Commons Sitting of 11 June 1880

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE — Potato Crop, Mr. Creyke and Mr. Lalor added.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolutions [June 10] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Kingstown Enfranchisement* [214]; Public Health (Ireland) Act (1878) Amendment* [215]; In-closure (Llanfair Hills) Provisional Order* [216];Inclosure Provisional Order (Clent Hill Common)* [217]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Abbotside Common) * [218].
Second Reading—Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act (1880) Amendment; [205], debate adjourned.
Select Committee—Fraudulent Debtors (Scotland)* [185], nominated.
Committee—Report—Registration of Voters (Ireland) [150].
Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Abingdon, &c.)* [129]; Local Government (Highways) Provisional Order (Salop)* [124].
The House met at Two of the clock.

NOTICE OF MOTION.
  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).
  MR. LABOUCHEREgave Notice that on Thursday he would move that Mr. Bradlaugh, one of the Members for Northampton, be admitted to make an Affirmation or Declaration, instead of the Oath required by law.
QUESTIONS.

  INLAND NAVIGATION (IRELAND)—THE SHANNON DRAINAGE.
  SIR PATRICK O' BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the works in connection with the Shannon drainage will be commenced at Killaloe?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the Question, I may say that tenders at Killaloe for the Shannon drainage have been invited. The last day for receiving them was the 30th, and the works will take place as soon as possible after the contracts have been completed.

  THE ARMY—DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for War, When the Report and Evidence taken before the Departmental Committee presided over by Lord Airey, on the state of the British Army at home, in India, and the Colonies, will be presented to Parliament?
  MR. CAMPBELL -BANNERMAN: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I must refer him to the somewhat extended answer which the Secretary of State for War gave to the hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Marlow (Colonel Owen Williams) on last Monday week. The Report and Evidence will not be presented to Parliament before the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the very numerous questions raised by this Committee of officers has been arrived at; and my right hon. Friend hopes to announce these decisions in moving the Estimates next year.
  SIR PATRICK O' BRIEN: Will the Report in question be presented before the Estimates come on next year?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It will not be presented to Parliament until Her Majesty's Government have arrived at a decision on the question; and my right hon. Friend hopes that he will be able to announce his decision next year. In that case, the Report will be presented to the House before the Estimates.

  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY —THE CHEAP TRAINS ACT.
  MR. FIRTHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is
  1752
  aware of the practice of the Metropolitan District Railway to issue only two Parliamentary tickets from each station by each train; and, whether such practice is in accordance with their Act or with any bye-law sanctioned by the Board of Trade?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the Question of the hon. Member states the present practice of the Metropolitan District Railway Company. I am of opinion that it is not in accordance with the Cheap Trains Act. The notice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue was drawn some time since by the Board of Trade to the limitation placed on the issue of Parliamentary tickets by the District Railway Company, and legal proceedings are being taken by the Commissioners to recover the Government duty in respect of such trains. The case has, however, not yet been tried.

  INDIA (FINANCE)-THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Secretary of State for India, If the more full and accurate information which he expected yesterday regarding the figures of the last Indian Budget and the actual condition of the finances of India has now reached him, and when he proposes to make a Statement on the subject to the House?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the despatch expected by the Government has not yet arrived; and, judging from the contents of a telegram which I received a short time ago, I do not think that it can now be expected before the 20th of this month. I do not propose to make any statement on the subject of the finances of India until I have received the despatch to which I have alluded.

  CUSTOMS RE-ORGANIZATION.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state on what grounds the Treasury declined to apply the Superannuation Clauses of the Play fair Scheme when reorganizing the Customs Department, and refused to permit men who wished to leave or retire on the usual terms; if it is true that, in reorganizing the

  1753
  Department, no system of selection was put in force in forming the Upper Division; if it is true that men who, on previous occasions, had been passed over as unfit for promotion have been placed in the Upper Division with increased salaries; if it is true that men passed over as unfit for promotion in the reorganization itself have been allowed to remain, and have been appointed to "duty pay" seats whereby their salaries were increased; and, if it appears necessary to the Treasury now to institute a system of selection, why the re-organization itself was not carried out on that system?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, the Customs establishment had been largely reduced, as recently as 1870–1. The present re-organization had its origin in appeals from the Establishment to be treated on the same terms as the Inland Revenue, which in 1876–8 had been revised on the system set forth in the Report of the Playfair Division. The character of the Customs Service is such as to make a change of this kind far from easy; but, after long discussions, the Treasury accepted proposals submitted to them by the Board of Customs. These proposals were by the nature of the case impersonal, because the selection of persons for duty—in other words, promotion—within the establishment of the Customs itself belongs to the Commissioners of Customs, and not to the Treasury. Subject to this general statement, and to the further one, that the frequency during the last four or five years of Questions in Parliament respecting the details of the Customs Establishment tends to impair its discipline, the answer which, after communicating with the Commissioners of Customs, I have to give to the Questions of the hon. Member is as follows:—The retirement of clerks under the Superannuation Act of 1859 did not form any part of the scheme for the re-organization of the Customs Department, inasmuch as no reduction took place in the number of persons employed. The new upper division of clerks has been formed from— 1. The number of principal clerks who remained in excess of the establishment; 2. The clerks who were on the first class of the old establishment; 3. So many deserving and fully qualified clerks of the second class as were necessary to complete the approved
  1754
  number of upper division clerks. In carrying out the re-organization in the manner I have described a system of selection was necessarily put in force, and in some instances senior clerks of the second class were passed over by appointment of their juniors to the upper division. Certain clerks who had been passed over for the superior situations of principal of a department, or principal clerk, who were first-class clerks at the time of the re-organization, have been placed on the upper division with salaries rising to £400 instead of £340, the maximum of the old first class; and in two cases clerks who had been previously passed over for a special case of misconduct, but were not on other grounds unfit for promotion, were included in the upper division. In two instances principal clerks of the second section of the old establishment were not deemed eligible for principal clerkships on the new establishment, and their juniors were accordingly selected for those posts; but the duties which the two clerks who were not promoted were retained to perform as upper division clerks were precisely the same as those which attached to their former offices of principal clerks, second section, and duty pay of the upper division has been allotted to them, whereby their total income exceeds that which they had on the old establishment. In two other instances clerks of the second class who were not deemed eligible for the upper division, but who have been retained in lieu of lower division clerks, are in receipt of certain lower division duty pay, whereby their total income has been increased. With regard to the future promotion of redundant second-class clerks to the upper division, the Treasury has given explicit directions that it shall be made irrespective of seniority and absolutely according to merit, and that merit should be looked for as widely as possible, and not necessarily in the department where the particular vacancy has occurred.

  TURKEY—EASTERN ROUMELIA.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (for Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the local authorities of Eastern Roumelia have taken any steps to investigate the outrages committed

  1755
  on the Turkish population in the Balkans?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received information that the Governor General of Eastern Roumelia has appointed a Commission to inquire into the outrages committed in the Aidos Balkans. The Commission will be composed of Colonel Borthwick, two Secretaries to the Governor General (one a Hungarian and one a Bulgarian), the Procureur of Bourgas, a Bulgarian militia officer, and two Turks. The Commission is to start to-day.

  NAVY —THE PENSIONER RESERVE— GREENWICH HOSPITAL PENSIONS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, By what authority the funds of the Greenwich Hospital are used for the formation of a branch of the Naval Reserve (notably the Pensioners' Reserve), and when was that authority given; and, whether it is the case that it was then contemplated that a reserve of 5,000 men might be formed by such means; and to what extent would the formation of such a reserve affect the funds of Greenwich Hospital?
  MR. T. BRASSEY, in reply, said, the Pensioner Reserve Force was established in 1869, and, as an inducement to enter, pensioners who completed a period of 14 days' drill for six consecutive years were accorded the privilege of receiving a Greenwich Hospital age pension at the age of 50, or five years earlier than other pensioners. The authority for this charge on Greenwich Hospital funds was an Order in Council of the 29th of November, 1870. It was contemplated that the Naval Pensioners Reserve would number 5,000, and had this expectation been realized an ultimate charge of £19,000 would have devolved upon Greenwich Hospital funds. At present but 1,800 pensioners belong to the force, and its creation has cost Greenwich Hospital £1,300 per annum, 170 pensioners having received the age pension at the earlier date.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND).
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will be good enough to state on what grounds the Board of
  1756
  Works cancelled the presentment made at the special sessions at Athenry for the road from Gloves to Rahard, 380 perches in length; and, whether he is aware that works to the amount of £160 only, out of £850 passed at those sessions, has been allowed by the Board?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have already stated, in answer to another Question the other day, that the £160 was the amount approved of out of the presentment of £850 made at the Sessions for a new line of road to Gloves. The Inspector of the Board of Works did not think the road necessary, because two public roads existed in the neighbourhood, easily reached all round.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman who are the inspecting officers?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I cannot exactly say; they are appointed by Colonel M'Kinley, and under his authority.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would explain to the House why the Road No. 6 on the schedule of the barony of Ross, county of Galway, passed at the extraordinary presentment sessions held at Maam on the 26th of February last, has been disallowed by the Board of Works; and, whether the Government is aware of the destitution in this neighbourhood, and of the urgent necessity for some relief in the shape of works?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The presentment for this loan is for £180. It was allowed by the Board of Works, but disallowed by the Local Government Board, on the ground that in the districts around there were sufficient other works to give employment. I have sent to the Local Government Board to ask them to consider whether they might not specially accede to these works.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether I am to understand that the Board of Works disallow some works, and that, if they allow them, the Local Government Board has power to disallow them also?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The principle on which the presentments of baronial sessions are dealt with is this. First, they are sent to the Board of Works to

  1757
  consider the applications and report as to the utility or not. The second step is that an Inspector of the Local Government Board is sent to consider whether the works are necessary for employment or not. All that have been approved of by the local Inspector are sent to the Local Government Board, and, in case of difference of opinion, they are sent back for re-consideration.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has observed, from official statistics lately issued, that the number of deaths last year in Ireland was l1·551 above the yearly average for the decennial period from 1869 to 1878, and was by several thousands the highest mortality recorded in any year since the establishment of the registration of deaths; and, whether, in view of these facts and of the certainty of increased and wide-spread want in Ireland during the course of the next three months, the Government will consider the necessity of providing against deaths occurring through want of the necessaries of life by the adoption of measures of relief more comprehensive, speedy, and certain than those proposed in the Bill before the House?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The Question, Sir, was put on the Paper last night, and I only saw it this morning, and I need hardly say that as very few hours have elapsed, and as there has been a good deal of pressing Business, it would be difficult for me or anyone to study it. I am, however, enabled to give an answer, although I might have asked the hon. Member to postpone the Question to next Monday, and it would be only reasonable if I did so. Still, I am afraid it would produce an erroneous impression in Ireland; and, therefore, I may state at once the information I have obtained from the last quarterly Returns of the Irish Registrar General. He states that the deaths registered in Ireland during the quarter ending March 31st last amounted to 22·9 per 1,000 of the estimated population against an average rate of 21·9 per 1,000 of the corresponding quarter for the five years, 1875–9. That is an increase of 1·9 per 1,000. The next paragraph of the Report says—
  "There is no doubt that a considerable portion of the increase in the number of deaths recorded is owing to the more complete registra-
  1758
  tion effected by means of the burial returns furnished under the Public Health (Ireland) Acts 1878–9."
  "Well, I hope that no one would draw the distressing inference from this that it may not be accounted for very much by this difference of the Returns, because I find that the Registrar General thinks it necessary to add these remarks—
  "The registrar's notes appended to this report are throughout more numerous than heretofore. The notes convey more than the usual amount of information concerning the social and sanitary condition of the people. The report of the registrars are of a more favourable character than might have been expected, considering the many privations which the people have suffered from in the more remote rural districts in Ireland during the past few months. Compared with the first quarter of 1878 it appears that the unusual severity of the winter of 1878–9 had a more injurious influence upon the public health and added more to the mortality than the privations of the winter of 1879–80. The former cause was beyond the control of public measures or of the charitable organizations, whereas the latter appears to have been efficiently met by these means. Deaths accelerated by destitution at all times are more numerous than usual in the winter season, and a careful inspection of the tables and registrar's notes shows that up to the present there has been no appearance of the pestilential outbreaks such as usually follow on distress which has unsuccessfully been met by means of relief. The information contained in this report and that for the former quarter of the past year points to the fact that a great danger to the public health and to the lives of the people has been effectually held in check, and that although the distress anticipated in the preliminary report on agricultural produce in Ireland presented to his Grace the Lord Lieutenant in November last has come to pass, yet timely aid has hitherto averted disease and death."
  Well, I hope that there is much truth in that, and I find on looking at the figures this confirmation, that the lowest county death rate is Mayo for the last quarter of the year, which was, perhaps, also the county in which there was the greatest distress. The highest county rate was in Dublin, and after the lowest in Mayo were placed Sligo and Galway, both of them counties in which there has been much distress. I may say that for whole quarters of the year the death rate per 1,000 of 22·9 is exactly the same figure as in England. In reply to the last part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman, the Government have to state that they consider they are taking all the measures they can for the relief

  1759
  of the distress for the next three months.
  MR. SEXTON: Might I ask, with reference to the County Mayo, Whether that was not the county in which the largest reduction of rents was obtained from the landlords?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: It would be impossible for me to answer such a Question as that.

  AFGHANISTAN—RUMOURED EVACUATION.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that an immediate evacuation of Kabul has been ordered; and, if so, what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to secure Northern Afghanistan from anarchy and ruin, and to protect those Afghans who have favoured the British cause?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, he had stated on Monday last, as fully as he was able, the general drift of the instructions which had been given to Lord Ripon on the subject of Afghanistan and the termination of the war there. Lord Ripon would, no doubt, lose no time in acting as far as possible on those instructions; but he had received no communication on the matter from him since his arrival at Simla. He had not, he might add, heard anything to confirm the statement which had appeared in some newspapers the day before, to the effect that the immediate evacuation or the evacuation by a certain day of Cabul had been ordered, and he did not think it likely that any order of the sort had been given irrespective of the progress of events or the position of affairs at the time.

  PRESENTMENT SESSIONS (IRELAND).
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having stated to a deputation which waited upon him recently in Dublin, in reference to the adoption of measures for the relief of distress in Ireland, that further grants would shortly be issued for the purpose of proceeding with works presented at the extraordinary meetings of baronial presentment sessions, he has since ascertained that many of these presentments are illegal, owing to the non-observance of the provisions of the instructions
  1760
  issued by the Lord Lieutenant for the guidance of the presentment sessions; and, if so, whether he can give the House any information as to the proportion of the total number of presentments made at the extraordinary sessions which are thus rendered illegal?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, the instructions issued by the Lord Lieutenant for the guidance of the extraordinary presentment sessions contained a provision that no presentment for a new road should be passed unless with the consent in writing of the owners and occupiers of the land through which the road was intended to run. In some baronies presentments for new roads were made without such consents having been obtained. The attention of the late Irish Goverment having been called to the illegality of such presentments, they were advised that the proper course to adopt was to apply for and get the consents of the owners and occupiers in all cases where it was possible to do so, and then to proceed with the works. The Board of Works accordingly issued a circular to the county officers calling their attention to the presentments in question, and requesting them to take steps to obtain the requisite consents. This course has proved successful in the very large majority of cases, and the works are actually in progress.
  MR. PARNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, If, in reference to his statement that the late Government was advised to make application to the owners and occupiers for their consent, whether they were so advised by the Law Officers of the Crown; and, if not, whether the opinions of the Law Officers will be taken in reference to it?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am informed the advice was generally understood to have been obtained by the late Government from the legal authorities.

  THE MEDITERRANEAN—THE FRENCH FLEET.
  MR. H.SAMUELSONasked, If there was any foundation for the statement that the French Fleet had sailed from the Piraeus for Besika Bay?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir, the French Fleet is at this moment at the Piraeus, and I am informed that no orders have been given for it to proceed to Besika Bay.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.—REPORT,
  Resolutions [June 10] reported.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Budget Bill, which would consist of 30 or 40 clauses, chiefly of an executory nature, would probably be in the hands of hon. Members on Wednesday next, and that the second reading would, if possible, be taken on Thursday week. In connection with this matter a mistake had been committed, which, perhaps, it would be well to rectify before they proceeded further. Two of the Budget Resolutions which were agreed to last night were not, it appeared, in exact conformity with his Financial Statement, and he therefore begged to move that those Resolutions be recommitted for amendment.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolutions 7 and 10 re-committed.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Ways and Means.
  (In the Committee.)
  Re-committed Resolution 7 read.
  MR. GLADSTONEbegged to move, as an Amendment, with reference to the sums that appeared therein for licences, that the words "Fifty Pounds" be inserted instead of "One Hundred Pounds," and the words "Twenty Pounds" instead of "Twenty-five Pounds."
  MR. R. PAGETasked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be good enough to explain the object of these alterations.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the sums of £50 and £100 related to the value of the house, while the words "Twenty Pounds" and "Twenty-five Pounds" had reference to the maximum amount that was to be levied. The effect of the alteration was simply to bring the Resolution in conformity to his statement, that no higher duty than £20 should be levied on any hotel or licensed victualler.
  MR. R. PAGETsaid, he should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain the object with which the alteration from £100 to £50 was made.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the alteration from £100 to £50 had relation to the value of the house. If the hon. Member had the Resolution in his hand, he would see at once in what manner it would apply. At a certain point in the scale the value arrived at was the maximum, so far as hotel keepers were concerned. That point was £50, and not £100, and the maximum tax was £20; whereas if carried beyond the scale of £50, it would be £25. The hon. Gentleman would see at once the effect of those alterations, when he examined the Resolution. In order to get rid of the £25 as the maximum tax, it was necessary to strike out the words "One Hundred Pounds" as the value of the house.
  Amendment agreed to.
  (7.) Resolved, That on and after the first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and eighty, in lieu of the Duties of Excise now payable, the following Duties of Excise shall be payable upon the Licences hereinafter mentioned (that is to say):

  Duty.

  £

  s.

  d

  Licence to a Retailer of Cider in
  England

  1

  5

  0

  Licence to a Retailer of Sweets.

  1

  5

  0

  Licence to a Retailer in England
  of Beer to be consumed on the
  premises

  3

  10

  0

  Licence to a Retailer in England of Beer not to be consumed on the premises

  1

  5

  0

  Licence (additional) to a Licensed Dealer in Beer in England or Ireland for sale by retail of Beer not to be consumed on the premises

  1

  5

  0

  Licence to a Licensed Keeper of a Refreshment House in England or Ireland to retail Wine to be consumed on the premises

  3

  10

  0

  Licence to any Person in England or Ireland to retail in a Shop Wine not to be consumed on the premises

  2

  10

  0

  Licence to a Retailer of Beer and Wine to be consumed on the premises

  4

  0

  0

  Licence to a Retailer of Beer and Wine not to be consumed on the premises

  3

  0

  0

  Licence to a Retailer of Spirits— according to the annual value of the premises in respect whereof the Licence is granted:

  If under £10

  5

  0

  0

  If £10 and under £20.

  8

  0

  0

  £20 and under £25.

  11

  0

  0

  £25 and under £30.

  14

  0

  0

  £30 and under £40.

  17

  0

  0

  £40 and under £50.

  20

  0

  0

  £50 and under £100.

  25

  0

  0

  £ 100 or above.

  30

  0

  0

  The holder of the last-mentioned Licence is not to be required to take out any further or other Excise Licence to enable him to sell Beer or Wine by retail.
  The grant of the Duties on such Licence is to he subject to the provisions following:

  1. The expression "Retailer of Spirits" does not include a Spirit Grocer in Ireland, as defined by section eighty-one of "The Licensing Act, 1872," nor a Dealer in Spirits selling Spirits in bottles under an additional Licence authorising him in that behalf;

  2. Where, in the case of premises of the value of Fifty Pounds or upwards, it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the premises are structurally adapted for use as an Inn or Hotel for the reception of guests and travellers desirous of dwelling therein, and are mainly so used, the amount of Duty to be paid on the Licence shall not exceed Twenty pounds.

  Note.—Unless otherwise specified, the Duties mentioned in this Resolution extend to Licences throughout the United Kingdom.
  For the purposes of this Resolution—
  "Cider" includes Perry;
  "Sweets" includes made Wines, Mead, and Metheglin;
  "Beer" includes Cider; "Wines" includes Sweets.
  Re-committed Resolution 10 read.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that in line 13, he had to move, as a further Amendment, that "2d." be struck out and"2½d. "be inserted. Four lines lower down, be should move that "2s."be inserted instead of "2s. 6d."
  MR. R. PAGETsaid, he did not wish to cast any suspicion upon what was being done; but as they were completely in the dark, and as he was not provided with the Resolutions, he should ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain the effect of those alterations also.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was simply and solely for the purpose of bringing the Resolutions into exact conformity with his statement of the preceding night. It was proposed that from 30 degrees upwards, 2½d. should be added to the wine duty. It was printed at 2d. in the Resolution. He now proposed the 2½d., in order for the Resolution to conform with his statement. In the same manner, in the next Resolution he should move to substitute "2s." for "2s. 6d." on foreign wines, for the sake of conformity to his statement.
  Amendment agreed to.
  (10.) Resolved, That, in case Her Majesty shall, by Order in Council, be pleased so to ap-
  1764
  point, the Duties of Customs now chargeable on Wines imported into Great Britain and Ireland shall cease and determine on a day to be named in the said Order, and not later than the fifteenth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty, and that, in lieu and instead of such Duties, there shall he charged on and after the day so named, the Duties following (that is to say):

  Imported in Casks—

  £

  s.

  d

  Wine up to a strength of 20 degrees of proof spirit per gallon

  0

  0

  6

  Wine exceeding 20 degrees; additional for each degree up to a strength of 35 degrees of proof spirit per gallon

  0

  0

  1

  Wine exceeding 35 degrees; additional for each degree up to a strength of 41 degrees of proof spirit per gallon

  0

  0

  2½

  Additional for each degree of strength beyond the highest above specified per gallon

  0

  0

  3

  The strength in each case to he verified by Sykes' Hydrometer.

