetical order," in order to insert "in the order of nomination." He believed that under the clause, as it now stood, much confusion would arise in the distribution of votes, and not only that, but he had an insuperable objection to mixing up Liberal and Conservative candidates.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would agree to omit from the words "as nearly as may be in alphabetical order" the words "as nearly as may be."
  MR. CHARLEY MR. CHARLEY moved that in line 20, the word "alphabetical" be left out. He said it was always a matter of courtesy that the sitting Members should be first proposed, and then the candidates whose addresses had been first issued.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 20, to leave out the word "alphabetical."—(Mr. Charley.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) to move that the word "alphabetical" be omitted in order to insert "the order of nomination."
  THE CHAIRMAN: No; the Motion is simply to omit the word "alphabetical."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would in that case agree with the hon. Member, because he himself intended to propose the omission of the word "alphabetical" in order to insert the word "such."
  MR. E. POTTERsaid, he also objected to the alphabetical order, and recommended that the arrangement should rest with the returning officer, or that each candidate should stand first upon an equal number of cards.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsuggested that the order should be determined by lot by the returning officer.
  MR. GOLDNEYstrongly objected to that, and thought the best course would be to follow the order of nomination. Perhaps the difficulty might be got over by printing the names in a line instead of one under the other.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, they would go to a division under very awkward circumstances if the word "alphabetical" was to be struck out; and they did not know what word was to be put in its place. He thought it might be very fairly open to the consideration of the Committee whether it would not be better to amend the principle of the alphabetical arrangement than to adopt the principle of selection by lot, which of all the proposals was one of the least satisfactory. There was something in alphabetical order, because the voters generally would know who the candidates were, and whether their own man stood first, or third, or fourth. There was also something to be said in favour of the candidates being placed in the order of their nominations.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) was open to objection. He had no objection to the candidates being arranged alphabetically if the Committee preferred it; or, suppose they agreed that the order should be determined by lot, he would undertake that the order in which they stood should be published immediately.
  MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he strongly contended for the arrangement by alphabetical order, which would give one uniform method throughout the kingdom, and was not capable of giving rise to disputes.
  MR. CANDLISHsaid, that he should vote in favour of the Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he elected to abide by his original proposal that the
  1908
  names should be placed in alphabetical order, which seemed to find most favour, and, therefore, he must divide against the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) proposing the order of nomination. However, he promised to consider the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), that the names should be printed from left to right, instead of from top to bottom.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he thought that the discussion which had taken place showed that the Bill was very imperfectly drawn.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he believed that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. E. Potter) would prevent any one candidate having the slightest advantage over any other candidates.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he was afraid that many of the electors would not know which of the candidates was of their own party, and to obviate that difficulty, he suggested that the names of the candidates should be printed in such colour as they might choose.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could not accede to the suggestion, which he could assure the right hon. Baronet, he had, prior to that evening, had under his consideration. He objected to recognising in an Act of Parliament the old system of candidates of different parties assuming particular colours.
  MR. CHARLEYsaid, that he had an insuperable objection to separating the names of candidates of the same political opinions. They might adopt the system of lot in reference to nominations, so that the parties getting first there should not necessarily have precedence.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he should, in the first instance, put the question, that the word "alphabetical" should be omitted.
  Question put, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 71; Noes 16: Majority 55.
  MR. LEATHAM MR. LEATHAM moved, in page 3, line 20, after "order," to leave out to end of line 22. He did so with the object of simplifying the method of voting by enabling the voter to scratch out the names of those he did not vote for, instead of making crosses and squares.

  1909
  The Bill proposed the South Australian method. He approved the Victorian method, which had been adopted by three other colonies.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought it was of great importance that the addresses and descriptions of candidates should be inserted, as otherwise much confusion would be likely to arise; for that reason he should oppose the Amendment.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, the omission suggested had been proposed from the fact that the descriptions and residences of the candidates had been left out in the South Australian Code, and had been found to work well. He had placed on the Paper an Amendment, the object of which was to provide that the names of the candidates should be printed in alphabetical order, with their residences, as was done in South Australia.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, as the plan of striking out names would, in his opinion, produce much misunderstanding. He hoped the printed square would be retained.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that if they ommitted the residences and descriptions, they would certainly have to provide for the case of two candidates of the same name. If they went into the question of whether the name should be struck out or inserted in a square, they might discuss it till the middle of September. It was a matter of comparatively small importance, and he should recommend hon. Members who wished to argue it, first to read the celebrated discussion in Gulliver's Travels between the Big-endians and the Little-endians. On the whole, he thought, to make the matter more certain, they had better retain both the description and the square.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he thought it essential that the addresses and descriptions of the candidates should be given, and therefore he must oppose the Amendment.
