Commons Sitting of 5 July 1883

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Heading—Ennerdale Railway.
Considered as amended—Goole, Epworth, and Owston Railway *.
Lords Amendments considered—Ribble Navigation, Preston Dock and Borough Extension.
PUBLIC BILLS—Leave—First Heading—Detention in Hospitals (No. 2) * [259].
First Reading—Sea Fisheries * [257]; Stolen Goods * [258].
Second Heading—High Court of Justice (Continuous Sittings) * [233].
Referred to Select Committee—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders * [216]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) * [223]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) * [224].
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [7] [Fifteenth Night]—R. P.
Committee—Report—Poor Relief (Ireland) [154]; Railway Passenger Duty, &c. * [219–255];

421
Irish. Reproductive Loan Fund Act (1874) Amendment * [39–256].
Third Reading—Medical Act (1858) Amendment * [205], and passed.
Withdrawn—Detention in Hospitals [247].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  RIBBLE NAVIGATION, PRESTON DOCK AND BOROUGH EXTENSION BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
    Lords Amendments considered.
    Amendments, as far as Clause 68A, agreed to.
    Clause 68A read a second time.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS,in moving to amend the clause by adding the words—
    "Provided always, That this section shall not apply to, or in any way affect, the foreshore, or any lands gained or reclaimed from the foreshore south-west of Crossens Channel, situate within the said township of North Meols."
    said, the question he desired to raise formed the sequel to a matter which came before the House recently in reference to the sale of the foreshore of Southport to the riparian owners. If the clause inserted by the House of Lords were passed as it stood, it would, as far as Southport was concerned, bring the question to a fatal termination. He did not propose to touch upon the merits of the dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the Corporation of South-port for several reasons. First, he held in his hand a letter from the Duchy of Lancaster, in which they said that they had had nothing whatever to do with the introduction of the clause which had been inserted in the Bill by the House of Lords; and, that being so, the Duchy was not prepared to take any part in the matter, either in favour or adversely. But he did not propose to introduce any question as between the Duchy and the Corporation of Southport for another and more important reason—namely, that the whole question as between the two bodies, the riparian owners and the Corporation of Southport, was in the hands of the Chancellor of the Duchy, who had promised, and was carrying out his promise, to use his good offices with a view of bringing the matter to a settlement. Therefore, while the matter was pending between the Corporation of Southport, the ri-
    422
    parian owners, and the Duchy, and while it was possible that an arrangement might be arrived at which he hoped would lead to a settlement, he did not think it would be wise to introduce any contentious matter. He would only allude to certain simple facts to show the connection between the South-port foreshore and the Ribble Navigation Bill. As the House was probably aware, the amount of foreshore which, was going to be sold to the riparian owners amounted to 9,000 acres. This amount was divided into two portions by a stream of considerable extent called Crossens Channel. That on the North-East of the Channel was the largest part, containing upwards of 5,000 acres, and with that part the Amendment he proposed to insert did not interfere in any way. The important part was that on the South and West of Crossens Channel, which comprised the whole of the foreshore of Southport. In other words, the borough of Southport extended right up to the Crossens Channel, and the whole of the foreshore covered by that space was necessary to the inhabitants of Southport, in order to give them access to the sea. Indeed, the whole of those 4,000 acres, with the exception of about 600, were, at the present moment, included in the borough boundary, and the whole of it, including the 600 acres, was directly in front of the borough. Since the year 1880, the Corporation of Southport had been in communication with the Duchy for the sale of its rights over these 4,000 acres, and the negotiations were carried on up to the month of April last, when negotiations were entered into and a sale partly completed with the landowners. He had no intention of entering into any dispute as to the Duchy. The Duchy considered that the negotiations were at an end, as far as the Corporation of Southport were concerned; but the Corporation did not so consider them at an end. The Duchy considered the sale to have been practically completed; the Corporation submitted that as the Seal of the Duchy had not been affixed the sale was really not completed. But, be that as it might, it would be unwise and unnecessary to introduce any dispute of this kind into the matter now before the House, which was quite upon another point. There had been communications in which the Chancellor of the Duchy had offered

    423
    his good offices—communications from the Duchy to the Corporation, offering his mediation and arbitration. That offer, on the basis laid down, for various reasons had been declined. He hold in his hand a letter from the Duchy, dated the 29th of June—quite recently—asking the Corporation of Southport to reconsider the question of arbitration, and to bring the matter before the Town Council. This letter had not yet been laid before the Southport Town Council; but it would be placed before them on Tuesday next. Then, on the other hand, there was a counter-offer from the Corporation to the landowners. The landowners gave £15,000 for the whole 9,000 acres, and the Corporation offered the whole of the purchase money—£15,000—for the smaller part—the 4,000 acres lying in front of their borough. To that offer there had been no official reply, so that the House would see there was an offer and a counter-offer still pending, and on that ground it would not be wise to drag the Duchy in any way into the discussion. But he would respectfully ask the House to consider what would hap-pen if this clause were passed. It would give an absolutely statutory title to the two landowners in question; and there-fore the good offices of the Duchy would be of no avail, because it would be impossible that they could exorcise any of the powers they had now, seeing that the foreshore would have gone absolutely into the ownership of the two riparian proprietors. This state of affairs had been brought about by what he would venture to term a side wind. It had been brought about by a clause introduced into the Bill by the House of Lords. This year the Kibble Navigation Company—which was really the Corporation of the borough of Preston—had introduced a Bill which, among other things, was to improve the navigation of the River Ribble. Southport was in the Estuary of the Ribble, and Preston was 14 miles off up the River. Among other things, it was proposed to build training walls and a large embankment in the Estuary, and the effect of these works would be to reclaim the foreshore for a considerable distance from these training walls, seeing that even at present the water was very shallow over a great stretch. In the House of Lords the representatives of Southport were not allowed to oppose
    424
    the Bill on the ground that they had no locus standi, and he wished particularly to state that their locus standi was refused on this ground—that the works of the Ribble Navigation Company were not likely to affect the borough of Southport or the foreshore of Southport. This clause consequently had been introduced into the Bill without the Corporation having the right to be heard against it, although it would give all the foreshore when reclaimed to the riparian owners. Now, Southport had no objection to the operation of those works so far as the immense tract of foreshore on the North-Eastern side of Crossens Channel went; but they did object to have their own foreshore handed over in the manner contemplated by this clause. If it was the case, as the promoters of the Bill alleged, that Southport would not be affected by these Ribble Navigation Works, and that there would be no accretion or reclamation of their foreshore; if that really were so, then the Amendment would do no harm, and all those who were of that opinion ought to vote for it, because it had been very carefully drawn, and with studied moderation, only for the purpose of saving that part of the foreshore which was in front of Southport. But, unfortunately, nearly all the scientific witnesses and the best engineers declared that the accretions would go beyond Crossens Channel and affect the foreshore in front of South-port; and Sir Frederick Bramwoll went so far as to say that it would so reclaim the foreshore in front of South-port, as eventually to make Southport an inland town. Now, that was a very important consideration, seeing that the foreshore varied from one mile to two and a-half miles before it reached the Channel, and then beyond that were six miles of sand at low water. It was, therefore, very important that this should not happen, because Southport would have its whole character destroyed if what Sir Frederick Bramwell and other eminent engineers declared would happen should do so. But that was not all. In the clause inserted in the Lords, the two riparian landowners had not only got a statutory right given to them over all the accretions, which were the result of the works of the Ribble Navigation Company; but they positively had a right given to them to all reclamations by any other means, so

    425
    that any reclamations which might take place from any cause whatsoever would belong to them. The only object of his Amendment was to save the foreshore of Southport, and to put it in precisely the same position it was in now. It did not confer any rights upon Southport; but it left the matter open, so that Southport might have the advantage of the good offices which the Chancellor of the Duchy was now exercising in the matter. Nor was it antagonistic to the interests of the town of Preston. No interference was asked for with that part of the foreshore on the North side of the Crossens Channel or otherwise outside their own limit, and all that immense tract would remain just as open to the operation of the Preston works as now. If the House would allow him, he thought he could not do better than read a letter just received from the Corporation of Southport on this important point and signed by the Town Clerk. The letter stated—
    "A report is being industriously circulated to the effect that the Amendment contemplated to the Lords Amendments in this Bill is directed against the Corporation of Preston. Such a report is entirely contrary to the fact."
    This was the important part of the letter—
    "The promoters of this Navigation Bill have never pretended that it was necessary for them to acquire, reclaim, or in any way deal with any foreshore in front or comprised within the limits of our own borough. Had they done so, there is no doubt that we shall have to be allowed a locus standi in the House of Lords. On the contrary, the Lords Committee threw us out on the ground that we were not affected by the work. What we object to is the Corporation of Preston coming into the borough of Southport without notice and handing over to owners whose interests are opposed to those of the inhabitants a foreshore which, in the opinion of the Corporation of Southport, it is desirable should be in their hands, and which is not and cannot be contended is in any way necessary for the purpose of the promoters of the Bill."
    That letter settled the question as to any injury done by the works contemplated by the borough of Preston. No doubt, Preston relied on the reclamation of land to recoup themselves, to a great extent, for the money they laid out; but, seeing that they would have the whole of the land on the North side of the Channel, which constituted by far the major part, and that they further contended that no land would be reclaimed in front of the Southport foreshore, he thought they had no reason to complain. A circular
    426
    had been sent out by the representatives of the landowners. He was told that the landowners themselves did not wish to appear in the matter, but only through the name and medium of their agents; but, seeing the part they were taking in reference to the borough of Southport, he thought the responsibility should be thrown on Messrs. Hesketh and Scaris-brick for the hard manner in which they were dealing with the borough of South-port. The letter stated the facts; but, for the reason he had given, as affecting the Duchy, he did not propose to touch that part of the communication. The letter went on to say—
    "The landowners have been in possession of this foreshore from time immemorial. That has not been disputed by the Duchy itself. It has been disputed by Southport, and disputed more strongly than by anyone else by the Corporation of Preston during the passage of the Bill through the Commons, and there is no doubt of this—that the borough of Southport was willing to buy the rights of the Duchy, subject to any lawsuit the landowners might think proper to bring forward. But if any proof were wanted as to that, it is given in the Report of the Proceedings in the House of Commons."
    [Cries of "Divide!"] He would not keep the House long, but would confine his remarks within the simplest possible compass; and as the Bill affected the well-being, the prosperity, and the very life of a town of 40,000 or 50,000 people, he hardly thought the House would be of opinion that he was trespassing upon their indulgence. The counsel for the Preston Corporation stated in the Committee Room of the House of Commons that the Duchy had sold these rights to them; and there was no doubt that there was an arrangement in the House of Commons by which the rights of the Duchy of Lancaster were to be sold to the Corporation of Preston. That was afterwards altered, and the rights of the Duchy were sold to the riparian owners. There was another point also stated—namely, that the riparian owners were willing to sell the foreshore in front of the Promenade of Southport for a small consideration. Now, that statement was altogether evasive, because what the riparian owners really offered to sell was a small piece—less than 100 acres out of 4,000; and that 100 coupled with such conditions that no Corporation, having the interests of the borough at heart, could possibly agree to. He knew it would be con-

    427
    tended by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) that some time ago the Corporation of Southport admitted the rights of the riparian owners, by paying them for a small piece of land. That took place as long ago as 1876, when the Corporation bought a small piece of land, of 120 acres, from the Duchy for a sum of £340, whereupon the landowners put in a claim of £20,000 for their rights in connection with it, which they ultimately reduced to £7,000. If that argument was to be used, he would ask the House to consider the danger in which the Corporation of Southport was placed. If the landowners, for a small piece of land, 120 acres in extent, with their defective claim and disputed title, asked £20,000, although the Duchy were willing to sell it for £340, what would they not be likely to compel the Corporation of Southport to pay for 4,000 acres, if they had an undisputed title? He would not occupy the House longer; but he would simply point out that this was a national question, as well as a local one. It was a national question, because all the open spaces in the country, and particularly the foreshores—that was the part lying between high and low water mark—ought to be preserved for the people—he would not say without proper consideration for all existing rights—but preserved and placed in the hands of the boroughs for the benefit of the people who lived in front of the foreshores. It was a local question also, because Southport was one of the most growing towns in the North of England. It was the great health resort for a district which comprised 4,000,000 inhabitants, and it had been described as the sanito-rium of that part of the country. He was informed that no less than 20 municipal boroughs had passed resolutions—many of them boroughs in Lancashire—praying that Parliament would help South-port in this matter; and, besides these corporate bodies, there had been Petitions from no less than 40 local bodies, making altogether 60 representative bodies which had passed resolutions upon the question in favour of the action of Southport. Besides that, there had been a Memorial sent to the Prime Minister, signed by 62 Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, for the question was not looked upon as being in any respect a Party one. He believed—in fact, he might emphatically state—from what he
    428
    had heard from hon. Members on both sides, that their sympathies were entirely in favour of the release of South-port from the false position in which it had been placed by the Amendment inserted by the House of Lords. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir P. Assheton Cross) was not in his place, because he had openly expressed strong sympathy with the Corporation in the position in which it stood. There was one other point he wished to refer to. A paper—which he held in his hand—had been circulated by the Ribble Navigation Commissioners, appealing to the House of Commons, on the ground that the clause had not yet been passed by both Houses of Parliament, and asking them to resist what they called "an insidious attempt" to upset the conclusion arrived at by a Committee of the House of Commons, as well as by a Committee of the House of Lords. Now, that was not a true statement of facts. This clause was introduced in the House of Lords. As the Bill left the House of Commons, it was in a different position altogether, the difference being that, when the measure left the Committee of the Commons, the whole of the foreshore was vested in the borough of Preston, with a right of pre-emption to any landowner who would have to prove his title; and the effect of the Amendment introduced by the Lords was, that two landowners were named by name, and an absolute title given to them. He was sure there would be no harm done to the borough of Preston, or to the Ribble Navigation Company, by the proposal which he made, because the Bill would simply go back to the House of Lords to have the clause amended, and the Corporation of Southport were advised that the Lords had introduced this Amendment under a misapprehension, and upon a statement that the rights of Southport would not be affected by it. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That this section shall not apply to or in any way affect the foreshore or any lands gained or reclaimed from the foreshore south-west of Crossens Channel, situate within the said township of North Meols."—(Mr. Jesse Callings.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. ECROYDsaid, he was quite sure that no public body in the country felt a stronger interest in the welfare of the great community of Southport, and in everything that would affect the well-being of the place as a health resort, than the Corporation and the inhabitants of the neighbouring town of Preston. It was, therefore, quite needless that he should disclaim on their behalf the slightest disposition to inflict, directly or indirectly, the smallest injury on Southport. The difficulty he found in replying to the observations of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Gollings), who had introduced the Amendment, was that his statements were almost entirely extraneous to the question before the House. In the first place, he proposed to occupy as little of the time of the House as possible by refraining from entering upon matters which were really not relevant to the point at issue. The first great point of the hon. Member's speech, as to whether it was desirable that Southport should acquire those rights in the foreshore which were legally vested in the lords of the manor, was a question on which the decision of the House this afternoon would have no influence whatever. Everybody would, no doubt, be very happy to see South-port in full possession of all rights to the foreshore, which in future might affect it as a place of health resort. But Southport must obtain them by legal methods; in fact, by the only method open to those who wished to obtain rights of more or less value which were vested in other people. The facts of the case at the present moment were that, by whatever process it might have been arrived at, the rights to the foreshore of the Estuary of the Ribble were vested in the lords of the manor. It would have been a very pleasant matter for the Corporation of Southport to find that they were possessed of the whole right to the foreshore; and, in the same way, it was desirable for them, if possible, to become possessors of those rights, and thus become the lords of the manor themselves. But such was not the case. His contention was that nothing contained in the Ribble Navigation Bill, or in the Amendments introduced into it by the House of Lords,
    430
    did, in the smallest degree, affect the question of the rights of the ownership of the foreshore. As to the question of title, there was no doubt that there had been a dispute as to the ownership of the foreshore; but that dispute had not been between the Corporation of Preston and the Corporation of Southport on the one hand, and the Duchy of Lancaster and the riparian owners on the other, but simply a dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the riparian owners; and at no time, and under no circumstances, had the Corporation of South-port been able to assert the smallest claim to those rights. They had been passive spectators of the dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the riparian owners, and the dispute had been ended by the sale of all the rights of the Duchy to the riparian owners, making them completely and conclusively the owners of the foreshore. They could not go behind that fact by any change which the Lords could make. In regard to the Amendment which had been introduced by the Lords, that Amendment did not, in the slightest degree, touch the rights of ownership. He should be unreasonable if he were to occupy the time of the House on an occasion of that kind by replying in detail to the speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich, and reading aloud the clauses contained in Acts of times past affecting Preston and Southport; but in all of them, on every occasion, the Corporations of those towns had entirely disclaimed any right to the foreshore. Preston found itself at the present moment excluded from all right to the foreshore, not only by clauses in Acts of Parliament, but by clauses introduced into deeds for the purchase of small plots of land from the lords of the manor. The same thing had been done in the case of Southport for other purposes, and this fact utterly cut away all possibility on the part of that Corporation of establishing any claim whatever to the foreshore. The next point had reference to any possible damage to the interests of Southport by the execution of the works of the Ribble Navigation; and in regard to that matter he might say that the decision arrived at by the House that day would in no respect affect the carrying out the works of the Ribble Navigation. If these terrible consequences to the well-being, prosperity, and actual life of this com-

    431
    munity of 40,000 persons were to be brought about by the execution of the Ribble Navigation Works, these works would, nevertheless, be executed in precisely the same manner, whether the House accepted or rejected the Amendment, because the Amendment did not affect the works at all, but only dealt with a matter of trivial importance—namely, whether the owners of the manor and foreshore should pay some small pecuniary acknowledgment to the Corporation of Preston in respect of any incidental advantages that would accrue to them in the increased value of their land by the execution of these works. It would neither confirm nor shake the ownership of the foreshore, nor alter the time or manner of carrying out the works of the Ribble Navigation, by anything that was done that day. When he said that he thought he had said enough to show that there was no real ground upon which the Corporation of Southport could ask the House to interfere in the matter in order to go behind the established rights of the lords of the manor as owners of the foreshore, and to enter upon ground in regard to which there had already been a distinct decision by a Committee of the House of Lords, that the Corporation of South-port had no locus standi whatever, because Southport possessed no possible rights. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would arrive at the conclusion that they ought to agree with the Lords' Amendment, and to reject that of the hon. Member for Ipswich.
    MR. LEAKEsaid, he had listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) but he thought they were entirely beside the Amendment before the House. The Corporation of Preston, who were the promoters of this Bill, had got rid of the locus standi of the Corporation of South-port by denying that any land would be reclaimed in front of the borough of Southport, and then by stating that they did not propose to make a rent charge for any land reclaimed in front of that borough on the Corporation of Southport, but on the lords of the manor. They also opposed the locus standi of the Corporation of Southport by offering to make deviations in their own training walls, in order to avoid interfering with the outlet of the sewage of Southport. Now, in the reclamation of
    432
    the land which was anticipated to arise from the execution of these works, and for which a rent charge was to be made, the outlet of the sewage of Southport must, undoubtedly, be interfered with. The reclamation itself was of an unknown and uncertain character, and it could not be said that the sewage of Southport was in no danger from it. The hon. Member who had just spoken said that Preston had a great interest in South-port; but Preston had a greater interest in itself, and, in all human affairs, the Corporation of Preston would take care of themselves first, and of their neighbour Southport afterwards. What did the Corporation of Southport want? They had no desire to destroy this Bill, or to prevent the improvement of the Ribble Navigation. They did not seek to claim rights over the foreshore. Those rights were truly said to be vested ma-norially in the lords of the manor, who had legal manorial rights, and the Corporation of Southport did not seek to interfere with those legal manorial rights. But they asked the House to avoid being betrayed into giving rights over the foreshore which did not now exist, by putting a clause into the Preston Act which would give statutory rights to the owners of the manorial rights—rights which were not enjoyed at the present moment, and which were entirely opposed to the interests of Southport. The Corporation of Southport were at this moment in friendly negotiation with the lords of the manor, under the auspices of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. At present the lords of the manor, very naturally, stood upon their manorial rights; but why should Parliament give them stronger rights on which to stand during the pending negotiations by conferring upon them statutory rights? He humbly submitted that Parliament ought not to do so. It was said that the Corporation of Preston objected to give up the rent charge they would obtain from the land reclaimed by their operations—a certain rent which would be obtained from the land which might be reclaimed from the sea in the neighbourhood of Southport. Now, Southport had no interest in throwing up land between her own town and the sea; whereas Preston had thus an interest in creating as much land as possible between Southport and the sea. In considering the interests of

    433
    Southport, the fact should not be overlooked that the inhabitants of Southport had converted barren sand hills into one of the most valuable properties in Lancashire; and that fact ought to overweigh the policy of preserving ancient manorial rights, and especially of extending them by a Bide 'wind, so as to infringe the growing rights of the inhabitants of Southport. He thought the argument ought not to be pressed that the Corporation of Southport had no interest in this land; but they ought to be, as they had made themselves in regard to these barren sand hills, the absolute dispensers of the future fortunes of the inhabitants of the borough of Southport. On this simple ground, and with no desire to make any assault on the rights of property, he and other hon. Members were there that day anxious to interpose between the inhabitants of Southport and a new claim, which would be, in the highest degree, detrimental to their interests. He willingly supported the Proviso moved by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings).
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he could not help thinking it was a great pity that the time of the House should be taken up in a discussion of this kind, under circumstances which rendered it quite impossible for hon. Members to come to a conclusion on the points which had been brought forward by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. Before he said a few words in regard to the position of the Ribble Navigation Bill and the town of Preston, he wished to deal with a matter to which the hon. Member who had just spoken had referred. The first point brought forward by the hon. Member was that the Corporation of Southport, when the question of their locus standi was fought in the House of Lords, were deprived of that locus standi, because it was said that no land of theirs would be reclaimed. Now, that was an entire misapprehension. The reason why the Corporation of Southport were not allowed a locus standi in the House of Lords was that they could not show they had any interest in the foreshore of Southport. They were allowed a locus standi in the House of Commons, because, as the Bill stood when it was before that House, the scheme would to some extent have interfered with the outlet of the sewage of Southport. They also claimed to be
    434
    heard on the ground of having some interest in the foreshore; but that claim was disallowed. The Bill was carried through a Committee of the House of Commons, and, in the end, a clause was introduced defining the rights of the Corporation of Preston, of the lords of the manor, and of the Duchy of Lancaster, in any lands that might be reclaimed by the works to be carried out by the Corporation of Preston. That clause was, however, so framed that the Corporation of Southport were entirely excluded from its operation. If, then, the Corporation of Southport claimed any interest in the foreshore, the proper time to assert that claim was when the Bill was read a third time in the House of Commons. That was their opportunity; but they had not availed themselves of it. The Bill went to the House of Lords, and the only change made there was a slight modification of the mode in which the rights of the Corporation of Preston and the lords of the manor were defined. The Corporation of Southport, therefore, were in as good a position for bringing forward a complaint that their rights had been disregarded by the House of Commons as to ask for a reconsideration of the treatment which their claims had met with in the House of Lords. It had been suggested that land in front of the borough of Southport might be reclaimed by carrying into effect the Ribble Navigation Scheme, and that the town might be injured by the use made of it. The answer to that was that, if it were the case, the people of South-port had the power of protecting themselves, because they had the option of purchasing the whole of the foreshore in front of the town at a nominal price from the lords of the manor, upon the sole condition that no buildings should be placed upon it. He did not think it would be right to weary the House by going into details which could not be understood; and he would, therefore, say no more, except to urge that the House would do well to assert the principle that when Corporations and Companies came before Parliament to obtain sanction for great schemes of public importance, and when they had carried their Bills through in a regular way, and had dealt with the claims of all persons whom the Standing Orders required that they should take notice of, the decision of the two Houses of Par-