  Imported in Bottles—

  Wine per gallon

  0

  2

  0

  Lees of Wine shall he charged with the above-mentioned Rates of Duty according to the ascertained degree of strength.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Resolutions, as amended, be reported upon Monday next."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to take that opportunity to ask a question that he had intended to ask last night, and, perhaps, it would be convenient to ask it then. In the Statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer he gave, as a reason for imposing an additional penny on the Income Tax, that they had lost about £1,100,000 consequent upon the change from a Malt Tax to a Beer Duty. It was necessary to make provision for that amount, and he wished to ask, Whether he could now state, or on Monday, how that loss of £1,100,000 was made out? He did not think anyone understood clearly how that sum was arrived at.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that was a very fair and proper question, and he thought he could answer it sufficiently from recollection. He need hardly say that the subject had received the most careful and anxious examination, because he had been desirous naturally not to make an unfair statement to the House with reference to the burden which that important change involved, which of itself was sufficient to require

  1765
  additional taxation. The process was conducted with the utmost minuteness that the state of the case admitted. From the Estimate it was known what proportion of the stocks of malt there was in hand, compared with the total consumption in former years and at other times. For instance, they took the year 1856, when the War Malt Duty of the Crimean War was taken off. That case was a firm ground to stand upon as a fiscal relation between the malt drawback and the total consumption of malt. At that time the period was one ending in May, while in this case the period would cease on the 30th September. At the latter time the stock of malt was always at its lowest; consequently, the Estimate before them was formed upon the usual relation between the Malt Duties payable in the October collection and those payable at the period when the duty was taken off at the end of the Crimean War. The best estimate that could be formed of the quantity of malt had been arrived at, allowances made for deficiencies being already calculated in the Estimate. That being so, the items in computation had to be made, and then allowance had to be made between the periods of the 30th of September and May. From the latter the amount of duty which would be received probably on beer between the 30th September and the 1st of April of next year would be calculated. The reckoning of the Board of Inland Revenue was that they must take the month of October as a blank month. They would then find that, in fact, there were only five months during which the Beer Duty would be collected instead of six months. That being so, the Government had to credit themselves with the amount of Beer Duty received, debit themselves with the amount of drawback on the stocks of malt in hand, and likewise with the amount of Malt Duty which would have been receivable; that would show a loss or balance to our debit which they took at £1,100,000. It might exceed that sum, and it might fall short of it; it was not put at the highest figure, and it was considerably more than half-way from the lowest. He had given them the basis of the calculations, and he would not tax the patience of the House with more minute particulars. He had no doubt that the House would be satisfied with what he had stated.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he thought they had a right to complain that the Resolutions had not been put down on the Paper in detail. They were asked to pass them almost in the dark. He trusted the House would not be committed by the course adopted.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was understood that, by passing the Resolutions, hon. Members would not be committing themselves to details, and would not be precluded from moving Amendments. But, with regard to the form used, his hon. Friend was, he thought, in error. No Resolutions passed in Committee of the Whole House were reprinted in connection with the stage of Report. Whether they should be or not he could not say; but, in the present instance, the regular course had been pursued.
  MR. O'SULLIVANwished to know whether there would be any opportunity of offering Amendments?
  MR. GLADSTONEreplied, that most certainly that would be the case.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had understood at the outset of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that it would be an open question whether this country should contribute anything towards the expense of the Afghan War, and that was the reason why the House would be asked to trust the Government with the Surplus. But it appeared to him that the whole of the Surplus was disposed of by the abolition of the Malt Tax. He therefore ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman from what source that possible contribution to the expenses of the Afghan War would be made, should it be resolved, in the course of the year, to contribute towards those expenses?
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he certainly could not confirm the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy. He had not understood from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that there was any proposal made to provide a portion of the expenses of the Afghan War out of the Surplus of this year. He had understood him to say that at a future time the matter would be considered. It did not appear to him, however, necessary or advisable, at that moment, to enter upon a discussion which would raise a very wide issue and excite the feelings of the people; on the contrary, he thought it would be well to wait until all the circumstances

  1767
  connected with the subject were known to the House before the question was considered whether the British taxpayer should contribute to the expenses of the war in Afghanistan.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was justified in saying that he had referred to Indian Finance last night, as constituting a reason why there should be some Surplus in the hands of the Government. He thought it would have been impossible for the Government, in point of reason, to ask the House to raise a large sum of money by taxation, in a state of uncertainty. But it seemed to him that his hon. Friend had not quite correctly stated the actual case with regard to the Surplus. The Surplus provided by his right hon. Friend opposite had entirely disappeared, in consequence of the Supplementary Estimates; and, that being the case, they had proposed changes that would leave in their hands a sum of £400,000, which, however, must be compared, not with the original Surplus, but with something like or less than zero.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he had understood the First Lord of the Treasury to say that it depended upon negotiations with France how far the alteration in the Wine Duties would be carried out. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to forget that there was, in the ancient borough which he represented, a very considerable industry — namely, the manufacture of cotton fishing nets, on which a duty was now sought to be imposed of 70 francs per 100 kilogrammes, and to press upon the French Government, in the course of the negotiations, the withdrawal of that objectionable impost.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the conduct of the details of the negotiations with foreign countries, with reference to the duties levied by them, was not so properly and strictly a matter for his consideration as it was for that of other Officers of the State. He had no doubt, however, that the subject referred to by the hon. Member would receive attention.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions, as amended, to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again this day.
  The other Resolutions read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Resolutions be now read a second time."
  MR. MACIVER, who had given Notice to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is unwise and inexpedient to reduce the duties upon alcoholic drinks of foreign manufacture in such a manner as to convey an impression that the reduction is granted as a result of harassing interference with British trade;"
  said, that the proposals of the Prime Minister amounted to this—that the Government were endeavouring to make a bargain. Now, he did not object to bargains on principle, but only demanded that they should be good ones. It was his opinion that since the year 1860 France had benefited from the Commercial Treaty far more than ourselves. She had reduced her duties on some of our manufactures, while we abolished ours upon the whole of hers; and the things we imported were mostly luxuries for the rich, that had cheapened the labour of our working men. After all, both France and Spain appeared to be dissatisfied with the existing arrangement; but, he suspected, this was all nonsense, and only a pretence put forward with a view to obtain still better terms, and because they thought they had to do with a country and a Government that might be squeezed. His view of the Treaty of the year 1860 was that it was not at all in accordance with the principles of Free Trade, but was a bargain of which we had decidedly got the worst. It could not be consistent with mutually advantageous Free Trade that France should tax our manufactures, while we found her a market for luxuries which in no way contributed to our national strength. No one was a more hardened Free-trader than himself; but the Free Trade he supported was a genuine reality, the breaking down of commercial barriers, and not an imposture like our present system. France ought to reduce her duties on our manufactures, and would probably do so if we were firm and insisted on our rights. Spain, he thought, had some cause to complain of us on account of our duties on Spanish wines; but that was a question into which he would not now enter. It was

  1769
  well, however, to bear in mind that we, for our part, had an equally just grievance against Spain, which country, like France, took our raw materials rather than our manufactures. It seemed to him that the proposal with regard to the Wine Duties was not in itself an important arrangement; but if an arrangement were made with Spain by which our merchandize could enter the Spanish ports without being subjected to the high duties that were imposed there, the measure would be an excellent one. He had, however, no expectation that reducing the wine duties would bring about such arrangements. These and similar topics could be discussed when the Resolutions were embodied in a Bill, and he should therefore not now move from the Resolution that stood in his name.
  MR. O'KELLYobserved, that the effect of our Treaty with France had been to lower the duties on French wines, to the advantage of the French grower and to the evident injury of the Spanish wine trade. The immediate result of the change in the Tariff would be to give to France a practical monopoly of the trade in light wines.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposed change might, perhaps, be in one respect disadvantageous. There were some cheap French wines, more particularly those of Burgundy and the South of France, that would not bear exportation, except in bottles, and a 2s. duty per gallon would practically exclude them. The same held good of the wines of Germany. The Rhenish wines required to be bottled at the place of growth. At that moment, he believed, the German Tariff was much more favourable to this country than that either of France or Austria, and we ought not to do anything to prejudice the efforts which a portion of the German people were making to bring back Free Trade. Believing that the proposed duty upon those wines imported in bottle was too high and would be likely to injure our prospects of improved trade with both France and Germany, he would in Committee move an Amendment, that the duty, instead of being fixed at 2s., should not exceed that amount as a maximum on bottled wines.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSdiffered from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. B. Samuelson), and believed
  1770
  that nothing could be more politic than the imposition of a duty of 2s, on wines imported in bottle; for the real reason why the cheap wines of Southern France, Italy, and other countries could not be imported in bulk was want of care on the part of those who manufactured them. Nothing illustrated his position better than the increased and increasing importation of Hungarian and Austrian wines, which were now largely and, he believed, very profitably imported in bulk, though a few years ago they came to England in bottle. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver), in what he had said upon the subject, did not seem to understand the relations brought about by diplomatic action between country and country through Commercial Treaties. Most persons who had studied the subject were convinced that nothing had more conduced to the establishment of friendly relations between France and England than the Commercial Treaty negotiated by his distinguished Friend the late Mr. Cobden. Commercial Treaties had been also concluded with other countries, and the system had established a network of international relations which it was very difficult for re-action to break through. He earnestly hoped that the efforts which the Government were making in regard to our commercial relations with France would be successful, and that the same would be the case so far as Spain was concerned. It could not be conceived that in a day all nations would come to see the benefits of Free Trade. A certain set of circumstances rendered it possible, 34 years ago, that Free Trade should be established in this country. Such circumstances had not yet occurred in other countries; but in those countries large bodies of men were growing up who were convinced that the interest of nations were best developed by the adoption of Free Trade.
  MR. MIDDLETONsaid, he rose for the purpose merely of putting a Question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He believed it would be encouraging to know when the French permission was likely to be given, and when the Commission was likely to sit, and where?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mae Iver) closed his remarks by saying

  1771
  he was "a hardened Free-trader;" but they had often heard speeches from the hon. Member on commercial subjects before, and certainly those speeches had led some of them to regard him rather as a crystallized or mummified Protectionist than an ardent or hardened Free - trader. He would not follow the hon. Member in his general argument on the subject of Commercial Treaties, because he thought that if that argument were raised at all it had better be brought forward on the second reading of the Bill. The hon. Member spoke against making anything like concessions to Spain, which he attacked for inflicting heavy duties on our trade. The constituents of the hon. Member would hardly be obliged to him for his defence of their interests that day, for he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would remind him that one of the results of the action of the Government in that respect would be to greatly benefit the trade of Birkenhead. The Government hoped that the carrying out of the proposals before the House would greatly develop the trade of this country with Spain, and he had no doubt that the shipping interest would receive from the development a very great advance of prosperity. The hon. Gentleman spoke also of the heavy duties imposed by the Government of France on English goods. But the object of Her Majesty's Government was to get the Government of France to reduce those duties, and that, he believed, would be the result of the negotiations that were about to take place between the two countries. In reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Middleton), he had to say that he had reason to believe that those negotiations might begin about the middle of July, and, if so, he saw no reason why they should not be completed in the course of a month. He did not know whether the French Government would wish that the negotiations should be conducted in London; but it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that they would be best conducted here, and, in all probability, here it was where they would occur. The hon. Member for Birkenhead spoke against the reduction of the Wine Duties; but the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and others representing the trade of this country, had, week after week, urged her Majesty's Government
  1772
  to reduce the Wine Duties in order to promote the trade of the country. Whether the Chambers of Commerce or the hon. Gentleman were right, he would leave it to the House to decide. The hon. Member had stated that the Premier said the previous evening that Free Trade principles must be greatly qualified. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had listened very attentively to the speech, and he was sure his right hon. Friend never said anything of the kind; therefore, the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood the Premier's remarks. The hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) said that we ought not to lower the duties on French wines to the disadvantage of the Spanish wine trade. But the proposals of the Government must be looked at as a whole. They had reason to believe that those proposals would be beneficial not only to the wine trade but to the trade of this country as a whole, and that the Spanish Government accepted them with great pleasure as likely to be beneficial to the trade of Spain. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson) said that a duty of 2s. was too high on wine in bottle; but the hon. Member for South-wark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) thought the duty a very fair one, The hon. Member, however, was not quite right in saying that the lighter kinds of Rhenish wines suffered from being brought into this country in casks. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) believed that the 2s. duty was a very fair one. A 2s. 6d. per gallon duty upon all bottled wines had been frequently proposed by Committees of that House, and in the House itself, by one of the highest authorites on the subject-—namely, the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland). The Government had not proposed so high a duty, but had adopted a very happy medium, one which would be found to work well. He wished to take that opportunity of replying to a Question put a few days ago by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). He would ask the hon. and learned Member to accept his assurance that the matter would be dealt with as far as it was in the power of the Government to deal with it. The general wish of the Government was not to abridge, but to increase, the area of British trade; and, although they did not wish to avoid criticism on particular points, their wish

  1773
  would be that these proposals should be considered not so much in detail but as a whole.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, there was one point in the proposals of the Government which would require future consideration when there should be a fuller discussion on the subject. He would not go into the question whether that policy was right; but on the assumption, which he did not say was necessarily the true one, that this was a policy of endeavouring by manipulation of the Wine Duties to obtain certain advantages for British commerce, we stood in this position. The case was simple as regarded France. It was assumed, with regard to the case of France, that what she desired was that we should impose a lower rate of duty upon wines of a small degree of strength. They could quite understand that, in the negotiations which would shortly take place between this country and France, that proposal would be regarded as an equivalent for certain concessions which we should have to ask from France. That was intelligible enough. In the case of other countries, however, the scale would have to be manipulated so as to favour several countries which were independent of each other, such as Spain and Portugal and other countries producing strong wines—countries which at present complained that they were unfavourably treated as compared with France. It was intelligible if only one country was in that position; negotiations might then go on with France without considering that country. But it was not so; and he wished to point out we should be obliged to make the change general and not with reference to French wines only, but must extend it to Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, and other countries which produced strong wines, from whom, probably, they might get no advantage at all. He desired to know how that matter was to be dealt with, and if it was to be made a matter of bargain and reciprocity, and not one of dealing with other countries on the simple principle of making them contribute to the advantage of this country?
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, that the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had received the approbation of the House, and it might be taken that the Malt Duty was abolished and that a
  1774
  duty on beer had been imposed in its stead. He would like to call the attention of the House to the question of the manufacture of beer. It appeared that it was not intended to impose any restrictions of a minute kind so as to interfere with the manufacture of beer. The brewers were to be permitted to use any substance they thought proper. But he thought that means should be taken to insure that the liquor which was delivered by the brewer to the publican was of a pure and wholesome character. There was now a great desire to obtain pure water; he thought it a matter of almost equal importance that the mass of the people should be supplied with a pure, wholesome, and cheap beverage like beer, as it was well known that adulterated beer often created thirst instead of allaying it, so that the more one drank the more thirsty one became. He was aware that Governments as a rule declined to have anything to do with looking after the manufacture of articles, and that in the present instance the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer looked upon the question as a money question. But he (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) thought the other question ought also to be regarded. The duty was to be levied upon a certain number of gallons of beer. It was to be taken on what were called the "fermentation squares," and not upon the beer as it left the brewer's premises. He thought the Government ought to see that there was some correspondence between the number of gallons taxed to a certain strength and the number which left the brewery. If the duty was to be levied during the period of fermentation, there would be no check against the quantity of beer being doubled before it was sent out to the public. There were several large manufactories in London engaged entirely in the manufacture of ingredients for the use of brewers, and although he did not say these ingredients were deleterious or injurious, yet he did not consider them equal to malt and hops, and he thought some means should be taken to insure that the beer which was taxed was not subsequently diluted or interfered with in any way, for he knew that the working man was unable to protect himself, and was entitled to have a pure article supplied to him Fears were once expressed, when the duty was taken

  1775
  off paper, that the supply of paper might fail for the want of rags; but now paper was made without rags, and he was afraid it would be found possible hereafter to make beer without malt and hops. In Vienna, where the process of making beer was widely different from that employed in this country, careful means were taken by the Government to insure that the beer which had been taxed should not be tampered with before it reached the consumer. He thought the subject was one eminently deserving the attention of the Government, whose duty it was to look after the interests of the people in matters relating to health as well as in other respects. Then he thought the publicans were entitled to some relief in respect of the proposed addition to their licences, as the brewers had been relieved to the extent they had with regard to their present licences. While brewers under the proposed Resolutions were to be relieved from paying any licence duty whatever, except a nominal one of £1 per annum, regardless of the extent of the business or the rateable value of the brewery, those who sold beer had additional difficulties thrown in their way. Great brewers, with all their enormous wealth, were to be exonerated from Excise burthens, while the poor publican was to be mulcted heavily for no reason whatever. If it were necessary to increase the retail licence to sell beer or spirits, that augmentation should not be made when they were about making a change in the duties on wine and beer. The exemption of hotels from the augmented licence he considered both unfortunate and unfair. He could see no difference between a tavern, public-house, and hotel. He held that distinctions of this kind ought not to be made, and that the sums to be paid for licences ought not to be raised to the enormous amount which the right hon. Gentleman contemplated. But, if they must be raised, let there be no such distinctions as those to which he had alluded. He altogether condemned the heavy taxation of the publicans, which he supposed was to be accounted for only because they were regarded as sinners.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with regard to the observations of the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), I should beg him not to
  1776
  describe the augmentation of the licence duties which we have proposed as enormous. It does not deserve that epithet at any point to which the new rates would apply. With regard, for example, to the smaller class of publicans, the augmentation is very slight indeed. As to those of a somewhat higher class, the augmentation is more considerable; but the amount of increased revenue which we expect to gain from these sources is of itself a sign that nothing in the sense of enormous or radical change is contemplated. The intention of the new law will be to give what may be described as a perfectly free choice of materials for manufacture; but, in laying down that principle, I do not wish to interfere with the discretion of Parliament or with the mode in which it may think fit to use that discretion in regard to what is called adulteration—that is to say, to the use of deleterious materials. That is a seperate question altogether, and one upon which legislation now proposed has no bearing at all. I am particularly anxious to refer to the observations—for they are not without importance—of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) as to the Wine Duties. I perfectly admit the truth of all that he said in regard to that matter; but I greatly doubt whether we shall gain much light or advantage from a detailed discussion on the subject in the House. I think that, from the nature of that subject, the choice before the House is either not to prosecute the scheme at all or to leave in the hands of the Government the discretion for which they ask. It is quite clear that we must draw a distinction between the weaker and the stronger wines, between the lower and the higher portions of the scale; and, so far, I think, there will be a provision in the Bill to make it clear that we have the power to draw that distinction if we think it expedient. With regard to the question as to whether we can draw a distinction between the different countries interested in the higher wines, that is a difficult matter; and I do not know that anything can be done except to leave us to make the best we can of it. The two countries that are really most important in this matter are Portugal and Spain; and I can only say that I see no reason to believe that we may not be able to make arrangements more or less satisfactory with them. If we can draw in other

  1777
  countries whose interest may be of a minor character, so much the better; but I cannot say we shall certainly be able to adjust the whole matter in detail, as well as in its general outline, in the best possible way; because there is a conflict between the prosecution of Treaty-making principles, if I may so call them, to their furthest development, and a faithful adherence to our own principles, which do not draw any distinction between articles of the same character when proceeding from different countries. That is the general reply I would make. Of course, it has no relation whatever to any criticisms which may be made on the nature of the scale itself. The question whether we have taxed lower and higher wines in the best manner is a perfectly different matter, and is perfectly open for discussion; but with regard to the matters of negotiation to which I have referred, I greatly doubt whether we can make any progress with them beyond what we have already done. I think it may be permitted to the Government to treat them in the best mode we can, on the principles which I hope the House will sanction.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, in all the arguments he had heard, he had not heard a mention of the weak point of the question. He considered the weakest point was the amount of duty which was charged on wine. The duty was levied on the amount of alcohol which was contained in the wine. On the foreign wines there was 6d. duty charged, but on the home-made wines 2s. was charged. It would be perfectly right if it was carried with an equal hand, and charged on the same amount at home and abroad; but the fact was, while they allowed 20 degrees foreign wine to come in at 6d., they charged 2s. for the same quantity of alcohol made at home. He did not think that such an unfair charge as this should be made upon manufacturers of alcohol in England, Ireland, and Scotland, and, altogether, he regarded this matter as a weak point in connection with the financial proposals of the Government. He wished to know upon what ground that anomaly was to be explained, or if it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to put the home manufacturer upon the same footing as the foreign manufacturer? The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson) had found fault with the
  1778
  proposal to tax so highly the higher or heavier wines. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) quite approved of that part of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, and thought that was the redeeming portion of the Resolution and the very best one. Was it fair or reasonable that a luxury like champagne should be admitted into this country at 1s. a-gallon? He thought there was not sufficient duty put on foreign bottled wines. The result of what had been done previously was to turn the whole bottled trade of the country into foreigners' hands; but he believed that the doubling of the duty might bring some of the trade which had been taken away back to England. It certainly was the best portion of the Resolution before the House. With regard to the question of licences, did not the right hon. Gentleman think it right, when dealing with the question, to consider the number of the population? Was it fair that in a country village in any part of the Three Kingdoms, where there were not perhaps 3,000 people, that a man should be charged the same as if he were carrying on his trade in London, Manchester, Liverpool, or any other large town? Unless there was some regulation made with regard to population, he thought the scale would be a most unfair and unjust one. He therefore hoped that when the licensing Resolutions were put, some intention of acting on the question he had just referred to would be expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had no wish to prolong the debate at that stage; but he wished to give notice of what he intended to do upon the subject. Last night, the Prime Minister remarked that an act of justice was done to Scotland; but that was of a very infinitesimal amount, and the Prime Minister failed to allude to the great injustice he was inflicting both upon Scotland and Ireland in the matter of continuing the charge upon their alcohol at the same scale as before. That injustice was a grave one, and he held, that the article to be taxed being alcohol, it ought to be taxed at an even rate per gallon without reference to the part of the country whence it came or where it was to be consumed. Under the proposal the difference was so great, that the beer drinkers would have their alcohol, diluted