  MR. LEATHAMsaid, that as regarded the first part of his Amendment, the difficulty had been met by the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council as to two candidates of the same name coming forward. He therefore would withdraw that portion of his Amendment, and
  1910
  with regard to the other portion he proposed to follow the same course.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was important that the voter should be able to see at a glance the name of the person for whom he intended to vote, and therefore the cross should be placed close to the name. The surname should be printed in large type, and where there were more than one candidate of the same name then give the Christian name, and let the two be printed in different size type. Printing the names in colours would lead to fraud.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthanked the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) for withdrawing his Amendment. He thought the schedule might be improved, and he would undertake to give the matter his consideration, with a view to making it as simple and clear as possible.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONadvocated the adoption of colours because, from the ignorance of many electors, they would, he feared, when left alone, either vote for the first two names on the list, or give votes which would be invalid.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GOLDNEYproposed an Amendment relative to the position of the square on the voting paper.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Amendment had better not be pressed until he had brought up a new schedule.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 22, after the word "square," to add the words "with a number corresponding with such alphabetical order inserted in such square."—(Mr. M'Mahon.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he saw no objection to the addition. There would be an advantage in electors knowing before the day of election the number as well as the names of the candidates.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the objection was that the numbers would not be known before voting.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEobjected, on the ground that the difficulties of the uneducated voter would be increased by the squares being occupied by figures.
  MR. J. LOWTHERalso objected to the Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if it was not already provided in the Bill, he would undertake there should be a provision to the effect that the form of the voting paper should be published as soon as possible after the nomination.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 89; Noes 55: Majority 34.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved to insert at the end of the clause, the words "and the squares opposite the candidate's name shall be printed in the colours of the candidates," in order to enable illiterate voters, who would otherwise be at the mercy of the returning officers, to record their votes correctly and by the simplest method.
  Amendment proposed,
  After the words "inserted in each square," to add the words "and the squares opposite the candidate's name shall be printed in the colours of the candidate."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Bill sufficiently provided a method simple enough to enable a voter to know whom he voted for. Whether it did or not, the Government strongly objected against any recognition of colours under that Bill.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEmaintained that the use of colours to distinguish the candidates would provide the easiest method, and it was highly important the people should have every assistance in recording their votes that could be given to them.
  MR. MONKsaid, he must express a hope that his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council would give way upon this point. Both the educated and the uneducated voters in the constituencies generally voted a great deal according to colour.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEobserved that colour was one of the most essential things in guiding the voter to a proper vote that could possibly be imagined.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was sorry that he could not accede to the appeal that had been made to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk); but he did not wish to embody in an Act of Parliament the notion that a large mass of voters
  1912
  thought more of colour than anything else; and he believed there would be practical difficulties in the way of carrying out that proposal. In Ireland, for instance, colours were not hoisted at elections, but if that Amendment were accepted, orange and green colours would be used in that country, and that circumstance would not assist to the orderly conduct of elections.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, the fact that a public display of banners and colours was not permitted in Ireland supplied no argument against that Amendment.
  MR. TIPPINGsaid, he knew that the humbler class of voters did not vote for individuals, but more frequently for colour. So long as they had government by party, considerations of colour must enter into elections.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was of opinion that if hon. Members opposite objected to that Amendment, which would enable the elector to vote conscientiously, they had no faith in the principle of the Ballot. Even with the use of colours the voting would still be secret, and as it was important that the less intelligent voter should know how to record his vote, he should support the Amendment.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council was mistaken in supposing that the Amendment was put forward because they believed voters cared more for colour than for anything else; but colour would symbolize a principle, and the Amendment supplied a practical means of assisting the voter. Unless that suggestion should be adopted, the Bill in that, as well as in other clauses, would act as a disfranchising measure. Under the present system every effort was made to secure a free and satisfactory exercise of the franchise, but the plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would render voting odious. The Amendment was eminently calculated to secure a due exercise of the franchise.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKobserved that when the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government returned to the House, after a lengthened absence, he was no doubt surprised to find that much of the opposition which had prevented the progress of the Bill had come from his own side of the House. ["Order!]