    435
    liament to which the Bill had been referred should be upheld. He trusted that the House would support the Standing Orders, which had hitherto worked beneficially in protecting the rights of private individuals, and that they would not accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ipswich.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had no wish to enter into any question between the borough of Preston and the borough of Southport; but he desired to explain, in a few words, why, upon public grounds, he should support the Amendment. He thought that this question of foreshores was of great public interest; indeed, the interest the public had in the foreshores of the country was so great that proposals for dealing with them would be best brought forward, not in Private, but in Public Bills. He held that all the foreshores were public property, and that the commoners had a right of access to them. The manorial owners, and so forth, who held so many of the common rights of the people, should be prohibited from preventing the access of the public to all the foreshores round the coast. He, for one, always strongly objected to any measure that would interfere with the rights and interests of the people in the foreshores; and the House of Commons ought to be especially watchful to prevent the abrogation of the public right to common land. It had been said that in this case there was an indisputable right on the part of the lords of the manor to the ownership of the foreshore; but he had seen a good deal of correspondence on that subject, from which it appeared that there was anything but an indisputable right. Both the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the lords of the manor claimed rights to the foreshore, and they seemed to have been disputed rights. It was now, however, proposed to insert this clause in a Private Bill in order to clear away this difficulty, and to give statutory rights to the lords of the manor which they did not now possess. Under these circumstances, and upon public grounds, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that nothing could possibly be more unfortunate than the account of the Bill which had just been given by the hon. Member for Swansea
    436
    (Mr. Dillwyn). The Bill did not give anybody any right to any foreshore at all, and much less did it cut off the right of access of the commoners and the people to the sea shore. There was no provision of the hind contained in the Bill; but the clause which had been put in by the House of Lords was simply a clause giving the Corporation of Preston a claim to certain royalties from the people who owned the foreshore, in consequence of the improvement of their property likely to be effected by the works of the Corporation. It was a simple clause to oblige persons who received the benefit of the works to pay for that benefit in the shape of a royalty. The only effect of the Amendment would be that, on this particular part of the foreshore, the people who happened to own the foreshore would get the benefit of the works undertaken for the improvement of the navigation of the Ribble without paying for it. It would do no good whatever to the locality; it would only do good to the people who happened to own the foreshore on that part of the coast. The riparian owners would have the advantage of the execution of the works of the Preston Corporation without paying for it; and for that reason he should certainly vote against the Amendment.
    MR. SLAGGsaid, the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken seemed to be of opinion that the Bill would give to the riparian owners absolute proprietary rights over this foreshore. That was a very serious matter. They had merely a manorial right at the present time—a right of an exceedingly shadowy character. He differed entirely from the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) that this manorial right was equal to a proprietary right. It could not be a proprietary right of a very sufficient character, inasmuch as it had already been a subject of litigation and dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the Corporation of Southport of a very complex nature. The whole foreshore question was open to legal argument; and a claim of proprietorship, based upon a lawsuit, appeared to him to be not of a very stable character. It was perfectly true that an ownership had been acknowledged to this extent—that, on the sale of some of the disputed property, payments had been

    437
    made by the Corporation of Southport and others; but those payments had been made not as a necessary acknowledgment of proprietary rights, but, as in many other cases, as a sort of black mail for the purpose of avoiding litigation. What would this clause do? It would remove that claim out of the shadowy region of legal dispute into the solid form of a proprietary right. Like the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he was speaking entirely in the public interests; he had no personal interest in the question whatever, and he might say that his chief locus standi in the matter consisted in this—that his own Corporation of the borough of Manchester had petitioned the House of Commons against the clause on the ground that there were millions of working people in Lancashire who were interested in the question, seeing that Southport was a place of sanitary resort, and the favourite place at the seaside to which they could go and enjoy themselves. It was of the greatest consequence to those persons that the sea should be left open to them; and this clause, if passed, might place it in the power of certain landowners to build property, possibly to the extent of a new town, between the borough of Southport and the sea. He could not conceive a question of graver public importance. He was pleased to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) declare that, whatever course the House took in regard to this clause, it would make no difference whatever to the Corporation of Preston. He should be sorry, for one, to take any action that would militate against the interests of Preston; he was very much interested in the progress, advancement, and everything that tended to improve the position of Preston; but he was satisfied that if the House passed the Bill as it now stood, it would, without benefiting Preston, inflict a serious injury upon the town of Southport.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the House was anxious, naturally, to divide on the question, and he thought the main points had been already so clearly explained both by his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) and by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that he did not think it would be necessary to go back upon them or attempt to deal with them.
    438
    He only rose now to point out that an expression which the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) had made use of—namely, that certain payments had been levied as a sort of black mail upon the Corporation of Southport in other cases—was one that was not really borne out by the facts of the case. If they looked back to the Acts passed in former years, such as the Southport Improvement Act, which was the Act of 1871, they would find in Section 213 a declaration that nothing contained in the Act was in any manner to injure, prejudice, or in any other way affect the rights of property and so forth in respect of the shore or the bed of the sea, which were reported to belong to, or were exercised and enjoyed by, the Trustees of the Scarisbrick Estate. The Act of 1876 incorporated the same provision, and in 1878, in a conveyance to the Corporation of a portion of the land to the north of the town, there was a provision that nothing therein contained should be held to give to the Corporation or their assigns any right to, or interest in, the soil or bed of the foreshore of the sea. Then it was said that the lords of the manor desired to levy black mail, and to shut out from the people of Southport their enjoyment of the sea, which was the very life of the town. He believed he was justified in saying that the riparian owners had in all respects submitted themselves in the most entire and open way to the arbitration which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had proposed, and they were perfectly willing to give, at a merely nominal price, the whole extent of the foreshore in front of the town. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: No!] That was what he was informed; but, of course, with the usual reservation that such land was not to be built upon. Therefore, as far as the sea was concerned, that question was completely answered. He did not rise so much for the purpose of going into these matters as to express a hope that the debate would not be allowed to conclude without a few words from the Chancellor of the Duchy to say how he viewed the question. Of course, he could understand that his right hon. Friend had a delicate duty to discharge in respect of the matter, seeing that he was holding out the prospect of arbitration with the lords of the manor on the one side and the Corporation of South-

    439
    port on the other. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Duchy would be able to tell the House that it was his intention to support the Bill as it came down from the House of Lords, and to reject the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ipswich.
    MR. DODSONsaid, his right hon. and gallant Friend who had just sat down had appealed to him to express to the House his opinion in regard to the Amendment which had been moved to the clause inserted by the House of Lords in the Ribble Navigation Bill. Placed, as he was, in the position of having offered to mediate or bring about an arbitration between the two parties concerned—namely, the riparian owners and the Corporation of Southport, he should not have wished to take any part that might seem to be adverse to one party or the other; but he would candidly express his opinion, as he was called upon to do so; and he thought he could do so in a manner that would not be adverse to one party or the other. Before he went on to state what his views were, he wished to correct an observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), and from the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg). The position was simply this. The title to this particular foreshore was in dispute between the Duchy of Lancaster and the riparian proprietors, and the Duchy settled the question by selling their claim to the parties who claimed adversely to them. That, he thought, would be regarded by those who were disposed to take a dispassionate view of the question as a very reasonable way of settling the difficulty. [Cries of "No!"] He ventured to think that it was, and most hon. Gentlemen would be glad to follow such an example, if they could do so, in any case in which they were personally concerned. But, then, his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) said, in effect—"You are thereby taking the foreshore away from the public, and placing it under private control." That was an absolute and entire mistake. The negotiations between the Duchy and the riparian owners did not affect one jot or tittle of the rights of the public over the foreshore. The law was strictly this—no owner, not even the Crown, whatever his title might be, could deal with the
    440
    foreshore either to build upon it, enclose upon it, reclaim it, exclude the public from it, or exercise any new right over it, unless he obtained an Act of Parliament for that purpose. No transaction between the Duchy and the riparian proprietors conferred such a right upon the riparian proprietors; and this Ribble Navigation Bill conferred upon them no such power, or, indeed, any power whatever, in regard to this foreshore. The Bill provided for the contingency of reclamation arising from the navigation works which, under its authority, might hereafter be constructed by the Corporation of Preston; and it provided generally that such reclamations should vest in the Corporation of Preston. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: No!] As regarded the foreshore generally, it provided that any reclamations should vest in the Corporation of Preston. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: NO!] He said "Yes!" but subject to certain paymonts to be made to the adjoining proprietors. In regard to this particular part of the foreshore—namely, that within the Manor of North Meols—which the House was now dealing with, the Bill provided conversely that any reclamations upon it should vest in the riparian proprietors, subject to certain payments to be made by them to the Corporation of Preston. How did that affect Southport, whichever way it was? In neither case would the reclamations on the foreshore be vested in the Corporation of Southport. In the one case it vested in the Corporation of Preston, subject to a payment to the owners; in the other case, it vested in the owners, subject to a payment to the Corporation of Preston. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich were carried it would vest the last-named reclamation in the Corporation of Preston, with a right of pre-emption on the part of the riparian owners. He did not see how that could benefit the Corporation of Southport. And now let him say one word as to the clause in regard to the manner in which it affected the public, and its bearing upon the mediation or arbitration which he was endeavouring to bring about. The whole basis and raison d'être of the mediation he had offered, and the arbitration he had proposed, was that the riparian proprietors were the owners of the foreshore, within the limits of the manor; and his mediation or arbitration was

    441
    offered as to the terms upon which the Corporation of Southport should be allowed to acquire that foreshore, or some part of it, from those who were the owners of it. Such being the case, his mediation or arbitration was not at all affected by the allegation that in consequence of this Bill the title of the owners of this foreshore was a little better or a little worse. The position of the Duchy was this. The riparian owners owned the foreshore, and were legally the rightful owners of it, subject to the rights of the public which had always existed over it; and it was on that basis exclusively that his mediation and arbitration was to take place. That being the case, he did not feel in any way called upon to do otherwise than support the Ribble Navigation Bill, as it had been approved by Parliament. In doing so, he was not of opinion that he would injure the position of the Corporation of Southport, nor would the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich improve it; nor would that Amendment at all influence the basis of the arbitration, which rested on the assumption that the riparian proprietors were the rightful owners of the foreshore.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he should not have supposed, at a time when they were told that Parliament was so un-precedently overtasked in the performance of its ordinary duties, that the House would have been invited to try a very difficult question of private title. He thought that considerable ingenuity had been exercised in finding a peg on which to hang a debate upon the question of the Southport foreshore; and, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy, the House would perceive that the matter raised by the Amendment was entirely different from the questions which the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to mediate upon between the Town Council of Southport and the riparian owners. The question, as put by the right hon. Gentleman, and by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), appeared to be simply this—whether the Amendment introduced in the Bill by the House of Lords, which vested a portion of the reclaimed land in the riparian owners, subject to the rights of the Corporation of Preston to receive certain payments, was to stand,
    442
    or whether it was to revert, as far as the foreshore was concerned, back to the arrangement made when the Bill was in the House of Commons, by which the reclaimed land was to vest in the Corporation of Preston, subject to certain rights which might accrue to the riparian owners. His hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) disclaimed any wish to obtain any advantage for the town of Preston at the expense of the riparian owners; and the promoters of the Bill had acted loyally by the agreement entered into when the Bill was before a Committee of the House of Lords; but if the House were to pass the present Amendment, it seemed to him that they would be taking advantage of the fact of an alteration which was scarcely more than one of a verbal character which had been made in the House of Lords with the consent of the Committee of that House, and with that of the only parties who were qualified to appear before that Committee, in order to re-open a question which the Committee of the House of Commons was precluded, owing to the rules of locus standi, from entertaining when the Bill was before them. Now, was that a dignified mode of proceeding? He ventured to think that, if they were to re-try all these questions of great detail, they would be placed in a position of extreme difficulty, for this was a question which could hardly be made intelligible to any Member without a map. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion, although he made a most elaborate speech, did not pretend to give more than the briefest outline of the case; and after the Bill had been carefully considered by Committees of both Houses, were they now to re-open it on the floor of the House of Commons, and to pronounce an opinion upon a matter in regard to which Committees of both Houses had arrived at a careful conclusion upon evidence and data which was accessible to them, but which was not accessible to Members of that House?
    MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he rose to correct a mis-statement which had been made by the junior Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), and which had been repeated by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley), to the effect that an offer was made by the lords of the manor, at a

    443
    nominal price, of the whole of the foreshore to the Corporation of Southport. Now, the offer made had reference only to a small portion of the foreshore immediately opposite the Promenade; but the borough of Southport extended in a north-easterly direction considerably beyond that point; and if the offer was to be of any use, it ought to cover the whole of the 4,000 acres in dispute. He spoke on this matter from an intimate personal knowledge of Southport; and his conviction was that the acquisition of this portion of the foreshore was of the most vital consequence to the borough. It was of the utmost importance that the borough should be in a position to develop freely and readily in 'a seaward direction, and it could alone do that by becoming the proprietor of this foreshore. It was said that there was little difference made in the position of Southport by the operation of this clause; but there was this difference—that the clause inserted in the Commons vested the reclaimed land in the Corporation of Preston, with a right of pre-emption to the owners of the ancient freeholds who could show a title to the foreshore. If Southport, therefore, through the good offices of the Chancellor of the Duchy, acquired that right, it would have obtained a right of pre-emption from the Corporation of Preston. Under the clause inserted in the Bill in the House of Lords that position was altogether reversed. The reclaimed land was vested in the lords of the manor, and to that extent the Bill gave a Parliamentary title, to the prejudice of the town of Southport. He believed that the position of South-port would be very seriously prejudiced if this clause were adopted, and the Corporation of Southport had to deal with the riparian owners instead of the Corporation of Preston.
    MR. TOMLINSONrose to explain, as the statement he had made had been disputed.
    MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. Member, having already addressed the House, was out of Order.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 126; Noes 173: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 166.)
    Clause 68A agreed to.
    Subsequent Amendments agreed to.

ENNERDALE RAILWAY BILL [Lords.] (by Order.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid, he was sorry to trespass upon the House after so much time had already been taken up in considering the previous Bill; but he was intimately acquainted with the district in which it was proposed to carry this railway; and, being satisfied that no public advantage could be gained by the Bill, he felt called upon to move that it be read a second time upon that day three months. There was a line of railway in the district which was now worked by the London and Northwestern Railway Company; and this projected line was to run from that line by the side of Ennerdale Lake for a mile and a-half to the head of the Lake. The locality was very thinly populated; there were only one or two small farms; the population was very limited; and there were no mines or minerals which were worked on the line of the proposed railway. In point of fact, the district was somewhat similar to that for which another Bill was projected this year, but withdrawn—namely, the Buttermere Railway Bill. In many respects the two districts were similar in character; but the Buttermere Line led to a large slate quarry, which was in operation. That Bill was withdrawn, owing to the Petitions presented against it, in consequence of the damage it would do to the scenery. His principal objection to the proposed line was that it was unnejes-sary, and that it was not introduced in the interests of the inhabitants of the locality. Looking at the Bill itself, he found that it bore upon it, as the names of its promoters, a solicitor in the Strand and two other persons, both of whom resided in the City of London. No local names whatever were appended to the Bill; and he could not find that any individual connected with the county of Cumberland was promoting the measure in any way. It was promoted for some purpose at present unknown to him, and, he believed, entirely unknown to the locality. He thought these grounds afforded a sufficient reason for asking the House to agree to the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Ainsworth.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the proposal made by the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth) was one of the most extraordinary he had ever heard made by any Member of the House; and he had certainly heard a great many extraordinary proposals during the time he had been a Member of Parliament. This was a Bill for the construction of a railroad in the county of Cumberland, and it had already passed the House of Lords without opposition. It now came down to the House of Commons, and its only opponent was the hon. Member. The hon. Member had petitioned against the Bill, and the reason he gave to justify his Petition was that it proposed to go through a field which belonged to him—a field of common pasture, worth about 10s. an acre. The hon. Member asserted that the railway was proposed to be constructed for a considerable distance through his property; that it would affect it injuriously by severance, &o., and that the railway intersected one field to the extend of four acres. Upon this flimsy pretext, the hon. Member got up in that House, contrary to all the Rules which had hitherto regulated their procedure upon Private Bills, and moved the rejection of the Bill. After all, if the allegations of the hon. Member in his Petition were fully established, the question was simply one of residential or occupation damage, which, as everyone knew, was a fit and proper question to be decided by a Committee of the House. Therefore, without any further observations, he thought he might confidently call upon hon. Members to reject the Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that it was hardly necessary to say that he had no interest in this matter, nor did he imagine that his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment was very much interested in it, as a question of private interest. But he thought that the public interest was considerably concerned in the line, and in all railways of this kind. Is was, as far as he could make out, which had no particular public object, either in
  446
  regard to the carriage of goods or passengers; but it would have the result of spoiling one of the most beautiful portions of the Lake scenery. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTETCK: No!] He begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. That would be the case. It would go on the North side of Ennerdale Lake, and would very considerably damage the beauty of the Lake. No doubt, it might be said that this was a question which could be decided by a Committee; but, by an unfortunate arrangement of Public Business, the public were not represented upon Committees of this character, and he did not know whether his hon. Friend the Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth), even by the help of the position he occupied as owner of this field, would be entitled to raise this question before the Committee. It was for the House of Commons to say, on the second reading of a Bill of this character, whether they desired that the best and most beautiful portions of English scenery should be spoiled without any public or private reason being assigned. It was upon that ground that the Amendment had been moved. He would not further detain the House; but if his hon. Friend carried his Amendment to a Division he would certainly support him.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 150; Noes 143: Majority 7.—(Div. List, No. 167.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

MOTIONS.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILLS.—RESOLUTIONS.
  Ordered, That the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders Bill, the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill, and the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill, be committed to a Select Committee to consist of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House, and Three to be added by the Committee of Selection.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, subject to the Rules, Orders, and Practice of the House, all Petitions against the Bills, or Orders, be referred to the Select Committee on the Bills, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard upon their Petition, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bills, against such Petitions."—(Mr. Chamber-lain.)
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, this Motion had only appeared upon the Paper that day; and, therefore, not knowing that it was to be proposed, it had been impossible for him to place on the Paper the Amendment which he was about to move. When the Bill was read a second time yesterday he asked his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. J. Holms) what the intentions of the Board of Trade were in regard to it; and his hon. Friend informed him that it was intended to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee, in order that the Petitions against it might be considered, and that the Petitioners might appear before the Committee. With that reply he was perfectly satisfied; but it appeared now, from the unusual words which had been inserted in the Resolution, that the power of the Petitioners to appear before the Committee would be very limited. He feared, although it did not appear to be quite certain, that the words "subject to the Rules, Orders, and Practice of the House," might and would exclude Petitioners in general from being heard before the Committee. Now, he thought that would be an extreme act of injustice. They were, in fact, only upon the threshold of this great question of Electric Lighting; and he might say that the question as it affected the carrying out of Electric Lighting in a practical way had not yet been fully considered and thrashed out by any Committee of that House. He had said that the words were unusual. He had with him a good many cases—almost, he believed, precisely parallel to this—in which the Reference was that all Petitions that might be presented during the Session relating to the matter should be referred to the Committee, and—
  "That such, of the Petitioners as pray to he heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents shall be heard,"
  He quoted that passage from a very important case—that of "The East London Water Bill" in 1867. He had other cases at hand; but he would not weary the House by referring to them. There were, however, precedents, going down to the 2nd May last, in which similar References had been made without the insertion of these words "subject to the Rules, Orders, and Practice of the House." He thought it was in the interests of the public that this question
  448
  should be thoroughly thrashed out; and he feared that if the Reference to the Committee was in the form in which it now stood, full consideration would not be devoted to it before a Committee. He thought it would only be a simple act of justice to the inhabitants of a parish that if the lighting of that parish was going, by a Provisional Order, to be practically assigned to a particular Company for 21 years, the inhabitants of the parish should have the right to be heard, in order to see whether any better bargain could be made in reference to the lighting of the district. It appeared to him that they were proceeding much too fast in this matter. It was entirely a new question, and yet throughout the whole of England the local authorities appeared to be pledging themselves, and pledging the inhabitants of their district, to the adoption of particular schemes, without being informed that better and cheaper schemes might hereafter be practicable. At any rate, they had a case here, in which two very large districts, possessing an enormous population, were concerned—namely, the districts of St. James and of the Strand, and the inhabitants of those districts desired to be heard before this Hybrid Committee. He had understood that a Hybrid Committee was to be appointed specially in order that the inhabitants interested might be heard. He had certainly gathered from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade that that was the intention of the Government; but the words which had been introduced into the Resolution would, he feared, prevent the inhabitants of the districts affected from being heard. The case would be brought under the Standing Orders, and under the Standing Orders it would not be possible for the inhabitants to be heard. Therefore, on the broad ground of justice to the inhabitants, he hoped that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would be inclined to assent to the omission of these words, in order that the whole case might be fully heard by the Committee. He was informed that a most substantial Company was quite ready to contract for the lighting of this district at a rate 40 per cent less than the rate proposed by the Company to whom the district would be assigned by the Bill now before the House. If that

  449
  were so, surely it would be an act of the grossest injustice to the inhabitants that they should not be heard before the Committee, but that they should be forced into an agreement with a Company which, for the next 21 years, would tax them 40 per cent higher than they could get the same thing done for elsewhere. By the terms of the Act of last year the Board of Trade were authorized to submit to Parliament, for confirmation, any Provisional Order granted in pursuance of the Act, but no such Order was to be of any force unless it was confirmed by Act of Parliament; and while a Bill to confirm such Order was pending in either House of Parliament, any Petition presented against any Order comprised in the Bill might be referred to a Select Committee, and the Petitioners would be allowed to appear and depose as in the case of a Private Bill. Now, it seemed to him that the very object of that clause was to secure that the question should be submitted to the distinct judgment of Parliament, and the matter was before the House now in that position; but if it were impossible to submit the Bill to the judgment of the Committee in the ordinary way, and if the Petitioners most interested in the question were shut out from being heard, then it appeared to him that a great injustice would be done. He might add that he was not pecunarily interested in the matter in any shape or form; but he simply brought it forward because he believed that it was a great public question, which ought not to be hurried through, but which ought to be carefully and fully considered before a Committee of the House of Commons. He begged to move the omission of the words "subject to the Rules, Orders, and Practice of the House."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "subject to the Rules, Orders, and Practice of the House."—(Sir Henry Hussey Vivian.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, there could be no doubt that the subject which his hon. Friend had brought before the House was one of considerable importance. He was not present in the House on the occasion on which the Bill passed
  450
  a second reading; but he understood that on that occasion his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade stated distinctly that any question as to the Committee before whom the Bill should go was one for the consideration of the House itself. His hon. Friend gathered that the sentiment of the House was in favour of a Hybrid Committee, and, accordingly, he (Mr. Chamberlain) had put down a Notice referring these Bills to a Hybrid Committee. He understood the object of substituting a Hybrid Committee for an ordinary Committee was that they might have a rather larger Committee, and a Committee selected, perhaps, with a little more consideration. But he did not understand that the House desired that this substitution should have any effect at all upon the locus standi of the Petitioners. His hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian) had referred to the clause in the Electric Lighting Act of last Session which applied to all cases of Provisional Orders approved by the Department, and which required the Board of Trade to submit such Provisional Orders to Parliament, and, in case of opposition, provided that they should be referred to a Select Committee. But, of course, the Bills themselves were subject to the Standing Orders of the House, and no one had a right to appear before the Committee contrary to the usual regulations. If the Motion which had been put upon the Paper were carried in its present form, no doubt the effect would be the same in regard to the question of locus standi; and he thought his hon. Friend was right in saying that, in the case of the particular Bill now before the House, two of the parties now opposing would not be allowed to be heard. He would ask the House to consider two things. In the first place, was it desirable to throw these Provisional Orders open to opposition more than was the practice of the House? What had happened in this particular case? The question of electric lighting, being a new subject, had been referred to a Select Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope). That Committee had many sittings; it heard all the parties; it paid careful attention to the whole subject; and it laid down in a Bill, which afterwards passed through Parliament, the conditions and principles on which Pro-