  1779
  with water and hops, at a nominal sum; and in Scotland and Ireland, where the alcohol was only diluted with water, and sometimes not even with much of that, the drinker had to pay at the rate of 10s. per gallon of proof spirit, which was somewhere about five times as much as the beer-drinker had to pay. He expressed a hope that the House would make such a change in the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman as would do away at least in part with that injustice. Of course, he did not expect to get the House to do away with the difference altogether; for doing that would require so large a tax to be put upon beer that it would be hopeless to think of carrying any proposal of that kind. Still, he thought something should be done in that direction; and consequently, in order to test the question, he proposed to move a small addition to the tax proposed on beer by the Prime Minister. He had no expectation of getting justice by moving a reduction of the tax on alcohol, and therefore he proposed to get at it by levelling up; and he should therefore propose to raise the tax one halfpenny a-gallon upon beer. The addition of that charge would be, he believed, as far as the right hon. Gentleman was concerned, a step in the right direction; it would be giving the Government a much larger amount of revenue, and would be a more equitable arrangement. Of course, it would not remove the whole injustice they were suffering under; but he hoped that the Scotch and Irish Members would assent to the proposal, and he believed the love of justice amongst the English Members would lead many of them to support it.
  MR. R. PAGETconsidered that it was ill-advised of the Government to fetter their hands before entering into negotiations with Spain and Portugal by a preconceived plan adopted from the French. The duty of 2s. a-gallon on wine in bottle must, he might add, have reference entirely to one wine—champagne —for every other kind of wine could, he believed, be imported in wood. As to beer, he quite sympathized with those who, like the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), expressed a hope that the result of the financial proposals of the Government would be to supply the working classes with a purer article.
  MR. HENEAGE, while thanking the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for his proposals, thought the question whether beer was to be made out of any sort of raw material was one of considerable importance, for two reasons—first, that the repeal of the Malt Tax would not be of so much benefit to the farmers, who had always anticipated that they would be able after the repeal to sell their second-class barley for fair prices, or use it themselves for brewing light beer; at the present time, unless they had superfine barley, the brewers would not buy it for malting, and there was, practically, nothing between first and third class prices for barley; and secondly, so far as he could judge, it was not the quantity of it which a man might drink, so much as what he might term the beastliness of the stuff which was frequently sold as beer in beershops, which made those who drank it ill afterwards. The question was one, therefore, in which the poorer classes were greatly interested, and he fully agreed with those hon. Members who had urged the necessity of a strictly pure article being supplied for their use.
  MR. DALYsaid, he understood, in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that one of the advantages likely to arise from the reduction of the duties upon French light wines would be that they would be more largely used by the poorer classes in this country. He said that it was, therefore, only fair to say that the introduction of light wines into this country would tend to the moral well-being of the people, especially of the working classes. He (Mr. Daly) could not see how so small a reduction as 6d. per gallon—or on 64 glasses of wine—would have the effect intended, looking at the climate and surroundings of the working classes of this country. He could hardly believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be serious, when he expressed his opinion that the proposed reduction in the Wine Duties would bring about so satisfactory a result, especially when it was remembered that the reduction on the price of wines would not amount to more than 1d. in 5d. or 6d. He, for one, did not believe that any such comparative reduction in the Wine Duties would induce the working people of these Kingdoms to adopt the light

  1781
  wines of France as their usual beverage. If that was the only ground for negotiations that were being held with the French Government, he was afraid that it would not be very potent in obtaining satisfactory or great concessions from the French Government. Unless a greater boon than this were offered to France, he, for one, was afraid that she would not give the Government of this country much in return. The hon. Member for London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) had raised the question as to the possible manufacture of beer from deleterious compounds. Now, he (Mr. Daly) had paid some little attention to this matter, and he had found in the City which he had the honour to represent that the public could be protected under the Adulteration of Food Act, which would give power to put down the manufacture of beer from deleterious ingredients and compounds. There were other portions of the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which were open to objection; but, not wishing to detain the House further, he would simply again put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought that a reduction of 6d. duty on 64 glasses would be such a boon as to lead to an increased consumption of wine among the working classes?
  MR. M'LARENagreed in opinion with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), that the duties charged on whisky were extravagantly high as compared with the duties on beer. In last Parliament, he (Mr. M'Laren) spoke on this subject, and showed that the proportion was 5½d to 1. During this debate it was argued as being 5 to 1. He was willing to accept this latter difference as correct, and, even then, the disparity was enormous. But was this the way and time to correct it? He thought not. This was a great financial arrangement, which, from its indirect operation, would benefit the whole Kingdom, and it did no harm to Scotland or Ireland in any form. It should, therefore, be allowed to pass, seeing that it imposed no new burden on them. If the hon. Member for Glasgow would carry his proposal to increase the duty on beer, by ½d. per gallon, this would be equal to 1s. 6d. per barrel, or 25 per cent of increase; and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister stated last night, the Malt Duty now produced £8,000,000, and the Beer Duty would produce a
  1782
  little more, the practical effect of the proposal would be to provide an additional revenue of £2,000,000 a-year, which was not wanted for any known purpose. He (Mr. M'Laren), therefore, felt bound to support the proposals of the Government as a whole, not considering the present time opportune for raising the question. But one thing was clear, that when this measure should be passed, and a further amount of taxation was required, it would not be difficult to carry an addition to the duty on each barrel of beer; while it would be utterly hopeless to attempt to carry an additional duty on malt, supposing the present measure not to be passed. It had been urged from the other side, as regarded the duty on licences, that a differential duty should be fixed in favour of villages and small towns. It appeared to him that the operation of the scheme would effect this, the duty depending as it did on the rents of the premises, which were much less in villages and small towns than large towns, and, therefore, there was no hardship. A house that would let for £5 or £10 in villages would, for even a smaller amount of accommodation, let for £15 or £20 in large towns, and there was thus already a direct relief in favour of these publicans, for the licensed duty would be smaller in proportion.
  MR. PARNELL, inasmuch as he felt sure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was anxious to proceed with the Belief of Distress (Ireland) Act (1880) Amendment Bill, did not wish to intrude at any length. He merely wished to say that the invitation of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) would certainly be accepted so far as he was concerned. He thought Irish Members had made a mistake in not approaching the unequal incidence of the taxation in England and in Ireland with a definite intention. In the late Parliament, the hon. Members for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) and Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) occasionally directed attention in their usual able way to this unequal incidence. In his (Mr. Parnell's) opinion, those hon. Gentlemen committed a mistake in that they brought forward abstract Motions, for experience showed that it took a very long time for abstract Motions to ripen a question sufficiently for decision. How often did the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor)

  1783
  take up the subject of flogging in this way; and it was not until the case was taken up in a more practical way by the examination of details of Government Bills, and by serving Amendments to those Bills, that the question was solved successfully. If Irish Members would follow that example, and, joined by the Scotch Members, would press their grievances in the form of Amendments to the Budget Bill in its various stages, then they would probably receive more attention from the responsible Minister of the Crown than those grave grievances received when advanced under the form of an abstract Motion. It had been proved over and over again that foreign alcohol was taxed at the rate of 6d. only for 20 degrees of strength, while native alcohol paid 2s. for the same strength. It was sometimes said this was done to induce the working man to drink claret in preference to stronger drinks; but he did not believe that. The object really was to obtain from France more favourable terms for the admission of our manufactured articles. This was a course that worked a special injustice. In Ireland there were no important manufactures, and so it amounted to this, that rich, prosperous England was benefited at the expense of impoverished Ireland. It worked in this way, although the relative wealth of Ireland, as represented by her income tax-paying population, in proportion to that of England, was as 1 to 27, Ireland paid in contributions to the Imperial Exchequer a proportion of 1 in 8. This was manifestly unjust, and it was no answer to say that the article of whisky was taxed the same in all parts of the United Kingdom, for it was not fair to throw the incidence of taxation on a particular article which was produced in two small portions of the United Kingdom and not in the larger portions of the United Kingdom. According to the duties levied at present, the rich Englishman who drank his champagne paid only 2d. a bottle in the shape of duty, while the poor Scotchman or Irishman-—not that the latter were in the position to do so now-a-days—who drank whisky paid duty at the rate of 2d. per glass instead of the bottle.
  SIR PATRICK O' BRIENsaid, he would be happy to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) when it came before the House at the proper time. His recol-
  1784
  lection of the Spirit Duties extended over a long period. He recollected when the duty was made progressive; but, as well as his memory served, when the change was made, its advocates never argued the question as one of revenue. The support of the progressive rise was advocated from the temperance view, and that seemed to have weight, for it resulted in the increase of the duty, and now the exorbitant charge on Irish spirits. A great deal had been said about the changes in the Wine Duties, as if they affected only those who sent the wines here from abroad. But there was another point of view. A great community like this could not take a merely selfish view, and no one could deny that some benefits had followed the reduction. Those who sat on Mr. Forster's Committee on Wines, who had paid much attention to the evidence, would know how wines could be produced in some parts of Portugal and in the South of France at extraordinarily low prices; but they could never be sent here, because of the extremely high duty. He agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow, that no one would deny the advantage that some members of the community derived from wine. There were other advantages of an international character, and on that point he wished to state that, although to his regret, Ireland was not a manufacturing country, there were large masses of the Irish population engaged in industrial operations in England, especially in towns like Glasgow, Manchester, and Liverpool. He had heard hon. Gentlemen in that House boast of the strong Irish power in England and Scotland, employed in industrial occupations there. He, therefore, viewed with favour the proposals of the Prime Minister, which, by encouraging an interchange of commodities between manufacturers in England and the wine growers of foreign countries, was benefiting the Irish populations who were employed in manufacturing industries in England.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that he thought the case of bottled wines had not been sufficiently considered, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would still be able to see his way to make some alteration in favour of the cheaper kind of bottled wines.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, his fellow-country-men in England were mostly engaged

  1785
  in subordinate occupations. Their employers would benefit by the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman; but the advantage to the working classes was a purely illusory one. They would get no higher wages on account of the Budget. The hon. Baronet (Sir Patrick O'Brien) took so much interest in the welfare of the Irish working classes in Great Britain that, notlong since, he questioned their right to have any interest in the political affairs of the country that gave them birth.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN: One word of explanation. I never in my life said anything—[Cries of "Order, order!" "Chair, chair!"]—I wish simply to say a word in explanation. I never in my life said one word derogatory to the working classes of England, but I did to two or three adventurers that came over to Ireland.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Bill, upon Resolutions 1, 2, 3,4,5, 6, 8, and 9, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PLAYFAIR, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 205.]
  (Mr. W. E. Forster, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 205.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Heading read.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH, in moving, "that the Bill be now read a second time," said, he should be very brief, as various measures connected with the question had occupied the attention of the House during the last Parliament, when the Belief of Distress (Ireland) Act was first brought forward. He therefore hoped the House would, with as little delay as possible, pass the second reading of the Bill. When a measure on this question was before the House in February last, they knew that several months of great distress in Ireland must inevitably pass away before the harvest; but now they might look forward to a good harvest, and therefore provision would only have to be made for a few months, and by August, when the Act would be able to put in force, they hoped that the distress would be at an end. Their reason for not going into the larger questions which occupied the
    1786
    attention of the last Parliament was that those questions were fully discussed, and that Parliament decided in favour of certain measures by decisive majorities; but whether or not those measures were the best that could have been adopted, he should not now stop to consider. Still, they knew that the worst extremities of the distress had been avoided, and that death from starvation and disease consequent upon suffering had at least been averted. The main object of the present Bill was to provide the funds for carrying out the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act of last Parliament. Under the Seed Potatoes Bill loans were advanced from the Public Exchequer to the considerable sum of £570,000; and further provision was made for advances by the Public Works Loans Commissioners in aid of the Unions to meet expenses in connection with out-door relief. In addition to those two provisions, advances of three different sorts had been authorized out of the Church Surplus Fund, as there would be advances made to landowners for improvements on their estates. When the question was first introduced into Parliament, it was thought, after some inquiry, the sum required would not exceed £250,000; but, before the Bill passed, it was found that £750,000 would be requisite, and it had been found since that the applications for loans largely exceeded the Estimate presented to Parliament. Those from landowners were for £1,200,000; the amount applied for by sanitary authorities was £118,000; and the baronial sessions applied for £185,000. It had been said that many of those applications would fall through; but whether or not that would be the case, it was impossible to say decidedly; but they had the fact that applications for loans had been made by 2,182 landowners, provision had been made for 1,723, and only 63 had been refused. It would have been impossible for those who were responsible to act on the presumption that a large proportion of the sum would not be required, and, after a careful consideration of the Estimate, they did not think it safe to provide a less sum than £1,500,000, excluding the £750,000 provided for. Then the question which remained for consideration was from what fund should the money be provided-—from the Church Surplus Fund or from the Public Exchequer?

    1787
    There were two reasons which made it almost imperative that the advances should continue to be made out of the Church Surplus Fund. After Parliament had deliberately determined what course to pursue, the Government ought not, without having any new facts before it, to make a change; but even if Parliament had not expressed its opinion, he thought the arguments against making these advances from the Public Exchequer were fundamental and irresistible. This system of making advances was certainly attended with danger, and if it was to be continued it ought to be carefully and jealously guarded by principle. He was certain if once they entertained the system of making advances at the low rate of 1 per cent to meet distress, similar demands would be made from other parts of the country, and they would be placing themselves in a position which would render their finance inextricably confusing. He hoped that the distress would be met out of the ordinary taxation of the country, and not by loan, and at a rate of interest which would cover the Exchequer from loss; but while they thought it necessary to adhere rigidly to the rule of securing an ample interest, there were certain works which must be of the greatest benefit to the country, and which would practically give them good security. Therefore, they had incorporated in the Bill a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) to the effect that presentment sessions might give guarantees in favour of railway and other public companies that applied for loans, providing there was adequate security, by taking their security, and he hoped in that way they might facilitate the construction of improved means of communication that might be of importance to the country; and, acting on that principle, they were likely to get works made that were important, as the public would not give the required guarantee unless they believed the works would be a benefit to themselves and the district. The only other provision of the Bill related to the terms on which the Commissioners of Public Works might sanction grants for the purpose of the Fishery Piers Act. He was not going to say a single word with reference to these grants, or what was likely to be the result of them. He must confess, however, he had no very sanguine
    1788
    expectations as to the matter, for they had had evidence as to what the result of similar grants, amounting to £200,000, had been. Since those grants had been made, they had seen a great decline in the number of fishermen in Ireland; and he was understating the fact when he said that not one half so many men were employed in that business now as there were when these grants first commenced. Many people he knew held a different view, and that this source of wealth might be better developed if the grant were increased; but up to the present time, certainly, the results had not been encouraging. He hoped, however, their anticipations would be realized. There was, however, another reason for making the grant larger this year. In ordinary times the districts where these piers were erected had found the greatest difficulty in keeping them in order, and in a time of distress that difficulty was increased. Owing, however, to the liberality of the Canadian people and others, they found that if the works were once set in operation, considerable assistance would be forthcoming. That was a great reason why the present measure should be passed as rapidly as possible, because unless the works were in operation by a given time, the assistance he referred to would be lost. He, therefore, asked the House at once to read the Bill a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he trusted the House would believe him when he said that he had no intention or desire to take part in a debate until he had for a longer period enjoyed the honour of a seat in that Assembly. But he had a strong objection to a leading principle of the Bill; he had used strong expressions with regard to it in that part of the country he had the honour to represent, and he had had an experience in the administration of a measure in some respects similar, an experience which was probably unique among hon. Members of that House, and he hoped for those reasons that he might be permitted to offer a few observations upon the Bill now under consideration. If he alluded to the probability that he had devoted a larger share of time to the study of the proceedings of that House

    1789
    than was usual with those who were candidates for a seat in that Assembly, it was only in order that he might make the humble confession before the House, that it seemed to him that any amount of external familiarity which it was possible to gain with those proceedings did but deepen the diffidence with which a Member rose for the first time to ask the Speaker's attention, and greatly augmented his anxiety to claim the largest measure of that kind and indulgent consideration, which, he had observed, was never withheld from one who occupied his present position. He spoke to-day under much disadvantage, because he had to protest very strongly against a leading principle of the measure which was now under consideration, proposed by a right hon. Gentleman whose career he (Mr. Arnold) had followed with admiration and respect, and because he should have to speak against and deplore the action of the late Government in this matter, and the tacit acceptance by the present Administration of their proceedings. Therefore, he would be unable to claim the sympathy of either side of the House. This Bill was said to be one for the relief of distress in Ireland. He might, therefore, refer to that distress, which, somewhat tardily, attracted the attention of the late Government. The noble Lord said attention was called in February last to the fact that severe distress was impending in Ireland, and he (Mr. Arnold) believed he said it was likely the distress would continue until the ensuing autumn. But what was the case? The attention of Lord Beaconsfield's Government was called to the existence of distress in Ireland very early in last autumn, and there could be no question whatever—at any rate, no question in his (Mr. Arnold's) mind—that it would never have assumed such grave and serious proportions as it had if the Poor Law system of the two countries had nearer approached assimilation. One great grievance — which always seemed to him to be a legitimate grievance—was found in the notorious difference which existed between the Poor Laws of England and Ireland. When the attention of the late Government was first turned to the subject, there existed gross inequalities in the Poor Laws of the two countries. They dealt with the evil in a most limited and imperfect manner. The result was that
    1790
    in Ireland the tenant farmer, who last autumn was subject to a period of deplorable distress, had been placed in a painful predicament. If he sought relief, he could only obtain it in the workhouse; and if he obtained it there—he had it on the very best authority, that of Dr. Hancock—if he left his home during the period of distress, the chances were that when he returned he would find his home gone, pulled down, and himself without occupation. Why did the late Government not see this position before? and upon them he considered rested a grave responsibility. If the tenant could not pay the landlord, he lost the benefit of the Act of 1870, and, in consequence of that, hundreds of people were pressed by their creditors, and distress appeared under the very eyes of the responsible Government. Why did he, therefore, in his first address, make so serious a charge? He did it upon this ground, that in the month of February the noble Lord at the head of the late Government (the Earl of Beaconsfield) made a discovery, whereby a difference which unhappily existed between the Poor Laws of the two Islands would be to some extent obviated. He discovered that the law to which he (Mr. Arnold) had just alluded—a law which was deeply responsible for the distress—did not apply to the wife and children of the tenant of a quarter of an acre of ground. It was a fact that the Conservative Government made this discovery in February, four months after the distress had been endured. They found that the wife and children might be relieved out of the workhouse, although the husband might go without any assistance. That in itself condemned their own negligence, because there was no reason why that interpretation of the law should not have been acted upon in the previous September. The present Bill was a heritage from the late Government; and on that point he must say that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was somewhat magnanimous, because he refrained from fixing the responsibility for the measure upon Her Majesty's recent Advisers. It was called a Bill for Relief of Distress in Ireland. Having regard to the title of it, he (Mr. Arnold) imagined that it would to some extent relieve the tenants; but when he looked into the matter, he considered that it would be more properly described as

    1791
    a Bill to relieve the landowners. ["Oh, oh !"] No doubt, there was a great deal in the present position of the landowners of Ireland which must attract the attention of hon. Members, and also their sympathy; but it seemed to him (Mr. Arnold) that those whom it was chiefly desired to benefit were left almost entirely out of the Bill. He was ready at any time to consider the position of the landowners in any part of the country; but he could not do so without at the same time having in his mind a very active sympathy for all other classes, and it seemed to him that the whole of this £750,000, or, at any rate, the major part of it, would be appropriated to the landlords. In this course, was the Housefulfilling its duty as the Trustee of the Church Surplus Fund? He said not. In giving that large sum of money to be dealt with by the landlords, the question was whether the House was obtaining for the people of Ireland any corresponding advantage to that which was given to the landowner? He had to look at the only information he could obtain as an answer to the question. He held in his hand a document which was drawn up in reply to the inquiries of the late Government, and was issued upon the responsibility of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He desired to know if the late Government made no further demand for information from the Board of Works in Dublin than was contained in the Schedule before the House? During the Lancashire Famine, he (Mr. Arnold) was the sole resident officer of the Government in regard to the Public Works Acts, and it was his duty to draw up a Report of this kind. He might presume, therefore, to say that he had some knowledge of what was wanted; and all he could say was, that if the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was satisfied with this Schedule, he (Mr. Arnold) must admit that great economy had been exhibited on the part of the Treasury in obtaining information on the subject. If thePaper in question had been issued by the Board of Works in Ireland as giving all the information they could afford, and as containing all that the House should be made acquainted with, he must say it was a disgrace to that Department. He found in it no mention of the names of landowners, no mention of the work to be carried out, no mention of the date of the application for loans; and no refer-
    1792
    ence to the date upon which the loan was issued. It was, in fact, a slender and meagre document, and he thought a more worthless document had never been laid before Parliament. When they referred to the Paper, they would find that two categories of loans were mentioned—first, those to landlords; and, secondly, those to sanitary authorities at 1 percent. No doubt, sanitary improvements might be made in many towns and villages in Ireland; but here the faulty operation of the Bill became apparent, for it was found that the landlords, appreciating the loans at 1 per cent, had borrowed, or, at any rate, had applied for, £1,184,058; whilst the sanitary authorities, who had to watch over the public interests, had only asked for loans to the extent of £141,079. As he had before said, practically this was a measure for the relief of the landlords of Ireland, who were obtaining, by the Forms of the House, an advantage which he believed it was never intended they should have, or which the House, as Trustee of the Irish Church Surplus Fund, ought to sanction. Then, again, the House was entitled to know what was being done with this very large fund. He had taken the pains to look over documents which had been presented, and he found that, four months after the commencement of the applications, in the ease of no fewer than 18 loans, varying from £1,000 to £10,000, applied for by landowners, the amount issued at the date of the document was under £100. He repeated, that four months after the time of applying there were 18 cases wherein the amount issued was under £100! What ground did that give them for believing that the people of Ireland were obtaining the benefit which had been assumed. It was possible that the Department in Ireland would tell them that this incomprehensible delay was necessary; but when similar grants were made to Lancashire, no unnecessary delay in spending the money took place. At the time of the Lancashire distress, Lord Howard of Glossop applied for a loan of £3,500 to improve his estate; and he (Mr. Arnold) and Mr. Rawlinson, the engineer, who was acting with him, took care that there should not be any unnecessary delay. They required only such plans as could be prepared in a single day; within four days after the application the works were

    1793
    in operation, in a week more than 100 persons were engaged upon them, and in four months there were 218 distressed men employed under the loan. If the same course were pursued in Ireland as was adopted at Glossop there would be in proportion to the amount granted 67,600 men employed, representing a distressed population of considerably more than 250,000. There was a flimsy pretence that there was security in the measure which hadbeen already adopted, that the landowners should give the tenants the benefit of the loans; but there was no safeguard whatever for the tenant under the Bill, for the words in the 9th clause of the Act which was supposed to embody that security was not worth the paper on which it was printed. In this matter there was no safeguard whatever for the tenants, who ought to have been assured of the benefits that were believed to accrue to them. Did hon. Members suppose for a moment that it was safe for the tenant farmers of Ireland, any more than for those of any other country, to trust to the mercy of the landlords? The past experience even of England, where landlords were as generous and as noble and as high in character as any in the world, would not warrant them in believing that. In 1847 a considerable loan was advanced by Parliament for the purpose of drainage in this country; and he was going to tell the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary what the landlords of Yorkshire did in regard to that loan. He did not pretend to say that the landowners of Yorkshire were any worse or better than the landlords of any other part of England. He was rather inclined to think that they were better. What they did in regard to that loan, however, he was able to state on the authority of the Agricultural Commissioner of The Times, Mr. James Caird. He wrote in 1851 as follows:—
    "The Government loan is repayable in 22 annual instalments of 6½ per cent to repay principal and interest, and a few landlords charge their tenants 5 per cent of this annual sum, themselves paying 6½per cent. The tenants most frequently have to cart the tiles free of charge. And we are sorry to say that more than one instance exists in Yorkshire where the landlord charges his tenant 7½ per cent, thus putting into his pocket 1 per cent, besides receiving a presumably higher value for his land by an outlay to which he does not contribute a single farthing. This grasping conduct, so utterly at variance with the intention of the
    1794
    Legislature, is quite unworthy the character and position of a respectable landlord."
    If these things could be done in the green tree of England, why might they not expect similar occurrences in Ireland? When the House came to review the expenditure of the loan now proposed, he hoped they would be able to make a favourable comparison between it and the English loan to which he had referred. On the subject of labour, he must trouble the House to give its attention to a most extraordinary and a most wonderful Circular which appeared to have been put forth with the authority of the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Duke of Marlborough. He found that with regard to employment of distressed people a Circular was issued to the inspecting engineers. The words were as follows:—
    "His Grace thinks it important in such cases, in order to prevent abuses arising, the wages of the people employed on relief works should be fixed below the ordinary rate for agricultural wages in the district."
    He (Mr. Arnold) said that a more monstrous instruction was never issued. If such a Circular bad been issued by Her Majesty's Government with reference to the works with which be had the honour to be connected in Lancashire, it would have been utterly impossible for them to have accomplished their object with any degree of success. The Circular of the Duke of Marlborough had but one meaning, and that was pauperism. If they artificially fixed wages below the current rate of the district, they pauperized the men who accepted such wages; and while the Circular was, in his view, offensive to common sense and to political economy, it was still more offensive to the men who were and who ought to be employed in these works. He had alluded to the scandalously insufficient information which had been conveyed to the House with regard to the public works; and he must say that he had one more reason to add why, for his own part, he very much objected to that principle of the Bill which was involved in the advance of money to the landlords with no substantial conditions, and at the very low rate of 1 per cent. The noble Lord who was at the head of the late Government spent a very large portion of his life in the vocation of a prophet. [Murmurs] He (Mr. Arnold)