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Whitehaven must confine himself to the question before the House.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, continuing, said, he would point out that the objection raised to that sub-section was that it provided no satisfactory mode by which a man who was "incapacitated" could give his vote properly. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said he had a remedy which would be found in the 8th sub-section of the 9th clause, but his interpretation of the effect of the provision was erroneous. In order to get the right hon. Gentleman out of his difficulty, he would make a suggestion founded on a principle which the right hon. Gentleman had already enunciated. ["Oh, oh!] He suggested as a means of obviating the objection to the use of colours, as party colours, that the returning officer should be instructed to choose certain colours to represent the candidates, and that these colours should be apportioned by lot to the different candidates.
  MR. JAMESsaid, the Amendment, while it sounded very well in theory, the Committee would see that it was perfectly impracticable. Who was to select the colours? If there were ten candidates, and if any two or three choose the same colour, what then? How were the colours to be distributed? [A VOICE: By lot.] And who was to determine between them? The adoption of such a proposal would give rise to a great amount of confusion, and instead of enlightening the voter, it would produce the greatest perplexity in his mind. Those hon. Gentlemen who said that the persons who had been admitted to the franchise by the Reform Act were fit to exercise the vote, now told the House that they were unable to read, and required the aid of colours to enable them to exercise their right.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would always protest against any educational standard being set up. The Bill provided that—
  "Persons who were blind or otherwise incapacitated might apply to the presiding officer to fill up their printed papers,"
  and he wished to know if the words "otherwise incapacitated" included persons who could not read. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No.] He could not understand why, if the privilege was given to blind persons, it was not also given to
  1914
  persons who could not read. Now, if a voter could not read, would any hon. Member stand up and say that he could vote in the manner prescribed by the Act? He was going to propose that the sub-section to which his remarks were applicable should be amended, so that an elector who wished his ballot-paper to be filled up might have it done by the returning officer.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) could only expect one answer to that suggestion. If it were adopted the result would be to defeat the object of the Bill, because any undue influence exercised on the voter might oblige him to state his willingness to allow the returning officer to fill up his paper. If the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had attended to the progress of that Bill, he would have been aware that he (Mr. Forster) had already answered the question whether the words quoted included a person who could not read or write, when he had stated that they did not.
  MR. DISRAELI: It seems to me that this is a disfranchising Bill There seems to be an attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to establish what I shall be always opposed to—an educational test in the exercise of the suffrage. Now, it is not every man who can read or write. I know able men who cannot read or write, and I should be sorry to deprive them of the privilege of voting. This Bill is framed in total ignorance of human nature, and I am certain if we are persuaded to pass this measure in this crude state the whole country will laugh at us.
  COLONEL STUART KNOXsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forster) had sneered at the colours used in Irish elections; but the reason why colours had had a bad effect in Ireland was, that the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged had always tried to put one set against another. The confusion which took place in elections in Ireland was because the Government, and the party the right hon. Gentleman belonged to, set one party against another for their own private purposes.
  MR. G. BENTINCKasked why Government was so strongly opposed to colours. Some of them had shown very great versatility on the question of colours,

  1915
  and he could not understand what objection there could be to colours. This clause should be postoned, as the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill had no remedy to propose, in order that some means might be devised for obviating the difficulty, which had been stated, to the clause.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had no idea, when his Amendment was proposed, that it would give rise to such a discussion, and the arguments which had been used against it had not convinced him of the necessity of withdrawing it.
  MR. VANCEsaid, that it would be desirable to distinguish the candidates in Ireland by colours.