  451
  visional Orders should be granted by the Board of Trade. The parties who went to the Board of Trade under the provisions of that Act had all been carefully heard, and in a great number of cases the promoters had been opposed by the local authorities. But certain concessions had been made, and the local authorities and all the other parties had become satisfied, and, as far as this kind of opposition was concerned, this was now really an unopposed Bill. Then he would appeal to the House whether, under these circumstances, on any occasion when there was opposition by any competitor, a Provisional Order was to be sent to a Hybrid Committee, and all the world was to be heard in opposition? If that were done, the object the Legislature had in cheapening legislation and in relieving the House from an annoyance and a serious burden would be entirely frustrated, and such a course, if adopted generally, would be fatal to the general Provisional Order system. He did not think that any part of the proceedings of the House in regard to Private Bills gave greater satisfaction than these Provisional Orders, and he wished the House to consider what the particular case was in which they were asked to make an exception. In this case the Edison Company had applied for an Order to light this district. They were opposed by the local authorities; and here let him say, in passing, that the Electric Lighting Act, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, decided that the Vestry should be the local authority in the matter, and not the Metropolitan Board of Works, Now, in the district of St. James' the local authorities were heard, and after a prolonged controversy the Board of Trade were able to bring all the parties together; whereupon the Vestry assented to a Provisional Order, and the opposition was withdrawn. Another Company now came forward, and said, "We should like to have this district." In answer to the inquiry—"Why did you not appear at the same time as the Edison Company, and ask for an Order?" They said—"We were not at that time prepared; but since then we have got our apparatus ready, and we are not only ready to light the district, but prepared to offer a maximum price 40 per cent below the maximum price offered by the Edison Company." Now, in the first place,
  452
  that was entirely an ex parte statement. The House would like to know a great deal more than they knew now before they would be ready to assume either that the Telegraph Construction Company could supply electricity at a rate 40 per cent below that of the Edison Company, or that they had any satisfactory method of providing electricity at all. If they were to admit the claim of this Company, as finding out something new, to come and oppose a Provisional Order already drafted, as soon as the Board of Trade had decided that the Telegraph Construction Company should have the same privileges as the Edison Company, what was to prevent another Company coming forward and asking to go into the whole matter again on the ground that they would be able to do it 5 per cent cheaper than the Telegraph Construction Company? And so it might go on, and they would have one speculative Company after another coming forward to represent their case. He did not pretend to say that the promoters, in this instance, were speculators; but as long as there were speculative Companies, Parliament would have offers to do the thing cheaper. If it could be shown that this ex parte statement was absolutely correct, and that the Company were prepared to insert in their Bill a maximum of 40 per cent lower than that inserted in the present Bill, it would not necessarily be of the slightest advantage to the inhabitants of the district. The price charged would probably be much lower than the maximum allowed, because the Board of Trade considered it necessary, in dealing with a new subject, to allow a considerable margin. They had accordingly allowed a margin in all these Provisional Orders which they had reason to believe would be considerably above the actual price. It did not at all follow that, because the maximum price was higher than the Telegraph Construction Company were willing to do the work for, the Edison Company would not be able to supply electricity at a price 40 or 50 per cent below the maximum. The same thing occurred in regard to Gas Companies. There was not a single Gas Company in the Metropolis which did not supply gas for a sum considerably below the maximum price inserted in their Act to cover all contingencies. There was another important consideration he wished to sub-

  453
  mit to the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian) argued the matter on the assumption that if the Bill were passed into law there would be practically a monopoly given to the Edison Company for the supply of the district for 21 years, and that if in any year afterwards a better system was discovered, either by the Telegraph Company or by anybody else, these unfortunate inhabitants would be prevented from availing themselves of it, and would thus be damnified by the passing of this Order. Now, that was not the case. It was not intended to give a monopoly to anyone. All that was given was an Order to the promoters of the Bill to take up the streets and lay down their wires. The Company were distinctly informed that this was not a monopoly conceded to them. There was nothing to prevent the Board of Trade to-morrow from granting a similar right to another Company; and though, of course, the Board of Trade would do nothing of the sort as long as the Edison Company fulfilled their obligations, yet, if they failed to fulfil their obligations, or some further discovery showed that their system was inadequate and that the district could be better lighted, then their monopoly would cease, and the Board of Trade would grant another Provisional Order. Therefore, if the Telegraph Company had any locus standi before a Select Committee—if they could show, not that they were willing to accept a less maximum than the maximum fixed in the Bill, but that they were able to sell cheaper than the other Company was selling for, then there would be nothing to prevent them from going to the Board of Trade next year, or next month, if they liked, and asking for a competing Order, and, if their allegation turned out to be true, no doubt the Board of Trade would grant it. He gathered, from what his hon. Friend had said, that the object of his claim was chiefly to obtain a hearing for the inhabitants, and not for the Telegraph Company. But the inhabitants of a district were represented by a local representative authority, and he thought it was the invariable practice to refuse a locus standi to the inhabitants as individuals, unless they had separate and individual interests. That seemed to him to be a perfectly reasonable course. In this case, the Vestry of St. James'
  454
  had been a party to all the proceedings, and had assented to them, and it was not for individual inhabitants to come forward now, and ask that the whole matter should be gone into again. Such a course would enormously increase the expense to the Company in getting their Order, and also to the Vestry, which would probably be called upon to appear again, and defend the decision they had come to. Upon these grounds he should oppose the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, at all events, made one thing clear which the Resolution left in doubt. The right hon. Gentleman did deliberately intend, by the form of the Motion he had placed before the House, to exclude from the consideration of the Committee the case of any Petitioners, whether they were inhabitants or rival Companies. Before he went further he wished to dispose of one argument used by the right hon. Gentleman, which, perhaps, might have some weight with the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that by granting this Provisional Order they did not create a monopoly for 21 years, because it would always be in the power of the Board of Trade to grant a second Order to some other Company. That, no doubt, was true; but he did not believe that any responsible Minister of the Board of Trade would venture to give such power to another Company, unless some tremendous revolution in electric lighting could be effected thereby. Unless something of that kind could be brought about the Board of Trade would be very chary in giving the right to another Company to pull up the streets. It would only be to a Company who had at their command some perfectly novel method of lighting that such a liberty would be conceded. Unless, therefore, some such revolution took place there would be a practical monopoly given to the Company in whose favour the Provisional Order was drawn. The right hon. Gentleman said that the statement of the Telegraph Construction Company was an ex parte one. Undoubtedly it was an ex parte statement; and it was because it was an ex parte statement, and therefore impossible to know the value to be attached to it, that he wanted the statement to be thoroughly sifted, and that could only be done before a Select Committee. The Board of Trade said that

  455
  the local authorities in the parish of St. James' had assented to a Provisional Order, and the inhabitants of the parish were accordingly bound by the Provisional Order which had received the sanction of the local authorities. But it must be borne in mind that the Vestry of St. James' could not have had the whole of the case before them when they arrived at their decision. The Vestry of St. James' were not acquainted with the position of the competing Company, nor would they be aware, when they gave their assent to the Provisional Order, that they were restrained by that fact from considering the proposals of any other Company. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said the Edison Company would very probably not charge their maximum rate, but would be restrained from charging the maximum by the competition of other Companies. There was, however, no evidence that such would be the case, and there was certainly no evidence that when the work was constructed the Company would by any means do the work at a price so much less than their maximum as 40 per cent. He understood that the other Company offered to provide the same thing for a maximum 40 per cent lower than the Edison Company. Of course, that offer might be wholly illusory; but let the inhabitants of St. James' know if it was so or not, and let them have a proper examination and inquiry into the matter before the Committee. He thought the President of the Board of Trade would commit a great mistake if he tried to draw too rigid a line in this matter of electric lighting. As had been pointed out by his hon. Friend (Sir Hussey Vivian), electric lighting was still in its infancy; and that was not the only peculiarity in the system of electric lighting. When they had one Gas Company competing with another Gas Company they knew that each produced its gas by precisely the same means, and so with Water Companies. They knew that the methods by which Water Companies introduced water into the Metropolis were practically the same; but that was not the case with electric lighting. There they had not only a Company which differed in their personnel, but which essentially differed in their means of producing light, and that ought to make the right hon. Gentleman careful before
  456
  he gave preference to one method over another. There would be considerable danger, and great harm might be done, if any suspicion were to attach that a preference was given to one Electric Lighting Company over another. It appeared to him to be a monstrous injustice, and a very evil precedent from every point of view, that the Government should, by introducing words for which there was no precedent, try to exclude the people who were only concerned to have their lighting done as cheaply as possible. Before he sat down he would like to ask the President of the Local Government Board, or some other Member of the Government, how it came about that the Government had departed from the precedent which had been set in some very important instances? There was the case of the East London Water Bill, which had been referred to; and he had here the Thames River (Prevention of Floods) Bill, and the Epping Forest Bill, and in all those measures elaborate pains had been taken not to bring the people concerned under the iron rule of the Standing Orders of the House—there had always been care taken throughout that anybody who was genuinely and banâ fide interested in the Bill should have a chance of being heard. All he now asked for was that, in this peculiar and delicate case, the precedent should be followed which had been set by the Government in other cases.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Glamorganshire, for he could assure the House that the Vestries of London looked with very considerable alarm upon the prospect of being bound for 21 years, when they might afterwards find that they could make better arrangements for themselves. They looked with great anxiety upon this question, and they wished to have more latitude than it was the intention of the Government to give them. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the whole thing was in its infancy, and he (Sir Alexander Gordon) hoped that he would accept the Amendment.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he thought the House was very much indebted to the hon. Baronet the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian) for giving

  457
  them this opportunity of discussing the matter. He (Mr. Raikes) did not go quite so far as the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who had said there was no precedent for the course taken by the President of the Board of Trade.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I meant that there were precedents on the other side.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, that no doubt there were precedents in favour of the course recommended by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and there were others on the other side. There was one which he would call attention to as a cognate case; it occurred in the year 1879. In that year there were a great number of these Electric Lighting Bills. They were not in those days Provisional Order Bills, but Private Bills to light by electricity, and a Committee was first appointed in that year to consider this question. As he (Mr. Raikes) was concerned in the appointment of that Committee, he would like to quote the terms of the Order of Reference. The House decided that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider whether it was desirable to authorize Municipal Corporations or other local authorities to adopt any schemes for lighting by electricity, and to consider how far and under what conditions, if at all, Gas and other Public Companies should be authorized to supply light by electricity. The policy then present to the mind of the House was that monopolies should, if possible, be discouraged in dealing with the electric light; and the object of the Committee, which was presided over by the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), and which presented a most interesting Report, was to consider how far it might be found practicable for public bodies to take advantage of those schemes as a means of serving the public without the creation of monopolies. He (Mr. Raikes) might say that he was very much impressed, by circumstances which were continually coming to his knowledge at that time, as to the enormous prices which were obtained by Gas and other Companies from municipal bodies when at last it became necessary to purchase them; and he was, above all things, desirous to protect the public against any such monopolies. In the year that these Electric Lighting Bills were brought into this House the Liver-
  458
  pool Lighting Bill was, he thought, the only one that obtained the Royal Assent; and, in that case, it being the first Electric Lighting Bill promoted by a municipality and public body, and being of a very limited and experimental character, the House decided to refer it to a Hybrid Committee, and so framed the Reference as to admit all Petitioners to appear before that Committee. That was a case in point which might have been overlooked at the Board of Trade, and in that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board might find some justification for accepting this Amendment. Going on a year or two further, it would be found that last year the General Electric Lighting Bill was passed which contained two important and governing clauses. The first was what was called the Licence Clause, which enabled the Board of Trade, with the consent of the local authority, to grant a licence; and the next clause—Clause 4—provided that the Board of Trade might, without the consent of the local authority, frame a Provisional Order to pass through this House. If hon Members would glance at those two clauses, which must be read together, they would see that it was intended to give the greatest possible opportunity for challenging in this House any scheme to which it might be supposed there was local opposition. There was another consideration which he would like to point out. Until very recent times these Provisional Orders had to pass through Committee of the Whole House, and it would have been open to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. Balfour), or to the hon. Baronet the Member for Glamorganshire (Sir Hussey Vivian), to come forward with Amendments in this House dealing with these particular questions, or they might have had that particular section of the Bill referred to a Committee upstairs, who would have considered the point as to terms on which the work should be done. Taking all these various considerations together, he thought they ought to pause, and not pass this Resolution as it stood, when so very strong a case had been made out for its being altered, especially where the interests involved were so large—for the district of London which was affected by the schemes now before the House contained the wealthiest and most important part of the Metropolis. If they

  459
  wanted to have a test case, in which it would be possible that every consideration should be examined and every right carefully considered, they could not have a better case than this one. He was sorry to detain the House so long, and he would say as little in addition as he possibly could; but he must say that he thought a very grave responsibility would rest upon those who counselled the House upon this occasion to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Glamorganshire. The local Vestry, as they had been rightly told by the President of the Board of Trade, would, by giving its assent to the measure, exclude all other Petitioners except the Telegraph Construction Company; but he should be rather inclined to doubt how far that Company was in a position to establish a locus standi before the Hybrid Committee. It was quite possible they might have their Hybrid Committee; but to do what? To do nothing. They would appoint a Hybrid Committee for the purpose of settling the question and taking evidence; but when they set to their work it might be found that the Petitioners could not come before them. He did not know what the Metropolitan Board of Works might do in this matter, or what their locus standi or attitude might be; but, if they did not come forward, there would be absolutely no opportunity of putting any counter case before the Committee. If some Amendment were not made it would be far better to abandon the Motion for a Hybrid Committee altogether; and he would rather send the Bill to the Chairman of Ways and Means in his own private room, and let him discuss the matter there, instead of having this very delusive inquiry by a Committee without the means of arriving at an opinion, although by its constitution it was supposed to be specially qualified to deal with the matter.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was one of those who were very much in favour of local government; and when the representatives of the people had their own local government, he thought it was not for the House of Commons to perform that duty. This case was a very peculiar one, not only on account of the nature of the light, but on account of the circumstances under which the Electric Lighting Bill passed this
  460
  House, not one Member out of 100 understanding its effect when it was rushed though the House at the very end of the Session. They were told that the Electric Companies were extremely moderate in consenting to take a monopoly of only 21 years; but they did not then understand their view of the case, which was that the Companies were entitled to throw broadcast all over the country thousands of notices, and to say to every Municipality—"Stand and deliver! Either you must introduce electric lighting yourselves, or you must allow somebody else to get the privilege; you must not hesitate or wait to see what may happen." The result was that a very large amount of pressure was put upon the local bodies. There were a large number of the municipal bodies who had expressed the opinion that they would rather wait and not be in too great a hurry; but the Board of Trade acted upon their own views of the Act, and wherever they had a permissive power given to them, they used it in a way which amounted, to a certain extent, to compulsion to pass Provisional Orders. They seemed to have determined that the local authorities must either introduce the electric light themselves or allow these speculative Companies to throw hundreds of notices broadcast before them, and to exclude anyone else from doing the work. They had heard the views expressed by the experienced Chairman of Committees under the late Government—he said it was most undesirable that this responsibility should be thrown on the Chairman of Committees; and yesterday they had heard the present Chairman of Committees express views that were almost identical. He gathered that the present Chairman was unwilling to take the whole responsibility on these new and important questions, and might well desire that these Bills should not be referred to him alone, but to a competent Committee, who could deal with the whole subject, and deal with it thoroughly. It seemed to him (Sir George Campbell), therefore, that the Amendment was a reasonable one, and, as it was supported by the ex-Chairman of Committees and not opposed by the Chairman, he should vote for it.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to assent to the Amendment, as

  461
  he was convinced that both time and expense to all the parties would be saved by it. He did not wish to express any opinion as to the relative merits of the proposals of the Electric Companies; but it was certain that this would virtually be a monopoly for 21 years. The President of the Board of Trade had said it was by no means certain that the Company obtaining these powers would charge the maximum rates; but it came at an unfortunate period, so far as the Metropolis was concerned, for the Water Companies, who, it was said, would not exercise their powers to the full, were now exercising them, and raising the rates to a very large extent throughout the district. It was very desirable that they should have an impartial tribunal to make the inquiry as to the best arrangement for the whole of the Metropolis. If that inquiry was refused, or obstacles placed in the way, he ventured to think that opposition would have to be revived at a future stage, and difficulties might be incurred which it would not be in the power of the Government to obviate.
  MR. CHAMBEBLAINsaid, he thought they were setting rather a dangerous precedent; but he had no alternative under the circumstances, and would accept the Amendment.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he thought the Government were making a great mistake in giving way on the point.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bills, or Orders, he referred to the Select Committee on the Bills, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to he heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard upon their Petition, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bills, against such Petitions.
  Ordered, That Three he the quorum of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on "The Electric Lighting Bill, 1882," he referred to the Committee."

QUESTIONS.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  MR. MACAETNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Education Com-
  462
  missioners for Ireland have taken into connection a school at Golan (in District 13), county Tyrone, although another school is in existence within two hundred yards of it, and although the number of children in its neighbourhood is too small for more than one school; was any objection made by the managers of the neighbouring schools, and on what grounds was such objection, if made, set aside without inquiry; were the objections made laid before the Board at its usual time of meeting; has the Board made a grant for Strana-gummer School in the same district, although four of their rules were thereby set aside, namely, that a deed of gift should be made by the owners of the site; that it should not be built in a chapel yard; that the neighbouring managers should be consulted; and that it should be three miles distant from a vested school; if the grant has not been made to Stranagummer School, has it been made to Kilskeery School, the name only being changed, the site being the same, and Kilskeery being a mile and a-half distant; did the Board refuse a similar grant for a vested school at Clooncandra on the ground that it was not three miles distant from another vested school; did a former district inspector report in favour of a grant to Clooncandra School; did the Rev. Mr. Clifford apply to have that portion of District B transferred to another district inspector, and was that transfer made without consulting any other school manager than Mr. Clifford; did the district inspector to whose district the schools were thus transferred make an incorrect report to the Board of the distance of Stranagummer from the nearest vested school, and did he report against the application for Clooncandra; and, if so, will he be retained in the district?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received a very full Report from the Education Commissioners in reply to these inquiries, and I think that it will be, perhaps, more satisfactory to the hon. Member for Tyrone, and more convenient to the House, if I send him the Report itself, rather than attempt to condense it into a verbal reply or read it in full. If the Report does not satisfy the hon. Member on any point, I will be happy to make further inquiry and to answer any Question in the House.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)— THE REPORT.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will inform the House of the names of the Members who composed the Committee of the Scotch Fishery Board, whose report was recently laid upon the Table of the House; and, if he will give directions that, according to usual custom, the names of Members of similar Committees may in future be prefixed or appended to their reports, in order that the House may judge what amount of confidence can be placed upon opinions expressed therein?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the explanation was that the Committee consisted of the entire body; but it might be well in future that the names of the Members composing the Committees should be stated in their Reports.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, that was all he wanted.

  BURIAL ACTS—CONSECRATION OF CEMETERIES—RHOS, DENBIGHSHIRE.
  SIR ROBERT CUNLIFFEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it has not been ascertained that the sanction to the consecration of the the cemetery at Rhos, Denbighshire, was obtained as the result of an application by the Rev. Thomas Jones, the vicar of the parish, made without the authority of the Burial Board and contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants, and also based on information which, by reason of its inaccuracy and incompleteness, was calculated to and did mislead the Home Secretary; whether the consecration of such portion of the cemetery by the Bishop of St. Asaph was not the result of an application made by the vicar, and churchwardens, also without the authority and knowledge of the board, the Bishop, as well as the Secretary of State, being kept in ignorance of the real facts of the case; whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which has taken place; and, whether, under the circumstances, he does not consider that some steps should be taken to prevent the vicar from exacting fees in or exercising other privileges over the whole of the ground the consecration of which has been obtained by such means?
  MR. RAIKESasked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be good enough to state to the House the precise injury that the inhabitants of the parish had sustained by the consecration?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the state of the facts is this, that under the present law as to any ground which is consecrated, the Vicar has a right to have the fees, whether he performs the service or not. If the ground is not consecrated the fees are only paid to the person who performs the ceremony. The person who is responsible for appropriating the ground for consecration is the Secretary of State, and for that purpose he collects, as best he can, the wishes and the wants of the parish or the district as it may be. He has a right to expect that those who give him information on the subject should give him true and complete information. In this case, I am sorry to say, the Vicar did not take that course. He made representations to me which, in the words of the Question, were "inaccurate and incomplete, and were calculated to and did mislead me" as to the wishes and wants of the district. I have expressed, in a letter in the Correspondence which will be produced, my strong disapprobation of that course so taken by him. With reference to the further part of the Question, certainly if accurate information had been supplied to me what was done would not have been done; but the ground having been consecrated, I know no method by which that act can be undone, nor is there any method by which the legal consequences attaching to consecration can fail so to attach. I have no power to prevent the Vicar from exacting fees in the ground now that it has been consecrated.
  MR. RAIKESasked, in justice to the Vicar, whether it was not the fact that he still maintained that the information supplied by him to the right hon. and learned Gentleman was both accurate and complete?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The House will be able to judge of that when it sees the Correspondence.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONinquired whether the Burial Board had not passed a resolution that no portion of the ground should be consecrated; and whether that resolution was not contrary to the law, which required a portion of every cemetery to be consecrated?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I cannot say that such a resolution is contrary to law, because, in my view, the Burial Board have no legal authority with regard to the appropriation of the ground.

  CHELSEA HOSPITAL—LORD MORLEY'S COMMITTEE.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary of State for War, When he will be able to report to the House the decision on the Report of Lord Morley's Committee on the Royal Military Asylum and the Hospital for Pensioners at Chelsea?
  MR. BRAND: Sir, I have laid the Report in question upon the Table of the House to-day. As regards the questions raised in it, further consideration is still required on some of the points.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION COURT— MR. GALLAGHER AND MR. RYAN.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case that Mr. Gallagher, the sub-editor of the "Free-man's Journal," was some time since appointed the official reporter of the Land Commission Court, and that, owing to his being unable to write shorthand, he has deputed the discharge of his duties to Mr. Ryan; whether Mr. Ryan is not one of the permanent staff of the reporters of the "Freeman's Journal," and engaged in his duties as such when not in attendance on the Court of Appeal of the Land Commission; whether Mr. Ryan, when acting as official reporter at the hearing of appeals before the Land Commissioners Court, sits beside the registrar, and has free access to all the files and papers connected with the several appeal cases; and, whether Mr. Ryan supplied the writer of a letter signed "One of the victimised tenants," which appeared in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 11th of May, with the statistics and statements contained in that letter, and which could not possibly have been in the possession of the writer, unless furnished by an official having access to the files of the Court?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received a report from the Land Commissioners to the following effect. Mr. Gallagher was not appointed official reporter of the Land Commission Court, but is
  466
  generally requested by the Land Commissioners to have shorthand notes taken in appeal and other cases. He is a shorthand writer; but, not being able personally to attend the sittings of the Court, he is generally represented by Mr. Ryan, who is a member of the staff of The Freeman's Journal, of which Mr. Gallagher is sub-editor. When taking notes for the Land Commission, Mr. Ryan occupies a place on the same seat with the Registrar of the Court, but he has not free access to the files and papers connected with the cases, nor any special facilities whatever to become acquainted with the Court documents. Mr. Ryan has informed the Land Commissioners that he knows nothing of the writer of the letter signed "A Victimized Tenant" referred to in the Question, and that he did not, directly or indirectly, supply any person with the statements and statistics contained in that letter.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Ryan, who is discharging the duty of official reporter of the Land Commission Court, was at any time a member of the executive council of the Land League, or otherwise connected therewith; and, whether it is the case that at several banquets in the city of Dublin, when attending in his capacity as reporter for the "Freeman's Journal," Mr. Ryan remained seated when the health of Her Majesty the Queen was being drunk, and refused to drink the same?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have made inquiry on this subject, and find that Mr. Ryan was not a member of the Executive Council of the Land League, and that he is not known to have manifested extreme political opinions in any prominent or ostentatious way. The noble Lord, perhaps, will form his own judgment; but I do not think that this Question could be more definitely answered without personal inquiry of Mr. Ryan, and that is a course which I do not think it would be well to take.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSION— THE ASHTON CHARITY, DUNSTABLE.
  MR. CAUSTON (for Mr. WILLIS)asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he is aware that, in the year 1868, a sum of about £17,000 was realized by the sale of certain lands belong-

  467
  ing to the Ashton Charity in Dunstable, which, by the consent of the Trustees of the said Charity and the sanction of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, was to be applied in the erection and endowment of a high class school in Dunstable; whether, up to the present time, no steps have been taken to carry the said purpose into effect; and, whether he can state the reasons for this protracted delay?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I have not been informed of the date when the £17,000 was realized; but, in 1874, proposals were made by the Trustees of Ashton's Charity for the establishment of a grammar school at Dunstable out of their trust property, which included a sum of nearly £17,000 derived from sale of lands. Out of this sum £5,000 had to be set aside for the endowment of existing elementary schools. In the year 1876 the Charity Commissioners published the draft of a scheme for the grammar school; but, owing to certain difficulties which arose, the Commissioners directed a public inquiry to be held at Dunstable into the circumstances of this Charity and of another endowed school in that town. In pursuance of the Report of the Inquiry the Charity Commissioners have made a scheme, which has been approved by Her Majesty, for one of the endowed schools of Dunstable, and a fresh draft scheme has been prepared, and has been submitted for the consideration of the Trustees, for the establishment of the Ashton Grammar School. The whole matter was under the consideration of the Board of Charity Commissioners on the 26th ultimo, and it may be anticipated that the scheme will before long be matured.