    1795
    had watched the noble Lord's career for years, and he was now going; to vindicate the noble Lord's ability in that particular role. He was going to allude on that occasion to a single instance where he was successful in his prophecy. He might select 99 cases out of 100 where the noble Lord had failed. He was bound to admit that in this particular instance in which the noble Lord was successful as a prophet he had taken remarkable care to make his prophecy come true. There was one way of being successful as a prophet—a sure and certain way—and it was the course which the noble Lord had adopted. Upon the discussion of the Irish Church Bill, Mr. Disraeli said:—
    "Another reason why I am greatly opposed to the confiscation of Church property is that when such property is disposed of it is always given to the landed proprietors."
    He (Mr. Arnold) was bound to say the noble Lord took remarkable care to make his prophecy come true; for it was his Government which was responsible for the bestowal of the first £750,000 in this direction, and the late Government was practically responsible for the £750,000 that was to follow. There was a proposition put before the House that this was a charitable measure. He could only find evidence to the effect that it was charitable with regard to the landowners, and he could not find provisions to insure that there should be a substantial benefit to the Irish people. He heartily concurred in another declaration of the noble Lord, when he said:—
    "Whatever is given for the maintenance of pauper lunatics, or for any object of that kind, will go—at least the bulk of it will go—to the proprietors of the soil, whatever hocus pocus may he put forward to the contrary; and, "said his Lordship," I entirely disapprove of that."
    So did he (Mr. Arnold); he made the strongest protest he could against it, for he had been and always would be the opponent of class legislation. He did not oppose the principle of the measure simply because the class which was to benefit by it was composed of landowners. He objected to any class legislation whatever. The present Parliament was, perhaps, in a peculiar manner called upon to reform the relations between landlord and tenant. He should be glad and proud to assist in that work. He had said out of the House, and he said again in the House, that any measure of reform
    1796
    in this direction was not worthy of consideration, unless it furnished advantage to the landlord's interest as well as to other interests connected with the soil. He would do his utmost to promote reforms and justice between landlord and tenant, between the landowners and the general population of the country; and he would do his utmost to bring about the time when the soil of those Islands should no longer be the patrimony of a narrow, and, as they had proved themselves in legislation to be, a self-interested class, but should be the heritage and the home of a more happy, a more united, and a more prosperous people.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, acknowledging, as I fully do, the ability which has marked the first address of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), and congratulating him upon the manner in which he has commanded, and justly commanded, the attention of the House, I think it my duty immediately to rise and protest with all the energy of which I am capable against the extraordinary doctrines which he has laid down. The hon. Member has thought himself justified in casting upon the late Government imputations which are not only utterly unfounded and unjust, but which, I venture to say, it is unworthy of him to have made. I want to know by what right the hon. Gentleman speaks of the policy of Her Majesty's late Government in this very difficult and delicate matter of the relief of distress in Ireland as having been inspired, as he would lead us to believe, by a desire to assist, not the people, but the landlords of Ireland? I say, without charging the hon. Member with anything in the nature of intentional misrepresentation, that his whole speech and his whole charge are founded upon a total misapprehension and inversion of the facts of the case. ["Withdraw !"1 Do I hear an hon. Member say "Withdraw?"—[Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: Yes. Withdraw!]—when I am rebutting an accusation levelled against us without the slightest foundation?
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for permitting me to say that I certainly made no accusation against Her Majesty's late Government that it was their intention to

    1797
    benefit the landlords? I said they had conspicuously failed to take proper security for the benefit of the people of Ireland in their legislation.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Well, I will not attempt to put into the mouth of the hon. Gentleman language which he says it was not his intention to use. I will accept the modified challenge which he now throws down to us, and I will ask the House to allow me, in a very few words, to treat this matter from the point of view from which we had to look at it from the beginning. The House must bear in mind that we had to act in circumstances very different from those which now present themselves to Parliament and the country. We had, in the first place, to ascertain what were the real facts of the case. Those facts are now known. We had, in the next place, to ascertain how far the distress of which we had been warned was really likely to extend. We had to ascertain how far the ordinary means of grappling with any distress that might occur would be sufficient for the purpose. And when we had satisfied ourselves that the ordinary means were not sufficient, it became our duty to consider in what manner we could provide for the mitigation and relief of the distress, so as to do the least permanent injury to the people of Ireland, including, and especially including, the great mass of the labouring population. Well, we are accused of having been negligent in this matter. Negligent? In what respect? Negligent in making inquiries? No. Let hon. Members remember how easy it is to get up exaggerated reports and make out cases for Government assistance, and what mischief arises if Government listens to the first tale that is told, and offers assistance which turns out afterwards not to have been required. My noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland personally gave the greatest and most anxious attention to this matter; and from the moment at which it became known that there was likely to be a failure in the ordinary crops of the year, and distress among the people, he took every possible means to ascertain by inquiry what the extent of that distress would be, and how far the ordinary means of relief would go. Well, the first duty of a Government, I apprehend, is to endeavour to make the ordinary law suffice for the maintenance
    1798
    of the people. We ought, in the first instance, to depend upon the proper operation of the system of poor relief; and we therefore had to inquire how far the system of poor relief established in Ireland, not by ourselves, but by Parliament in years gone by, was likely to be sufficient. But we very soon had our attention called to the fact that there were deficiencies in that system which would render it necessary for us to take extraordinary precautions, and to give to the Poor Law Guardians power to act beyond those which the law had conferred upon them. It was, however, necessary in this case to proceed with caution, for out of what funds were Poor Law Guardians to administer relief to such as might apply for it? Obviously, out of the rates of the district. But who were the ratepayers of the district? Why, many of them were persons who would themselves be in a position of considerable poverty and straitened circumstances, and who would themselves be suffering from the very causes which made it necessary that there should be a strict, not to say sceptical, examination of all statements that might tend to throw extraordinary demands upon the poor ratepayers. We were prepared to encounter the fact that there would be occasion for such extraordinary relief; and while we did not encourage any undue and hasty dependence upon extraneous assistance, we prepared from the first to recommend the Guardians of Unions to administer relief upon the freest possible principles, and we determined that we would give them our support, even though it should be necessary for us to do so without the previous consent of Parliament. Then came this important question. When you found that in a particular district there was likely to be great distress, and that the people would be in a position in which they would require more than ordinary assistance if they were to maintain life, you had to consider where they were to obtain the means of getting subsistence. Well, we placed the Poor Law as far as we could out of consideration, and we asked— How are these people to be supported when it comes to an extremity? By direct grants of food, or money from some central fund? or are they to be encouraged to obtain employment and earn for themselves the means of subsistence?

    1799
    Well, I apprehend that the hon. Member for Salford would be one of the last men in this House to say, when you have to choose between alternative modes of relieving distress, choose the direct distribution of alms. I apprehend he would say that it was far better for the future welfare and character of the people of Ireland that, whenever it was possible to do so, they should be supported by a system under which they would be able to obtain subsistence in return for work. Well; but then where was the employment to be found? Obviously, that depends, to a considerable extent, on the seasons of the year. In certain seasons employment ought to be found in agricultural work. But we were looking at a time when there would be little ordinary agricultural work to be done, and we had to consider where would be found the employment which should stand in its place. Well, now, what has been the course of matters in Ireland for a considerable time, and in other parts of the country also? It has been very much the habit in certain parts of the country for employment to be provided by the landowners of the district employing the people upon works of a remunerative character. Accordingly, we hoped that, in seasons when the people were in want of employment, employment would be provided by the landlords. But this fact came immediately before us—that the very time when there was most need for additional employment was the time when landlords had the least ability for giving employment. I do not wish to raise any question of a controversial character, or that could give rise to acrimonious feelings; but everyone knows perfectly well that during the last autumn and winter the position of the landlords in Ireland was one of very considerable difficulty and embarrassment; and, so far from their being able to give extraordinary assistance by way of employment, they were not able to give even the ordinary assistance which they had been in the habit of rendering. I regret exceedingly the absence from this Parliament of several of my hon. Friends who were Members of the late Parliament, and whose names I am sure are held in honour even among those who differ from them in politics. Among those Sir Arthur Guinness and Mr. King-Harman devoted themselves to the work, and did
    1800
    all they possibly could to meet the exigencies of the time by the employment of labour and by means of personal exertion which reflects the highest credit upon them. But there were a large number of landowners who were not in a position to make similar exertions without assistance. Well, we then began to inquire how far the ordinary advances made by the State in ordinary years would meet the exigencies of the case. We found, in these circumstances, great slackness in applying for the ordinary advances; and, when the attention of the Treasury was directed by the Lord Lieutenant to the subject, we at once determined to do all that we could in order to facilitate the taking up of those advances, so that they might give employment to the people. We had, in the first instance, to deal with the regulations of the Board of Works in Ireland, and to see that the necessary provisions were made, and greater facilities were then given in the month of September for taking up the loans on the ordinary terms. But this failed to accomplish our object; and in the month of January we were informed by the Lord Lieutenant that the steps for affording relief to the people which we had taken were insufficient, as the landlords did not come forward to apply for the advances, and that if we desired to give employment to a people who were on the verge of starvation we must adopt some other measures. What other measures? Either the step of lowering the terms on which advances were to be made to the landlords, or resorting to some other mode of finding the necessary employment. In these circumstances we considered that the fairest and wisest way of securing immediate employment for the people was to encourage the landlords to take up those loans; and we therefore took the step which has been so severely commented upon by the hon. Gentleman of making advances to the landlords. We offered to lend money to the landlords at little more than a nominal rate of interest for the purpose, not of assisting the landlords, but of assisting the people who would be employed by the landlords. ["No !"] Cannot, I would ask, the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen give us credit for having that idea and intention in our minds? Are hon. Members opposite so determined to find

    1801
    us in the wrong that they can see nothing but a desire to assist the landlords in a step which we took not at all to benefit them, but simply to do what seemed to us to be best to provide work for the people? With regard to the imputation that our object was to assist the landlords, such an idea never entered into our heads until it was put into them by the discussions in this House.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: I beg again to say that I cast no imputation on the motives which actuated the right hon. Gentleman or the Government of which he was a Member. My statements were plain and straightforward.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Then I throw aside, as I am most happy to do, any question of imputation as to motives, and I shall now address myself to another kind of question, on which I freely admit it is open to hon. Gentlemen very fairly to take opposite views. If you had to consider what was the best way of getting people employed, were you better advised in doing it through these advances to the landlords, or should you have undertaken some other system? If some other system, what should that system have been? A favourite idea, I believe, is that the necessary aid should be afforded through the medium of something in the nature of public works. That is, I admit, an opinion which is very fairly arguable; but after having considered the question many and many times, and procured all the information we could get, we came to the conclusion, which I am still prepared to support, that to advance money to the landlords was a better mode of carrying out the object which we had in view than advances would be made for the purpose of public works. First, there was the extreme difficulty of settling what kind of public works there should be. We did, indeed, to a certain extent, introduce what may be called public works, because we made advances in connection with sanitary measures and encouraged presentments which are also more or less in the nature of public works. But we had to bear in mind the very great danger which, both in theory and by experience, we knew attaches to a system of public works. Nothing can be more likely to demoralize a people than by employing them on public works. In theory that is so, and by experience
    1802
    in Ireland that was so. We were guided by the experience which was acquired by the great famine of 1847, when the system of public works was tried and pushed to a great extent. Large sums were expended in Ireland, and, at the same time, the system utterly failed in producing relief to the people, and it demoralized the masses. People neglected their occupations because they were tempted to go into the public works; and if they went there, it was a question whether they could be made to do a fair day's work for their money. Public works were then instituted, not for the sake of the works themselves, but for the purpose of providing employment for the people; and it became a matter of impossibility to compel people who were employed in certain work to do a fair day's work, the object being to keep the people alive. If the hon. Gentleman is acquainted, as no doubt he is, with Sir Charles Trevelyan's accounts of those times, he will be aware of instance after instance in which, when public works were going on, people came down, neglecting everything else, to the public works, and spent their time in doing nothing; and it being impossible to refuse them money, the overseers or Inspectors found it impossible either to call upon them to do work they were physically incapable of doing, or refuse them the means of support. A second and more serious evil was that it drew the people off from that which it was their duty to attend to. I mean the cultivation of the land. Well, last winter you had to endeavour to keep the people from suffering owing to the scarcity of the previous autumn, and you had to look forward to something more fearful, something of larger dimensions than the distress than prevailing. You had to look forward to the misery and ruin that might have been occasioned this year if proper attention had not been paid to the preparation of the ground for the potato and other crops. Evidence was given the other day that in the present year a greater breadth of potatoes had been sown, and greater breadths of crops generally, and our policy was this —we did not adopt the system of taking a large number of people off the cultivation of the land; but, on the contrary, we kept them there, and encouraged them to apply themselves to it.

    1803
    The hon. Member spoke with a degree of bitterness which I was surpised to hear in regard to the Duke of Marlborough's Circular, that the wages paid should be somewhat below the usual agricultural wages. He thought they would be pauperizing them. I do not know where to draw the line in regard to pauperizing; but the great object of the regulation was to prevent people giving up the necessary work of agricultural operations by giving them an incentive to cultivate their own land, and by the result we cannot undertake to say that we may not have made mistakes in this matter. We were acting, to a great extent, tentatively; we were making experiments; we wanted to know how far these things were true; and how far this or that measure would meet the difficulties of the case. You say now, looking at the matter from a different point of view—"Oh! you ought to have done this or that." How should we have known how these things should have been done except by trying what the effect of this or the other would have been? You must bear in mind that you are criticizing our proceedings after they have taken place; that we were pioneers in a matter which now opens to your view. But, even so, I am prepared to say, as to the great broad lines of our policy, that if we had to do the same thing over again, I would do exactly as we have done. Observations have been made in the course of the discussion as to the funds from which the loans have been made, and that is, no doubt, a question for very serious consideration. We felt that it was a desirable and necessary thing that for the sake of keeping the people alive in Ireland, rather than letting them suffer the worst pangs of destitution, some advances should be made. We thought it would be a matter of very serious consideration whether, on that account, we ought to depart from principles laid down as a general rule for advances to be made throughout the Kingdom. The advances were to be made at an exceptionally, and very exceptionally, low rate of interest on account of the distress in Ireland. You would have to consider whether the same thing would not have to be done throughout the United Kingdom; whether the people of England or Scotland, or any other part of Her Majesty's
    1804
    Dominions—at any rate, any other part of the United Kingdom—would not have an equal claim to advances; and we know that although the distress in certain parts of Ireland was exceptionally great, we know also that parts of England and Scotland were in great distress, and advances have had to be made there; but then we were met by this—and it was urged more from Ireland than from any other part of the Kingdom—"Do not allow these difficulties to stand in your way. Whatever may be your difficulty with regard to the Kingdom generally, you need not be troubled with that difficulty with regard to us, for we have a fund, which is an Irish fund, and no better use can be made of it than by giving employment to the starving people of Ireland." There seemed to us to be a great force in that argument. We did think it was not an improper thing to apply that fund, not at a permanent expenditure, but for this exceptional purpose. We thought that that was a proposal to make; and, in the first instance, we supposed and hoped that a much smaller amount would be sufficient to meet the exigencies of the case, and we proposed, hoping that it would be sufficient, to recommend an advance of £750,000 out of that fund for this purpose. Then came the question, how were we to go on and get the work done which was necessary to employ the people? It was necessary, in order to employ the people, that we should invite persons to come forward and take up this money and apply it in the employment of labour. There were the landlords, there were the Unions, there were the baronial sessions all coming forward—invited to come forward and make applications. It was difficult for us to say up to the last moment how far these applications might go. They might fall short of the amount we contemplated having to expend; or, on the other hand, they might largely exceed it—as a matter of fact, they did largely exceed it; and I apprehend that the Bill now brought forward is brought forward on account of the feeling of the Board of Treasury and the Irish Government that if these applications are to be met it will be necessary that some further funds should be provided, and they take the line of following the principles we laid down, and are asking a larger sum from the Irish Church Surplus Fund for that

    1805
    purpose. Of course, the Bill is the Bill of Her Majesty's Government; but I frankly admit that in this matter Her Majesty's Government are following the lead, and, to a great extent, are obliged to follow the lead, which was given by the late Government. I am perfectly ready, on behalf of my late Colleagues and myself, to accept that responsibility. It is perfectly open to the present Government to throw over as regards the future what was done. They have not done so, and I thank them for it. I think they have taken the right step. [Laughter] I do not know why that observation should call for laughter. I acknowledge I claim that this is a measure founded upon the course which we adopted, and we adopted that course on grounds which I have endeavoured to explain to the House. Of course, it is not for me to say that mistakes may or may not have been made; and I do trust that the House, having listened to what I have attempted to say, will do us the justice to admit that in the course we took we were animated by no desire but the single-minded desire to do that which, in our consciences, we believe to be best for the people of Ireland, and that it was no negligence on our part that led to those matters which had been complained of, but the circumstances with which we had to grapple—circumstances wholly different we say from those to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and to which he naturally refers, bearing in mind the honourable part he took in the transactions of the time, but which were wholly different circumstances from those which existed in Lancashire during the Cotton Famine. Last March I endeavoured to show in what particulars there was a difference. I do not desire to revive those controversies. I rose for the sake of protesting against what, if I had said nothing, might have been inferred regarding the character of our conduct; and I hope I have cleared myself and my Colleagues.
    MR. GRAYsaid, the question before the House was the distress in Ireland, and it might be as well to remind the House what the actual condition of affairs in Ireland was at that moment. There were some 500,000 persons at least at that moment in Ireland dependent for their means of subsistence, from day to day, upon charitable organizations. Those persons received a
    1806
    weekly dole of Indian meal, sufficient, mostly, to give them one meal each per day of that kind of sustenance which in England would scarcely be given to a gentleman's cat. On a recent occasion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) said he thanked God that no person had died of famine in Ireland. If that were the fact he, too, thanked God; but he was inclined to doubt whether many persons had not died of famine in Ireland. Persons might die of famine without having been found by a Coroner's Jury to have died of starvation. Many diseases were produced by famine—such as pleurisy, and many others—and a man might be returned as having died of one of those diseases when he had actually died of privation of food. But although he knew, as well, possibly, as any person in the House, the kindly disposition of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he was inclined, when he read that declaration of his, to ask him with what motive he made it. Did he say, on the part of the Government, "Thank God, we, the Government, have saved the people of Ireland from starvation?" If so, was there any justification for his saying it? If people had not died of starvation, to whom was that due? Was it due to the late Government? He feared no person could say it was. The fact was that a number of charitable organizations—one founded by her Grace the Duchess of Marlborough, to whom every credit was due; another had been instituted in the Mansion House; another had been instituted by the Land League; a fourth was under the auspices of The New York Herald; and a smaller one under the Philadelphia Committee—these had collected between them £400,000 at least, and it was owing to these charitable organizations that the people had been preserved from starvation. It certainly was not owing to anything that had been done by the late Government, or to anything that the present Government had so far done, or proposed to do. Let that be distinctly understood. They were now in this position—that these charitable organizations had received large sums, and having expended them, except any small residuum that might be left, had, up to this, kept the people from starvation without any thanks to the Govern-

    1807
    ment, but in spite of the Government. Now these charitable funds had come to a close. The Mansion House Committee had received £170,000, and there was only about £18,000 left. That was about a fortnight's supply. The Land League Fund was in somewhat the same condition. There was very little left. Of the Duchess of Marlborough's Fund there was £14,000 left. They were getting money in hundreds, and spending it in thousands. The position they had to face was this—that the funds of these charitable organizations, which up to this had done the duty which should have been discharged by the Government, and which it was the fundamental and primary duty of any Government to discharge—to keep the people alive—were about to fail, and the whole responsibility must be thrown on the Government. That was the position of affairs, and within a fortnight or three weeks there would be 500,000 persons thrown upon some other organization—persons who had been supported between February and this by voluntary charitable organizations. Under these circumstances, he would not dare to take upon himself the responsibility of impeding the Government proposal in the slightest degree. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had distinctly recognized his responsibility in the matter. He had distinctly declared in that House that the Government were prepared to face that responsibility, and that he was prepared to keep the people from absolute destitution, and from everything approaching to famine; and being assured of that, when the Government brought a measure forward, he— whatever the measure might be—was prepared to vote "Aye." At the same time, he was bound to say that he did not see anything in the Bill itself adequate to meet the necessities of the case. The Relief Bill of the late Government gave to the Government power to lend to the Poor Law Guardians money which they might spend for the purpose of out-door relief. Now, matters having reached the present pass, it appeared to him that the only efficient way of meeting the distress between now and the harvest was to give outdoor relief, and he believed that that was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman himself. So far as the relief works were concerned, or any devices of that
    1808
    nature, it was too late to consider them-Last year was the time to consider them-Remember, the late Government had been warned, not only by the public Press, but in that House. The Representatives from Ireland gave most solemn warning, this time 12 months, that famine was impending. They were laughed at. That was the time to make adequate preparation by public works; but that time had now passed. All they could do now was to feed the people from hand to mouth. If they could do that, well and good. But, so far as the proposals in the Bill were concerned, they were utterly inadequate to meet the present distress in Ireland. They gave advances to landlords on certain terms. He did not discuss whether they were fair or unfair. Individually, he considered them unfairly advantageous to the landlords. But the question was, whether they were going to meet the present distress? He said they were not, because the money would not be expended for many months—some not till next year. They expected that the immediate distress would be over when the harvest came—namely, in six weeks or two months. How much of the £1,500,000 was going to be expended between now and then? Very little. There was one proposal in the Bill on which he looked with great approval; that was the £30,000 for fishery piers. What was the history of the proposal? The Canadian Government, which had shown far more generosity than the late Government, gave a grant of £20,000, without any conditions, towards the distress in Ireland. That fund was intrusted to the late Colonial Secretary, who proposed that a Joint Committee, comprising three members of the Mansion House Committee and three members of the Duchess of Marlborough's Committee, should administer it; but he imposed the condition that it should be expended in reproductive works. The Committee decided to give £10,000 for the fishery piers, on condition that the Government would advance three times that amount to the same object, and that the works should be commenced in three months from the date of the allocation of the money. He wished to know whether that portion of the £30,000 would be expended within three months as from the 31st of May? because, if not, the £10,000 from the