  MR. LEAsaid, he must point out that if they allowed a candidate to impress his colours on the voting papers he would display them also on flags and banners, and in that way the old election practices would be revived. He hoped the Government would not accede to the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 187: Majority 65.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that sub-section 3 was really only surplusage, and therefore he would move its omission.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he did not think that the sub-section was necessary, and to propitiate the hon. Member for Whitehaven he would consent to the Amendment.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that the candidates' names were to be printed on the papers, but a candidate might subsequently be withdrawn. If his name still continued upon the papers, and he were elected, how then would the matter stand?
  Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he wished to call the attention of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) to the Amendment of which he had given Notice. It was, of course, competent for the hon. Gentleman to move to omit sub-section 4, but it was not competent for him to move to insert the words which he proposed. The same objection applied to the Amendment of the
  1916
  hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. Heron), inasmuch as the clause in question was one dealing exclusively with the regulations as to the mode of taking the poll. The Amendments, then, to which he referred should be made the subject of another clause.
  MR. G. BENTINCKsaid, he was then at a loss to know how he could amend the clause by substituting the words he proposed for sub-section 4, which he wished to have struck out, and which proposition he would move accordingly.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must remind the Committee that he had undertaken to amend the clauses by providing for a larger number of polling-places. He hoped in a short time to be able to lay upon the Table the Amendment which he proposed to make, and he therefore hoped the Committee would postpone any further discussion upon it until they saw the clauses which the Government proposed to insert in the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must take the same exception to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) as he had to that of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck), and to that of the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. Heron), because it did not relate to the mode of taking the votes on the polling-day, but to the making out of the list of voters. The Amendment was perfectly relevant to the Bill, though not to the subject-matter of that clause.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKthen moved the omission from sub-section 5 of the words "the returning officer shall provide for every polling station a compartment." He objected altogether to compartments. He could not conceive anything more contrary to the practice of an Englishman voting for a Member of Parliament or a town councillor in any other than an open and distinct manner. He was in future to be sent into a compartment to grapple with materials of which he had no previous knowledge. At Whitehaven they were not adopted, although the Ballot had been in operation there at municipal elections ever since the year 1708. Although he was himself opposed in toto to secret voting, he must admit that

  1917
  under the system practised at Whitehaven for more than 160 years no election had been disputed, and there had been no cases of fraud. It was the system adopted in various clubs in this country, and was well understood.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 31, to leave out the words "the returning officer shall provide for every polling station a compartment."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Government must adhere to the proviso as to compartments, in order that the electors might vote in secret. The system had been tried in Australia and found to work well.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 220; Noes 143: Majority 77.
  MR. G. BENTINCK MR. G. BENTINCK moved to leave out words from "compartment," in line 32, sub-section 5, to "allotted," in line 34, the object of the Amendment being to prevent crowding. As the clause stood, as many as 1,500 persons might be assembled together.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 32, to leave out the words "or such number of compartments as will give at least one compartment to every one hundred and fifty electors to whom such polling station is allotted."—(Mr. Bentinck.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the proposition would not be pressed, as he did not think it affected the general question.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought the clause required some Amendment, even if all the objections raised by his hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk did not apply to it.
  VISCOUNT ROYSTONasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council expected that voters could be told off like sheep to a pen.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied there would be no telling off. If there were 450 voters to be provided for, the returning officer would simply have to provide three compartments.
  VISCOUNT ROYSTONwished to know how they could get a person of such a mathematical mind as to carry out an arrangement of that kind.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEbelieved the plan as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to be impracticable.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 219; Noes 115: Majority 104.
  MR. J. HARDY MR. J. HARDY moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) in page 3, line 34, leave out from "and" to "paper," in line 40, agreed to.
  MR. J. LOWTHER MR. J. LOWTHER moved to report Progress.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hour was not late (12.15), and the Committee seemed to be just getting into the spirit of the Bill, but he should not resist the Motion.
  Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

SUPPLY—REPORT.
Resolution [July 14] reported.
"That a sum, not exceeding £268,122, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1872, for Public Education under the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland."