  MADAGASCAR—HOSTILE OPERATIONS OF FRANCE—BOMBARDMENT OF TAMATAVE.
  MR. A. M'AETHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any confirmation of the reported bombardment of Tamatave and other places by a French Naval force; if he can state to the House whether any loss of life or property has been sustained by British subjects; and, what steps have been taken for the protection of British interests?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have
  468
  received confirmation of the bombardment of Tamatave and of Majunga by French men-of-war. No information has been received with regard to any loss of life by British subjects; but I fear that there has been some loss of property, respecting which we are awaiting further information. Her Majesty's Ships Dryad and Dragon are at Tamatave, and Her Majesty's Ship Briton, which is now at Zanzibar, will be despatched to Madagascar if necessary.
  MR. BOURKE: Will these Reports be laid on the Table?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There will be no objection to lay the Reports on the Table.

  EGYPT (LAW AND JUSTICE)—TRIALS OF SULEIMAN SAMI AND SAID BEY KHANDEEL—PROCEDURE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, since the official reports are now on record showing that, notwithstanding the belief of Lord Duf-ferin that Suleiman Sami would be allowed to examine witnesses on his trial before the Alexandria Court Martial, it really was the case that no witnesses were examined at that so-called trial, and the demand of the prisoner "that he might be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution" was categorically refused, the Court Martial having "declined to entertain it," Her Majesty's Government will now insist that no future trials are conducted in such a manner while the Egyptian Government is supported by British arms, but that the course adopted in Khan-deel's case of hearing the witnesses will be generally followed?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The intentions of Her Majesty's Government in regard to future trials in Egypt are set forth in the despatches of Lord Dufferin of April 28 and June 14 (Egypt, No. 9, 1883, pp. 4 and 20), and it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any measures beyond those there described.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked if it were not the case, as distinctly shown in the despatch of Lord Dufferin, dated June 14th, that he was mistaken in regard to the procedure which was to be followed, because Lord Dufferin distinctly stated that in Suleiman Sami's case there would be full liberty to exa-

  469
  mine and cross-examine all witnesses placed before the Alexandria Court Martial; and whether, as Lord Dufferin was mistaken as to the procedure, it was not necessary there should be fresh instructions?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURIOE: The hon. Gentleman asks me whether I think Lord Dufferin was right. That is asking my opinion——
  MR. SPEAKER (interposing): It is irregular to ask the opinion of the noble Lord.

  IRELAND—PAUPER EMIGRANTS TO THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the action of the Emigration Commissioners at New York, orders will be given for the discontinuance of the deportation of paupers from Ireland to the United States; and, out of what fund the expenses of re-transmitting the returned emigrants to their respective workhouses will be defrayed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Directions have been given that the emigration of workhouse inmates by State aid shall be suspended in the only two Unions in Ireland in which there are any such proposed emigrants on the lists. I think it would be premature at present to express any opinion on the second part of the Question.
  MR. LEAMYwas understood to ask if it were a fact that some of the emigrants who went out in the Anchoria were being sent back, and whether the Government would have anyone to look after them on their arrival in Ireland?
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked whether it would not be possible, seeing that these unfortunate persons had got to America, to supply them with sufficient funds to settle there? It would be very hard for them to be brought back again. He wished also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that a number of Swedish and Swiss emigrants had been sent out under similar circumstances, and that when the American Government refused to allow them to land, the Representatives of those countries supplied them with sufficient means? He wished to know if this could not be done in the case of the emigrants referred to in the Question?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is extremely important, Sir, in dealing with this question, not to speak before we have absolute knowledge; but we have taken very great pains to ascertain how many of the emigrants whose names have been given are State aided emigrants, and we find, so far as we can gather, that they are very few indeed. [Mr. LEAMY: There should not be one.] Likewise, I imagine from the small details we have been able to get it is not a question of whether an emigrant has £1 or £2 or £5 or £10, more or less. My belief is that it is not on that account that they are sent back to this country. They are extremely few in number, and if any possible means could be adopted of meeting the objections of the American Government they, undoubtedly, will be adopted. But I am very much afraid those objections could not be met by a simple contribution of money, however large, from Government funds. When the matter is examined into it will be found, I think, that very few indeed have been sent back.

  POST OFFICE—SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT—THE CONTROLLER.
  MR. O'DONNELL (for Mr. KENNARD)asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that a notification has been issued to the employés in the Post Office Savings Banks containing these words:—
  "The solicitor being of opinion that Mr. Ramsay's name cannot be used for any official purpose after his decease, all documents must in future be stamped with the signature of the Assistant Controller?"
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, as I stated last week, on the authority of the legal adviser to the Post Office, no possible inconvenience can result to the depositors from the printed forms to which the hon. Member refers having been used. On the attention of the solicitor being directed to the subject, he thought it would be right that the name of the Assistant Controller should be stamped on the forms until a new appointment to the office of Controller was made, and, therefore, the Order mentioned in the Question was issued.

  ARMY—CAVALRY HORSES.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any

  471
  orders have yet been issued to Cavalry Regiments stationed in the United Kingdom to cast horses over 16 years of age, and pronounced unfit for service; whether it is a fact that several Cavalry Regiments are at present ineffective on account of the number of aged and useless horses in the ranks; and, if any, and what, portion of the £40,000 voted under Vote 1, Army Estimates, for the purchase of Cavalry remounts, has been expended in the purchase of aged and worn out horses?
  MR. BRAND: Sir, under the Queen's Regulations, horses of 15 years and upwards may be brought forward for casting at the annual inspection. Horses declared unfit for the Service may be cast at any age. It cannot be said that any regiment is ineffective on account of the number of aged and useless horses in it; but there are always in every regiment at home some horses too young and some too old for active service, which, if the regiment took the field, would have to be replaced by transfers from other corps. Aged and worn-out horses are never bought for remounts.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—HORSE FLESH.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the case of Benjamin Thompson, who was sentenced at the Bradford Police Court to two months' imprisonment for using putrid horse flesh in the manufacture of potted meat; and, if it would be consistent with the prison regulations that this prisoner should be fed, during his temporary retirement from business, upon his own preserved provisions?
  SIR WILLIAM HAROOURT: I suppose the hon. Member does not expect a serious answer to this Question.

  EGYPT (LAW AND JUSTICE)—TRIAL OF SULEIMAN SAMI.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, on the 8th of June, Her Majesty's Government were aware that Suleimam Sami had been refused permission to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution, that his two counsel, a Frenchman and an Italian, had in succession thrown up their briefs,
  472
  and that Major Macdonald had applied for an adjournment of the trial, which had been refused; whether Her Majesty's Government were acquainted with these circumstances when, on the 13th of June, Lord Granville approved the conduct of Sir E. Malet in refraining from interference, "for which," Lord Granville writes, "there does not seem to have been any necessity;" and, whether Her Majesty's Government will obtain and lay before this House the evidence by which Sir E. Malet writes, on the 9th of June, that it was clearly established that Alexandria was burnt by the orders of Suleiman Sami, and in disobedience to the orders which he received from Arabi?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the Papers presented to Parliament supply the answer to my hon. Friend's Question. As Sir Edward Malet's telegram containing the account of the trial of Suleiman Sami is dated June 14, and Major Macdonald's Report was only received on the 19th of June, they clearly could not have been in the posession of Her Majesty's Government on the 8th of June, or on the 13th of June; but the facts mentioned in those documents have in no measure altered the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. I may observe that the hon. Member would seem to imply in his Question that Major Macdonald applied for an adjournment because of the refusal of the Court to cross-examine the prisoner. If the hon. Member will refer to page 24 of the Blue Book, he will see that this was not the case. There will be no objection to presenting the proceedings of the Commission d'Enquête, when they are received, provided they are not too bulky and the cause of unnecessary expenditure in printing.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS (SCOTLAND)—THE HOME DEPARTMENT—OFFICIAL PAPERS.
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the fact that the number of papers received at the Home Office was considerably more than doubled between 1852 and 1882, Whether it is true that only an extremely small proportion of these are connected with Scotch business?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have been requested by

  473
  my right hon. Friend, to answer this Question. The comparison made by him was not between the years 1852 and 1882, but between 1862 and 1882. The number of Papers relating to Scot-land more than doubled between 1862 and 1882, though it undoubtedly bore only a small proportion to the total number of Papers received at the Home Office.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE-ORANGE LODGES.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a meeting of the Parsonstown Orange Lodge, with a view to organising an Orange demonstration in that town on the 12th July next, was held on the 11th June ult. on the premises of the local Supervisor of Excise; and, if so, whether it is in accordance with the rules of the Civil Service that its members should so identify themselves with a secret society?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: Sir, I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to reply to this Question. No such meeting as that referred to was held in the Supervisor's house on the 11th of June, or any other day. It appears that the Orange Hall adjoins the Supervisor's house, though it is not connected with it in any way, and this probably explains the error into which the hon. Member has fallen.

  INDIA (MADRAS)—CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS—THE SALT REVENUE.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the large number of criminal prosecutions, by the Madras Government, of extremely poor persons, on the charge of being in illegal possession of small quantities of salt for domestic use, or the use of cattle, or for use in the curing of fish and other perishable articles of food; whether he has seen that a number of poor persons have been severely punished for the crime of using saltish earth as a partial substitute for salt, and for attempting to obtain salt for their domestic wants by evaporating sea water, and that the excuse that their extreme poverty prevented them from using the Government taxed salt was rejected; and, whether he can inform the House what are the
  474
  legal penalties and punishments for the illegal use or consumption of salt in India?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Yes, Sir; a large number of prosecutions for offences against the Salt Revenue Law take place in Madras, and the Madras Government has been directed to watch carefully the operations of Act 1 of 1882, which deals with these offences. Salt smuggling has been very prevalent in Madras, and has caused great loss to the Revenue. In 1881, 188 cases were detected, and two tons of smuggled salt were seized in a single district in two days. It was therefore thought necessary to pass the Act 1 of 1882, for the better protection of the salt revenue. The maximum penalty for offences under the Act is imprisonment for three months, or fine of 500 rupees, with confiscation of the smuggled salt; but, under the Departmental rules, first offenders are dismissed with a warning.
  MR. O'KELLYasked, as salt was a necessary of life, would the Government take steps to carry out Free Trade in salt?
  [No answer was given to this Question.]

  INDIA (MADRAS)—RUMOURED OUT BREAK OF CHOLERA.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has heard that cholera in a severe form is reported by the editor of the Madras "Hindu" to have broken out in Salem; that the collector remains at a distance in a mountain sanatarium; and that the Native municipality has been dissolved since the late riots; and, if he can state what authorities are responsible for the care of public health in Salem?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, I have not seen the Madras Hindu. The last health Returns received, dated the 23rd of May, do not state that cholera existed at Salem, nor have we been informed that the Municipality has been dissolved. The magistrate, or, if he is absent, his locum tenens, is responsible for the public health.
  MR. O'DONNELLhaving risen to make a statement,
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was entitled only to put a Question arising out of the answer.

  POST OFFICE—MAILS FROM THE SEYCHELLES TO THE MAURITIUS.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Postmaster General, Whether the mails from the Seychelles to the Mauritius were intentionally left behind at the Seychelles last March by the Messageries Maritime steam-vessel subsidized to convey them; and, whether Postal communication between these islands was suspended for one month in consequence?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the right hon. and gallant Member, I may state that, except from a letter which he forwarded to me from a gentleman who had recently returned from Australia, I have received no report of the delay to which he refers in his Question.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—FINSBURY PARK.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, If similar regulations may not be applied in Finsbury Park for the convenience of visitors on Sundays and holidays to those observed, without difficulty or complaint, in Hyde Park, under direction of the First Commissioner of Works?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, assuming that the regulations referred to by my hon. Friend are those relating to the band, and to the hire of seats and sale of programmes in the Park, I beg to inform him that a recommendation will be made to the Board to-morrow to refer the whole question to a Committee for consideration.

  EAST INDIA—MYSORE GOLD MINING—RETURN OF LANDS HELD BY UNCOVENANTED SERVANTS, &c.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, with reference to paragraph 8 of the letter of 30th January last, published in the Parliamentary Returns of 2nd March last, the Government of Madras have yet submitted the return of lands held by their uncovenanted servants and by Military Officers in civil employ?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the Returns referred to have not yet been received.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—SIXPENNY TELEGRAMS.
  MR. LEWIS (for Mr. PULESTON)asked the Postmaster General, Whether he will
  476
  lay upon the Table of the House the details of the calculation made in connection with the several alternative schemes proposed for the carrying out of the system of sixpenny telegrams?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I may state that the Government will not come to any decision as to the particular scheme for introducing 6d. telegrams before next Session, and there will then be no objection to give, as far as practicable, details of the financial results to be anticipated from each of the three schemes mentioned in the Treasury Minute.

  FRANCE AND CHINA.
  MR. GORST (for Mr. ASHMEAD-BART-LETT)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have any information as to the present relations between China and the French Republic; and, whether they have yet been able to tender their good offices to the French Government in order to prevent war?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have no official information in regard to the present relations between China and the French Republic, and they have taken no action in the sense suggested by the hon. Member.

  NAVY—ASSISTANT PAYMASTERS IN THE NAVY.
  MR. AETHUR O'CONNOEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the average of Assistant Paymasters in the Royal Navy before promotion to the rank of Paymaster has increased since 1870 from nine years to fifteen years, and whether the service in the lower rank is not likely to increase still more in years to come; and, whether he will consider the justice of ameliorating the condition of these officers, either by allowing service over eight years' seniority as Assistant Paymasters to count as senior service, or in some other manner?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: Sir, the length of service of officers in the rank of assistant paymaster has gradually increased from 10 years in 1870 to 15 years in 1883. During the last 18 months, however, considerably more vacancies in the higher rank have occurred than the average number in previous years, and if this continues it

  477
  will tend to prevent further increase in the seniority of the junior rank. The state of things pointed out by the hon. Member is due to the entry in past years of a number of officers in excess of the requirements of the Service, an error which we are now carefully avoiding; and we do not regard the temporary retardation of promotion as requiring an alteration of the conditions of service, which, taken as a whole, are satisfactory. The pay of assistant paymasters in the later years of their service was materially improved so recently as 1877.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the conditions were satisfactory to the officers themselves?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I say that, taken as a whole, I do not think there is any reason to complain.

  INDIA (EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT)— SIR AUCKLAND COLVIN AND MAJOR BARING.
  SIR H. DEUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any truth in the report that Sir Auckland Colvin is to be appointed Finance Minister in India, and that Major Baring is to cumulate the offices of Controller and Consul General in Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is the case, Sir, that Sir Auckland Colvin will succeed Major Baring in the office of Finance Minister in India. As to the latter part of this Question, whether Major Baring is to cumulate the offices of Controller and Consul General in Egypt, I have to say that there is not now in Egypt any such office as that of Controller, and probably the hon. Member means to refer to the office which has been constituted of Financial Adviser. There is no intention of cumulating the office of Financial Adviser with that of Consul General.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Prime Minister whether there was intention to appoint any person in the place of Sir Auckland Colvin as Consul General?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no doubt a recommendation of that character will be made.

  PARLIAMENT—HOUSE OF LORDS—THE USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the
  478
  appointment of the Usher of the Black Rod, the amount of emolument attached to that office will be left subject to the decision of Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Usher of the Black Rod was formerly paid from fees on Private Bills, but since 1877 he has been paid by salary. A small portion of his salary—about £170 or £180—is derived from offices of a secondary character which he holds in the Royal Household; but the main salary is £2,000, and that is included in the Vote for the expenses of the House of Lords, and stands, therefore, as far as Parliamentary control is concerned, precisely in the same position as the other items of that Vote.

  WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC— ANNEXATION OF NEW GUINEA BY QUEENSLAND.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS (for Mr. ASTIMEAD-BAETLETT)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether strong representations in favour of a British Protectorate over New Guinea have been made to Her Majesty's Government by all the Australian Colonies; whether he can confirm the statement in the newspapers of Wednesday, that the Marquess of Normanby, Her Majesty's Governor General, in opening the Victorian Parliament, had stated that collective representations to the Imperial Government were being made in favour of annexation or the establishment of a protectorate; and, whether, in view of the wishes of Her Majesty's loyal Australian Colonies, and of the importance of preventing any Foreign Power from occupying New Guinea and the adjacent islands, Her Majesty's Ministers will advise Her Majesty to establish an Imperial protectorate over those islands?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I can hardly give any information in answer to this Question beyond the statement I made to the House several days ago—namely, that Representations had been made to Lord Derby by the representatives of most or all of the Australian Colonies, excepting Western Australia, in favour of the establishment of a British Protectorate, not only over New Guinea, but over an extended region—in fact, over all the islands of Oceania, almost without exception; and that those representations being of an important character, and being only verbal, the

  479
  gentlemen by whom they were made have been requested to reduce them to writing. Then, I hope, we shall be able to make them known to the House. That is also an answer to the second part of the Question. With regard to the third portion, the House will be put in possession of the substance of the despatch in which Her Majesty's Government have stated their views on this matter; and I think it will be better to reserve any further question upon that despatch until it is in the hands of the House.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any communication by telegraph has yet been received from the Australian Governments in consequence of the statements made in this and the other House on Monday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; we have received a statement by telegraph to the effect that disappointment is felt in the Australian Colonies at the disinclination shown by Her Majesty's Government to confirm the proceedings adopted by the Government of Queensland. What steps may be taken, or what proposals may be made, of course we are not in a position to state at this moment. That is the condition of feeling in most, if not in all, of the Australian Colonies on receipt of the intelligence to which I have referred.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked whether the Papers, when published, would include these telegraphic communications, and when they would be in the hands of hon. Members?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think it is desirable that the telegraphic communications should be included with the other Papers. As to the time, it will be at an early date; but I am not able, without communication with the Colonial Office, to say at what date.

  AFGHANISTAN—ALLEGED CAPTURE OF CONVOY IN THE KHYBER PASS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS (for Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT)asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that a convoy of arms and ammunition sent by the Viceroy of India to the Ameer of Afghanistan has been captured, after a sharp
  480
  fight in the Kyber Pass, by the Afridis; and if so, who composed the escort, and what is the value of the munitions captured?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I am happy to inform the hon. Gentleman that no such capture has occurred in the Khyber Pass. No arms or ammunition for the Ameer have passed the Khyber since the 2nd of February.

  PARLIAMENT—PROMULGATION OF THE STATUTES.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Government, Whether they would postpone the Motion which stood in the name of the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, relative to the promulgation of the Statutes, for a day or two, seeing that the Report of the Committee on that subject had been only just delivered, and was of a character that deserved the attention of the House?
  MR. RYLANDShaving made a similar request,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would consult with his right hon. and learned Friend on that matter.

  PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—BALLOT ACT CONTINUANCE AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  In answer to a Question from Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Government desired, if possible, that night to close the adjourned debate on going into Committee on this Bill, and to get into Committee, when Progress would be immediately reported.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to proceed with the Ballot Continuance Bill before the Agricultural Holdings Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not. He only wished to close the adjourned debate on going into Committee on the Ballot Bill.
  SIR H. DEUMMOND WOLFFasked when the Government intended to proceed with the Representative Peers (Scotland) Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow the matter to stand over until Monday, when I will mention it along with various other measures.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dilke Mr. Solicitor General.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th July.] [FIFTEENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Election Expenses.
    Clause 24 (Personal expenses of candidate and small expenses of committee room).
    Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 27, to leave out "50," and insert "100,"—(Mr. Arthur Balfour,)—instead thereof.
    Question again proposed, "That '50' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. MONKsaid, he earnestly hoped that the Committee would not assent to this Amendment, for one of the objects of the Bill was to lessen expenses, and the proposal to substitute £100 for £50 was merely calling upon the candidate to increase the expenditure. Of course, the candidate could spend £50 or £100 if necessary; but after the amount was expended it was necessary that it should be returned by the election agent, so that the precise sum should be generally known. In 19 out of 20 cases, £50 would be amply sufficient for the candidate's personal expenses, and if there was any further expenditure it was only right that it should be made under the authority and name of the election agent. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this was a very small matter, which had been amply discussed before. Of course, if the candidate was honest, it was of no use telling him that he might expend £50 or £100 in personal expenses.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, it was in the interest of the honest candidate that he wished to have the sum fixed—a sum that would be sufficient for the purpose. The proposal of the Bill was absolutely
    482
    inadequate, and he maintained that even £100 would be insufficient.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the candidate might spend as much as he liked; the only point was in whose hands it should be.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, the matter was fully discussed yesterday. The candidate might want to take his wife and daughters with him, and might not want all that expense to be set down in the account. But to sot down a large amount for personal expenses seemed to be holding out a temptation to the candidate to spend that amount on what might not really be personal expenses at all.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the last time this matter was discussed the Attorney General favoured them with a quotation from a previous Act of Parliament, which he declared was incorporated in the present Bill. He (Mr. Warton) ventured to ask where it was so incorporated, because under the several Acts that were incorporated he could not find that one. There might be some inadvertence somewhere; but he confessed he had not been able to find the place where that Act was incorporated. He wished to know whether the personal expenses were to include travelling and hotel expenses only, because there might be other personal expenses besides those. If the definition was narrowed to travelling and hotel expenses it would leave those other expenses out of view.
    MR. E. STANHOPEasked whether it would not be worth while to insert a Schedule of personal expenses on the Report?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)explained, in reply to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), that the Statute which he had meant to describe as incorporated was the 17 & 18 Vict., c. 182, which set forth reasonable hotel expenses and reasonable travelling expenses.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the Attorney General was always telling them that these were very small matters. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) did not agree with him, for he thought they were large matters, having regard to the stringency of the measure, and to the many dangers which surrounded the candidate and made the affair a very serious