    1809
    Canadian Government would not be available From his experience of the Board of Works, his fear was lest the whole sum might be lost. If the money were to be spent in sufficient time to utilize the grant, he believed that that would be found to be the only portion of the Bill which was worthy of a moment's consideration. He very much regretted that many of the works which had been presented for by local bodies, who had full knowledge with respect to their different districts, had been refused by that Board. He had ventured to make these few observations to the House as one who, being connected with one of the charitable organizations, dare not take it upon himself to interfere with any proposal made on the authority of Her Majesty's Government to relieve distress in Ireland. At the same time, he strongly concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), whose admirable speech would be received with much satisfaction and appreciation throughout Ireland. The proposals of the Administration were utterly inadequate, and he foresaw the greatest dangers impending. The Poor Law organization would not afford sufficient relief for distress, and there would be terrible troubles and sufferings ahead during the next six weeks or two months. Still, the Members of the Government had taken upon themselves the responsibility in this matter, and upon them the results of that responsibility would rest.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, that the responsibility for the advance of the £1,500,000 provided by the Bill rested with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was quite right in accepting for that advance; but he did not explain how it was that the amount of the advances to be made had risen from £750,000 to £1,500,000. The expenditure of the former sum was sanctioned by the late Government; but the other £750,000 was one of the promises entered into by the Irish Board of Works during the late Election, and would have received the sanction of Parliament. That was an utterly unconstitutional proceeding, and it was one of which the Irish Members had a special right to complain, because it was to come out of a Fund on which they had hoped to rely for aid in converting a large portion of the small holders in Ireland into peasant pro-
    1810
    prietors. He did not think the House ought to sanction these advances because they had been promised by the permanent officials. In order to prevent these advances they had no need to break any positive promises. All they had to do was to insist on the observance of proper and stringent rules for the proper application of the money. Many of the landlords who had obtained advances were, he believed, not in a position to lay them out in a proper manner, and they ought not to be allowed to spend them improperly or for purposes other than those sanctioned by Parliament. They ought also to take care that no money granted to relieve distress was expended after the distress had ceased to exist. No adequate explanation had been given as to why double the sum voted in the House had been promised to landlords and sanitary boards in Ireland. He did not object to the advance of money to landlords as a means to the relief of distress; but he believed, as these advances had been appropriated, only a small portion had been devoted, or would be devoted, to the relief of distress.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, interposing, stated that up to the 31st of May the money issued amounted to £268,000 or £259,000.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, his argument that the whole of this £1,500,000 would not go to the relief of the distress was not sensibly affected by what the right hon. Gentleman had just stated. As to the fishery portion of the Bill, he fully endorsed what had been said by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gray). He looked upon the money there involved as being money extremely well spent; but as to that part of the measure which related to baronial railways, he could only say that he thought the baronies were bad bodies, and that they ought to be abolished. His principal desire was to impress upon the Government that, amidst the various plans and schemes that might be suggested, there was an imperative necessity that they should do something practical without delay.
    MR. PARNELLmoved the adjournment of the debate, which it was manifest could not at present be brought to a close. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland was anxious to pass the fishery portions of the Bill, he could embody them in a

    1811
    separate measure, and it would then be possible to get on.
    Motion agreed, to.
    Debate adjourned, till this day.
    The House suspended its Sitting at ten minutes to Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  ANIMAL VACCINATION.—RESOLUTION.
  DR. CAMERONrose to call attention to the practice of Animal Vaccination; and to move—
  "That as cow-pock lymph direct from the calf, commonly known as animal vaccine, is of at least equal value as a prophylactic against smallpox with the ordinary humanised lymph, and as its use affords an absolute guarantee against the propagation of those human diseases occasionally invaccinated with humanised lymph, this House is of opinion that to meet the objections to vaccination founded on the possible communication of other disease through that operation, a supply of animal vaccine should be provided by the National Vaccine Establishment for the use of those who prefer it to the ordinary lymph."
  The hon. Gentleman said, that in moving his Resolution he had no intention whatever of raising the question of compulsory vaccination. Of course, it was not in his power to prevent the question being raised; but, so far as vaccination was concerned, he was convinced that compulsion as at present applied was productive of much good. He said this after a careful examination of the whole subject, and after it had been decided by the experience of almost every country in Europe; so that what he proposed in no way interfered with the present law on the subject, but suggested simply an improvement on that law which he believed would tend very much to the benefit of the community. The object of the Resolution which he proposed was to do away with rational objections which might be raised against vaccination; and in making use of this term "rational objections," he did not
  1812
  wish to use an offensive term as applied to the various other objections, with which he had no sympathy. Anti-vac-cinators might be divided into several categories. There were a number of hon. Gentlemen who objected to compulsory vaccination on the ground that compulsion was an infringement of the liberty of the subject. He believed the representatives of this belief intended to oppose his Resolution. Now, he could not very well conceive their attitude on this occasion, for it seemed if they were consistently of opinion that the liberty of the subject should be respected, they would see that it was a step in the direction of increased liberty of the subject to afford to those who preferred it the option proposed in his Resolution. There was another class who objected on religious grounds. They conceived that it was a violation of the laws of God to attempt to prevent small-pox by vaccination. This section was a very noisy one; but he believed it was a very small section, and that they found strength entirely in the unwise system of multiplying penalties for refusal to vaccinate, which placed it in the power of any person to become a martyr at a very trifling expense to himself. But, besides those objectors to vaccination, there was a very important class whose objections to the practice were specific and practical. The objections they raised were consistent with the retention of our present vaccination laws. As it was they, in a great majority of cases, complied with the law. If their objections were removed—as they would be if his Motion were carried into effect —they would comply with the law gladly; but, as it was, they complied with it unwillingly, grudgingly, and to the smallest extent. They naturally sympathized with those persons who refused to comply with the law altogether, and gave them passive support. The fact that few persons were punished was no criterion of the number of persons who obeyed the law because it was the law, but who did so reluctantly, yet would obey it gladly if their objections were removed. Small-pox was a zymotic disease, and, as a general rule, occurred only once in the course of a person's life. However, that rule was by no means invariable; but in 107 years of the experience of the London small-pox hospitals, no single case was recorded

  1813
  within which a person was twice treated for small-pox within their walls. The small-pox germ was the cause of a very peculiar infection. Received into the system in the ordinary way, it gave rise to a disease of extraordinary malignity, the fatality in which varied from 1 in 3 to 1 in 6 or 7; but if introduced into the system through a puncture of the skin it gave rise to a disease of extraordinary mildness, the fatality of which was only 1 in 300. That was first observed in the East, and advantage was taken of it to protect the population by inoculation. The practice was introduced into this country through the writings of Lady Mary Wortley Montague, and between 1750 and the end of the 18th century it very largely prevailed. But there was another peculiarity of this infection— that although it might give rise to very trifling injury to the individual, it detained its power in injuring the community and spreading disease. Hence, whatever might be the gain to the individual by inoculation, the result was a loss to society, for the mortality was found to gain from 1 in 14 to 1 in 10. Then came Jenner's discovery, that immunity could be equally well secured by the introduction into the system of the cow-pox, which gave rise to the most trifling inconvenience, and which was attended with no danger whatever. In 1853, after watching closely the vaccination experiments in other countries, vaccination was made compulsory also in this country. His hon. Friend who was about to move an Amendment to his Resolution objected altogether to compulsory vaccination. But he (Dr. Cameron) did not; and he should be sorry to see compulsory vaccination done away with, in the same way as he should be sorry to see compulsory education done away with. It appeared to him to have been conclusively proved that the experience of all countries told them that the introduction of anything like universal vaccination had an enormously diminishing effect upon the number of small-pox cases. It appeared from statistical researches that the death-rate from small-pox was hardly one-fortieth according to the population what it was in the days preceding the practice of vaccination. Certainly it must be admitted that the death-rate in other diseases had been greatly diminished; but, making every deduction for that, he had arrived at the conclusion there was no
  1814
  possibility of disputing, as the result of the experience of all countries, the death-rate from small-pox had decreased to a twentieth or, at the outside, a fifteenth of what it was previously. Some argued that the mortality had merely been transferred; but the most elaborate statistics had been collected which refuted those assertions. They were also told all sorts of evil followed the practice of vaccination; but, without waiting to discuss that, he ventured to say that the deaths from small-pox did not form the worst part of the evils that disease inflicted upon society, because previous to vaccination being introduced it was a matter of notoriety that half the blind persons in the institutions for the blind had become blind from small-pox. In the early days of its introduction very absurd objections had been raised. Some persons actually said that the practice would induce a physical resemblance in the persons vaccinated to the cattle from which the lymph came. One of the objections at the present moment which most widely operated against the practice of vaccination was that it inflicted upon humanity other loathsome diseases. They heard of the possibility of producing syphilitic diseases from vaccination; but he had no hesitation in saying that such an occurrence was extremely rare, so rare that it was scarcely an exaggeration to say that a child incurred greater danger in the streets on its way to the vaccination station than it did] from the vaccination itself. For many years the possibility of such a thing was | altogether denied. In 1857 Mr. Simon published a most elaborate Paper on the subject, in which he gathered the testimony of 500 medical men, among whom, with the exception of one or two instances given by Dr. Jonathan Hutche-son, not one was to be found who had met with an instance of the kind in his experience. Mr. Simon also published Reports to the effect that abroad lymph taken from persons suffering from all kinds of diseases had been used in vaccination; but the only result produced was cow-pox. In France, however, Dr. Du. Paul, Professor of the Faculty of Medicine, who took an opposite view of the subject, had published as the result of a single year's experience in France, notes of some 160 cases of post-vaccinal syphilis occurring in four or five groups which had been brought under his observation, and a few years later an out-

  1815
  break of post-vaccinal syphilis had been brought before the Royal Medical and Surgical Society by Mr. Jonathan Hutcheson. The facts in this case, and those elicited in the discussion which followed on it, convinced even the Medical Department of the Local Government Board of the possibility of the invagination of syphilitic disease. Admitting the possibility of such a catastrophe occurring, he said that no precaution which could be taken in the collection of humanized lymph would be a perfect guarantee against the possibility of communicating that disease. But animal vaccine—that was, vaccine taken direct from the calf — afforded an absolute guarantee against it; and the Local Government Board was, he thought, bound to supply to those who liked it that lymph of which they could insure the thorough purity. No one more readily recognized than he did that those connected with the Department must ! wish to give to the public the very best lymph in their power; but it was a scientific fact that with lymph taken direct from the calf no such accident could occur as was possible with humanized lymph. He therefore merely proposed that the Government should set up an experimental station or stations in London or elsewhere. He did not desire to overturn anything, but only to proceed experimentally. His proposal would work concurrently with the present system. At the experimental station persons could be vaccinated direct from the calf, and a supply of calf lymph could be collected there and sent thence through the country to those who might require it. The British Medical Association, embracing an Association of 9,000 men in this country, went further, and recommended that the Government should collect and supply for distribution animal lymph and nothing else. There could be no doubt that a large section of the Medical Profession, and especially of the Medical Profession abroad, believed that lymph used for vaccination had deteriorated, and that the results obtained from vaccination now were nothing comparable to what they were in early days in consequence of repeated transmission. Then there was a belief entertained by the majority of the Profession in this country that inoculating cattle with the small-pox produced cow-pox; but that theory was pronounced to be fallacious
  1816
  by many eminent Continental writers, and by the Commissions instituted to inquire into the subject in Belgium and Lyons; and when it was proved that there were two stocks of lymph open to those engaged in vaccination, it was the duty of the Department that enacted public vaccination to supply the public with the article about whose origin and nature there could be no dispute. In 1869 a Public Institution for the supply of animal vaccine was established in Belgium, whence the system spread to Holland, Switzerland, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia. At Bombay, the option of using animal vaccine was provided for by law, and at Bengal a Bill had been introduced for a similar purpose; so that at the present moment it might be safely said that Great Britain was the most backward of any civilized country in the world with regard to this question. Dr. Seaton, in 1869, visited various places abroad for the purpose of inquiring into the question; but he went out prepossessed and committed against the theories which which led the Belgian Government to to adopt animal vaccination, and he reported that it was impossible to keep up a constant supply, and that they were always in danger of running short. Had that danger been a real one it would have been fatal to his proposal; but his answer was that during the 11 years that had passed since Dr. Seaton's Report the State Institution in Belgium had kept up a constant supply from calf to calf without a single failure. But the House was only concerned with practical results, and he would ask them to listen to some. In 1863, when the small-pox epidemic broke out in London, 6 per cent of those of the best vaccinated classes — those bearing four or more cicatrices — who took small - pox died. At Brussels 10,000 were vaccinated with animal lymph from 1865 to 1870, and they all passed through the epidemic of small-pox, not only without a single death, but without one being reported as having been attacked by the disease. In America, where animal lymph had been applied, there was not a single case in which the disease appeared after a successful vaccination. In the early days of vaccination we had precisely the same results. In France, out of 2,671,000 properly vaccinated, there were only seven that afterwards took the small-pox, so that the experience which had been established in connection with animal

  1817
  lymph entirely coincided with the experience of the earliest practitioners of vaccination. With such results as those, they could at least afford facilities for animal vaccination without any fear that the matter would be placed in a worse position, and with great hopes that the country would be benefited by the change. There was at present no institution for the cultivation of calf lymph in this country. When he had been asked where animal lymph might be obtained he told the inquirers it might be obtained at Brussels, and they uniformly preferred to write to Brussels for it. At the present moment this calf lymph was utterly out of the reach of even well-informed medical practitioners. Instead of parents being punished for refusing to allow their children to be vaccinated in the ordinary manner, they should be persuaded to allow them to be vaccinated from the calf, and in most cases it would be found that the fears of the parents which led them to object to vaccination would vanish. No single case had been discovered where any serious disease had been engrafted as the result of vaccination from the animal. Some trifling cases had arisen, but only trifling. In Italy there was a system of snipping off the vasicle and keeping it in a dry condition, and as the result of not preserving the vaccine properly there was an outbreak of blood poisoning; but that might have occurred in virtue of the same carelessness if ordinary humanized lymph had been employed. A scarcity of lymph could never arise where there was vaccine lymph procurable; and whenever there was a full supply of animal vaccine a great amount of re-vaccination occurred abroad. While in this country only one in 50 of the number of persons vaccinated at public stations were re-vaccinated, in Holland two-fifths, and in Brussels one-half, were re-vaccinated. He had been told that his proposition would not satisfy a single anti-vaccinator; but that was not his experience. His idea was that a good deal of the opposition against compulsory vaccination had arisen from the improper spirit in which the law was administered. One official had argued against the absurdity of allowing the public any option in the matter, remarking that it was the duty of the State to find out what was best, and insist on its adoption. He protested
  1818
  against an exceptional law being administered in such a spirit, and held that the authorities should do more in the way of advising anti-vaccinators in a kindly spirit than in prosecutions. Queen Victoria, in getting re-vaccinated, did not procure the lymph from the national establishment, but from Brussels, and large numbers would become re-vaccinated again were there the opportunity to obtain animal vaccine. Outside official circles this proposal had received general endorsement. The Medical Press was unanimous in its opinion on the subject, and one of the papers had advocated the conversion of Her Majesty's stud at Hampton Court into a vaccine establishment. It might be said that he raised the question of animal vaccination as against "arm-to-arm" vaccination; but that was an entirely false issue. In Belgium and elsewhere animal vaccination went on side by side with "arm-to-arm" vaccination. Every difficulty could be overcome in establishing the new system in three weeks, and an experienced man could with ease be got from abroad to superintend the experimental stations. He hoped they should not be told that the Vaccination Department were making inquiries; for unless something was done to meet the rational objections of persons who objected to the present system, a more determined feeling would be raised against the law.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "as cowpock lymph direct from the calf, commonly known as animal vaccine, is of at least equal value as a prophylactic against smallpox with the ordinary humanised lymph, and as its use affords an absolute guarantee against the propagation of those human diseases occasionally invaccinated with humanised lymph, this House is of opinion that to meet the objections to vaccination founded on the possible communication of other disease through that operation, a supply of animal vaccine should be provided by the National Vaccine Establishment for the use of those who prefer it to the ordinary lymph,"— (Dr. Cameron,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR: Sir, I am quite sure that I shall take the House unanimously with me in the first proposition

  1819
  that I shall venture to lay down, and that is, that the less the State interferes with the home management of the various portions of the community, in regard to their habits, manners, and customs, the better both for the State and the people; and that, above all things, it is not desirable, unless under some very strong necessity, that the State should interfere— that, for instance, the fashionable doctrine of medical men for the time being should by compulsion be thrust upon an unwilling community. The opposite view of legislation has taken rather rapid strides of late years; and paternal legislation, which has been called grand-maternal legislation, has spread to an extent which 50 years ago would have been repudiated by all classes of the community. In other words, the danger we have to meet at the present time is that which was threatened by political writers in the past, who told us that one danger in our progress towards Democracy would be that we might change the tyranny of the few to the tyranny of the many. On this particular question that we are discussing to-night, Sir Robert Peel—the late Sir Robert Peel —thus gave expression to the same opinion. When someone proposed to make vaccination compulsory, as it is in some despotic countries, he objected, remarking that—
  "Such a proceeding would be so opposite to the mental habits of the British people and the freedom of opinion in which they rightly gloried, that he would he no party to such compulsion."
  The present Prime Minister, writing the other day upon the same subject, said—
  "I view with misgiving all now aggression upon private liberty, unless upon a clear and certain proof of necessity, and I keep my mind open upon the question whether such proof has or has not been supplied in the matter of vaccination."
  Nor is the wrong done to the individual by this aggression upon the right of personal liberty the only danger we have to incur. When too much stress is put by the State upon individual rights there is liable to be a very sudden and strong re-action against it. The existence of this feeling has been shown upon this very question lately in Canada. The Canadians appear to have rather less inclination to such infractions of individual liberty; and in Montreal, where it was proposed to enact a law of compulsory vaccination, the people rose 10,000
  1820
  strong, they produced a great riot and disturbance, they threatened the destruction of the Town Hall, and to what extent they might have gone I know not had not the demand for compulsory vaccination been there and then withdrawn, and no more heard of it up to the present time. I maintain that there is no ground for compulsory vaccination; and I thank my hon. Friend for having brought the matter before the House, and, therefore, before the country. I am so strongly convinced of the wrongfulness of compulsory vaccination, that I feel perfectly sure it can continue but a very short time after the facts have been communicated to the House and to the country. There has been a sort of conspiracy of silence, especially among the Press upon this subject. The great London daily Press, as conservers of public morality, occasionally think it their duty to take a stand upon some such matter as this, and to infer that so great would be the danger of spreading popular delusions, as they term it, in regard to such matters, that they deny access to their columns of any discussion upon the matter. We have, therefore, the orthodox theories of the great daily Press of the country on one side; and on the other the special organs of the anti-vaccinators. It is evident that in such a condition of things there is no scientific discussion of the question whatever. The most monstrous facts are asserted, the most absurd conclusions suggested, and the most ridiculous deductions in consequence of this enforced silence pass current with everybody. Now, I think the right hon. Gentleman whom I see opposite, the late President of the Local Government Board, was rather of my opinion in regard to the danger of once re-opening this question of compulsory vaccination, and of bringing it before the House and the country; for when a deputation waited upon him some time ago, he begged that they would not attempt to force the hand of Government prematurely; for Mr. Sclater-Booth said—
  "They would only produce confusion, and probably an entire collapse of the existing system of vaccination, which all admit is extremely difficult to work as it is."
  With that opinion of the right hon. Gentleman I cordially concur. I believe that this debate, if fairly carried on the great wings of the Press from one end of the

  1821
  country to the other, sounds the death-knell of compulsory vaccination. Nor is it at all fair as regards the Medical Profession that this secrecy should be maintained. They have their interests and their prejudices, like any other members of the community, and we know that the medical men of this country do not fairly represent the facts in respect to vaccination to the community. This would be a heavy charge if I should make it. I do not make it. I take it from their own lips. Mr. Henry May, Health Officer to the Aston Union, Birmingham, in an article on certificates of death, said—
  "In certificates given by us voluntarily, and to which the public have access, it is scarcely to be expected that a medical man. will give opinions which may tell against or reflect upon himself in any way, or which are likely to cause annoyance or injury to the survivors. In such cases he will most likely toll the truth, but not the whole truth, and assign some prominent symptom of the disease as the cause of death. As instances of cases which may toll against the medical man himself, I will mention erysipelas, after vaccination, and puerperal fever. A death from the first cause occurred not long ago in my practice; and although I had not vaccinated the child, yet in my desire to preserve vaccination from reproach, I omitted all mention of it in my certificate of death."
  Though such a state of things was dangerous, it would also be comical if it were not too serious to be comic. A child at Leeds died recently from the results of vaccination, as was distinctly borne witness to by the surgeon who attended it. The Coroner, also a medical man, and one who respected the rights of vaccination, declined to take as a verdict that the child died from vaccination, and said there was no such thing known to the law as a death from vaccination. In fact, according to him, the poor child had committed an offence against the laws of this country in venturing to die from vaccination, and so a jury returned as their verdict, "Died by the visitation of God." Now, I shall maintain, Sir, in the first place, that granting all that the vaccinators believe and all that they say, that nevertheless compulsory vaccination is wrong, tyrannous, and impolitic. Now, no one will maintain, Sir, in the first place, that the State has a right of insisting that a child shall be vaccinated for the sake of the child itself. The parent has at least a primâ facie right to decide upon the risks that the child shall run, and there can be no right
  1822
  in the State to insist upon vaccination, except as a matter of national interest and protection. Now, be it remembered that if vaccination is a protection against small-pox, that this argument falls at once to the ground, because then the danger only exists to those who are not vaccinated, and those who prefer to he vaccinated have no right to coerce those who do not wish to be vaccinated. Be it remembered, moreover, that this demand for vaccination has come upon the country just in proportion as vaccination has been proved to have failed. Jenner declared that vaccination was a perfect protection against small-pox, and nobody dreamed of making it compulsory. Then, my second point is, that if it be necessary in the interests of the State to enforce vaccination, that it is a thing so important and so sacred that it should be enforced upon all. To enforce it upon the poor only is simply an infamy. If it is so essential to public health that every child should be vaccinated, the State is bound to take the infant from its mother's breast, and, with the policeman's baton, to force the parents to allow a surgeon to vaccinate the child. Will the House of Commons do this? No, the House of Commons will not dare to do it. And yet to inflict compulsion upon the poor, and to persecute them as they are being persecuted now by fines, because they will not do that which other people in the upper and middle class, aye, and Members of this House will not do, is alone enough to stamp the present system as an enormous evil. Is there not something touching in the report of a trial of a poor man for not having his child vaccinated? He was convicted of the offence, and these were his last words before he went to prison—"Lock me up, gentlemen, I will not pay; I swore on my dead child's body that I would not." And have we really come to such a condition of things in this free country of ours, that we can look with satisfaction or indifference on a man having to utter such a sentence as that in a British Court of Justice? Beyond this I say, under any circumstances, that this a matter of the highest impolicy. Granted all they believe, or say they believe, in regard to the necessity, and I say to treat the matter in this manner is a foolish course to pursue. What would be the politic course to pursue?