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that it would be very inconvenient at that hour to commence the discussion upon that Vote, because it could only lead to the debate being adjourned; and if the Government could give them to-morrow, after a certain hour, it would be far more agreeable, and there would be, he was convinced, as much progress made under those circumstances as under any other. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would make some conciliatory statement upon that matter, because it could hardly be supposed that that Vote would be agreed to sub silentio. The proposal that the discussion should be taken upon the Supplementary Vote could hardly be made, except in ridicule, for the prospect of being able to deal with so large a question upon a

1919
Supplementary Vote in Committee was not encouraging. It had been stated early in the evening that the attention of the Committee of Supply would first be drawn to the Votes connected with the Navy, and it would be, therefore, like postponing to the Greek Kalends any serious discussion upon the Irish Education Vote. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would, at all events, meet them half-way upon that question, and they would endeavour to condense their observations as much as possible.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would agree that the present occasion was not the most convenient mode of taking the debate; but the hon. and learned Member for Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had given Notice that he would deliver his statement upon the Report of the Vote, and therefore it rested with that hon. and learned Gentleman to do so or not, as he should think fit. There was certainly nothing like ridicule intended, because the Chairman of the Committee had declared that the discussion could be taken in Committee. His objections to dividing the Morning Sitting between the Ballot Bill and the Irish Education Vote were two—first, that as regarded that which was said to be marked out as the special subject of discussion—namely, the provision made by Government with respect to the National School teachers, the Irish Education Vote was not urgent in point of time; and, secondly, he did not think that to divide the Morning Sitting would be a good method for securing progress either with the Ballot Bill or the Irish Education Vote. He did not at all agree in the observation about the Greek Kalends, and he could only say that the Government would do all that they could to promote the dispatch of Public Business. They would wait to hear whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was disposed now to make his statement, though he thought the best course would be to adhere to the understanding come to on a former evening, and take the general debate when the Supplementary Vote was proposed in Committee. The time of the Committee could not now be fixed, because it was necessary to make progress with the Ballot Bill, and when they did reach Supply the Naval Vote would be the one with which it would be proper, in the first instance, to proceed.
MR. PLUNKETsaid, that it was with the utmost reluctance that he must trespass upon the House at that late hour, but he had no choice. Many persons interested in the Irish Education Vote had been long looking forward to an opportunity to discuss the whole question. There was an increase in the sum to be voted for school teachers; not to raise the salaries of the teachers, but to meet certain additional expenses. Two or three years ago a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the question of primary education in Ireland. That Commission brought up its Report early in the year 1870. Amongst the many valuable topics referred to were those connected with the status and payment of the National School teachers. Now, there was great hardship in the present position of those teachers. A deputation, at considerable expense, from Ireland waited upon the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government on this subject; but although the members of it were courteously received by the right hon. Gentleman, nothing came out of it. Questions were over and over again asked in that House in reference to that subject, but the invariable answer given to them was, that the time for considering them was when the Estimates relating to Irish education came on for consideration. Well, the Estimates did come on at length, but not until half-past 12 o'clock on a Saturday morning, when the House was utterly exhausted after a most fatiguing week's business. The recommendations of the Commissioners were very numerous, and amongst them were these—namely, that the pay of the National School teachers was wholly insufficient to secure the best candidates, and the most efficient teachers, and that it ought to be raised; that there should be three classes of teachers—the first class of male teachers £38, the second £30, and the third £24; that there should be a desirable residence in each of those schools for teachers of the first class, such residence to be rent free; the ordinary repairs of it to be made by the teachers themselves, but the permanent repairs to be effected by the locality; that the powers of appointing and dismissing those teachers should be in the hands of the local managers; and that as a condition of State aid, the managers should enter into a contract with the teacher specifying

1921
his duties and emoluments, and containing a provision that the engagement should be terminable on three months' notice given by either party. He (Mr. Plunket) submitted that that was a question of enormous and serious importance, and therefore it demanded the immediate consideration of the Government and Parliament. The Commissioners further reported that as regarded the second and third classes of teacher, the wages given them were very little above that of the labouring man. The only addition made by the Government to the salaries of those men was a miserable £1, which was confined to the third-class teachers; and those of the second and the first classes received not even that paltry amount; while the noble Lord the Chief Secretary, moreover, had not taken the least notice of the recommendations of the Commissioners concerning their residences, their pensions, or their status in case of dismissal. He had no alternative but to bring the question on at that unreasonable hour of the night, as no other opportunity would be afforded him by the Government; but he could not help saying that the Government ought to state their intentions more fully, and the House ought to have an opportunity of fully debating them. It was not his desire to diminish the present Vote. On the contrary, he desired to add a little more to it, in order that something like adequate compensation might be given to those unfortunate teachers.