    483
    thing indeed for him. He appealed to the Attorney General to say whether it would not be much better to get rid of all this? The definition of personal expenses which was proposed was altogether insufficient. The definition of "reasonable hotel expenses and reasonable travelling expenses" was most difficult, for, as had been suggested by a well-known authority, the candidate might give a dinner to five persons, and that might be held to be reasonable; but if five were to be considered reasonable, were six, seven, or eight to be considered unreasonable? In other words, where was the line to be drawn? A sum of £50 or £100 could be got rid of by the candidate very easily; and he would ask the Committee, before changing the sum from £50 to £100, to consider whether it would not be better to get rid of the provision altogether? He should like to have some definition as to what were reasonable expenses before changing the figure. Very few Members of the House would ever return their personal expenses.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was under an entire misapprehension. The amount did not at all affect the candidate's personal expenses—he might spend as much or as little as he chose. He might spend privately £50 or £100; but anything above that would have to be put down among the election agent's expenses.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he quite understood what was the effect of the clause, but wished to have some definition of what were reasonable personal expenses.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That '100' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 35, leave out Sub-seotion (3.)—(Mr. Salt.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the object of the sub-section was to provide that where minor payments were made by persons authorized they should be returned. It was necessary that the payments under Sub-section 2 should be returned; but he was willing to strike out the words
    484
    "by the candidate for his personal expenses." That would leave only the return under Sub-section 2; but it was absolutely necessary that that return should be made.
    MR. SALTremarked, that he had said nothing about the clause the other day, because he quite understood that they were to leave out the whole of Subsection 3. His objection to the Subsection was, that it conflicted with the first part of the clause, which left liberty to make certain payments more or less large, while the sub-section declared that particulars must be returned. That surely was a contradiction, and he understood that they had agreed to strike it out.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the payments might be made; but it was necessary that the particulars of the items should be given.
    MR. SALTsaid, that with regard to the effect which Sub-section 3 had upon Sub-section 1 he and the Attorney General were agreed. It was agreed on both sides that Sub-section 3 should be struck out so far as it affected Sub-section 1, and the only point necessary to be considered was its effect upon Subsection 2. He had great doubts as to whether that sub-section was necessary at all. He would have raised an objection to Sub-section 2 at the proper time, only he did not wish to take up the time of the Committee. What was its operation? The candidate himself, or his clerk or other persons in charge of the committee room, were authorized to spend £10 on his account. That was what he (Mr. Salt) understood it to mean. If more was spent, then that surplus above £10 must be spent directly by the agent himself. Then Sub-section 3 stepped in and declared that, although the £10 might be expended upon the authority of the agent given to the clerk in charge of the committee room, a bill must be sent in containing all the details. What was the use of that? If a bill was to go in, what was the use of putting in Sub-section 2 at all? It merely made complications.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Sub-section 2 is already part of the Bill. It is not in Order to refer to it, except as affecting the hon. Member's argument on the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: It was not put from the Chair.
    THE CHAIRMAN: No; but we are now on an Amendment to Sub-section 3.
    MR. SALTbegged pardon, if he bad transgressed, and apologized; but be was obliged to explain Sub-section 2 in order to show his objection to Sub-section 3. He still thought they would be better without it. The agent might say to some clerk—"I give you authority to spend £5 in pens, ink, and stationery"—it could only be a small sum. Why not leave it so, and not complicate the Bill with details which could only-lead to confusion, and in the end lead to corruption?
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the confusion arose from what had been put into the clause since the Bill was originally framed. He thought it would be very much better if the sub-section could be left out altogether. They were agreed that these expenses should be limited to petty expenses, and be could not imagine why this statement should go in, as it would only deal with small fixed sums.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would give way if he did not think the sub-section essential. It was essential to check the power of spending, and all that was asked was that the man who spent the money should make a return to the election agent showing how he had spent it, so as to prevent the possibility of the money being spent wrongfully.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he thought the Attorney General was right, as Sub-section 3 was only a corollary to Subsection 2.
    MR. A. J. BALEOREsaid, he thought that much of the difficulty which had arisen was due to the fact that the Government had not taken the trouble to put down upon the Paper the Amendments which they proposed. That was a most unfortunate plan, which raised a great deal of unnecessary argument. If they made the Returning Officers give all the figures of personal expenditure it was intelligible that there should be some check provided; but the Committee had seen grave objections to that, and, therefore, he could see no use in complicating the clause unnecessarily. He thought the Attorney General would do well if he would tell them at once that he would drop the whole of the clause.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he was utterly at a loss to understand what the
    486
    complications were. If they were going to entrust the practical carrying on of the expenditure of the election to a petty cashier, and to allow him to expend a certain sum of money, the election agent must have an account of how the money was spent, and the account should be sent in; and if they admitted that bribery had been carried on under the guise of personal expenditure, they must have the amount of personal expenditure returned. But really the difference in the matter of drafting, as to the mode in which they were to frame this 3rd sub-section, was "the difference betwixt tweedledum and tweedledee," and he was not surprised at the Attorney General growing impatient.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 35, to omit the words "under this section by the candidate for his personal expenses, or."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question, "That those words stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, nothing could be more humiliating for a candidate than to be compelled to set forth the particulars of his personal expenses, either for living at an hotel or entertaining his personal friends. The hon. Member opposite had introduced as an argument in favour of the clause that, under certain circumstances, there might be committed, under the guise of personal expenses, very gross bribery; and he mentioned the case of the Sandwich Election, and what had taken place there as an instance. But a long time bad elapsed since then, and it was not unreasonable to suppose that bribery, in the shape of personal expenses, was the exception to the rule. It was necessary to watch very closely what would be the consequences of passing a Bill of this kind. So far as the position of the candidate was concerned, it could not be denied that, under this clause, he might be put to the greatest possible inconvenience if, as might very well happen, be could not state the exact particulars and figures of these personal expenses. Were hon. Gentlemen prepared to say that no personal expenses should be paid

    487
    by the candidate except hotel expenses? Were they as sensitive about the payment of a cab fare as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who, in his anxiety to keep to the letter of the law at the election, paid a cab fare out of his own pocket, and accounted for it to the Returning Officer? It was desirable that the Committee should know whether the personal expenses were to be limited to the particular items mentioned, or whether other expenses would have to be returned; and they were, moreover, entitled to information on the point, not only for the reasons he had given, but for those advanced by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). Finally, he regarded the clause as wholly unnecessary, while, at the same time, it would inflict great hardship and injustice upon honest men; and for those reasons he should, to the full extent of his ability, resist it at a future stage.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that a man under the old law was able to practise a good deal of bribery under the head of personal expenses, and, at the same time, to avoid the penalties attaching thereto. It was to remedy that state of things that the clause was necessary in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. LEWISsaid, if there was any waste of time on this part of the Bill the responsibility rested on those who liked fiddle-faddle instead of legislation. The 2nd sub-section of the clause, if it had any meaning, meant that a statement of the particulars of every telegram—that was to say, its cost and the name of the person to whom it went—would have to be sent in. ["No, no!"] Some hon. Members opposite dissented from that, but it was nevertheless true; it was the particulars that had to be given, not a summary in the form of, say, "Telegrams £3." This was a part of that system of vexation and harassment which seemed to have delighted the framers of the Bill. He thought it reasonable that £40, or thereabouts, should be put as the limit of expenditure under this sub-section without details being required; he trusted they would not be deliberately compelled to furnish in detail all these little matters. Personally, he felt no anxiety about any such expenses, because he doubted that any Act of Parliament would get him
    488
    either to keep or furnish an account of the kind. To compel a man to keep an account, perhaps for a month, of all that went out of his pocket, was a sort of tyranny that was hardly to be agreed to. And when they came to the Report it would be found that the settlement of those matters in the way provided by the clause would occupy a considerable time, because his hon. Friends and he had no intention of allowing them to pass without first doing all they could to get rid of them.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that each clause of this wretched Bill brought together the most incongruous subjects. That was more strongly shown in the next clause, where two absolutely distinct subjects were brought together. The absurdity of the provision as to personal expenses contained in the 1st sub-section had been so completely demonstrated by his hon. Friend below him that he should spend no more time in considering it. He thought, however, that, owing to the many little provisions with which the Bill was encumbered, the 2nd sub-section had not received at the hands of the Committee the amount of attention it deserved.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he regretted that the Government had thought it necessary to introduce so much detail into the Bill. It seemed to him that this clause was superfluous, because it seemed to be nothing else than a repetition of what was to be found in the Schedule. One criticism he made with regard to the Bill was that many of its details were totally unnecessary. If they were to have an enactment against corruption, bribery, and illegal payments, with a maximum expenditure set forth in it, it seemed to him totally unnecessary to go into the way the money was to be spent. The effect of that must be to increase the difficulty of honest men in their endeavours to conduct their elections upon pure principles. Moreover, the introduction of so much detail added largely to the bulk of a measure, which otherwise might have passed in a shorter time, and which would recommend itself to the House more than a measure which really alarmed men by its size. For these reasons he trusted that the Attorney General would, on reconsideration, perceive that many of the small provisions

    489
    in this and the subsequent part of the Bill might be dispensed with.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not think the Government could be blamed for wanting to reduce the expenses of a candidate; but this clause was perfectly absurd. Why should not the personal expenses of a candidate not be part of the general expenses of the election, and come within the amount set forth in the Schedule? As in the case of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), it would be impossible for him to give an account of his personal expenses. He had never kept an account of them in his life. He believed the Attorney General had stated that, when a candidate went down to a constituency with his wife and family, the hotel expenses of his wife and family would be part of the personal expenses. That, he thought, was perfectly absurd. He thought the personal expenses should be the candidate's own expenses alone. Some years ago a candidate for an Irish constituency came over from London, and brought some actresses with him; and on the principle laid down by the Attorney General the expenses of those artistes might be considered as personal expenses. The clause in all its details was so absurd that he would recommend the Government to abandon it, because, as the hon. Member for Londonderry had judiciously warned them, if the clause were retained a discussion would be raised at the nest stage that would considerably delay the further progress of the Bill.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he was reluctant to join in any Division against the provisions of the Bill when the Attorney General thought they were of use. But he was bound to say that, in his opinion, the present clause was so unreasonable, that it could serve no useful purpose to retain it. Sub-section 2 provided that, if an election agent authorized a person to spend £5 in stationery, a return should be made of the particular items on which the money was spent. He did not exactly suppose the person who spent the money should return the number of telegrams or sheets of paper; but it might mean something quite as unreasonable if an account was required of every shilling spent. Then, again, the 1st sub-section seemed to be absurd. The constituencies were so different, and the dura-
    490
    tion of the several elections varied so much, that it was unreasonable to apply any hard-and-fast time, because, for instance, the expenses of a candidate travelling about a county would be enormously different from the expenses of a candidate standing for and living at a small place. Reluctant as he was to take objection to what was seriously regarded by the Attorney General as an improvement on the existing law, he certainly could not support the clause.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he believed it impossible for any candidate, unless of a very economic turn of mind, to escape a Petition under the clause. He supposed if a man gave a shilling to a beggar, it would be part of his personal expenses.
    MR. CATENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished simply to point out that if the discussion of the clause were prolonged, it would be entirely the fault of the Government, who would go into details so childish, as to be altogether unworthy of a place in an Act of Parliament.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that, while he agreed with the observation of the hon. Member opposite that the clause was unnecessary, and likely to become the cause of annoyance, he thought, as the Government were determined to insist on its retention, there would be no wisdom in prolonging the discussion.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, that the £100 for personal expenses provided for under the 1st sub-section of the clause would probably be insufficient in the case of a county, and a great deal too much in the case of a small borough election, where £5 or £10 would be enough. He wished to know whether a candidate would have to render an account of the items of expenditure, or simply make a declaration that he had spent the £100?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would not go into the general details of the question; but a candidate would not have to say—"I spent £1 here, and £1 there." He would simply have to return himself as having spent so-and-so on his personal expenses, and in that respect the present law would not be altered.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to point out that the 2nd sub-section was not part of the present law. He was particularly desirous of knowing whether or not the penalty of £5 a-day was

    491
    still to be preserved. He imagined it would be if the 17 & 18 Vict. remained unrepealed.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that if they did not ask for the details of the personal expenses, what was the use of limiting those expenses to £100? If a candidate said he spent £100, and gave no details, how could they prove he spent only £100? A candidate might spend £200, and yet return his expenses at £100. He did not suppose that any Member of the House would make an incorrect return; but certainly they would have no means of arriving at the truth, unless the details of the expenses were required from the candidate. The moment they did not insist upon a detailed statement of a candidate's expenses, the whole efficacy of the clause was gone. In its present shape, the effect of the clause would only be irritating and annoying.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 22: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 168.)
    Clause 25 (Remuneration of election agent and Returning Officer's expenses).
    MR. WARTONrose to order. The clause related to two perfectly distinct matters, and, therefore, he thought it would be well if it were divided into two clauses. With that object, he would move that the figure "1" be omitted.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Figure "1" really indicates a portion of the clause, and does not form any part of the Bill. I do not think the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) will be in Order in making a Motion of this kind.
    MR. WARTONasked if there was no way by which the clause could be divided into two parts?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport would necessitate a renumbering; if the hon. and learned Gentleman wished it, however, he would, at a later stage, undertake to divide the section.
    Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 26 (Return and declaration respecting election expenses).
    Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 15, to leave out "forty" and insert "thirty-five."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
    Question proposed, "That 'forty" stand part of the Clause."
    MR. LEWISsaid, he was not present yesterday, and he did not desire to go back. He could not help saying, however, that no attention seemed to have been paid to the difficulty of dealing with an impecunious candidate. He did not know whether the Government proposed to make any provision in the case of a bonâ fide temporally inability to pay his debts on the part of the candidate, or whether the inevitable result must be that if the debts were not paid within 28 days, the debts unpaid must take their rank amongst disputed claims, and never could be paid except with the permission of a Judge of the Supreme Court.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if debts were not paid, they, of course, became disputed claims. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lewis) would look at Clause 23, he would find that the time limited by the Act for the payment of expenses should be 30 days after the day on which the candidate returned was declared elected. The 30 days, however, had by the Committee been reduced to 28. If debts were not paid by that time, an action must be brought to recover them.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he had known many cases in which candidates were for the time being unable to pay their election expenses. They could even conceive cases under that Bill where the expenses would amount to £2,000 or £3,000. Was it suggested that, even under the present Bill, it would not be an exceedingly common occurrence that candidates would not be able to meet their election expenses, and might desire a deferment of payment for a few weeks? The only result of such a proceeding as that would be, that a candidate would be unable to pay one penny unless an action was brought against him. He did not know there was any provision in the present law compelling payment within a limited period. Every Member of the House was not a man of fortune; indeed, there were many Members who had not paid their election expenses for the last election yet. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but it was

    493
    nevertheless a fact. He regretted that he was deprived of the opportunity of being present yesterday, because he should then have called attention to this subject. When he came to ascertain what was done by the Committee, it struck him they had omitted to consider that which was one of the ordinary incidents in political life. They were prescribing that a man should pay his election expenses by a certain day, though pressure might be put upon him temporarily by which the money he had put aside for these expenses would be devoted to other things. It was quite possible that there might be bonâ fide impecuniosity. Many Members of the House of Commons were in such a position at an election time. There had been no attempt to provide for a bonâ fide case of that kind, and he thought it was very necessary the Committee should have some understanding on the matter.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sorry the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) was not present yesterday, when they discussed the matter at some length. It was then proposed to lessen the time in which payment of expenses should be made. He was sorry to hear that many Members had entered into contracts which they could not fulfil. Personally, he did not see why these should not be ready money transactions. If a man undertook to pay a sum of money in a month, and then could not do so, it was only right and proper that an action should be brought against him.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he raised to some extent the same question yesterday. He did not wish to allege, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry had alleged, that there was a scarcity of money on the part of Members of Parliament; but he desired to point out that what really occurred was this this. It very often happened that candidates were subject to very unreasonable claims, and a large amount of correspondence was necessitated. A candidate who paid through an agent, and paid in a liberal manner, very often was required to pay considerably more than was fair. The intention of the Bill was good enough; but, at the same time, there was no proper provision to enable candidates to carry out the intentions of the Bill in
    494
    a judicious and reasonable manner. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry was a very important one, and deserved the serious attention of the Government. Yesterday the question was raised whether or not the lawsuits involved in the non-payment of election expenses could not be brought in a County Court. The decision of the Government was, that nothing less than an action in the Supreme Court could settle a claim after 28 days. The Government were certainly in this matter acting in a contradictory manner. In the first place, they limited the expenses to a very small sum, and then they made it impossible in some cases to recover the expenses without going to the Superior Court. He (Mr. Biggar) was not at all certain that all his election expenses in 1880 were paid yet, not because he objected to pay his fair expenses, but simply because he refused to meet fraudulent and unreasonable claims made upon him. There were a certain number of people in every constituency who, at an election time, made up their mind to plunder the candidate; and unless there was some protection in the Bill dealing with such people, the candidate might possibly be very hardly done by. In the majority of cases candidates were innocent persons, while there was a certain section of the community always ready to endeavour to seduce the candidates into some illegal action. Personally, he was of opinion that, instead of meting such formidable punishment out to the candidate, there ought to be very severe punishment inflicted upon anyone who attempted to encourage a candidate to commit an illegal act.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he thought the argument employed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) defeated its own object. If a claim was not met before the expiration of 28 days after the return of a candidate had been declared, it would, in all probability, be an extortionate claim. The claimant would have to go to the trouble and expense of going to the Superior Court; and if it was found that he had made an extortionate claim, the case would, in all probability, go against him, and he would be mulcted in costs. He (Mr. Macfarlane) thought the provision was rather in favour of the candidate than otherwise.
    MR. LEWISsaid, the point he had raised had nothing whatever to do with extortionate claims. He assumed the election bills were perfectly fair, and he had put a case which frequently rose in ordinary life—namely, a case in which a gentleman might find himself in the throes of a severe contest in which he was entitled to spend possibly £2,000. Before the time came for payment it might happen that one of those demands which frequently were made upon people would require him to use all his ready money. What would be the consequence? If there were 50 or 60 bills unpaid, there would necessarily have to be 50 or 60 actions. The Attorney General had said that if a debt was unpaid at the end of 28 days it passed into the category of disputed claims; and if it got there, it could not be paid except by the order of a Judge made in the Supreme Court. There was nothing at all in the Bill to deal with the state of circumstances which he (Mr. Lewis) had instanced. In addition to all the other harassments of the Bill, they placed a person who happened to be a candidate under the liability of having a number of actions brought against him if he was temporarily short of money.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not see why a candidate should not have an action brought against him, if he was not capable of paying his debts. As he had previously said, in his opinion it would be very much better if election payments were ready money payments.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he must contend that he was perfectly, consistent in his objection. At the present time there was no such fetter as was now proposed placed upon the candidate. He challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to dispute that statement. This was not a question as to what contract a candidate might make with his creditor, because the Act would not allow him to make a reasonable contract with a man. An election bill must be sent in within 14 or 20 days; he forgot which—and the time was fixed when a candidate must pay, whether he would or not. That was a monstrously unworkable arrangement, and it was perfectly nonsensical.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the chief difficulty seemed to him to be that of forcing
    496
    people to bring an action—namely, forcing, for instance, a party making fraudulent claims to take proceedings. No opportunity was afforded of a claimant coming to terms with a candidate without going into Court. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) said that if a fraudulent claim was made and was not met, the claimant would be forced to go to law; if the Court found that the claim was fraudulent, a man would not get his costs. But if a decision went in favour of the defendant, it might possibly happen that he would have to pay his own costs. He (Mr. Biggar) could conceive the legal costs under this section being very excessive, and therefore he could not understand the utility of the clause.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) pointed out was, that if a candidate disputed to pay a debt, the debt then became a disputed claim, and it could only be paid with the leave of the Court. He (Mr. Gregory) considered that this was a matter worthy of consideration, for it was a matter not affecting the creditor so much as the candidate.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he would not press his objection further, although it would involve his attacking the whole matter on Report if this impracticable method of dealing with matters of this sort were persisted in.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words 'thirty-five 'be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Attorney General to the construction of the clause; and he wished to propose, after line 20, to insert Sub-section (c) in place of Subsection (a)—he wanted Sub-section (c) to stand first. The Bill was a very badly drawn one, and if the Attorney General would look at the clause carefully, he would see that the different items of expenditure were arranged in an order altogether different from that in which they were put in the 2nd Schedule. If they would look at the 2nd Schedule they would find, on page 47—
    "Paid to E.F. the returning officer for the said county [or borough] for his charges at the said election."

    497
    And then they would find the next item to be—
    "Personal expenses of the said C.D. paid by himself."
    Well, in the clause, Part A of Subsection 1 referred to the payments made by the election agent, which item corresponded with item S in the Schedule, Part 0 of the sub-section corresponding with the first item in the Schedule. He was not quarrelling with the Schedule at all; but it appeared to him to be highly desirable to pay due regard to symmetry in preparing the clauses of that Bill. There should be either a re-arrangement of the clauses, or a rearrangement of the Bill, he did not care which. He should rather prefer the order of the Schedule.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 12, line 20, after the word "candidate," insert—(c.) A statement of the sums paid to the returning officer for his charges, or, if the amount is in dispute, of the sum claimed and the amount disputed."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was afraid he could not encourage the hon. and learned Gentleman by allowing him to divide the clause in this manner. The question was a trivial matter of detail. He could not be answerable for the symmetry of the clause, the substance being that with which he had most concern. He must adhere to the clause as it stood.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would not insist upon the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 12, line 38, by leaving out the words "in connection with or as incidental to," and inserting the words "in respect to the conduct or management of."
    MR. SALTsaid, that before the subsection passed, the Committee should give it very careful consideration, as it was a very strong one. If it had been duly considered by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, he would not say anything more about it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was, no doubt, a very important sub-section.
    MR. SALT: No doubt; but it is a very strong one.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the matter had been carefully considered.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert after the last sub-section—
    "(g.) A statement of the amount of the fee paid to the election agent for his own personal services."
    It appeared to him absolutely necessary that these words should be added to the section. He was afraid that if they did not insist upon this, the election agent might get more than he ought to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 12, line 40, after "received," insert—"(g.) A statement of the amount of the fee paid to the election agent for his own personal expenses."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the evil the right hon. Baronet had in his mind would be met by provisions in the latter part of the Bill.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that, although this matter might be dealt with in some other part of the Bill, it ought to be dealt with here as well. They repeated other matters twice over, and he did not see why, on this point, they should be content merely with a statement in the Schedule. He thought that, at the commencement, it would have been well to have put all these things in the Schedule only; but now, seeing that they had started, they should go on to the end, and he would, therefore, support the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet if he went to a Division.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that if they looked at the Amendment they would see that it was necessary to insert it here. The right hon. Baronet had given Notice to move, immediately after the present Amendment, the following:—Clause 26, page 13, line 5, after "expenses," insert—
    "The said return shall also include a declaration that the fee paid to the election agent is in remuneration for his own personal services solely, and that no part of it has been applied to any other purpose."
    There was no such declaration or restriction in the Schedule. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would persevere with this Amendment, and also with the consequential Amendment on the

    499
    next page. It seemed to him that they should have a declaration from the election agent that the fee paid to him was in remuneration for his own personal services solely, and that no part of it had been applied to any other purpose.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Committee could discuss the two Amendments separately. It seemed to him that it would be an invidious thing to make a declaration of the amount paid to the agent; and he would, therefore, urge the right hon. Baronet not to press this proposal.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEintimated that he did not propose to move the next Amendment, which was a consequential one.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that if the right hon. Baronet would not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice in line 5, he (Mr. Callan) would move it himself. Election agents were not persons of such sensitive character, and of such delicate sensibility, that they would feel it a slur upon them to be called upon to make a declaration that a certain amount of money was for their personal expenses. He did not believe it would be easy to get a perfect election agent under this Bill; and when they had got an agent he did not think there would be any objection on his part to make the declaration.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 13, line 5, after "expenses," insert "the said return shall also include a declaration that the fee paid to the election agent is in remuneration for his own porsonal services solely, and that no part of it has been applied to any other purpose."—(Mr. Callan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment, as it would be altogether without effect. Supposing £50 were paid to an election agent, after he had put it in his pocket he might spend it how he liked—he could say he had received so much for his own expenses, and although the sum might be returned as a payment to him, nobody might know what he had done with it, as it would he impossible to trace sovereigns and notes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he had an Amendment to propose pro formâ, in order to draw attention, in the first instance, to the vast change now, for the first time, made in the law—requiring a candidate to make a declaration which was equivalent to an oath as to the expenditure he had sanctioned. He wished particularly to refer to the words "at the same time," for they required a candidate to remain on the spot for 35 days. After all the accounts were dealt with he had to send in a declaration "at the same time." What he was driving at, and what he should ask the Committee to assent to by his Amendment, was this—that provided the candidate made a declaration prior to taking his seat in the House that should be sufficient. Members might naturally desire to go abroad after an election; but under this clause they would have to remain on the scene for 35 days, simply for the purpose of making a declaration. That was a tax upon an elected candidate; and this was a matter which Members should thoroughly understand. What he wished to suggest was that, in carrying out this serious alteration of the law, they should endeavour to make it fit in with the exigencies of business or habits of life, and not to keep a Member on the scene in that way. At the time of the last General Election he had a business engagement calling him 3,000 miles away; two days after the election he went away, and did not return for two months; but under this clause he would have had to give up that engagement, and also to remain more than a month on the spot. That was an illustration of what might occur to many Members; and that would be a serious inconvenience. The Government could have no object in creating this inconvenience; and he thought that it would be sufficient to require a Member, before taking his seat, to make a declaration that he had not spent more than his agent's accounts, and would not spend any more on the election.
    Amendment proposed, in page 13, to omit Sub-section (3).—(Mr. Lewis.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was willing to agree to the principle of the hon. Member's Amendment, and to make the