  1823
  To bring home to the house and everyone in the country what they are pleased to call pure lymph, and to permit everyone to chose between having this protection or not. Do you think, under these circumstances, if there were no compulsion and vaccination be an excellent thing, that the desire for it would not spread? Do you think that parents desire to see their children die? It is the most ridiculous thing in the world to talk of anti-vaccinators as a few fanatics. One would suppose it was a conspiracy of parents who desire that their children should die. It said that they are very few. I do not know how many there are; but there is this thing about their numbers—that wherever inquiry has arisen in any great town, or wherever it has been necessary or thought well to examine closely into the results of vaccination, those have been the places where the opponents of vaccination have sprung up. At this moment there is a person living at Farringdon, who has just suffered his 32nd prosecution, because he will not have that done to his child which he believes to be a danger and an injury. I saw the report of that trial, and he was condemned after, by cross-examination, he had elicited from the officer who prosecuted him that there was a child lying within a few hundred yards suffering, if not dying, from the effects of vaccination. I maintain, therefore, that even granted that all that the vaccinators believe and say is true, it is an unwise and a tyrannous system. But suppose there be doubts of the efficiency of the system—and there are grave doubts of its efficiency—my hon. Friend here (Dr. Cameron), who was kind enough to anticipate the arguments which he admitted I had not explained to him, said, amongst other things, that I was amongst those who were terrifying the world with the alleged results of vaccination. My hon. Friend is mistaken. I have nothing to do with the testimony for or against vaccination. I am not a medical man; neither the House nor anyone else would pay any attention to my opinion on the matter. Sir, I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to pay any attention to my opinion; but if there are facts and authorities which do go to show that vaccination is not the protection which it is generally believed to be—I pass no opinion whether it is or it is not —but I only say it is an explanation of
  1824
  the conduct of those who refuse to have their children vaccinated. If we look a little into the question of vaccination, as I have looked into it, and I have also read very much about it during the last two or three years, I am struck by the fact that if you ask about its efficacy you are met by two things. You are treated, in the first place, to doubtful tradition in the past; and, in the second place, you are not treated to the positive failures of the present. The broad statement everybody makes if you ask their opinion about it is, that there can be no question in the matter. Before vaccination was discovered, they say, this country and the world at large was desolated with the small-pox, and the few who survived had their faces fearfully seamed with the hideous marks of the disease. Now, this I have to say, in the first place—that there is remarkably little known about the statistics of small-pox in former times. It was not until the year 1837 that there was any authentic system of registration in this country. In the last century there were the most various kinds of story as regards the people being so dreadfully marked with the small-pox. I have plenty of friends who tell me, "I never see it now. In my youth everybody had it, and all their faces were hideously marked and seamed with small-pox." That proves a great deal too much. Compulsory vaccination can have nothing whatever to do with that, because that was only established comparatively in 1854, and absolutely in 1868. Therefore, amongst all persons in the country above 30 years of age there should be a due proportion of hideously-seamed and marked faces. But, if hon. Members have ever studied the history of the medical treatment of small-pox in the last century, they will be surprised that anyone who took it ever recovered, or, if they did recover, that they should have recovered without hideous marks. The infallible doctors of that day placed the unhappy patients in a hot room, with every door and window closed, with enormous fires made, with the clothes heaped upon them, which, in order to increase the effect, were coloured red, and they refused the patient any drop of cooling drink. That was what the infallible doctors, who want to enforce compulsory vaccination now, did in the last century. Now, I will make

  1825
  a general statement in regard to vaccination in the past, not based on any authority of my own, but taken from the evidence of Dr. Farr in reference to the dreadful and enormous fatality of smallpox in the last century. He says— "Small-pox attained its maximum mortality after inoculation was introduced." Inoculation, in the last century, was the pet of the infallible Profession.
  "The annual deaths from small-pox from 1760 to 1779 were, on an average, 2,323. In the next 20 years—1780–1799—they declined to 1,740. The disease, therefore, began to grow less fatal before vaccination was discovered."
  It is the fact that after the beginning of the century the deaths from small-pox still decreased, although the vaccination of the people at that time was probably not 1 per cent, and could have had no influence whatever upon these rates of mortality. The vaccinating prophets of the present day, however, make the two conterminous, and declare that it was vaccination which produced the diminution at the beginning of the century. The fact is, the whole thing is absolutely a foregone conclusion. If there happens to be no epidemic, the vaccinators triumphantly say that they have stamped it out—as they say they have stamped it out in Ireland, in Sweden, and in Germany. But small-pox, like all other zymotic diseases, comes in epidemics. The population begin to die, and then the vaccinators fall back upon some excuse, always taking care that it is consistent with the fundamental assertion that vaccination stops the smallpox. Sometimes they have bad lymph; sometimes they have not enough marks ! Not enough marks! Jenner declared that one mark was as good as any other number; and, although I am no medical man, I presume that it matters not whether there is one mark or 20. If one is bitten by a cobra, one mark is as fatal as 20. If a person has had cow-pox, it matters very little how many marks there are. Yet, after all, there can be no doubt that people die from small-pox after they have been vaccinated. Why, then, the cry is, re-vaccinate them. If vaccination twice in life does not do, why, then, vaccinate early, and vaccinate always? Vaccinate once, at least, every seven years, we are told; and there was a gentleman who wrote to the papers, the other day, actually to recommend
  1826
  that persons should be vaccinated every three years! In fact, the unhappy man spends his life in a perpetual condition of cow-pox in order to escape the smallpox. One of the alleged reasons for the failure of vaccination as a protection is that bad lymph is used; and, in fact, my hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) makes use of that very assertion as a reason for having new and fresh lymph from the cow. His words are—in a letter to The Times —
  "The recurrence, therefore, in the latest period of a mortality almost as high as that experienced prior to the Vaccination Act, shows either that the protective virtues of vaccination are mythical, or that there is something radically wrong in our national system of vaccination."
  But, on the other hand, another great authority, Dr. Stevens, speaking at the Medical Conference, said—
  "He had seen more vaccinated children than any man, either alive or who had lived, and all his experience led him to the opinion that the arm-to-arm system practised in this country was as nearly perfect as a system could be made, and as efficacious as could be desired."
  But how, then, are all the deaths from vaccination to be accounted for? According to the Report of the Local Government Board, the deaths in London from small-pox in 1871 were 7,912, of whom 2,580 had been vaccinated. Well, then, where is your protection? In 1870, 1871, and 1872, again, the total deaths from small-pox were 44,840! Be it remembered that this was at a time when we were vaccinating up to the hilt, when 90, 95, and even 97 per cent of the people were vaccinated. All this time there was this sad increase in the deaths from small-pox in epidemic after epidemic. What is the answer to these figures, coupled with the fact that for years everybody has been vaccinated? Mr. Ernest Hart has just published a pamphlet, in which he says—
  "The number of attacks of persons efficiently vaccinated and successfully re-vaccinated is extremely small."
  And the Local Government Board declares that—
  "No case of small-pox has come within the cognizance of the medical superintendents of any person who has been efficiently vaccinated and successfully re-vaccinated."
  ["Hear, hear!"]Which is only another way of saying that if they have the small-pox vaccination has not been

  1827
  satisfactorily or efficiently done, and that really is the only test these medical men vouchsafe to us. I was astonished to hear my hon. Friend just now speak as if the value of vaccination was beyond all question and doubt, and had been proved to be an almost absolute protection against small-pox. Why, my hon. Friend himself, in the letter I have just quoted, said—
  "The recurrence, therefore, in the latest period of a mortality almost as high as that experienced prior to the Vaccination Act, shows either that the protective virtues of vaccination are mythical, or that there is something radically wrong in our national system of vaccination."
  Just so. My hon. Friend, like all the rest of the world, cannot believe that vaccination is a myth, and so he takes us as a remedy to lymph, fresh and pure from the cow. Dr. Seaton, the medical officer of the Local Government Board, in precisely the same spirit of assuming that vaccination is an absolute protection, and then making all the facts bend to his theory, deals in the same way with the late tremendous epidemic in which upwards of 44,000 people lost their lives. What did he say of it? Was he shaken by it from his faith? Not the least. All he said was—
  "Except for vaccination this epidemic would presumably have caused such frightful and demoralizing mortality as the worst pestilences of past centuries."
  If the House will permit me, I will tell them a little anecdote exactly characteristic of this kind of argument. I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who is a very warm advocate of vaccination, and he assumed a little superiority over me because he had himself had small-pox. But I said—"Well, how came it you had not been vaccinated." "Oh," he replied, "I had been vaccinated, and so I had it very slightly. I should have had it very badly if I had not been." Presently he said —"You remember so-and-so. Well, he had small-pox frightfully. They thought he must have died." "Good Heavens," I said, "why had not he been vaccinated?" Well, he said, he had been vaccinated, and he must have died but for that. Mr. James Ashbury, a late Member of this House, and who represented me, in fact, for I was one of his constituents at Brighton, told his constituents that such was his
  1828
  faith in vaccination that he had already been vaccinated twice, and meant to be punctured again. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham) also told his constituents that he was a living illustration of the benefits of vaccination because, having been vaccinated, he took the small-pox afterwards and did not die. So much for the certainty of the protection afforded by vaccination from smallpox. But now, supposing that vaccination instead of being a protection actually inoculates with small-pox. If there be any theory at all in connection with vaccination—I take it to be that small-pox and cow-pox are diseases of a similar type, and that if a man takes the milder disease of the same type it will protect him at slight inconvenience from the more dangerous form of the disease. Therefore, when the theory of the bad lymph began to be prevalent it was thought desirable that fresh lymph should be obtained and prepared from a cow inoculated with small-pox. Accordingly, Mr. Badcock inoculated cows with small-pox, vaccinated more than 14,000 persons from the lymph so obtained, and had supplied more than 400 doctors. He says—
  "I had by careful and repeated experiments produced, by the inoculation of the cow with small-pox, a benign lymph of a non-infectious and highly protective character."
  A benign lymph! One is inclined to rush off and be vaccinated on the spot—
  "The experiments, of which this was the result, were conducted by me during 18 years with extreme care at a great sacrifice of time and money, and with important results. My lymph has now been in use at Brighton for 40 years, and is at the present time the principal stock of lymph employed there, being that exclusively used by the public vaccinators."
  Well now, what does my hon. Friend say to Mr. Badcock, and his spreading throughout the country this benign lymph? What he says is this. With unwonted severity he writes to The Times—
  "Now what I want to know is what has become of this lymph? My reason for asking the question is that more recent and searching experiment has demonstrated that it is not vaccine lymph at all, but small-pox lymph capable of being inoculated apparently with greater safety to the individual than ordinary small-pox, but, like the mildest inoculated small-pox, capable of propagating that disease in its most virulent form by infection."

  1829
  The members of the Galway Board of Guardians were so much impressed with this "benign lymph," that they suggested that a calf should be inoculated in this way, and a member of the Board offered a calf for that purpose. But the Local Government Board of Dublin interposed, and wrote—
  "Small-pox virus, taken from a calf, would communicate that disease to a human subject, and be thereby a fertile source of propagating the disease, and would further render the operator liable to prosecution. Vaccination performed with lymph taken from a cow which had been vaccinated with human lymph is not reliable."
  But for this flood of light thrown in upon this in reference to this matter, I should have been much astonished by a letter I received from a friend of mine, and a correspondent of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—Mr. Lewis, of Ipswich—who writes—
  "I have made many inquiries in various parts of England, and I have invariably found that whether town or village, when the small-pox commenced it began with a vaccinated person. This was so in Ipswich, Coddenham, Preston, Liverpool, Stockport, &c. At Chatham it began with the re-vaccinated soldiers."
  Yet the Medical Profession have been compelling people to use this stuff all this time. I must say it shows in my hon. Friend that quality which we are told insures success—"de Vaudace et toujours de Vaudace" —that he does not hesitate to come down here and call upon the House of Commons to renew this system. But what if vaccination produces in the human frame other diseases than those incidental to vaccination or smallpox? Why, Sir, it is an absolute and undeniable fact, known to every medical man in Europe at this time, that it has communicated the most frightful diseases. I was astonished to hear my hon. Friend refer to those 500 answers declaring it impossible, because it is no great credit to the Medical Profession, and shows that they are apt to follow where they are led, like a flock of sheep. Ten years ago, the Medical Profession was pledged to the lips to the belief that syphilis could not be communicated by vaccination. All these 500 men pledged themselves to the truth of this assertion, and probably these very men, now that this grievous mistake has been exposed, feel nothing abashed in asking this House still to uphold compulsory vaccination. Sir Thomas Watson, indeed, distinctly
  1830
  advises a return to calf lymph, in order to avoid this "ghastly" risk of infection from arm-to-arm vaccination, adding that compelled vaccination should in all cases be from the calf alone,; while Dr. Wilson, Officer of Health to the Alton Union, in a recent number of The Lancet, says—
  "It is useless to deny that vaccination by human lymph involves danger of scrofulous, syphilitic, and erysipelatous inoculation. The difficulty of securing with absolute certitude subjects for furnishing vaccine lymph free from constitutional taint is simply insuperable, as few—rather I would say no scientific physiologist, no thoughtful medical practitioners of widespread experience, contest."
  My hon. Friend has quoted Dr. Ballard, who is a very high authority on this subject. Well, I will quote him too. In his prize essay on vaccination, published in 1868, he closes his comments on the series of vaccine syphilizations, known as the Rivalta series, which occurred in May and June, 1861, with these words—
  "Among the 39 infected from Chiabrera was Louisa Manzone (the second vaccinifier of the series). She was aged six months. On the tenth day, again, she was used for the vaccination of 17 other children, of whom seven became affected with syphilis, suffering in the same manner as the 30 infected from Chiabrera. Two months afterwards she was taken to Acque, and seen by Dr. Sylventi, who recognized upon her a syphilitic eruption, with mucous tubercles about the arms and vulva, mucous patches on the commissures of the lips, and indolent glandular enlargements, the primary affection at the seat of the vesicles not even being healed. The child died in September. The nurse who suckled her got ulcers on the breast, and from the various other children who were syphilized, the disease spread by contagion to 18 mothers and nurses and to three other children."
  This is only one of several similar outbreaks quoted by Dr. Ballard, and this was all kept a secret! Not a word of it was known for six years. I am not going to assert that vaccination can, or does, endanger the health of the infant population by introducing various other diseases; but this I will say—that it is, at any rate, a fact that, contemporaneously with the increase of vaccination, these diseases have greatly increased among the infant population. Many years ago, M. Ricard, the famous French surgeon, said—
  "The obvious fact is that, if ever the transmission of disease with vaccine lymph is clearly demonstrated, vaccination must be altogether discontinued."

  1831
  I do not venture to go so far as that; but I do say that it is a disgrace to attempt, in face of these facts, to continue compulsory vaccination. But what do the Medical Profession themselves say to all this? The Medical Profession in this country are, I am convinced, much less universally favourable to vaccination than would appear upon the surface. I can tell the House that there are many medical men who are at least very doubtful about it, but who do not care to imperil their popularity, and to incur odium by venturing to say anything against it. I am not going to measure heads against heads all over the world. It is enough to know that there is a considerable portion of them who think it both useless and dangerous. If I can show that, I say that compulsory vaccination is an iniquity. I will give the House just the views shortly of four or five doctors in different countries. The late Dr. Schiefferdecker, of New York, in a monograph which he prepared upon the subject, came to certain conclusions in which Dr. William H. Weaber perfectly coincides. Those results were—
  "1. That it is not true that vaccination is a preventive of small-pox. 2. That cow-pox virus is as decided a poison as that taken from the small-pox patient. 3. That vaccination propagates a variety of other diseases more fatal than small-pox—such as scarlet fever, croup, typhoid fever, scrofula, consumption, syphilis, cancer, tuberculous formations, diphtheria, &c."
  The well-known Herr Kolb, of Munich, says that—
  "In well-vaccinated Bavaria, famous for compulsion, in 1871, out of 30,742 cases, 29,429 were supplied by the vaccinated."
  I will quote one Englishman who was examined before the Committee on which I sat in 1871. Dr. Collins, M.D.,
  "Has ceased to vaccinate 10 or 12 years. Had known persons who had been vaccinated and re-vaccinated suffer dreadfully from smallpox, two of whom died of the most hideous confluent form, after successful vaccination and re-vaccination; one of them three times vaccinated. Has vaccinated thousands, but at last abandoned the practice, and gave up at least £500 a-year by so doing. Has found that cow-poxing weakened the powers of vitality and often proved fatal."
  Now, Sir, there is nothing more difficult than to test positively and absolutely the effects of vaccination. You can never get 1,000 children under the same con-
  1832
  ditions and of the same constitution, half of whom are vaccinated and half are not, and see what becomes of them. To a great extent it is a matter of indefinite deduction and unsatisfactory conclusion. The most satisfactory experiment that has ever come under my observation is the one I am about to quote. The Austrian system of railways is all under one management, and is all under one great medical head. Dr. Leander Joseph Keller is that head, and when there was the last epidemic in 1871–2–3, he very carefully watched and analyzed the effect of small-pox on those who had been vaccinated, and those who had not. The total number of persons to be reckoned with is from 55,000 to 60,000. The railway employs about 37,000 officials, servants, and workmen; and these, with the wives and children and the pensioners, give a sufficient number to form an average upon. In these two years there were 2,677 cases of small-pox; 2,158 recovered, and 469 died. This is the table of the ratio in which they died—

  Vaccinated.

  Unvaccinated.

  In the first year of life

  57·14

  43·78

  From 1 to 2 years

  6205

  38·96

  2 to 3 years

  34·15

  17·86

  3 to 4 years

  21·88

  16·88

  4 to 5 years

  23·64

  13·70

  7 to 10 years

  19·23

  7·76

  In every case the table is, therefore, altogether in favour of those who have not been vaccinated. In after years, when, of course, very few died, rather more died of those who had been un-vaccinated than not. That table alone is a fact which is sufficient to raise a doubt, if not a certainty, as to the abomination of compulsory vaccination. Now, my hon. Friend wants a new starting-point, and wishes to have animal lymph. He talks of taking the lymph fresh from the cow. But I entirely object, in regard to the principle of the right of personal liberty, and in the name of thousands and tens of thousands of Englishmen whom I represent on this occasion, and who are suffering under this tyranny—I protest against a new compulsion being forced upon us. My hon. Friend has talked like other ardent vaccinators about pure lymph; but he has never told us what pure lymph is. The natural thing, the inoculation of a cow with small-pox, he absolutely objects to. What will he say

  1833
  when I assert—and it is maintained by good authority—that there is no such thing known as spontaneous cow-pox in the cow. It is absolutely certain that Jenner said, and always believed, that cows were inoculated from a diseased horse. But spontaneous cow-pox ! There is no such thing. Did he see a letter from the Paris Correspondent of The Daily News the other day? There are sometimes little bits of news coming in from foreign sources which we should never get if the things occurred at home. In The Daily News for May 25 there is this paragraph—
  "In The Voltaire a Dr. Bremond takes credit for being the first to announce that there is now in Paris a diseased horse from whose leg may he taken pus as efficacious for vaccinatory purposes as the lymph habitually used. This discovery is a mare's nest. No scientific fact is more certain than that Jenner's cows who accidentally vaccinated milk-maids themselves caught a disease from rugged horse-boys' hands after they had stroked down greasy-heeled horses. There is not to be found in the whole world a cow with natural cow-pox."
  "Where, then, is this pure lymph to be got? Not from the small-pox, not from natural cow-pox, for there is no such thing known. If my hon. Friend asks any veterinary surgeon he will tell him so. It is obtained where it is obtained now in Paris and in Bavaria, where there is so much talk now of re-vaccination and pure lymph.
  "The owners of heifers in Paris who make a rich harvest by advertising vaccination direct from the cow, blink the fact that their beasts are all vaccinated from the more or less wholesome arms of children."
  DR. CAMERON: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to say that there are an immense number of eases, thoroughly well authenticated, of spontaneous cow-pox recorded in, amongst other publications, the Manual of "Vaccination."
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR: Well, I will refer my hon. Friend, upon that point, to his great prophet, Dr. Jenner, who distinctly asserts in his "Inquiry," that the "pustulous sores which frequently appear spontaneously on the nipples of cows" are different in nature "from that contagion which constitutes true cow-pox." Well, now, what does The Lancet say in respect to the safety of animal lymph? Writing on June 22, 1878, it says—
  1834
  "The notion that animal lymph would be free from chances of syphilitic contamination is so fallacious that we are surprised to see Dr. Martin, of Boston, U.S."—the great advocate of calf lymph—"reproduce it."
  And Dr. Seaton, who is a great authority, what does he say of my hon. Friend's specific?—
  The difficulties of applying such a plan to the vaccination of the general population are, I apprehend, quite insuperable."
  He says of its results, also—
  "So far from being likely to produce fewer ailments and cutaneous eruptions in the predisposed, Mr. Ceely—and there is no one who has nearly the knowledge that he possesses of the disease in the cow, and of its transplantation to the human species—says he knows from his experience that it would produce more."
  But, let us come from theory to practice. Here is an abstract of the Petition of Dr. German to the Diet of the German Empire. He says—
  "Above all, the dire fatality which lately occurred at Lebus, a suburb of Frank fort-on-the-Oder, would alone warrant the abolition of the vaccination laws. Eighteen school girls, averaging 12 years of age, were re-vaccinated, and thereby syphilised, and some of them died.… Yet the lymph, the syphilitic lymph, used in this case was obtained from the Official Royal Establishment for the new 'regenerated' or 'annualized' vaccine lymph so warmly recommended for the re-vaccination of schools."
  I will trouble the House with but one more extract. The Gazette d'Italia (21 May, 1879) describes a sad occurrence in Castiglione d'Orcia, in the Province of Siena—
  "A vaccination committee, established by the prefecture in Home, sent to the above-named parish virus for the impending vaccination on April 26. Some well-known physicians undertook the vaccination of 38 children. After the time of inoculation it was discovered that in all those houses a terrible poison had been disseminated, and had caused most sad results in the shape of pustules and ulcers upon the bodies of the children. After a few days the granddaughter of the Syndic, Irma Petessi, fell a sacrifice to the disease thus caused by vaccination. The physicians immediately carried their report to the magistrates; on the 11th inst. the tribunal of Montepulciano ordered an inquiry to be instituted, as also an examination of the body of the dead child. It was found that of the 38 vaccinated, 29 were infected similarly. It is supposed that the cow was diseased from which the virus was obtained."
  Now, Sir, I protest against the House passing a compulsory law that children,