SIR FREDERICK W. HEYGATEsaid, he was sorry to take a course that would appear as if he opposed the Board of National Education in Ireland, but there would be no opportunity of discussing that question after that night. He believed the Government desired to see the position of the National School teachers improved, but there were other matters that required consideration—such as the management or control of the schools. It was only reasonable that the teachers should have due notice before they were discharged; but they went too far when they asked to be considered as civil servants and without the control of the Board. He regretted the small amount of local interest that was felt on the subject, from the amount of local contributions amounting only to 17·7 per cent, leaving 82·3 per cent to be contributed by the State. In Ulster
1922
there appeared to be more local support given to them than in the other Provinces in Ireland. The proposal of the Government to increase the remuneration of the third-class teachers would create unpleasant feelings amongst the other two classes above them. The total number of children attending the schools was returned at 998,991—a remarkable fact when it was said this system of education had failed. The increase of 7,630 in the number of scholars, and only an increase of 639 attendances, led him to doubt the accuracy of the figures. The proposal of payment by results was not fully understood by the teachers; and with regard to the Rule that any change in the Rules of the House should be laid on the Table of the House before they became law, that would have the effect of giving confidence in the national system of education in Ireland. He would suggest the postponement of the Vote, in order that a better scheme of remuneration might be devised for the teachers.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he quite agreed that it was necessary to increase the salaries of teachers. The Government, however, did not think that the recommendations of the Commissioners could be discussed in the present Session. It was impossible that the Government could deal comprehensively and finally with these recommendations without dealing with the subject of Irish education as a whole. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) had omitted to inform the House that the Commissioners stated that in their opinion the whole of the proposed increase in the salaries of the teachers should not be paid by the State. Such a question, and the proposal of a national rate in aid, would evidently raise the whole subject of Irish education. The Government proposed, therefore, to postpone the subject till next year, and the Queen's Speech notified that that course would be taken. It was not likely that the proposal now made would satisfy the teachers, but the Government did not put forward that as a final settlement. No doubt much yet remained to be done in order to ameliorate the status and pay of the teachers; but that was in great part the fault of the Irish people, for it was always contemplated that local sources should contribute towards the teachers' salaries. The proposal of the Government was a temporary one, and

1923
he hoped hon. Members would be prepared to discuss it as such upon the Supplementary Intimate.
MR. RAIKESsaid, the teachers considered that the most obnoxious part of the regulations affecting them was the arbitrary managerial control to which they were now subjected, and he regretted that the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not found time to deal with it. Some 6,000 of them had presented a Petition to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government on that and other points. What satisfaction was it to them to be told that the Government had the subject under consideration, and would, perhaps, deal with their grievances in the next Session?
MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, he was relieved to hear from the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland that his present proposal was not put forward as a final measure of justice to that deserving class of persons.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, that, notwithstanding the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, the Catholics of Ireland were determined to impress on every Government of every party, that an education based on religion was most in accordance with their feelings and wishes.
Resolution agreed to.

SUNDAY OBSERVANCE PROSECUTIONS BILL— [BILL 235.]
(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Winterbotham.)
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE PROSECUTIONS BILL— [BILL 235.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he strongly objected to the indirect repeal, by means of that Bill, of the Act of Charles II., which constituted the only legal recognition of the sanctity of the Lord's Day. The operation of the Act should not be left entirely to police officials, but the public should have some voice in the matter.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was the intention of the Government to leave the door open for something of the nature proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  PUBLIC LANDS AND COMMONS BILL.
  On Motion of Sir CHARLES DILKE, Bill to provide for the better security of the rights of the Public in Lands and Commons, and to amend the Law relating to the disposition of real estate to uses called charitable, ordered to be brought in by Sir CHARLES DILKE, Mr. TAYLOR, and Mr. MORRISON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 252.]

  SMALL DEBTS, &C. (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to amend the Law relating to the recovery of Small Debts and to Summary Jurisdiction in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND and The Marquess of HARTINGTON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 253.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.