    501
    clause as elastic as possible; and if the Amendment were withdrawn he would make such an alteration in the subsection as would give the candidate a reasonable time to make his declaration. As the hon. Member had said, urgent matters might take a Member away immediately after an election.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he cordially assented to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he had always considered that the proposed change in the law would be the most effective part of the Bill, because it would bind the candidate and his agent to a statement of the actual amount of the election expenses. That had in times past been plainly evaded. He was afraid that if the statement was only to be made by a formal declaration made to the Returning Officer it would soon become a mere matter of routine, and that due sense of responsibility and weight would not be attached to the declaration which he wished should be made at the Table of the House. He was afraid that in that way the value of the declaration would degenerate; but if it were solemnly made at the Table of the House, that would add to the value of the declaration.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SALTsaid, he had proposed to reduce £100 in the clause to £5; but as the Attorney General and the Committee favoured the higher penalty he would not now take up time by pressing his Amendment.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSproposed, in page 13, to omit the section—
    "If without such authorised excuse as in this Act mentioned, a candidate or an election agent fails to comply with the requirements of this section he shall he guilty of an illegal practice."
    He did not wish an agent to escape punishment; but, as the section stood, a Member being elected would come at once to the House; exciting topics might arise within the 35 days, and yet the Member was to be forced to apply all his ingenuity and time to take care that the election agent sent in his Return, or, failing that, he should lose his seat. He thought that proposition had only to be stated to confute the whole cause. By the Procedure Clause it was provided that bills must be sent in in 14 days,
    502
    and settled in 14 days more. It was then simply a question of getting the return sent in within a certain time, and it was pushing things too far to punish the candidate in the way proposed. If a candidate and his agent fell out the agent might keep back the Return, and the candidate might be unseated. In Clause 27 there was a rule for an application to the High Court; but he did not think a candidate ought to be subjected to a groundless Petition simply because an agent had not sent in the return. That was putting too much on the candidate when his mind was occupied with other things, although he thought it was necessary to make the agent send in the return. He would give the Court some power to enforce the provision he proposed.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 13, to omit—"If without such authorised excuse as in this Act mentioned, a candidate or an election agent fails to comply with the requirements of this section he shall be guilty of an illegal practice,"—(Sir S. Assheton Cross,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had the strongest wish that the penalty should fall on the right person. He thought he might accept a provision to the effect that if an agent, in defiance of the candidate, would not perform his duty, a penalty should fall upon him. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow the words to stand he would undertake to provide that non-performance or non-compliance on the part of an agent should not be an illegal practice as to the candidate, but that the penalty should fall on the agent. He would endeavour to carry that out on Report.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he thought that the punishment ought to be strong. In Irish constituencies he found that Members were great sinners in regard to their Returns at the last General Election. In an Ulster county two supporters of the Government and two opponents made no returns; in a Southern borough a Liberal and a Conservative made no return. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) made no Return, and his Colleague made no Return. In a well-

    503
    known Munster county one Liberal and one Conservative made no Returns, and in the most distinguished County of Dublin two Liberals and one Conservative made no Returns. An hon. Gentleman opposite had the distinguished advantage of being returned for 10 s., for he returned the entire amount of his costs, including the Returning Officer's charge, at 10 s. Neither the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), nor his Colleague, nor his opponent made any Return. A Member of the Government made no Return; but as he was not opposed it might be supposed that he was returned without cost. For wilful neglect a candidate ought to be held responsible.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had made no Returns, because such Returns were a complete farce. He did not believe there was any truthfulness in any Return by an election agent for any Member of the House. He did not suggest that any Member would not make an excellent and accurate Return; but these Returns were regarded as shams. He thought the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had not made quite a correct statement, because he found that a Return had been sent in for the County of Tyrone Election. There were a number of English as well as Irish constituencies for which no Return had been made; and he asked whether the Executive had taken any steps with regard to them? Had the House taken any notice of the misconduct of Members in not making those Returns? Had the Attorney General done so? Of course, in such places as Taunton and Gloucester it would have been dangerous not to make Returns. In his own case the Judge did not censure him for not making a return; but said that perhaps it was just as well that he had not made one.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, with regard to his own election, he found the Return of the Returning Officer was perfectly accurate. He would also say that those Returns, whether accurate or not, showed a good deal. In 1874 he lost his seat, and the two hon. Gentlemen who unseated him advertised very candidly that they had spent £497 in a few days' contest in messengers and butchers.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member was wandering from the subject before the Committee.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he believed they were on the subject of the Election Returns. Reference had been made to the Returns of the last General Election; but if the Chairman's ruling was that reference should not be made to any other Election Returns, he would, of course, not press the matter.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne), which would have accomplished all that the Amendment of the Attorney General suggested, and which, in the hon. Member's absence, he had intended to move. But he understood the Attorney General to say that the candidate was to be liable for the penalties, if he committed the offence without excuse, and that he was not to be liable if it were done by the agent. If the hon. and learned Gentleman brought up a clause on Report embodying that principle, he thought it would be satisfactory.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would undertake to provide that the penalty for the illegal practice referred to in Sub-section 5 should not fall on the candidate except for his own act, and also that there should be no voidance of the seat on account of a false declaration by an agent without the consent of the candidate. The candidate should only be liable for his own wilful act.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, it would be reasonable for the hon. and learned Attorney General to consider, in drafting the clause, two things which the Bill left very obscure. It would appear on the drafting of Sub-section 5 that if no Return were made by the candidate without the authorized excuse, he might be guilty of an illegal practice without any trial or award of any Court. Was it intended that a man should be deemed guilty ipso facto? For his own part, he thought there should be a decision by a Court of Justice before the great penalties prescribed by the Bill were incurred. These penalties fell not only on the candidate, but on the constituency, and, to a certain extent, affected the House itself; and he said it was not right that the House should be deprived of one of its Members, and the constituency of its Representative, and subjected to all the turmoil of a fresh election, simply because there had been a slip or a piece of bad judgment on the part of the candi-

    505
    date or his agent. Therefore, he trusted that, on reconsideration of the clause, the Attorney General would take care to put in words which would provide that the candidate should be "adjudged guilty" of the offence imputed to him. The second suggestion he had to make was that there should be some power given to the Court of exercising a judicial discretion; the Court, in his opinion, should be empowered either to say that the candidate was guilty of an illegal practice, and that, therefore, his seat should be voided, or else that he should be punished by a fine of £100.
    MR. GORSTthought his right hon. and learned Friend hardly recollected that the election would be declared void by the decision of the Court, and after a Report made to Mr. Speaker. That being the case, the seat was not voided ipso facto.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, it appeared to him that the effect of the sub-section might be that, if a candidate were guilty of a corrupt practice, his seat would be vacated and void. There was no magic in the words of the clause. The seat might ipso facto be voided; and he considered it very undesirable that the clause should remain unaltered, and in doubt.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he did not want to carry on a controversy with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this subject; still, he thought he would see, on examination of Sub-section 10, that an illegal practice did not ipso facto make void a seat. That only took place after the Report had been made to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had been reading over the list of Members who had not made any Election Returns. As something might attach to Members for not making Returns, he wished to show how the Government treated the matter. One Member in Ireland who made no Return had since been made a Judge. Then, in the case of the Radnor Boroughs, Sir Richard Green Price had made no Return, nor had the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, his noble Friend was not elected in the ordinary way. He issued no addresses; the electors of the Radnor Boroughs returned him spontaneously, and, he would under-
    506
    take to say, without one farthing of expense.
    MR. CALLANsaid, there must always be some expense connected with an election. He had merely alluded to these matters because his own case had been singled out. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had referred to him as not having made a Return, in reply to which he asked what steps the Government had taken in the case of other persons in the same position; and he had shown that they made one Member a Judge, another a Baronet, and the third a Member of the Cabinet.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, according to the principle acted upon by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, nothing would be easier than for a candidate to say he had not paid anything, while he left someone else to meet all the obligations.
    MR. CALLANsaid, at the Monaghan Election last week the candidate paid nothing, and would not be asked for a penny. Did a candidate, under such circumstances, violate the law in not making a Return?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, his noble Friend took no part in the election. He issued no addresses.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was then in the same position as the noble Lord, because he had issued no addresses.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, any candidate might, in like manner, issue no address and take no part in the election, leaving the working of it to others.
    MR. R. T. REIDrose to Order. Was the hon. Member in Order in the remarks he was now making?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the observations of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) appeared to him to be entirely beyond the Question before the Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he proposed to move a modification of the clause, so as to make a broad distinction between the person guilty of making the false declaration referred to in Sub-section 6 and the person only indirectly concerned in the act. He wished to amend the subsection by making the act of the candidate alone a corrupt practice within the meaning of the Act. This point re-

    507
    quired some examination. He agreed that if a candidate made the declaration falsely he should be guilty of an offence, and that, on conviction on indictment, he should be subject to the punishment for wilful and corrupt perjury. Nor did he question that in the case of a person guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury power should be given to make him void his seat in that House. But surely it was not reasonable to say that the act of the agent who made the false declaration should be a corrupt practice within the meaning of the Act, because the effect of that would be to punish a perfectly innocent person. He should be satisfied if the Attorney General would say that when he considered the drafting of Sub-section 5 he would also consider the drafting of Sub-section 6, so as to make a distinction in the case of an innocent person, and prevent him suffering from the act of an agent guilty of falsehood in making the declaration. If the Attorney General did not see his way to deal with this matter on Report, he would ask the Committee to give power to the Court that tried the individual to consider the facts of the case, and in their discretion to say whether, besides being liable to the punishment for wilful and corrupt perjury, the accused should also be deemed to have committed a corrupt practice under the Act, and that the Court should have power to say that the case was met by the prosecution for wilful and corrupt perjury. He wanted to make the clause elastic by giving the Court power to say that the corrupt act of the agent should not tell against the candidate and the constituency. He would leave to the Court power to make the act a corrupt practice; but he would take away the absolute necessity for doing so. But, as he had before intimated, he would be satisfied not to proceed further with his proposal if the Attorney General would give the undertaking he asked; otherwise he should have to take the opinion of the Committee upon the question.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he had understood the Attorney General to say that he would alter the sub-section in precisely the sense the right hon. and learned Gentleman wished.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had already stated, with reference to this section,
    508
    that the candidate should not suffer for the act of the agent committed without his knowledge or consent. He was willing to say that the corrupt perjury of the agent should not void the seat of the candidate.
    On the Motion of Mr. E. STANHOPE, Amendment made, in page 13, line 35, by leaving out all the words from the word "provided," inclusive, to the end of the sub-section.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 27(Authorized excuse for noncompliance with provisions as to return and declaration respecting election expenses).
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he had several Amendments on the Paper to this clause relating to the discretion to be given to the Court; and he would be glad to have an intimation from the Attorney General as to the first of these, because it would be a guide to him in determining whether to proceed or not with the rest. He had gone through the section with a great deal of care, and he had some little doubt as to whether, by the words "or any error therein … ormisconduct of his election agent, &c," the Attorney General might not have intended to give the relief which he himself sought by the introduction into the third line of the section of the words "or, being transmitted, contains some false statement." The clause ran as follows:—
    "Where the return and declarations respecting election expenses of a candidate at an election had not been transmitted as required by this Act,"
    and so on. He (Mr. Gibson) asked to amend that by introducing the words after "transmit," "or, being transmitted, contains some false statement." He was not quite clear whether those words were not intended under the word "error," because it was quite plain that Sub-section (a) contemplated that the Return might contain some statement that was not correct. But whether the word "error" was intended to mean an intentional error, or an error which was not intended, was open to some question. He would like to have this made perfectly clear, because he wanted to deal with one class of cases—namely, cases in which candidates or their agents, while keeping perfectly within the limits

    509
    of purity—not spending anything more than was provided by the Act—yet make false statements in certain particulars—statements which to their own knowledge were false, but which did not in the slightest degree affect the purity of the election, and did not sin at all in the direction of increased expenditure. What he wanted really to do was, to enable the tribunal, when it considered such a matter, to deal as it thought fit with a statement which was false to a certain extent. If the Attorney General could see his way to accept his (Mr. Gibson's) Amendment, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would do that which would really prevent serious injustice and great hardships in many cases. He only desired to give the Court power to accept, if it chose, a candidate's excuse or explanation of a false statement. He desired to give the Court power to say that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, they were satisfied as to the purity of the election, and that they thought the election ought to stand.
    Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 21, after "transmitted," insert, "or, being transmitted, contains some false statement."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson); but he would suggest that the words should be inserted after the word "Act."
    MR. GIBSONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 22, after the word "Act," insert "or, being transmitted, contains some false statement."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. GIBSON, Amendment made, in page 14, line 25, after "error," by inserting "or any false statement."
    Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 25, after "therein," insert "or any
    510
    payment made after the proper time."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) not to press this Amendment, as it contained very different subject-matter from the Amendments already accepted, and as the matter had been already discussed.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he had just one word of explanation. It was true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said, that the matter had been previously discussed; but, if his memory served him correctly, the Attorney General, when they were discussing the subject on a former occasion, mentioned, as an excuse for the non-acceptance of an Amendment similar to this, the weighty powers and discretion which were given to the Election Court to deal with such matters. He (Mr. Gibson), unquestionably, thought it was very desirable to enable the Election Court to say that the election had been a perfectly pure one, and that the limit of expenditure had not been exceeded. If a payment had simply been made after the proper time, surely no man of common sense would say this was a matter which should prevent the Court making an order. It was quite true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had stated, that this Amendment contained very different subject-matter from the two just accepted; but he, nevertheless, ventured to press it upon the consideration of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He (Mr. Gibson) only intended to prevent a man's election being upset, because a perfectly bonâ fide payment was made after the statutory time.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that when the matter was discussed on a former occasion, the Government promised to provide that if payments were made after the time allowed, and they did not infringe the law as to the maximum, the candidate should not be affected thereby.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he was perfectly satisfied with that statement, and he would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. GIBSON, Amendment made, in page 14, line 34, after

    511
    "error," by inserting "or any false statement."
    Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 5, after "transmit," insert "or for transmitting."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman required some more words; he would require after the word "declaration," "or for a false statement in such return and declaration."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 15, line 6, after "declaration," by inserting "or for a false statement in such return and declaration."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 28 (Publication of summary of return of election expenses).
    MR. H. H. FOWLERproposed, in page 15, line 21, after "in," insert "the 'Gazette' and in." The object of the Amendment was that the Return of the election expenses should not only be published in the local newspapers, but also in The Gazette, and he thought that if that were done it would be of great convenience.
    Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 21, after "in," insert "the 'Gazette' and in."—(Mr. S. H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought that the publication of the Return of the election expenses in one local newspaper and The Gazette might be very well; but to insert it in two local newspapers and The Gazette was rather too much of a good thing.
    MR. E. STANHOPEhoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would not agree to the Amendment, because it would lead to unnecessary expense. He could understand the publication of the Return in two local newspapers, because it might be desirable to have it pulished in one Liberal and one Conservative newspaper.
    THE ATTRENEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) had just anticipated what he was going to say. He (the Attorney General) considered The Gazette an expensive luxury. He had provided for the insertion of the Return in two local newspapers, because he thought it would then meet the eye of all classes of readers. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would not press his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Disqualification of Electors.
    Clause 29 (Prohibition of persons guilty of corrupt or illegal practices, &c. from voting) agreed to.
    Clause 30 (Prohibition of interested or qualified persons from voting).
    MR. LEWISproposed the omission of Sub-section 1, which ran as follows:—
    "Any person who is beneficially interested (otherwise than as member of the company or society) in the proceeds of the letting of a committee room for the purposes of an election, is prohibited from voting at an election."
    He could not conceive for a moment why the prohibition to vote should proceed to such an extent. A stationer who provided goods was not disqualified, neither were any other tradesmen who might supply election furniture. Why need they descend to such particulars as these? Let them take the case of a house that was in trust for six or seven people. Were they going to disqualify six or seven people, because £5 or £10 was paid for a room—in which they were interested—to be used as a committee room? Why on earth, if there was to be any disqualification at all under such circumstances, was it not carried through the whole class of tradesmen concerned? The provision was most obnoxious, for it seemed to go on the assumption that there must be some corruption or improper motive in engaging a room for the use of a committee.
    Amendment proposed, in page 16, leave out Sub-section (1).—(Mr. Lewis.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. GURSTsaid, that if a candidate desired to corrupt a constituency by hiring rooms, he could hire any number of rooms so long as they were not committee rooms, and the people who let them would not be prohibited from voting. As the section now stood, it would be possible for some some people to be disenfranchised against their will. Supposing a man of strong Conservative proclivities had the management of a Trust on behalf of persons who were known Liberals. If part of the Trust consisted of a room which could be let for a committee room, the Trustee had nothing to do, if he wished to disenfranchise a number of excellent Liberals against their will, but to go to a Conservative candidate and let him the room in question as a committee room. By the letting of the room the people in question would be beneficially interested, and consequently they would be prohibited from voting. Surely, this could never be intended.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had seriously asked himself where a person was to find a committee room. The committee had already decided that public-houses were not to be used as committee rooms, and coffee-houses and other such places were included in the same prohibition. In a great many districts they would probably only find one room reasonably large enough for a committee room, and it might happen that that room belonged to the most important person in the district. If the man let the room was he to be disqualified from voting? He (Mr. Labou-chere) could not see why a man should be disqualified, because he let his room for a fair price, any more than the man should be disqualified who supplied stationery to the candidate or his agent. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) that this section ought to be struck out.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 31 (Hearing a person before he is reported guilty of corrupt or illegal practice, &c.; and incapacity of person reported guilty).
    MR. GEEGORYsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to this clause, which was of some importance to the persons who came under its operation. The clause provided that certain persons might be reported guilty of corrupt practices, and that certain penalties should attach to their being so reported. In addition to the disabilities which the Bill provided in such cases, it was no pleasant thing to be reported guilty of corrupt practices. Of course, a person was not liable to imprisonment unless he was convicted by the Court subsequently to being reported; but to a professional man or to a person in a respectable situation of life it might involve very serious consequences, if his name appeared in the report of an Election Judge as having been guilty of corrupt practices, no matter whether he was subsequently prosecuted or not. Now, this clause provided that notice should be given to the person so reported "where practicable." What the words "where practicable" meant he did not know; but he, at all events, considered that the person who was reported as guilty of corrupt practices should have notice given him of the charge brought against him, and therefore he now had to propose to omit the words "where practicable." He noticed that an Amendment upon this subject stood in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). That Amendment was to the effect that notice should be given to such person, "or left at his last known place of abode." That Amendment he (Mr. Gregory) would be very glad to adopt subsequent to the omission of the words "where practicable."
    Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 29, leave out "where practicable."—(Mr. Gregory.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was just the fear that if a notice was to be left at the last known place of abode of a person reported guilty of corrupt practices, and the person had left that abode, he would escape all the consequences of his acts. He had endeavoured to meet this in Clause 59, page 36, for in that clause it was provided that—

    515
    "Such summons, notice, or document, may be served either by delivering the same to such person, or by leaving the same at, or sending the same by post by a registered letter to, his last known place of abode."
    These words, he believed, would meet the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). He had, however, no objection to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory).
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. GORSTsupposed that the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, that the notice should be left at the man's last known place of abode—was not necessary, and he should not therefore proceed with it.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he was also of opinion that a man should have an opportunity of making a statement before he was reported of being guilty of corrupt practices. Under the clause a man would be called into Court and asked, "what have you to say to this?" And he had no opportunity of any legal assistance or of calling witnesses. He (Mr. Gregory) thought that was a proper construction to put upon the clause as it was now framed. He thought that a person who was liable to the serious consequences of being reported guilty of corrupt practices—liable to certain civil disabilities which would mean absolute ruin to a professional man—should have the opportunity of making a defence to the charge brought against him. What he (Mr. Gregory) therefore proposed to do was to strike out the words "making a statement to show why he should not be so reported," and insert "being heard by himself, or counsel, or solicitor, and of calling evidence in his defence." If the Attorney General objected to the words "counsel or solicitor," and was willing to sacrifice his branch of the Profession, he (Mr. Gregory) was ready to meet him for the sake of the main point, and to omit the words "counsel or solicitor" altogether. That would leave the Amendment very general—namely, "being heard by himself and of calling evidence in his defence." At present, he had better, perhaps, propose to omit the words "making a statement."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 10, line 31, leave out "making a statement to show why he should not be so re-
    516
    ported," and insert "being heard by himself, or counsel, or solicitor, and of calling evidence in his defence."—(Mr. Gregory.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was almost inclined to make a bargain with the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) to the effect that if he (the Attorney General) was willing to give up his branch of the Profession, he (Mr. Gregory) would give up his. He (the Attorney General) thought that if they allowed counsel or solicitors to appear in every case, the expenses of Petitions would be such that they could not possibly be borne by any candidate, and that the Election Petition Judges would be employed in trying the Petitions for an inordinately long time. Such an enormous waste of time, both to the Election Judges and to the Petitioners would ensue, that the obvious result would be that Petitions would never be lodged. His hon. Friend would see at once the objection to calling counsel or solicitors, by calling to mind the case of the Macclesfield Petition, in which 4,000 persons were reported guilty of corrupt practices. What would have been the consequence if each of those persons had called counsel on their own behalf? He certainly agreed with the hon. Gentleman that men ought to have a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and therefore he would agree to the persons reported having the right to be heard by themselves, and of calling evidence in their own defence. If that were permitted, justice, he thought, would be done.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, at the first blush he was inclined to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. If, however, the Attorney General would look at Subsection 2 of this clause, he would find that the position of a reported person was very much more serious than was generally supposed. By the 2nd subsection—
    "Every person who after the commencement of this Act is reported by any election court or election commissioners to have been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice, shall, whether he obtained a certificate of indemnity or not, be subject to the some incapacity as he would under this Act be subject to if he had at the date of the