  1835
  willy-nilly, are to be vaccinated from cows, wholesome or diseased as the case may be; and I somewhat confidently assert that after the facts and statements I have brought forward, I have come to a very mild conclusion in the Amendment that I have now to propose, the purport of which is—
  "That, in the present unsettled condition of medical opinion in regard to the safety of using ordinary humanised lymph, as also of the safety, effectiveness, and practicability of the use of animal vaccine, it is in the opinion of this House inexpedient and unjust to enforce vaccination under penalties upon those who regard it as un-advisahle or dangerous."
  I say, Sir, that this is a mild conclusion, and that I might have gone much further, and have asked the House to affirm that compulsory vaccination is a disgrace to our jurisprudence and a shameful intrusion upon the rights of personal liberty.
  MR. HOPWOODexpressed his entire agreement with his hon. Friend who had just spoken. He condemned the prosecutions which had been carried on in the name of the law, and of the supposed interests of society. In some cases fathers had been sent to prison, in others fines had been imposed which were discreditable to those who administered the law. In 1873 a Committee sat upon this matter owing to the growing dissatisfaction that was felt, and the whole 17 Members of the Committee were unanimous in recommending that only fines of a moderate amount should be imposed. A Bill embodying that principle passed through the House, and went up to the other House the day before the Dissolution, where 16 or 17 noble Peers, by 8 votes to 8, or 9 to 8, decided against what the House of Commons thought best in the interests of the people. Almost every year since they had besought the Legislature to take away this grinding oppression; but nothing had been done. When they adopted compulsory laws in a matter of this kind they were adopting a dangerous expedient, and they ought to be more than ordinarily sure before committing themselves to a policy of compulsion. What was it they were doing? They took from the arm of a human being a drop of foul matter, and inserted into the veins of delicate infants. If they went into the history of that matter they could trace it back in foulness
  1836
  over a length of 70 years, for the great bulk of it dated from the time of Jenner himself, and it had been fermenting and gathering and festering in arm after arm —it was this they recommended as a prophylactic against small-pox. In former times this disease caused great harm; so did sweating sickness; so did the plague; so did the hundred and one diseases generated by filth; and so did this disease, which was generated by filth. He believed the time would come when people would be astonished that the civilized people of Europe ever rested their faith in such a nostrum as vaccination. In Germany, where the soldiers were vaccinated every three years, there had recently been a virulent epidemic of small-pox, from which it might be reasonably inferred that the protective value of vaccination was very slight. He held that it was monstrous to go on compelling people by severe penalties to vaccinate their children, when they believed that by so doing they were subjecting them to the risk of incurring serious disease.
  DR. FARQUHARSONthought that any improvement which might be suggested to make vaccination more efficient must be a distinct gain to humanity; and he considered the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) was one of great value, because it swept away what he considered to be the only valid possible argument against vaccination. If it was to be compulsory they must furnish the best possible means, and the proposal of his hon. Friend would give them a constant supply of lymph. It had proved in every way successful on the Continent, in India, and in America. It might be well, he thought, that national vaccine stations should send out only calf lymph. Compulsory vaccination had greatly lessened the number of deaths from small-pox. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) mentioned a case in which glanders was supposed to have been engendered in the human subject from one kind of vaccination; but, as his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow pointed out, this was entirely due to the way in which the vaccination matter was communicated. During the prevalence of an epidemic of small-pox very few of the cases admitted to the London hospitals were those of persons who had been

  1837
  efficiently vaccinated—that was to say, who carried three or four perfect vaccine vesicles on their arms; while in no case had a nurse who had been efficiently vaccinated and re-vaccinated been affected by the disease in the discharge of her duties. Although certain names had been brought forward relative to the question, he contended that they were not the names of those who carried any authority in the Medical Profession, and if it were necessary he could quote against them the names of the most illustrious and eminent men in this and other countries; but he had said enough to show that men of eminence in the Medical Profession were divided upon the merits or demerits of vaccination direct from animal lymph.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he thought that those who had listened to the four speakers who had addressed the House on that subject would agree with him that that was a question on which the House was not likely to come to a satisfactory conclusion. The House was, in fact, not a tribunal fitted to judge between the opposite views which had been advanced that night in reference to the value and efficacy of vaccination as a prophylactic against small-pox. No arguments which could be adduced in a debate would be able to convince those people who believed that their children had suffered from the old and imperfect method of vaccination which had hitherto been in use. He had himself placed on the Notice Paper an Amendment in favour of the institution of an inquiry into the whole subject by a Royal Commission; and since he had done so he had received numerous letters from various parts of the country, all complaining of the vexatious and oppressive way in which prosecutions were carried on against the writers under the Vaccination Act. The result had been that an antagonism to vaccination had sprung up in the country, the extent of which he thought the House was scarcely aware of. Between November, 1876, and March, 1880, in the course of little more than three years, no less than 84 persons had been repeatedly summoned for non-compliance with the law. Of those, 49 had been fined, some of them, he believed, as many as 10 times. These prosecutions had occurred in almost every part of the country. This was a question for inquiry. If he were
  1838
  told there was an inquiry in 1871, and that the inquiry resulted in the law under which they now lived, his answer would be that the law was the result of a very narrow majority in the House of Lords; and, further, that fresh evidence—or what was presumed to be evidence—had accumulated since that time, which, if it had been known, would probably have prevented the passing of such a law. An inquiry was made in 1876 into an epidemic which occurred in a village' near Gainsborough. The epidemic was not small-pox, but erysipelas, confined in a great measure to infants who had been vaccinated. That inquiry also showed that the medical officers performed their functions very carelessly, and that erysipelas was more easily caught by children who had been vaccinated than by others. He appealed to the Prime Minister, who said his mind was open on this question to grant an inquiry.
  EARL PERCYsaid, two distinct issues had been raised by this question. One was that raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, by which the Government were called upon to provide means by which animal vaccination could be taken advantage of by anybody who desired to do so. The other issue was that which had been raised with regard to the justice of the compulsory nature of the present vaccination laws. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) had asked for a total abolition of those laws, and the hon. Member who had just sat down asked for an inquiry into their operation. Whatever answer Her Majesty's Government might make to this point, the distinct question which the hon. Member for Glasgow had raised, and which he (Earl Percy) had an opportunity of raising some years ago in that House, but with very little effect, would, he hoped, receive a definite answer from Her Majesty's Government. With regard to the question of compulsory vaccination, he did not wish to detain the House by repeating the answer that might fairly be given to the hon. Member for Leicester. The hon. Member for Glasgow asked simply that an opportunity of taking advantage of animal vaccination should be given to the people. He had pointed out, probably to the satisfaction of the House, that very little expense would be thrown upon the country in consequence. Since

  1839
  he (Earl Percy) had had an opportunity of bringing this question before the House, inquiries outside that House had pretty well proved, and further experience had shown, that this system would be attended with very great advantages. He must ask the House not to be misled by some of the observations of the hon. Member for Leicester. There could be no doubt that cow-pox was a disease which had a distinct origin of its own; but when the hon. Member spoke of the doctors in Paris inoculating from human sources he went very much beyond the mark. The proposition of the hon. Member for Glasgow was that the Government should keep a sufficient number of live animals to enable cow-pox to be taken from them and used directly on the human subject. The hon. Member for Leicester had referred to the authority of Dr. Seton. He was aware that he was a great authority on this matter; but it should not be overlooked that he was one of the strongest advocates for compulsory vaccination that had ever existed in this country. It was true that he was an opponent of animal vaccination. But his opinion had been controverted. There was proof that animal vaccination, if adopted, would be largely taken up by people who now objected to compulsory vaccination. It was a very great objection to vaccination in the minds of many people that they had to be vaccinated from another human subject. If they were given the alternative of animal vaccination, he thought that much of the objection to compulsory vaccination would disappear. Many persons were now under the impression most conscientiously that by having their children vaccinated they were running the risk of injuring them; and he felt sure that if this system of vaccination were sanctioned it would be a very great boon to the country. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would give favourable consideration to the proposal.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that he always listened to observations of hon. Members on both sides of the House on the subject of vaccination with the greatest deference. Everyone must admit that the prima facie case was against vaccination, for nothing could be more startling than that civilized men should take disease from the lower animals and introduce it to
  1840
  their own offspring, and it could only be from evidence—the evidence of accumulated experience — that such a course could be justified as a precautionary measure. When his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) spoke upon this subject, he wished that he could take him back to the commencement of the century—to a time when small-pox was a worse scourge than any of the wars in which this country had ever been engaged. He wished he could take him back to a time when not merely the lives, but the faculties and the eye-sight of our population were extinguished by the ravages of this terrible disease. He should also like to bring to the hon. and learned Member's notice the eminent men who had devoted their time and the labour of years to the investigation of this question; and he thought that even the hon. and learned Member would then be inclined to approach the matter, not in the spirit which had animated his address, and far less in the spirit that had shown itself in the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester. The jocularity in which the hon. Member for Leicester indulged grated very much upon his feelings; and when he told them of various events which he said had occurred, and cases which he mentioned, it gave him a painful feeling to hear the laughter which he created by his relation of the ravages of so terrible a disease. The object of the hon. Member seemed to him to be to make a comic address in that House, and to pour ridicule upon the whole question of vaccination. If that were not his object, he could only say that he had failed very much, because the attention which he received was constantly mingled with the laughter of those who thought that his jokes were really arguments. What were the facts with regard to this matter? At the commencement of this century, and at the close of the last, small-pox was the scourge of Europe. In this country numbers of persons died, and everyone, from the highest to the lowest, was liable to it. Besides the large number destroyed by the disease, there remained a number of others who recovered with their senses or their eye-sight impaired, and with their persons disfigured. Dr. Jenner ascertained that in particular districts persons were not liable to the small-pox, and by a series of careful investigations, he ascertained that the im-

  1841
  munity existed amongst those who were in the habit of milking cows. He found that those cows had vaccine pustules, and that those pustules were reproduced on the hands of the milkers who attended the cows. In the districts in which that took place, he discovered that the small-pox was almost unknown. Dr. Jenner devoted his life to the investigation of this phenomenon, and he ultimately persuaded Parliament to arrive at the determination that vaccination should be encouraged in this country. What were the facts that the hon. Member for Leicester and that the hon. and learned Member for Stockport had ad-duced against the conclusion of Dr. Jenner, and how did they show that small-pox, even though it had diminished, had not done so by reason of vaccination? The advocates of vaccination, on the other hand, maintained that small-pox diminished just in proportion as vaccination was perfected. If there were cases in which small-pox had occurred after vaccination, then they said those were instances of failures in the manner in which vaccination had been carried out. From the tone in which his hon. Friend had indulged, it might be thought that there was some malignity on the part of the Medical Profession in endeavouring to induce human beings to be vaccinated. He could assure them that the only wish of the Medical Profession was to do away with and diminish the effects of a terrible disease. Would his hon. Friends point out to him any medical man of eminence, upon a subject which had engaged the attention of the Medical Profession either in this country or in the world, who was an anti-vaccinator? They might bring many persons of half-knowledge in this country or from America, who might have been dubbed doctors and might have the right to append M.D. to their names, who were opposed to vaccination; but they were not gentlemen who were distinguished in the Medical Profession. When he named in that Metropolis men like Sir Thomas Watson, who had devoted the declining years of his life to enforcing the arguments for vaccination, he thought that was of much more weight than the names of the obscurities who were quoted on the other side. What could be the object of men like his eminent friend, except to confer what he considered the greatest possible benefit
  1842
  upon the people of this country? He had investigated this subject through a long series of years, and the result of his experience was in favour of vaccination. Of course, no one could say that any person was absolutely right, or that another was absolutely wrong, upon a particular subject of the kind; but they must take probabilities. No one could say with absolute certainty that a person who had been vaccinated would be absolutely free from small-pox, because it would happen that the vaccine lymph might not have taken effect; but he believed that the greater part of the cases in which vaccination failed were due to carelessness on the part of the mothers of the children. But there was one great fact which ought to have a great effect with that House and the country with regard to vaccination. It was known that in the small-pox hospital no case had occurred of small-pox amongst nurses in which it was not shown that that person had been imperfectly vaccinated. The reason for that was that when nurses entered the small-pox hospitals, unless they could show by marks upon their arms that they had been perfectly vaccinated, they were vaccinated over again, and it was found from that time they were free from disease. Even in the cases in which some persons might have taken small-pox, it was proved that it was much less violent amongst those who had been vaccinated. He would not detain the House further upon this matter, for he entertained the opinion that a mixed Assembly like the House of Commons was not the proper tribunal for discussing this question. When they discussed a question of law they listened to what the lawyers told them, and very few Members of the House interfered in legal discussions. He had no wish to prevent or to interfere with discussions of that kind; but he must say he did not think that the hon. Member for Glasgow had been well advised in bringing forward his annual Motion. The question of vaccination direct from the calf was one still vexed in medical circles. If it were desirable that the public should be supplied with vaccine matter direct from the calf, then it appeared to him that was a matter that could be regulated by the Medical Department of the Privy Council. He therefore thought that his hon. Friend had been led away by his zeal and per-

  1843
  suasion of the truth of his propositions to adopt a course which was exceedingly imprudent in the interests of vaccination itself.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, his hon. Friend did not seem to apprehend the point he advocated. He only proposed that the Government should do what it had already power to do.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, his hon. Friend must be aware that the question of animal vaccination was one very much disputed amongst medical men. He did not think that his hon. Friend did any good service to the cause of vaccination by constantly raising this discussion in the House of Commons, because they were liable to be exposed to the stories that had been told them by the hon. Member for Leicester, who had described to them one of the most distressing forms of a disgraceful disease which was well known to medical men, and had ascribed that to vaccination. His hon. Friend had, no doubt, stated with perfect conviction of the truth that that particular disease, with all the disgusting details which he described, had been produced by vaccination.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he mentioned that there was the authority of a physician for the statement.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYadmitted that his hon. Friend alleged that he made the statement not on his own authority, which would have been valueless, but on that of a medical man of eminence. He did not wish, however, to enter into the details of the matter; but persons must be aware that vaccination was performed by the introduction of vaccine lymph first from the calf into man, and then from man into his fellow man. If vaccination were carelessly performed, blood might be transferred from one human being to another, and that blood might contain the germs of a disease such as that described by the hon. Member. It was quite possible that, by careless vaccination, a great evil might be brought upon a particular individual; but that was no argument for doing away with vaccination, which had proved of such vast benefit to the whole civilized and uncivilized world, but was really an argument for taking care that vaccination should be properly performed. That was why he thought that successive Governments were to be blamed for the stingy manner in which they had con-
  1844
  ducted the vaccination establishments in Ireland. These establishments had been entirely neglected. Hon. Members might think that this was an Irish grievance; but he thought it was a question which concerned the whole country, and that it was necessary that the greatest precaution should be taken with regard to the purity of vaccination, and that there should be a constant supervision of the vaccinators in all parts of the Kingdom. This subject had been brought forward over and over again, and they had never been able to obtain redress. It must be remembered that, in compelling persons to have their children vaccinated, they were taking the only course which would insure protection to all. Were a child unvaccinated to take the small-pox he might propagate the disease and destroy the lives of large numbers of human beings. It was exactly the same principle upon which they prevented persons polluting streams from which human beings drank. They might say that it was hard to prevent the house higher up the stream draining its refuse into it, notwithstanding that the stream was thereby polluted, for the inmates of the house lower down who had to drink from it. It was necessary for the individual to sacrifice his own liberty in order to protect the community in cases where investigation had proved that it was desirable for the good of the whole body, as well as for the individual, that such a course should be followed, and that was the sole ground upon which vaccination could be justified. Believing firmly that vaccination had been on the whole an unmixed good for the human race, and that if the law of compulsory vaccination were relaxed they would have recurrence to the outbreaks of small-pox such as took place formerly, he was opposed to any alteration in the law, or even further inquiry into the subject. Inquiries were constantly going on into the subject of vaccination by medical societies and by professional gentlemen, and their knowledge of small-pox and its best preventatives was continually being increased. He believed that there was no class of men more anxious to arrive at the truth and the knowledge of what was best for the community than the Medical Profession. Under the circumstances be thought that they would do no harm in leaving further investigation of the subject in their hands.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that of course it happened, in debates of this kind, that objections to the existing system were brought prominently forward, and that they were rather hard upon all the defects in a system. He did not complain of that, for it was only natural that an established system should be put upon its trial, and all sorts of objections brought forward against it. Anybody who had heard this debate must perceive that vaccination had been exposed to attacks for a very considerable time. It might, however, be said that the detractors of the system had set themselves to work to demolish each other. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), in his very able and amusing speech, had quoted Sir Robert Peel against the system of compulsory vaccination. That speech was made a good many years ago, and, doubtless, Sir Robert Peel was then opposed to compulsory vaccination; but it did not at all follow that he would have been opposed to it at the present time. He was disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, to the extent of being an opponent to compulsion on the individual in general. He thought that a most overwhelming case must be made out in the interests of the public why compulsion should be adopted before such a thing could be sanctioned. Having listened very carefully to this debate, he did not think that the opponents of the present system of compulsory vaccination had made out such a case against it as would justify the House in overthrowing the present system, as the hon. Member for Leicester proposed to do. The hon. Member for Leicester had made a sharp attack upon the Medical Profession, and had said that they must do evil for the sake of maintaining their professional theories. All he could say was, that if medical men, or any great number of them, had set themselves to conceal the defects of vaccination, for the sake of upholding their theories, the sooner they abolished not only vaccination, but the Medical Profession, the better.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he had only pointed out that there was a tendency on the part of the Profession to subordinate the facts to their theories, and he had illustrated that by reference to the cases of medical men.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that if he had exaggerated the position of the hon. Member he must pardon him for doing so. The hon. Member had spoken of the law of compulsion as if it applied to only one class of the community, whereas, in point of fact, it was the same for every class. Every person, whatever his rank in life, was subject to the same laws and the same penalties as affected the humblest individuals in the community. He had also quoted statistics as to the inefficiency of vaccination, and as to the direct evils which it produced. The hon. Member had further shown them that, in a certain community of men, so many vaccinated persons had recovered from the smallpox, and so many unvaccinated persons had recovered; but he did not gather that the hon. Member had informed them what number of the total body of men in the community were vaccinated and what number were unvaccinated. It was obvious that if the number of vaccinated was larger than the number unvaccinated, it might well be that a larger number of the vaccinated would suffer from small-pox; and yet that would not prove that the proportion of vaccinated which escaped was not larger than the proportion of unvaccinated which escaped.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, that his statement was with regard to the proportion of the deaths of those vaccinated and those unvaccinated.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that the hon. Member had not told them whether the number of persons vaccinated was larger than the number of persons unvaccinated. Furthermore, the opinion of a certain number of medical men had been quoted against that of the general body of the Profession. He was not prepared to enter into a comparison of the merits of those gentlemen whose opinions had been quoted; other speakers were much better qualified to give an opinion on that subject than he was. But he thought it was the fact that those gentlemen were most eminent in their Profession. The hon. Member had also given them some statistics. Well, it was very easy to quote statistics one way or the other. The hon. Member referred to the epidemic in London two years ago, and quoted statistics to show that vaccination was inefficient as a protection against small-

  1847
  pox. Now, he held in his hand a statement by Dr. Seiveking, who said that this epidemic, alarming as it had been, did not approach the annual small-pox mortality in this Kingdom at a time when vaccination was unknown. He showed that by comparison with the annual average small-pox death rate of that period. He stated that before vaccination was known the annual average mortality from small-pox was 3,000 per 1,000,000 of the population; whereas during the very exceptional period of the recent epidemic the mortality was only 928 per 1,000,000. The annual average mortality at the present time was very much below that. There was a Committee of Inquiry upon the subject in 1871, and certainly the anti-vaccination party then obtained a full hearing. What was the conclusion come to by that Committee, which was presided over by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster)? They said—
  "If vaccination be not an absolute, it certainly is a great protection against small-pox, and it is almost an absolute protection against death from that disease. If the operation be properly performed it does not affect the health of the subject, provided care be taken in obtaining healthy lymph. Small-pox is kept in check by vaccination. It is one of the most terrible, destructive diseases as regards the large proportion of deaths, and the permanent injury to those that survive. Therefore, it is the duty of the State to endeavour to secure the careful vaccination of the whole population."
  He must say that it seemed to him that the utmost the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) proved in his speech was that bad or careless vaccination might do harm. He did not think that his speech showed that when properly performed it necessarily resulted in harm to the patient or was conducive to harm. He would then refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) who had moved the Resolution. That hon. Gentleman had again brought forward his arguments in favour of that opinion to which he so strongly holds—namely, vaccination from animal lymph. He did not quite know whether the hon. Member wished that the Vaccination Department of the State should supply lymph to all comers — both animal and humanized lymph—for the vaccination of individuals generally throughout the country, or whether he would be content if the Vaccination De-
  1848
  partment should hold large quantities of both kinds, and supply stock to medical men and practitioners generally with which they vaccinate.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that the latter statement of the right hon Gentleman was what he wished to advocate.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he was glad to hear the view taken by the hon. Member; but he wished to observe that there some 9,000 or 10,000 medical men to whom the lymph must be served out, and it would necessitate an enormous supply of both kinds procurable.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that the stock in the case of animal lymph would be merely sent out to the particular station where required.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that Parliament for some time past had not been giving attention to the question of vaccination with animal lymph. Certain objections had been taken to that mode of vaccination. It was said that it was less certain to take and more likely to produce irritation, and that the fact of keeping a stock would lead to vaccination that was feeble, and of a less permanent character. He believed that more recent experience had removed, to some extent, at least, if not fully, some of those objections, and the merits of humanized lymph were not increased. He had no wish, on the part of the Department, to appear in any way opposed to any experiments or practice which could be conducted properly, and would probably conduce to the health of the community. Therefore, he was prepared to say on behalf of that Department that they would make arrangements by which animal lymph might be supplied as stock as well as humanized lymph, and that it would be sent to medical practitioners when they desired. But they must proceed with the greatest caution, taking care of established cow-pox. They must take care to proceed, in fact, upon the best possible basis. As regarded the criticism made upon the departmental supply of humanized lymph, he could assure the House that the utmost care was exercised to supply only the purest lymph that could be obtained from experienced vaccinators. It was examined microscopically in order to ascertain that there was no blood mixed with it, the blood in lymph being that which, if anything, was calculated to introduce terrible diseases into the system. The supply of lymph