    517
    report keen convicted of the offence of which he is reported to have been guilty;"
    consequently, he was in exactly the same position as if he had been tried and been convicted. No doubt, if in the Macclesfield case each of the 4,000 persons reported guilty of corrupt practices had called counsel great inconvenience would have been caused; yet it did seem hard that persons should be subjected to exactly the same penalties as if there had been a trial, when they knew that those persons had not had the opportunity of obtaining the assistance of anyone to defend them.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grantham) was labouring under a slight misapprehension.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that what they urged upon the Attorney General was what they had recommended at first—namely, that some tribunal should be provided for the speedy summary decision of these cases. They wanted the Election Court now to do two things, and it would be able to do neither well. First, it would have to hear the Election Petition, and that was a kind of collateral thing that would go on all the time, and, besides that, it would have to try all persons guilty of corrupt practices. He hoped it was not too late to ask the Attorney General to reconsider this matter. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) proposed, before the Bill left the Committee, to make some proposal with the view of appointing some tribunal to sit for the purpose of the speedy summary trial of persons offending against the Election Law. If the Government could see their way to the establishment of a tribunal of that kind many of these unsatisfactory clauses would be removed from the Bill, because the moment the Judge found from the evidence under the Petition there was ground to believe that a particular person had been guilty of corrupt practices, all he would have to do would be to get the Public Prosecutor to appear before him and order that the person be tried, and the trial could take place at once without delay, with counsel, witnesses, prosecutor, Judge, and all in attendance. It was very important to introduce a modification to this part of the Bill; but he trusted that before the Report this matter would be considered, as he was con-
    518
    vinced that that which was suggested was the only way out of the difficulty.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the clause contemplated two Courts. If it only included the Election Court, presided over by the Judges of the land, he was satisfied that great care would be taken to see justice done, and men against whom charges were made would have an opportunity of being heard; but the clause went a great deal further than that, and contained the words "or Election Commissioners." He did not think the conduct of the Election Commissioners had given great satisfaction throughout the country—he believed the manner in which Petitions were conducted in 1880 was not such as to reflect credit upon the administration of justice in this country. He did not wish to pursue this matter further; but certainly must express a hope that his hon. Friend would go to a Division if the clause was to continue that power to the Commissioners. It did not seem to him to be right to give these gentlemen the opportunity of inflicting the heavy punishments contained in the Bill upon a person without giving that person the bare opportunities for his defence that any defendant would have, in however small a case, before the magistrates.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not think that to send down a Summary Court to try these cases, whilst an election was going on, would tend on the whole to the best results. They must look to both sides of the question. He was willing to agree to an Amendment which should secure that substantial justice should be done in these cases; but, on the other hand, care should be taken that the inquiry should not be prolonged to an indefinite extent. It would be impossible for 4,000 issues to be tried, as would have been necessary in the case of the Macclesfield Election, whilst the Petition was going on. Counsel would have to speak in defence of the person against whom the charge was brought, and he supposed the prosecuting counsel would have to reply in each case; trials in that way might be prolonged to any extent, and the expense would fall, not upon the right persons, but upon the locality.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he thought that power should be given in cases of this kind to employ solicitors or counsel,

    519
    if the persons employing them paid for them themselves.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he was desirous that there should he no mistake about this matter. He would propose that the words "being heard" and "calling evidence" should be retained, and that the words "by himself, or counsel, or solicitor" should be left out. In that way opportunities would be given for calling evidence if it were thought necessary. He did not suppose a person would require it, or ought to require it; still it would be well to give a man the power of obtaining it if he so desired. His reason for moving this Amendment he would briefly state. There were penalties of a novel description contemplated under this Bill in addition to the incapacities to which he had adverted. In Sub-sections 4 and 5 of this clause they found that the Public Prosecutor, where a barrister or solicitor was proved in evidence before the Election Commissioners to have been guilty of, or privy to, any corrupt practice in reference to any election, whether such person had obtained a certificate of indemnity or not, had to bring the matter before the Inn of Court, High Court, or tribunal having power to take cognizance of any misconduct of such person in his Profession; and such Inn of Court, High Court, or tribunal might deal with such person as if the corrupt practice of which he had been guilty were a misconduct in his Profession. Furthermore, the Commissioners would have to report the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions. No doubt, these provisions were with the view to the finding a professional person disqualified from practice; therefore, he was not far wrong in saying that the clause might lead to the ruin of these persons. In the case of barristers, solicitors, Justices of the Peace, and persons of that character, they would be exposed to professional disqualification; and it was on that ground, therefore, that he pressed his Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was afraid that if the words "being heard" were inserted, they might be taken to confer the right to appear by counsel or by a solicitor. That would not be giving up a right; and if a person had a right to be heard, he had a right to call evidence, and have his case conducted by counsel
    520
    or solicitor. When the hon. Member gave as a reason why the Amendment should be inserted, that the person against whom the charge was brought should be, if he chose, represented by counsel or solicitor, he would point out that the sub-section referred to a person who was a barrister or solicitor, or who belonged to a profession the admission to which was regulated by law; and when it was provided that the person accused should appear personally, looking to the nature of the profession, it was hardly necessary that provision should be made for others to appear for him. A barrister or solicitor could appear before the Election Court and state his own case in such capacity. [Mr. GREGORY: No.] He (the Attorney General) was willing to agree that such a person should have an opportunity of being heard or calling evidence. Would his hon. Friend accept words which would give the person an opportunity of calling evidence and making a statement to show cause why he should not be reported? If such an Amendment were agreed to, he would be able to appear in person, and it would obviate the necessity of allowing him to employ a barrister or solicitor. It would, therefore, be seen that he (the Attorney General) met the hon. Member in all but the matter of allowing a barrister or solicitor to appear. The person charged would have an opportunity of calling evidence, and, no doubt, substantial justice would be done.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOURhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider some other classes besides barristers and solicitors. These were not the only persons affected by the clause; surely the 4,000 cases which it was said would have had to have been heard in Macclesfield were not all barristers and solicitors? [An hon. MEMBER: None of them.] Exactly. If the Attorney General had his way, what would happen? The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had stated that he had only confidence in one of the tribunals. Well, if this sort of preliminary inquiry took place before the Judges, they would see that justice was done; but there was no security whatever that, if a trial had to take place before a Court of Commissioners, that Court would do what the Judges would do—namely, see that justice was done. Let them observe how unequal the provision was with

    521
    regard to the different classes of offenders. No doubt, the barristers and solicitors, for whose good fame his hon. Friend seemed to be so solicitous, would be able to protect their own interests. In the case of some ignorant man, however, who knew nothing about Courts of Law, or trials, or equity, or anything of that kind, if a charge were brought against him, how was he to cross-examine those who brought an accusation against him? Were they not going to allow such a person as that to avail himself of the services of a barrister or solicitor; but would he have to make his own statement, cross-examine his own witnesses, and so on, before the tribunal? Before his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) accepted any compromise such as that suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, something of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) ought to be done. That was to say, they should take care that the tribunal was of such a kind that a poor and ignorant defendant should not suffer from being precluded from availing himself of the assistance of a barrister or a solicitor.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he wished to call attention to one point—namely, that it seemed to him that the present Amendment would not satisfy all that was required. If cases were only to come before the Election Judges there would be no reason to fear anything; but, according to the clause, these cases were to be allowed to come before the Election Commissioners in addition to Election Judges. He must protest against the conduct of the Home Secretary, who seemed to be engaging his Colleague in conversation whilst he (Mr. E. Stanhope) was addressing them and the Committee on the subject of this clause. He (Mr. E. Stanhope) attended to this Bill quite as much as the Home Secretary, and surely he might be permitted to make his suggestion without having the attention of those before whom he was putting it diverted in this way by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. His suggestion was that the Committee could not be perfectly satisfied with the decisions that were likely to be arrived at by the Election Commissioners, and, that that being so, there ought to be some provision in the Bill for an appeal to be allowed in these cases. The Attorney General said there would be
    522
    thousands of cases to hear at some elections, and had drawn attention to the case of Macclesfield. Well, although there might be a great number of cases where illegal acts were committed, it was perfectly clear that, with the great mass of these cases, there would be no difficulty whatever. In most of these cases the evidence would be plain and incontrovertible, and it would not be necessary to have intricate trials; but, on the other hand, in some exceptional cases, injustice might be done unless there was a careful trial; therefore, it would only be reasonable to give an appeal to some tribunal which would command the confidence of the country.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down with regard to the Commissioners. He did not believe they commanded the confidence of the country; and the Committee generally, he was sure, could not help thinking that it was a very serious responsibility indeed which would be incurred by the unfortunate people who would be called up before the Commissioners, as they might be unable to defend themselves properly, and might, through an imperfect defence, subject themselves to most severe penalties. He was sure his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was the last man in the world to wish such a thing as that. The hon. and learned Gentleman would see that some men could not make a fair statement of their own case. He knew that men of his own Profession would, in all probability, be able to defend themselves very well; but there were an immense number of people, whose conduct might be made the subject of inquiry during or after an election, who would not have the faculty of defending themselves, and it was for them he was now pleading. He could hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman would see his way to confining the power of hearing these cases to the Election Judges. To confer upon the Election Commissioners the power of inflicting the severe penalties in this clause would be a very serious matter, and he did not think it was one of the things which the Committee should allow. He therefore hoped and trusted that the Attorney General would agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), or adopt the modifying suggestion of the

    523
    hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler).
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he could assure the hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) that it was not out of any disrespect to him that the Home Secretary, himself (the Solicitor General), and some other Colleagues were conversing together just now. It was clear that sometimes they must discuss points amongst themselves to see what course could be adopted, or what suggestion could be made; otherwise they would never be able to get on. Well, an operation of that kind was going on when the hon. Member had complained of a want of attention of the Attorney General and the Homo Secretary. The provision to which reference had been made would not, he thought, be attended with the serious consequences that some hon. Members anticipated. The question was one of incapacity, and not of serious disabilities, and he agreed with the hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) that if his suggestion could be carried out—that was to say, if it were perfectly practicable—it would be a good thing to adopt it. No doubt, in 99 cases out of every 100 there would be little question as to the guilt of the person accused of the offence, and if there could be some kind of appeal provided where persons insisted that they had not committed the offence, all difficulty would be removed. But where the difficulty lay in the present case was in the discovery of a proper tribunal to which those persons could appeal. He believed that to allow counsel in all cases would be likely to lead to great abuse. If that were permitted, they might have cases where persons would endeavour to cause delay and expense—they might so draw out the proceedings as to render them altogether abortive; for instance, they might have someone appointing counsel to make a separate speech upon every case of illegal practices complained of; they could conceive relays of counsel taking up the cases and endeavouring in that way to delay the proceedings. That would be a very serious difficulty; at the same time, if an efficient Court of Appeal could be suggested, the idea of appointing it would be one well worthy of consideration.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he was encouraged to hope, by what had just been said,
    524
    that the Government had really opened their minds to the desirability of giving some kind of appeal; at any rate, if they did not give some assurance to that effect, he trusted his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) would press his Amendment. The Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had justly appreciated the serious consequences which were to follow, under the 2nd sub-section, on the offence indicated in the 1st sub-section. He did not know whether the Committee had grasped the fact that the Government were asking them to establish a new principle in law—namely, that a man was to be deprived, it might be for life, of his political status—of not being able to exorcise the franchise in the constituency—and subjected, if he were a professional man, to a great number of disabilities on the mere ipse dixit of, it might be, three briefless barristers. Was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General serious in asking them to give a power to these gentlemen—the esercise of which would be frequently meritorious in the eyes of a particular Party—of pronouncing a sentence of exclusion from all political rights for the future, without giving the persons so sentenced the privilege that the commonest applicant enjoyed of being able to employ counsel and to call witnesses in his defence? There were Commissioners and Commissioners. No doubt there were some gentlemen who had done their duty extremely well, and had shown the highest capacity; but, on the other hand, there had been some gentlemen who had not equally well shone in the capacity of Election Judges. He saw the difficulty admitted by the Law Officers as to the protracted proceedings that might take place; but that difficulty would be met if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lincolnshire were adopted—which suggestion, it seemed to him, the Solicitor General was inclined to adopt if the Attorney General would allow him to do so. Some appeal should be allowed from the decision of these Commissioners. Take the decisions of the Election Judges—and he did not want to regard this in the same light as the decisions of Election Commissioners—the question before them was as to the validity of the return, and the finding of a person guilty of a corrupt practice was merely an incident in these proceedings. It was not the

    525
    main point to which their attention was directed, and though the candidate might be found guilty of corrupt practices, they might also, in the course of their report, find various other persons guilty of corrupt practices. They did that as the result of their inquiry. Well, he should regard with horror such power being given to Election Commissioners without an appeal—he should even regard with grave doubt the justice of giving Election Judges the power of pronouncing political ostracism in these cases when the proceedings they had had to consider had been the election at large, and not the cases of these persons incidentally found guilty of corrupt practices. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would frame some provision to meet the difficulties suggested.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this discussion, which had been a most interesting one, had not been without profit. He hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite would not insist upon the services of a solicitor or counsel being allowed to a candidate. The hon. Member had distinctly offered to sacrifice them, and he (the Attorney General) hoped he was going to do so, and would point out that if the words "being heard" were retained he would not make the sacrifice. As to the Court of Appeal, the Solicitor General and himself had discussed the question, and his impression was in favour of such an arrangement if it could be provided for. It would, indeed, assist them in the disfranchisement of persons who were reported. If such persons were given a chance of appeal it would be assumed that the report against them was justified; and, therefore, in that direction an appeal would be useful. He should be ready to confer with hon. Members who took an interest in this matter to see if they could not hit upon a Court of Appeal which would be satisfactory—probably they might be able to do so upon the Assize which would next take place. At any rate, he would do his best to meet his hon. Friends; and on that undertaking he hoped they would allow him to proceed with the clause.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that nothing could be fairer than this statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The matter was of great importance, and particu-
    526
    larly to professional persons would be one of very great importance. It was all very well to say the question was one of incapacity, but to his mind it meant absolute ruin to large classes of people. It might lead to absolute ruin in the case of men holding public or judicial offices, or gentlemen professionally employed. In these cases the effect of the clause might be called incapacity if they liked, but it was incapacity that amounted to absolute ruin. If they gave a man, accused of some petty offence in a police court, power to defend himself by solicitor or counsel, surely they should give the same power to a professional man charged with an offence, the establishment of which might lead to his ruin. They might have either of two alternatives in this case, and he should be satisfied with one or the other, though he thought he should prefer the appeal. It was just that a man should have all the professional assistance he could get; but it might be very inconvenient to have a number of people taking advantage of that. Another argument was that it would be unfair to a candidate, who would have to bear all the expense; but that could be met by providing that a portion of the expenses should be borne by the candidate, and the remainder by the locality or the public. If the Attorney General pressed the argument of inconvenience, he was bound to undertake to find a proper appeal; and he should prefer to move that there should be an appeal against the report of Election Commissioners in the manner to be prescribed, and then the Attorney General could apply himself to finding a tribunal for appeal. It might be another Election Court, or it might be some of the Judges on the rota. He did not ask for any hasty decision tonight on the question of what was to be the appeal tribunal; but he thought there should be some such words as these added to the sub-section—
    "When any person is reported by the election commissioners to have been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice, he shall have the right of appeal against such report in the manner hereinafter prescribed."
    That would not bind the Attorney General to anything whatever except that ha would provide in a subsequent part of the Bill what was to be the prescribed Court of Appeal. He threw this suggestion out for the Attorney General to

    527
    consider before the sub-section was finally disposed of.
    MR. GORSTwished to say a word in protection of the Government from the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the Government should find a Court of Appeal; but he would remind the Committee that some years ago, when the late Government were in Office, a Committee of the House sat upon the subject of Election Petitions and made a Report strongly advocating a Court of Appeal. He believed that the Conservative Government, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a distinguished Member, found it so absolutely impossible, with the whole Session before them and abundant leisure, to frame a satisfactory Court of Appeal, that they gave the matter up in despair and established a Court of two Judges to try Election Petitions. Although he was always glad to see the Government persecuted and harassed as much as was reasonable and fair, he thought it was rather hard to call upon them in July to intent a Court of Appeal which the late Government was unable to obtain in a Session of many months.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he thought the memory of the hon. and learned Gentleman Was rather deceived upon this matter. As far as he recollected the Report of that Committee was not on the subject of appeal at all, but was a Report in favour of trial by two Judges, and the hon. and learned Member was wholly wrong in his enthusiastic desire to, on all occasions, involve himself in a controversy with the Front Opposition Bench. He himself intended to move either the entire or the partial omission of Sub-section 2, for it was open to the gravest objections. If this matter went to a Division, he should vote with the hon. Member, simply because he thought it was absolutely necessary to do so in the interests of justice; but he was opposed to the section altogether.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, the objection made to the Commissioners would apply with still stronger force to Subsection 6, and he should prefer to strike out the sub-section altogether.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)asked how the hon. Member proposed to move the Amendments?
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he proposed to move "leave to be heard and to call
    528
    evidence." He did not think it fair to leave a man in any position in life without assistance, and he should not care to be his own advocate. He felt considerable difficulty with reference to this Amendment, for while he was desirous to meet the views of the Committee as far as possible, he had some difficulty in gathering what those views were. Some Members were for a Court of Appeal; but he did not see that any such Court could be instituted which would meet the case, and he was afraid he had no alternative but to stand or fall by the Amendment.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he agreed with the Attorney General as to the extreme difficulty of Commissioners having to go through a series of trials with counsel and solicitors; but it was obvious that the Committee were desirous of meeting the difficulty in one way or the other, and so they had to choose between the practical difficulty of administering the law by the Commissioners, and some Court of Appeal. He did not see any difficulty in arranging for an appeal. The appeal which it was, in the case mentioned, found difficult to make provision for was an appeal from the judgment of the Election Judges on the validity of an election; but he did not see the difficulty of making arrangements for an appeal in the few cases in which there would be an appeal, because, as the Solicitor General had said, in 99 cases out of 100 there was no doubt about the matter, and the person admitted his offence. He hoped the Attorney General would endeavour to frame some kind of appeal to meet the difficulty, and then he should not support the Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)suggested that the words "solicitor or counsel" should be omitted, and then the Amendment might read—"heard by himself and of calling evidence in his defence." He hoped that would meet the view of the hon. Member. He would do his best to find some Court of Appeal; and if he failed, then he would sooner give up the subsection than come into conflict with the Committee.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman had met the case, and he would accept the suggestion.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. E. STANHOPEproposed to leave out "whether he obtained a certificate of indemnity," and to substitute "unless he obtained a certificate." The object of this Amendment, he explained, was this. A certificate of indemnity would protect the person from ulterior consequences under this clause. Hon. Members did not seem to know what a certificate of indemnity was. Where a man was compelled by the Court to give answers which would incriminate himself, and the Court was satisfied that he had answered truly, it gave him a certificate to protect him from the consequences of his having incriminated himself. At present, a man would be subject to penalties, and to incapacity, whether he obtained a certificate of indemnity or not; but he thought it was hard upon a man that, having been compelled to answer questions, he should be subject to incapacity, and suffer the penalties imposed by the various subsections of this clause.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, line 36, to leave out "whether he obtained," and insert "unless he obtained."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had given way as far as he possibly could; but he could not do so upon this point. At present persons who were guilty of corrupt practices obtained certificates of indemnity on giving evidence, and he could name cases in which men who had declared that there had been no bribery had, when a Commission was issued, admitted bribery and betrayed the persons they had bribed, and yet, obtaining a certificate of indemnity, they walked away free from all punishment. A certificate of indemnity protected a man from criminal proceedings; but surely, because a man went into the witness-box and admitted having bribed, he should not escape all consequences. If he was protected from criminal punishment he ought not still to have the power of voting. A magistrate who had been guilty of bribery was struck off the Commission of the Peace; and all that this clause did was to call the attention of the Law Society to the circumstances, and they would do what they thought
    530
    proper. He hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he thought it was quite right that any persons who had committed bribery should not be allowed to administer justice; but that was a different thing from inflicting incapacity to vote on people who were not magistrates, and he hoped the hon. Member would proceed to a Division.
    MR. MELLORsaid, he was glad that the Attorney General intended to stand by the clause, because this was a very serious matter. It seemed to him that the object of these inquiries was to ascertain the truth; and he thought it would be a great misfortune if any man should be able to refuse to answer questions on the ground that he would incriminate himself. He hoped the giving of certificates of indemnity would not be carried further than was absolutely necessary. A man who required a certificate before he answered questions in a Court of Justice ought never to be allowed to administer justice, or to remain a member of an honourable Profession; and, so far as he was concerned, he hoped the Government would be firm upon this clause. In his experience he had found that the Commissioners discharged their duties fairly and carefully, and he thought there could be no objection to allowing them to compel a man to answer questions and then give him a certificate of indemnity; but if he got that certificate it ought not to protect him beyond criminal punishment.
    MR. E. STANHOPEthought the clause would rather tend to defeat the object of ascertaining the truth, because witnesses would come forward and give evidence if they knew they would get certificates protecting them from any penalty or punishment. He would, however, withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 17 line 3, to leave out from "appear" to "appears by evidence," and insert "is reported by."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)thought that if this tribunal did report, they ought not go behind that, and therefore he would accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words 'is reported by' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. GORST, Amendment made, in page 17, line 5, by inserting the words "or privy to."
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he proposed to move the Amendment next on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt). The reason why he desired to move the omission of the sub-section to which that Amendment referred was because it proposed to add additional punishment to the severe penalties provided by the Bill in the case of members of particular professions. If the clause were allowed to stand in the present form, a barrister would not only be liable as a criminal for the offence committed by him, but the Director of Public Prosecutions was to lay a sort of acte d'accusation against him before the Inn of Court, High Court, or tribunal having power to take cognizance of any misconduct of such person in his Profession, who were empowered to inflict upon him a punishment which amounted to the absolute ruin of his prospects in life. He submitted that at present there was no case whatever made out for these extraordinary penalties, and for putting the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions in operation in this way, and therefore he begged to move the omission of Sub-section 4.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out sub-section 4.—(Mr. Edward Clarke.)
    Question proposed,
    "That the words 'where a person who is a barrister or a solicitor, or who belongs to any profession the admission to which is regulated by Law' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SALTsaid, he thought the Bill already contained sufficient penalties against persons who committed offences under the Act without going beyond them, and attacking a man in his profession, to the destruction of his professional prospects.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, his object in framing this clause was to deal with those who had special facilities for committing these offences. Why had the Committee dealt in a special manner
    532
    with publicans? It was because they had special facilities for committing corrupt practices. And if a publican were to say to him—"Why do you deal specially with the class to which I belong?" He would answer—"Because you have special facilities for committing offences under the Act." And similarly in regard to the present case, if the publican asked if he would apply the same law to his own profession, he could not look him in the face and say "No." He could give an instance of a solicitor who, having managed an election, had corrupted the whole borough, and whose punishment, notwithstanding, was nothing at all. He was found to have marked off 950 voters, whom he took care should be paid; and that man practised his profession at that moment, and no punishment could be inflicted on him. He did not wish to mention any names, but hon. Members would know to whom he referred; there was no case throughout the whole inquiry which took place of such gross misconduct, but the solicitor in question had obtained a certificate of indemnity, and received no punishment whatever. Why should not the tribunals referred to in the sub-section deal with professional men guilty of corrupt practices at elections in the same way as they dealt with every other person over whom they had jurisdiction, who had committed a criminal offence? If a solicitor committed a crime so small as to subject him to a day's imprisonment, he would be struck off the Rolls, and there would be no appeal. But, under the present Amendment, hon. Members would not allow him to be so dealt with if he committed an offence which rendered him liable to nine months' imprisonment. He asked his hon. Friends not to shrink from passing this subsection, which was intended to reach men who, having been guilty of corrupt practices, if they liked to betray their fellows would, by obtaining a certificate of indemnity, altogether escape punishment. Finally, he pointed out to the Committee that the sub-section only provided that attention should be called to the fact that an offence had been committed. If the heads of the Profession said they would take no notice of it, so let it be—the responsibility would rest with them; while those who made it possible for them to deal with corrupt practice in the same way as they