  1849
  was regularly recorded, and the destination was also known, so that in ease any irregularity arose the case could be investigated carefully, and the source of the lymph ascertained. He was not prepared to agree in toto with any of the propositions on the Paper. With regard to that one of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), where he said—
  "That as cow-pox lymph direct from the calf, commonly known as animal vaccine, is of at least equal value as a prophylactic against small-pox with the ordinary humanized lymph,"—
  he (Mr. Dodson) was not prepared, as at present advised, to accept the assertion that animal vaccine was of equal value in the ordinary sense. At the same time, the experiments made showed satisfactory results. If it could be proved that animal lymph was of fully equal value it might be largely employed; and, for his own part, he should be rejoiced. He would then turn to the Amendnent of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor). That Amendment, as he had stated in the criticism of his speech, he was not prepared to accept. The Motion of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson), who proposed a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject, he had stated that vaccination as now performed had caused the propagation of other diseases. He (Mr. Dodson) was not prepared to assent to that. The effect, he believed, of perpetuating vaccination was to diminish small-pox, and in that belief he was supported by many eminent medical authorities. For these reasons he was unable to agree to the terms of that Motion. Moreover, in the present state of affairs, the effect of appointing a Royal Commission would be to cast doubt upon the efficiency of the vaccination law, and that he was not prepared to allow. He would refer them to the last part of that Motion, which dealt with the penalties inflicted for non-compliance with the law. The Committee of 1871 had recommended the abolition of cumulative penalties. It recommended that after full penalties had once been inflicted no further prosecution should be brought against the parent with reference to that child. That was a proposition that he was prepared to recommend, and the Government intended to sanction the abolition of cumulative penalties. The Government
  1850
  would also henceforth take care to procure animal lymph as well as humanized. He had already pointed out why he could not accept the whole propositions placed upon the Paper. He trusted that the House would be satisfied with the proposition he had made, and that the Resolution would be withdrawn. He would only say, further, that the attention of the Local Government Board would be carefully directed upon the subject, and that there would be no disposition to view with prejudice any just information or suggestion that might reach them.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had listened with great satisfaction to the statement of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and he considered that he had treated the subject in a very proper manner. But, at the same time, he could not help observing that he thought the hon. Member for Glasgow would hardly be satisfied with the assurance given by his right hon. Friend. If he was, he would be certainly satisfied with less than that which he had desired to have in the last Parliament. As he understood the matter, the subject brought forward by the hon. Member in the last Parliament was of a different nature, and one considerably in advance of that which he had advocated that night. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) declined to accept the hon. Gentleman's propositions as then made, because they would seriously have affected the machinery of the Department; but he had always been willing to give the fullest opportunities for experiments. The hon. Member for Glasgow, he believed, relied upon the use of animal vaccine as a secure guarantee against the communication of other disease; but the experience of the Department over which he lately presided did not point with the same certainty to that conclusion. As he understood the hon. Gentleman, he wished each vaccination to be done direct from the calf. If that was so, he did not know how the proposal of his right hon. Friend met that proposition, nor how it could satisfy the hon. Gentleman who had brought the matter for ward.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that he never proposed anything so absurd as vaccination direct from the calf. Still, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman

  1851
  the President of the Local Government Board did not go so far as he wished.
  MR. SCLATER - BOOTHsaid, he would not dispute with the hon. Gentleman about the terms of his proposals last year. The statement of his right hon. Friend was precisely the one he himself should have made if the Motion had come on in its present form, when he had the honour of presiding over the Local Government Board. He had, in fact, some time since given directions that a quantity of animal lymph should be procured for the purpose of making experiments. He had no intention of arguing about the advisability of vaccination, but would content himself with saying generally that he was in favour of it. He did not believe that the quotations which had been made from various authorities against the practice could be relied upon as against the unanimous testimony of the whole medical world. It would, he thought, be a most unfortunate thing to disturb the existing system of vaccination, without having a thorough investigation by the Medical Profession, represented, as they were, by such bodies as the Medical Council and the College of Physicians. He was quite sure that no Government would acquiesce in anything so revolutionary as the proposal of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) without being supported by the best authorities on the subject With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Banbury, and the concession of his right hon. Friend in relation thereto, he fully concurred with him that no benefit was likely to accrue from repeated prosecutions and convictions in the case of those parents who would not allow their children to be vaccinated. That concession he had endeavoured to effect during the time he was in Office. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would be obliged to bring in a Bill for that purpose, in order that it might be sanctioned by Act of Parliament. When in Office, he had taken some trouble to ascertain the probability of an Act being passed, if introduced; and the result of his inquiries was that he had reason to believe that legislation in that direction, during the late Parliament, would not have been successful. He did not think it would be more so in the present one, inasmuch as it was extremely difficult to get the ma-
  1852
  jority, which he believed were in favour of the law in its present form, to vote for any change, though some change was, he thought, required. He could only say that whatever objections there were to any relaxation of the law, for his own part, he would be glad to see the cumulative penalties removed, for he believed by that means a good deal of unnecessary hardship would be prevented.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he should like to put a question or two to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. In the first place, he understood that the Local Government Board had consented to the proposal of the hon. Member for Glasgow to the extent that they would supply animal as well as humanized lymph to medical men when they made applications for it. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to supply that animal lymph to all the members of the Medical Profession who chose to apply for it, or only to those who might be relied upon thoroughly? The next question was— he understood that cumulative penalties wore to be abolished. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to introduce a Bill to that effect; and, if so, when?
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished also to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. More than a year ago, a Return with reference to the matter then under discussion was laid upon the Table. If he had been rightly informed, that Return would provide a complete answer to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth). That Return would show that a great number of persons in this country had suffered imprisonment once, twice, thrice; in fact, many times, rather than comply with the Act. There was another observation he wished to make, and that was with reference to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had preceded him, who spoke of introducing an Act of Parliament with reference to those penalties. He said also that, notwithstanding the desire of the late Government to pass such a measure, and the fact of their possessing a well-disciplined majority, it had been impossible to pass such an Act successfully during the Session of the late Parlia-

  1853
  ment. He could not sit down without making a further observation. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) had stated that he wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that the law was the same for the rich as for the poor in this country in the matter of vaccination. That was so, certainly; hut it applied very differently to the different conditions in life. In the case of the vaccination of the children of the rich and well-to-do persons, every care was taken to secure good and healthy matter for the operation, so that no risk should be run; but all that care was certainly not taken in the case of the poor child. Therefore, the law applied differently; and so it was hardly fair for the right hon. Gentleman to give the House to understand that the law worked exactly the same in all cases. But it was incontestable that the question of vaccination was a much disputed one, and that there were always a number of people in this country who were satisfied that the law as it stood brought great evils upon their children, and that, rather than see those evils brought upon them, they were prepared to undergo repeated imprisonments. He must say he considered that a very serious state of things; and he certainly had heard with some regret his right hon. Friend declare that he could not do anything in that matter at present. He hoped that there would be a most careful inquiry into the subject. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson) had, he thought, done rightly in placing an Amendment on the Paper. Considering the difference of opinion that existed on the question, he certainly should like to see the appointment of a Royal Commission, in order that an inquiry might be instituted.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that the Return should be presented to the House as soon as possible. The lymph would be supplied to public vaccinators and private practitioners in the same way as it was at present, and arrangements had been made for a supply of lymph from the animal. He thought, in view of the strong feeling existing in the country with regard to repeated convictions, that the Government would be justified in asking Parliament to pass a measure which would place the matter upon a more satisfactory footing.
  MR. A. M' ARTHURsaid, he had heard with pleasure that the Government were prepared to do away with repeated penalties. That would be a great satisfaction to a large portion of the community. He felt strongly upon the question before the House, and confessed that he coincided with the views expressed by his hon. Friend behind him, that the Government should go a little further and grant the Commission. Unquestionably a considerable number of persons in the country felt that they were greatly aggrieved by compulsory vaccination. He could not support his hon. Colleague in saying that he would vote for its abolition; but he believed it would be a satisfaction to the community if a Commission were appointed to inquire into the whole question. Whether they approved or disapproved vaccination, their sympathies must be with those persons who believed that they were persecuted, and were suffering for conscience sake, because they refused to expose their children to danger and disease. He had no sympathy with those who attacked the Medical Profession in connection with this subject. But a strong feeling did exist in the country, and especially in the constituency which he represented, against compulsory vaccination. The question was a medical one, and ought to be inquired into and set at rest. He was in considerable doubt with regard to it; but as far as his present views went, although he could not vote for the abolition of compulsory vaccination, he strongly advocated the appointment of a Commission.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he was quite willing to withdraw his Motion, the right hon. Gentleman having really granted his main object. In doing so, he begged to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, both upon the excellent organization of his Department and upon the fact that he had not been anticipated in respect of the proposed Bill by his Predecessor.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Monday next,

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 150.]
  (Mr. Meldon, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Mitchell Henry, Mr. Findlater, Mr. Dawson.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th June.']
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 9 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clauses 15 (Revision courts to be held at polling stations.)
  MR. DAWSONasked the hon. and learned Member for Kildare not to expunge this clause. Everyone knew that the Revision Courts were most inconvenient. He could not conceive what was the meaning of the franchise if it was not to be carried out in giving facilities to those who required them. He did not think the Committee would refuse to grant to Ireland the same facilities as were granted to England by Act of Parliament.
  MR. MELDONsaid, at the present time the Lord Lieutenant in Council had absolute power to create as many additional Courts as he might think fit. But it was well known that under the late Administration it was found in certain parts of Ireland impossible to have the number of Revision Courts increased. A Select Committee had sat to consider the question. They were prepared to admit that the number of Courts ought to be substantially increased; but, notwithstanding that admission, the number had only been increased in one instance. Things had, however, changed; and he was prepared to accept the assurance that a re-consideration of the question of polling districts would take place by the present Government, and on that undertaking he thought he might agree to allow the clause to be expunged.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he agreed with the statement of the hon. Member for Carlow that an increase in the number of Revision Courts in Ireland might possibly be necessary in the interest of certain voters. There were, however, places appointed for polling at elections in Ireland which would be a source of the greatest possible difficulty, where it would be impossible for the staff of the Revising Barrister to attend and meet with the accommodation necessary. If the Government were to follow
  1856
  a via media —giving an assurance that inquiries should be made in all the counties interested in this question, with a view proceeding in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Carlow— it would, he thought, be most desirable. It was, at that time, simply impossible in several places in King's County to hold Revising Courts. If the hon. Member for Carlow were to push his view to the extreme, there would be great inconvenience to persons attending to enforce their claims, as well as to those who attended to judge the cases. As that was not the intention of the hon. Member, a medium course was the proper one, although it was not for him to say what that course should be.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he wished to point out that there were in County Cork 22 polling places. The idea of a Revising Barrister travelling to and from those places was a simple impossibility. The voters in the county were perfectly well acquainted with the places for polling. He could not imagine that there was any inequality between the English and Irish law upon this matter, nor could he admit that equality necessarily meant alteration. He begged to move that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, it appeared to him, from the observations that had been made by some of the Members of the Committee, that the purport and effect of the clause had not been completely understood. It was true the Judge became bound under its terms to hold Revision Courts in each of the polling districts of the several counties in Ireland. It might be said, too, the presence of the Judge with the staff required for registration purposes would occasion expense and inconvenience. But the answer was that the clause wisely provided that if the Lord Lieutenant considered the holding of any such Courts unnecessary, or that the places appointed for the purpose were inconvenient, he had full power to direct that these Revision Courts should be only held in each county in such places as he considered suitable and convenient. Under the pre-

  1857
  sent law the Lord Lieutenant had power to order the holding of those Revision Courts in such places as he considered necessary. But though well-founded complaints had been made from time to time, as shown in the evidence laid before the Registration Committee, each successive Lord Lieutenant had been unwilling to exercise the powers intrusted to him by statute. It was right, therefore, he should, as proposed by the clause, be compelled to carefully look into the circumstances and claims for registration facilities which might be made on behalf of the voters in each county. Experience had shown it was necessary the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council should be thus compelled to take the initiative. Under those circumstances, he trusted the Committee would not assent to the omission of the clause.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was sorry to see that the first act of the new Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. Johnson) was to make an obstructive Motion to the progress of an Irish measure of assimilation. If there was one principle to which the present Government were pledged it was that of assimilating the Irish and English law. The Bill of the hon. Member for Kildare had been brought forward to redress an admitted inequality in the English and Irish law of registration. Under the old law the County Court Judges were not compelled to hold Revision Courts, except in a certain number of places; it was found that these places were not convenient, and that the number of Courts were far too few for the purpose of affording facilities to those persons entitled by law to obtain the franchise, and the Lord Lieutenant was empowered to direct that extraordinary Revision Sessions should be held. But in practice the Lord Lieutenant did not make these provisions, although his hon. Friend hoped that the present Lord Lieutenant would be better in that re-respect than his Predecessor. Formerly, under the old law, the onus was thrown upon the Lord Lieutenant of providing additional facilities; but it was asked under the present Bill that the onus might be thrown upon the Lord Lieutenant of preventing additional facilities being granted, and he and his hon. Friends could not but consider the request a very reasonable one. He was surprised that the Solicitor General for
  1858
  Ireland had objected to that very reasonable request. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow him to correct his statement, he would say that, although he had mentioned the number of polling places in county Cork as amounting to 22, he (Mr. Parnell) had had the very best opportunities for knowing that they numbered 50. He would ask the Solicitor General for Ireland, whether, under all the circumstances of the case, he ought to oppose a clause of this kind? No Notice of objection had been given, and they had not been informed of the reasons of the Government or the Solicitor General for Ireland. He was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman would see, on consideration, that opposition to the clause was unnecessary.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that he hoped the Government would withdraw the Motion. If the Government were to consult the Law Officers of the Crown, he had no doubt that they would make up their minds to assimilate the Irish with the English practice. They would not have proposed a change of this kind unless they had been convinced that it could be economically carried out.
  MR. MELDONsaid, that at present the onus was thrown upon the Lord Lieutenant of providing additional Revision Courts. The object of the present Bill was to take the onus in that matter from the Lord Lieutenant, and only giving him power, if he pleased, of preventing additional Revision Courts being held. He was prepared to admit that in many places in Ireland it was not necessary to increase the number of Revision Courts; but in others it was absolutely necessary. It was the fact that in the North of Ireland a man might have to travel 18 or 20 miles to get his name placed on the list of voters. To a poor man this meant two days' travelling, frequently over mountains, and was a great hardship. He was referring more particularly to the County Donegal; but it would scarcely be believed that even in the County Dublin men had to travel 8, 9, or 12 miles for the purpose of getting their names placed on the list of voters. For years past a change had been demanded; but up to the present nothing had been done. The power was, by this Bill, placed in the bands of other authorities to provide additional Courts, But the Lord Lieu-

  1859
  tenant was given a right of saying whether such Courts were necessary. He should suggest that the clause should be allowed to pass, and that the Government should in the meantime consider the subject, and if they thought fit could move on Report that the clause should be expunged.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that he had not at first thought there was any grievance in this matter, and had deemed it unnecessary to increase the number of Revision Courts. From what had been said, however, there seemed to be a real case for examination; and he should, therefore, wish to have an opportunity of looking into the whole matter. He should ask leave to withdraw his Motion to report Progress, reserving his right to object to the clause if he thought fit upon Report.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Register to contain post-towns).
  MR. MELDONsaid, that the object of the clause was to make provision for each list of voters, containing the names of the post-towns of the individual voters. The reason for that was that, at the present time, the list of voters contained only the names of the persons entitled to vote, and of the district from which their qualifications were derived. There were frequently many places of the same name, and many persons of the same name in the same place, and notices of objection so directed frequently miscarried; the effect of this was that many voters were excluded from the franchise without having received notice of objection. This was proposed to be remedied by this clause, by providing that the official should direct every notice of objection to the voter at his post town. At the same time provision was made that the accidental omission of the official to insert the name of the voter's post-town should not constitute a valid objection to the vote.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Notices to be posted at churches).
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he must object to this clause. It no doubt was in
  1860
  accordance with the practice, in respect to the posting of registration notices in England; but it appeared to him it would create a very heavy and most unnecessary charge on local rates. And, having regard to the fact that the Clerk of the Peace had the duty cast on him of having these postings made in the several counties in Ireland, and that he had no proper staff for the purpose, he conceived, unless the dates in the principal Act were changed, the postings could not be carried out within the periods appointed by statute. As to the matter of expense, from statements which had been furnished to him, and which set forth the full particulars, it appeared the extra expenses occasioned by those additional postings required by the present clause, and which would have to be defrayed out of the county rates, would in Armagh amount to in or about £118, in Down to some £274, and in Mayo to about £134. Under the previous clauses of the present Bill every facility was given for the registration of anyone entitled to be on the Voters' List. It was difficult to conceive a case in which anyone entitled to the franchise could be omitted. It must also be borne in mind that the principal Act provided already for postings on each police barrack, and other public notices. Many of these churches and chapels in Ireland are situated in very remote districts, and the greater number without railway communication. This, he need hardly observe, would render the expenses that would have to be incurred, if this clause became law, heavier even than was the the case in England. Serious complaints had been justly made of the successive small increases thus made by this House in the local rates. But if he thought these postings were required to obtain for those entitled the acquisition of their rights he would not object to the expense. However, as he believed the additional expenses which would be occasioned were unnecessary, and could be of no advantage, he trusted the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) would assent to the omission of this clause; and he should certainly, if it was opposed, press the matter to a division.
  MR. MELDONsaid, that this clause was drawn on the model of the provisions in force in England. Under the provisions of the present Registration

  1861
  Acts for Ireland, these notices were posted only on the police barracks and in such places as the Grand Jury notices were posted. It should also be recollected that if a large number of notices were required to be posted, as provided by the clause, the present time allowed by the clause would not be sufficient. He did not attach any importance to this clause of the Bill, and had no objection to its being omitted.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he did not think that the objection raised by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin) to this clause, on the ground of the expense it would entail, could be sustained. In his opinion, the House could not sanction any expenses for a more worthy object than for giving every facility for people to record their votes. The police barracks in Ireland were not the proper places for publishing information. The police barrack was the very last place where Irishmen would go for anything like information. He thought they ought to have the same publicity given to these matters in Ire-land as in England, and that no obstacle should be thrown in the way of diffusing a knowledge of the contents of the list of voters. It would be better to wipe out the police barracks and have the notices posted at the churches and chapels. In the English Act there was nothing about publishing the notices at the police barracks. He was willing to give up the market places; but anyone that knew Ireland must be aware that churches and chapels were places of greater resort than police barracks.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he should like to ask the hon. Member for Kilkenny what county in Ireland contained 1,600 churches and chapels.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he would make an humble appeal not to waste their time in such a discussion as this, and would appeal to hon. Gentlemen, now that they had an Irish Parliament for the moment, to show that legislative wisdom for which they obtained celebrity in days gone by.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that he thought that such a matter of detail as this might well be left in the hands of the hon. and learned Member who had brought in the Bill.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, in reply to the hon. Member for Sligo, that in the County Dublin there were 411 places of worship, and the calculation included
  1862
  those as well as the market places and police barracks.
  THE SOLIOITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that, in his opinion, the notices ought to be posted at the police barracks, and at all other places where Grand Jury notices were posted.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that perhaps the proper way to settle this question would be to follow precedent. Everyone must wish to avoid inflicting unnecessary expense upon the ratepayers of Ireland. Every Irishman went to chapel once a-year, and probably a great majority once a week; but very few Irishmen probably went to the police barrack at all during that time. If they wished to publish the information in the lists in the most efficient way, it seemed to him it would be by affixing these notices on the churches and chapels. He should be in favour of adopting a compromise in this matter by striking out the police barracks and market places and leaving the churches and chapels. He did not think that that could be done then, for the Question put from the Chair would probably be that the clause stand part of the Bill.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, that if the question were that the clause should stand part of the Bill, he should feel it his duty to divide against it.
  MR. MELDONsaid, that he was quite willing to omit the clause. The responsibility for inserting it in the Bill rested with him, and he had done so following somewhat slavishly the English practice. He thought he had been led into error in putting the clause into the Bill, and should be willing to withdraw it. He might also mention that the Government, who had lent them every assistance with regard to the Bill, had pressed somewhat strongly that the clause should be omitted. He thought the clause would cause great dissatisfaction if passed.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 17 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 34: Majority 18.—(Div. List. No. 18.)
  Clause struck out accordingly.
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  Schedules agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

MOTIONS.

  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES, &c. (IRELAND).
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That there he laid before this House, Returns of Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland, specifying the name, district, and date of appointment in each case, and distinguishing the cases in which such Magistrates, previous to their appointment, had professional knowledge of the law:
  Of the number of Petty Session Courts held in the district of each Stipendiary Magistrate in Ireland during the year ended the 1st day of June 1880, specifying the dates on which and the places at which such Courts were held:
  And, of the number of Petty Session Courts in Ireland attended by Stipendiary Magistrates during the year aforesaid, and of the number of such Courts adjourned without transaction of business, in consequence of the want of a sufficient attendance of Magistrates, specifying the date and place of each such Court."— [Mr. Sexton.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 19: Majority 12.—(Div. List, No. 19.)

  KINGSTOWN ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. FOLEY, Bill to constitute the township of Kingstown, in the county of Dublin, into a Parliamentary Borough, to be called the Borough of Kingstown, ordered to be brought in by Mr. FOLEY, Mr. MELDON, and Mr. SEXTON.
  Bill presented, and. read the first time. [Bill214.]

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. REDMOND, Bill to amend "The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878," ordered to be brought in by Mr. REDMOND, Mr. MARTIN, Mr. FAY, and Mr. FOLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 215.]

  INCLOSURE (LLANFAIR HILLS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the Inclosure of certain lands known as Llanfair Hills, situate in the parish of Llanfair Waterdine, in the county of Salop, in pursuance of a Report of
  1864
  the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR PEEL and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  Bill presented and read the first time. [Bill 216.]

  INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (CLENT HILL COMMON) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the Regulation of certain lands known as Clent Hill Common, situate in the parish of Clent, in the county of Worcester, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR PEEL and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 217.]

  INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (ABBOT-SIDE COMMON) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the Regulation of certain lands known as Abbotside Common, situate in the parish of Aysgarth, in the county of York, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR PEEL and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 218.]

  FRAUDULENT DEBTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Select Committee nominated:—Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Mr. COCHRANE PATRICK, Mr. ARMITSTEAD, Mr. BIRLEY, Mr. GRANT, Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL, Mr. RAMSAY, Mr. ORR EWING, Mr. MACKINTOSH, Sir HERBERT MAXWELL, Mr. MIDDLETON, Mr. MARK STEWART, Mr. M'LAGAN, Mr. COMPTON LAWRANCE, and Dr. CAMERON: —Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock till Monday next.