    533
    dealt with professional misconduct, would have the consciousness of having done their duty.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he had no doubt the Committee had been much impressed by the speech of the Attorney General, and particularly with that part of it in which he held certain members of his own Profession up to condemnation. The hon. and learned Gentleman was, no doubt, right in dealing in the manner proposed with barristers and solicitors; but why did he bring in members of other professions? Why should a doctor be shown up to the Royal College of Surgeons, or the College of Physicians; or a clergyman, a military man, or a Secretary of State, be shown up to those bodies who took cognizance of their several professions; while a private gentleman remained quite unscathed from the operation of the clause. He was willing that barristers or solicitors should be cognizable by the Law Institution, the Inns of Court, or by any other competent authority; but he was quite unable to conceive why persons belonging to other professions, which the clause did not specify should be brought under these special penalties. It was an absurdity in the case of the other professions he had referred to, to tell the Governing Bodies to take cognizance of offences under this Act. While he agreed that the authorities specified in the clause should have control over the members of the Legal Profession, he thought it would be wise to leave out the words "or who belongs to any profession the admission to which is regulated by Law."
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had not the least doubt that it was a wrong thing for a barrister or a solicitor to bribe; but because the Attorney General had found out some bad cases, that was no reason why the hon. and learned Gentleman should brand an honourable Profession. But he contended that the sub-section was wholly unnecessary, because, if a barrister or a solicitor were guilty, the heads of their Professions could deal with them without the intervention of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If that were so, and he believed the Solicitor General was not in a position to dispute the proposition, he thought they should proceed to a Division on the Amendment before
    534
    the Committee which he should feel it his duty to support.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, it was difficult to speak against anything in the Bill which was held to be necessary by the Attorney General; but he thought in the present case, under the influence of the hon. and learned Gentleman, they were about to commit a grave error in principle—that was to say, they were going to inflict an exceptional punishment. The rule for centuries had been that there should be the same law for the rich as for the poor; but they were now about to reverse that policy by making a severe and exceptional law for the rich which they did not make for the poor. They were about to punish by a fine of £100 and imprisonment, either with or without hard labour, during the space of a year, certain offences under this Act; whereas they had seen of late the most grievous and horrible offences ever committed in the country punished by a year's imprisonment only. But, besides this—and in a manner quite unknown to the Criminal Law up to this time—it was now proposed that an illegal act committed, perhaps by a young man under the influence of excitement, should be reported to the Inns of Court, or to the High Court, the consequence of which might be that the young man's professional career would be at an end. The House was asked to empower a Court which had not heard the case to initiate proceedings anew after the charge had been heard and disposed of. He believed that provision would be productive of a great amount of harm, that it was cruel, and that it would be better to run the risk of some electoral impurities which must occasionally exist, than to make an enactment of this kind. He thought that, in calmer moments, hon. Members on that side of the House would perceive some wisdom in the words he was using in advising them not to follow the course marked out by the Attorney General on that occasion.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he could assure his hon. Friend who had just spoken that, although he was in the calmest frame of mind, it was his intention to support the sub-section which the Amendment proposed to strike out. His hon. Friend contended that an act of corruption committed by a man in a moment

    535
    of excitement was excusable, and that the individual who committed it ought not to be liable to the consequences of having his conduct taken cognizance of by the heads of the Profession to which he belonged. But did his hon. Friend mean to suggest that barristers would be such harsh judges of barristers, that they would cut short the career of a number of their Profession without the most grave reason for so doing? Precisely the same argument applied to the case of solicitors. The sub-section did no more than provide that the heads of the Profession should have the conduct of the barrister or solicitor brought before them. The existing law with regard to the conduct of a solicitor was that if he committed a felony, his offence entailed upon him the penalty of being struck off the Rolls, in addition to the punishment inflicted for the crime itself. They consented to that law because solicitors were intrusted with particular privileges which had not been conferred upon others, and because they had opportunities of occasioning mischief which did not fall to men who had not the same powers conferred upon them. It would rest with the tribunals specified in the sub-section to say whether the case of an individual was one which called for no punishment, some punishment, or severe punishment, and he believed his hon. Friend would see that, under those circumstances, no injustice was involved in the proposal.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he could not think that the canon laid down by the Attorney General was borne out by the sub-section. The objection of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) was that the proposal of the Government was unequal and unjust to men of a particular class. The early clauses of the Bill set forth the social and official disqualifications, as well as the possibility of criminal prosecution which attached to persons guilty of corrupt practices; but it was not until this sub-section was reached that they found a provision to punish persons with absolute ruin and loss of bread. What, he asked, was the reason for singling out the two branches of the Legal Profession for special punishment? The Attorney General said he had picked out those two classes for special treatment, because they had special facilities for the commission of corrupt practices. But,
    536
    what special facilities had barristers in that direction? He was not aware of their being possessed of a single facility of the kind, and the Attorney General had only been able to illustrate his argument by a reference to two cases of corruption on the part of solicitors. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not given a single instance in point in which barristers were concerned. The Solicitor General said the clause dealt with classes who had not only special facilities for the commission of corrupt acts at elections, but upon whom special privileges had been conferred. Well, he asked what those privileges were?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): I did not say special privileges in regard to corruption, but that special privileges were conferred upon barristers and solicitors by law.
    MR. GIBSON: There were no cases or examples given where members of the Bar had especially come forward and particularly challenged criticism. There might have been cases; but none, however, had been cited. It therefore came to this—why was it necessary to single out for special mention two branches of the Legal Profession, and hold them up to this particular obloquy? Was it fair to single them out in that way, and to say that, in addition to subjecting them to criminal proceedings and to civil incapacities, they should also be subjected to the possibility of being deprived by other Governing Bodies of the opportunity of earning their bread? A point had also been made as to the abuse of the certificate of indemnity. Owing to the course the Attorney General had pursued, a person in future could not rely upon a certificate of indemnity. He (Mr. Gibson) was of opinion that this clause should either not be in the Bill at all, or else it should be drafted in a general way which would grasp all classes of trades and professions. It was not fair to single out the Legal Profession. The Legal Profession they treated invidiously, while they had general words for other professions. Why were they not satisfied with the general words to cover the Legal Profession, if they intended other professions to be equally covered? He, of course, accepted the statement of the Government that they did intend to cover all professions; but he doubted very

    537
    much whether any person reading the clause for the first time would interpret it as covering all professions. The clause ought not to be in the Bill at all, or it should be a great deal wider and more grasping; it should have a general reference to all professions to which admission was obtained by law; it should have reference to all professions which were controlled by law, by licence, or otherwise. He challenged the sub-section as being exceptional, as containing an unworthy and exceptional stigma; and therefore, in the absence of any statement from the Attorney General or the Solicitor General in support of it, as it was at present submitted to the judgment of the Committee, he had no option but to support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth.
    Mr. MELLORsaid, he was sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) did not mean to suggest that a barrister who committed a corrupt practice was fit to continue in his Profession. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had spoken of the privileges intrusted to the Bar, and the privileges intrusted to the solicitors. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, for instance, shown that a barrister had great power intrusted to him in the way of free speech in a Court of Justice, that he had great confidence reposed in him, and that he discharged most important functions, especially in a Criminal Court. He (Mr. Mellor) considered that a man who had to discharge such important duties ought to be extremely particular as to his conduct; and he could not see why if a barrister committed a corrupt practice, his conduct should not be brought to the notice of the Governing Body of his Profession. There was not the slightest danger of this clause being unfairly worked. It was proposed to bring a barrister's conduct before the Benchers of his Inn. The Benchers had never shown themselves to be an unfair tribunal; but, apart from that fact, a barrister who was charged with being guilty of a corrupt practice had got an additional safeguard, because from the Benchers he could appeal to the Judges, and if the Benchers had committed any error, the Judges had ample power to rectify it, and re-instate the gentleman
    538
    in his old position. The punishment of the solicitors, too, was in the hands of the Judges of the High Court of Justice, and they could deal with it exactly as they pleased. It was a jurisdiction which was exercised before the whole world, and he (Mr. Mellor) had never heard any complaint of the way in which that jurisdiction was administered. He hoped this sub-section would be passed, because he considered it was very important, particularly in the interest of his own Profession, which was so much concerned in elections, that the public should be satisfied that the Legal Profession wished to put a stop to electoral corruption quite as much as any other class of the community.
    MR. LEAMYmaintained that a barrister ought not to be punished twice for an offence for which they punished other men once. It was said that a barrister who committed a corrupt practice ought not to be allowed to continue any longer at the Bar. If this was the opinion of hon. Gentlemen, why had not such a practice been put in force before now? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) had said that barristers had exceptional privileges—that they had exceptional privileges at the Criminal Court; but the Committee were not dealing with barristers acting in Criminal Courts, they were dealing with barristers and solicitors acting at an election just as other people did. If a barrister was guilty of a corrupt practice, he could be sent to gaol for 12 months, deprived of the franchise, and subjected to other civil disabilities. He (Mr. Leamy) submitted it was invidious to impose a double penalty on these men because they happened to belong to the law. He desired fair and equal justice; and if a man was found guilty of a crime, subject him to a certain punishment, but do not increase it because he happened to be of one particular profession. It might be said that this clause not only referred to solicitors and barristers, but to many other professions, because the words of the clause were—
    "Any person who is a banister or a solicitor, or who belongs to any profession the admission to which is regulated by Law."
    He supposed that the words would include the case of a doctor. He, however, strongly objected to the invidious

    539
    mention of barristers and solicitors, and on that ground he intended to oppose the clause. ["Divide, divide!"] He did not know why hon. Members should display such impatience. He had only spoken three times upon this Bill, but certainly he intended to-morrow to take other opportunities of interfering in the discussion.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had stated that this clause proposed to inflict a certain stigma upon the Legal Profession. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) did not hesitate to say that this stigma should be inflicted. He wished to regard the clause simply as one relating to barristers and solicitors; and having regard to the facts and circumstances of both English and Irish elections, he considered that barristers and solicitors who were guilty of offences specified in this section ought to be exceptionally punished. It was on the distinct ground that this was an exceptional punishment, and a severe punishment, that he, as a member of the Legal Profession, intended to vote for this clause. They knew very well from the revelations of Election Commissioners that where corrupt practices had prevailed, the instruments of these practices had, in many cases, been connected with the Legal Profession. He was sorry to have to say it, but it was no use hiding the truth on this question; and it would be a piece of hypocrisy on the part of the Legal Profession if they objected to put this mark on the members of the Legal Profession who did wrong. An educated barrister, or an educated solicitor, knew perfectly well when he was doing wrong; and he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was of opinion, having regard to the special trust which the law imposed upon the Legal Profession, that if any member of that Profession conducted himself improperly at an election he deserved the exceptional punishment of being brought before the heads of his own Profession, so that they might deal with him as they thought proper, and decide whether he was fit to continue, either temporarilyor permanently, in the discharge of his professional duties. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) hoped the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) would not consent to any relaxation of this clause.
    MR. WARTONsaid, his first objection to this sub-section was that it was totally unnecessary, and encumbered the Bill. Although there was a great difference in the style of the two Law Officers of the Crown, there was a great similarity in their arguments. Speaking of solicitors, the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) mentioned two cases of solicitors who misconducted themselves, and the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell) dwelt upon the peculiar privileges of legal gentlemen. Now, if solicitors were as bad as it was endeavoured to paint them, why should all the Professions, the admission to which was regulated by law, be grouped together? What was the real object of this section? It was to preserve that cruel severity which prevailed all through the Bill. Would doctors, and dentists, and veterinary surgeons, come under the operation of this clause? Or was it the object of the Attorney General to provide that many men should be debarred? This was a perfectly scandalous clause, and it seemed to him that there was no ground whatever for its appearance in the Bill. He could not conceive for a moment why all professional men should be subjected to this cruel punishment, because on two occasions solicitors had misconducted themselves. He objected to the clause on the ground of common humanity.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he thought there was great misconception in reference to the origin of this clause. They must all admit there had been a few solicitors who had subjected themselves to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General; and the object of the clause was to enable the Courts to deal with the cases of solicitors who misconducted themselves in the manner described by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. It must be remembered, however, that the two solicitors whose cases the Attorney General had cited werea cting as quasi-solicitots. If this clause had merely been formed for the purpose of enabling the Court to deal with men who, acting as quasi-solicitors, had acted in an improper way, he did not think anyone would have raised the slightest objection. He objected personally to the roundabout way in which it was proposed to arrive at the result desired. Why should it be the duty of

    541
    the Public Prosecutor to bring these matters before the Court? If they turned to Clause 36, they would find it was the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to attend there himself, or by his assistant, at all election trials; and in another clause they found that where the trial was before Election Commissioners, the Election Commissioners were, first of all, to communicate with the Public Prosecutor as to whether misconduct had been proved against those gentlemen, and then the Director of Public Prosecutions was to communicate with the tribunal. All that would be necessary, in his (Mr. Grantham's) opinion, instead of inserting this long sub-section, would be to give the tribunal power to take cognizance of misconduct, notwithstanding the fact that a certificate of indemnity might have been given. He hoped the Attorney General would deal with the matter in a more satisfactory way than was now-proposed. He had great objection to the clause because by it it was proposed to deal with barristers and solicitors who were not acting at all in their professional capacity.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that no one who heard the remarkable speech of the Attorney General would be in any doubt as to the insufficiency of the punishment which at present could be imposed upon members of the Legal Profession who misconducted themselves. He considered the punishment provided was not severe enough.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEdesired to say a few words to the Committee before they went to a Division; and he meant to take a Division as a protest against this outrageous clause. The speech the Attorney General made was chiefly based on a single instance, with regard to which he was justly indignant; and he showed the Committee how, in one case where a professional man had been the instrument of very much bribery, he remained without any punishment at all. The Committee had provided that a certificate of indemnity should leave a person open to all the disqualifications and incapacities, and should only protect him from actual criminal prosecution. He could not help thinking that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General had misled those who had not read the clause. They had said that the facts of the case were to be brought to
    542
    the knowledge of the Profession. Now, the last words of the sub-section were these—
    "It shall be the duty of the Director of Public Prosections to bring the matter before the Inn of Court, High Court, or tribunal having power to take cognizance of any misconduct of such person in his profession; and such Inn of Court, High Court, or tribunal may deal with such person in like manner as if such corrupt practice were misconduct by such person in his profession."
    It was not misconduct by such person in his profession, and therefore they were passing an Act of Parliament to give the Benchers of an Inn of Court power to deal with a member of that Inn for misconduct outside of his profession. This was a monstrous proposition, and he made that assertion as a Bencher of one of the Inns of Court. There was no excuse for casting that stigma upon the Profession, and he hoped to find some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite join him in protesting against this most unjustifiable proposition.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he approached the consideration of this clause with a mind perfectly free from bias, because he did not happen to be included in any of the Professions which were subject to the pains and penalties set forth in this clause. He, however, opposed the clause as one of the most illogical, unjudicial, and preposterous interferences with natural justice and equity that could possibly be imagined. The clause was extremely vague, and slovenly drawn in its wording—
    "Where a person who is a barrister or a solicitor, or who belongs to any profession the admission to which is regulated by Law,"
    is to suffer so-and-so. What on earth was the meaning of the phrase "belongs to any profession the admission to which is regulated by Law?" They ought certainly to have from the Government a Schedule of the Professions the admission to which was regulated by law. Last year a proposition was brought in the House, after which, he believed, the authors were still hankering—a proposition for making a provision that schoolmasters, for instance, should be dependent upon a system of registration. If this proposition were carried, schoolmasters, under this vague clause, would be liable to all the pains and penalties provided by the Bill. As a matter of

    543
    fact, the clause actually set a premium upon professions that were unregulated by any tribunal, and it would be a positive advantage to belong to such professions. Was there any special reason in the past history of the Legal Profession for the introduction of penalties of this description? If there was any special reason, and if the Legal Profession had been adorned by too many members who were unworthy to belong to it; if the traditions of the Profession in election matters were corrupt and disgraceful—and that was the innuendo contained in the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), and accepted by the ex-Member for the virtuous borough of Oxford—he considered it an extraordinary thing that they should calmly propose for the future to bring accused members of the Legal Profession before a tribunal of hardened sinners. They were told that down to the present day the Legal Profession was stained through and through with corruption; and, forsooth, it was before the senior members of this stained Profession—successful candidates, though no longer Members of Parliament—who had gained their seats by all kinds of corrupt practices and had escaped detection—it was before the tribunal of Benchers, composed of men who had gone through all the gross experiences that were to be forbidden for the future, that the erring members of the Profession were to go in the future to be tried! Just imagine what a scandal that would be. Suppose some member of the Legal Profession in the future was accused by the Public Prosecutor of having committed some corrupt practice, and his name was mentioned to the Benchers, and supposing it became known that amongst those who inflicted punishment upon him were lawyers who had been notorious and scandalous offenders in the past; in such a case the punishment would be an infinitely greater injury to public justice and respect for the law than any amount of continued indulgence towards offenders belonging to the Legal Profession. And when they were asked in this way to hand over a large class of Her Majesty's subjects to this tribunal of Benchers of the Inns of Court and so forth, they were entitled to ask what guarantee had they that this tribunal, of which, down to the present they had had
    544
    no official cognizance, of which they had had no legal knowledge, would act with justice and propriety? They were entitled to ask what was there in the constitution of this tribunal which was to be set up for the future, to lead that House to grant this unlimited power with regard to a portion of Her Majesty's subjects who happened to belong to the Legal Profession? Were they not aware that some of the most scandalous offences against public morality were committed by persons in that Profession, such as taking fees and doing no work for them; and were they not aware that conduct of that kind was winked at by the infallible tribunal of Benchers that were to be armed with the powers of this Act? He contended that they knew nothing in the history of the Inns of Court which should lead them implicitly to trust to them in this matter. He contended that when, under this clause, a man was brought under an Inn of Court, it would depend very much upon his social relation to his Judges—that was to say, upon the amount of his private acquaintance and friendship with them, and the amount of influence he could bring to bear upon them—whether or not he should be made subject to the heavy punishments of the Bill. As was generally the case with exceptionally coercive legislation, this would be calculated to create a prejudice that would defeat the object with which it was proposed. Let the Committee imagine the position of two persons implicated in Election Petitions before the Election Judges; one a member of the general public, and the other—if hon. Gentlemen opposite would adjourn to the Smoking Room or some more congenial place than the House he might be able to finish his observations.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address his observations to the Chair.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, it was through the Chairman, then, that he would make that observation. He had been prevented from addressing the Chair by a continued buzz of conversation; and it was in order to prevent that that he had made the remark. What he had been saying was this—what would be the position of two persons against whom charges were brought in regard to an election contest, one of them being an ordinary member of the public, and the

    545
    other a gentleman who would be subject to these exceptional penalties because of his connection with the Legal Profession? Would it not be a fruitful theme for appeals to the Court that one man more than another was subject to exceptional treatment? For the very reason that a man was liable to exceptional treatment a strong appeal for clemency would be made. If a lawyer and a non-lawyer were accused, in the very interests of equity the Judges dealing with these two cases would be led to give the man who was liable to a double penalty every possible benefit of every loophole, and every chance of escape; and in that way the very provisions introduced into this Bill for the purpose of doubling the penalty against the lawyer would always lead to their being treated with exceptional leniency, because, from the fact that if they were found guilty they would be treated with exceptional severity. That was a course of policy which could be illustrated to any extent in general history. He thought the best Her Majesty's Government could do would be—[Interruption.] He had called the attention of the Chairman—or, at any rate, had endeavoured to call the attention of the Chairman—to a buzz of conversation on the opposite side; and he was sorry to say that it had not been rebuked, and that it was even now continuing without rebuke on the Chairman's part. This deliberate disturbance—which, to his mind, was contrary to the Rules and Orders of the House—rendered it impossible for him to make himself heard; therefore he was obliged to sit down; but, in doing so, he would move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O'Donnell)
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would ask the hon. Member not to persevere with his Motion, but would direct the attention of the Chairman and the Commitee to the fact that when the hon. Member who had just sat down had addressed himself to those who were interrupting him, he was met with a rebuke at the hands of the Chairman. The hon. Member continued his speech; but the interruptions became so loud as to drown his voice and prevent the reporters in
    546
    the Gallery from hearing him. But, notwithstanding that this noise continued, he (Sir Arthur Otway), acting as Chairman, did not rebuke the misconduct—or, rather, the not creditable conduct—of the Radicals sitting below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House.
    The Committee proceeded to a Division.
    The Chairman stated he thought the Noes had it; and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and Nine Members only having stood up, the Chairman declared the Noes had it.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he believed he had only spoken two or three times during the progress of this Bill—[Cries of "Divide!"]—but the conduct of hon. Members opposite convinced him that they disapproved of his reticence; and he therefore trusted that they would not have reason to complain of his want of appreciation of his public duty for the future. This clause was not sufficiently definite, and it was only due to the members of that Profession, the admission to which was regulated by law, that it should be made so. What was the provision according to the view of the Government? He had heard it stated that a barrister was nothing more than a trades unionist. Well, he wanted to know, under the clause, whether it would be the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring the conduct, during an election, of every member of a trade society under the notice of the council of that society, and to give them power to impose special penalties upon him, irrespective of the penalties laid down by the law of the land? He should like very much to know what, in the eye of the law, or, rather, in the eye of the Attorney General, was the difference between a corporation of solicitors or a society of barristers, and a corporation or society of stone masons and slaters? Unless the Attorney General introduced words defining what he meant by a Profession, he wanted to know what there was more legal in the Profession of solicitor than in the Profession of stone mason or slater? It was all very well for the Government to affect an air of extreme purity, and draw up a number of clauses in the most ambiguous form; but, before they

    547
    passed the Bill, they ought to arrive at some distinct understanding as to what was meant by these provisions. Before they passed laws exposing members of Professions to definite penalties they should know what was meant by "Profession." To his mind, the words of the clause expressly included ordinary trades unions, because these words were—
    "Or tribunal may deal with such person in like manner as if such corrupt practice were misconduct by such person in his Profession."
    There were hundreds of Professions throughout the Kingdom governed by tribunals regularly in the habit of imposing penalties for what was considered to be unprofessional conduct; and he wished to know—was every trades union throughout the Kingdom which happened to have a council to be able to impose penalties on its members for improper practices at elections, in addition to the penalties which were imposed by the law of the land?
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 67: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 169.)
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he really thought they might now ask the hon. and learned Attorney Genoral to agree to report Progress. It was now nearly a quarter-past 1, Members had been in the House during the whole of the day, and they bad to be in attendance again at 2 o'clock to-morrow. He, therefore, thought it most reasonable to propose that they should now report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there were only two formal Amendments to this clause, both of which he was ready to accept; and ho, therefore, thought the Committee might be allowed to conclude the section before reporting Progress. He would not ask them to go further than this clause, which had been under discussion now for nearly three hours. He trusted the hon. and gallant Baronet would not press his proposal.
    MR. LALORbegged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of a very
    548
    important Bill which the Government had decided upon bringing forward that night—namely, the Poor Belief (Ireland) Bill. That was a measure upon which a long discussion was very likely to arise; therefore he thought it would be well for them to at once report Progress.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he thought that if they acceded to the Attorney General's request, and passed these two Amendments, they should allow hon. Members to go home. They would be utterly unfit to go on with the discussion of the Bill which the Government had expressed themselves determined to proceed with that night. He would suggest that the hon. and gallant Baronet should withdraw his Motion, and that they should go on with the Bill, provided that the Irish Poor Belief Bill was not continued at this late hour. Irish Members were the same as English Members. ["No, no!"] Well, for his part, he should be very sorry to be like any of the Radicals opposite; but what he meant was that Irish Members, like English Representatives, required rest. He should certainly give every support in his power to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Baronet, unless the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Trevelyan) would assure them that now that the House was thoroughly exhausted, at a quarter-past 1 o'clock, he would not go on with the Irish Bill.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, it was impossible to leave the Committee in the dark as to what were the intentions of the Government, for Members might say there had been a breach of faith. On Monday evening the Government forbore to press this most essential, but, at the same time, extremely minute Bill, on the understanding that it was to be proceeded with to-night. He would not insist on the word "understanding," however, because he was not certain that an assurance was given by hon. Members on the matter; but it must have been distinctly understood that the Government would press the Bill tonight. It would be impossible to carry on the Business of the House, and to make any progress with the large number of Irish Bills before the House, unless a stage were taken nearly every night on a Bill.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, there was no understanding, and the assurance was on the part of the Government, who asked the House to discuss at this time of night a Bill of the utmost importance. If it was to be a Draconian rule that the Government must make progress with every Bill, he would suggest that some other Government Bill should be proceeded with.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had referred to Irish Bills.
    MR. O'DONNELLthought Ireland must be very much obliged; but he did not think that at this hour of the night Irish Members were much disposed to enter into the large question raised by this Bill, and into all the new matter which was to be opened up by the pending international questions between the United States and England under the Bill. He should offer every opposition to such an important Bill being taken at such an untimely moment.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the Chief Secretary seemed very much disposed to follow in the footsteps of his Predecessor; and, if so, he would prophesy that the end of his career would be of a similar nature. The right hon. Gentleman had broken the distinct promise he had given with regard to this Bill, and now he said there had been an understanding. There was no understanding that this Bill was to be discussed at such an untimely hour. The Leader of the Irish Party was absent, and there were other Irish Members absent who would wish to discuss this question, and who were more competent to do so than the Members who were present.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, that, speaking merely for himself, he was willing to go into the Bill, if there was any chance of getting something substantial for the Irish poor out of the Bill; but the hour was late to begin what he was afraid would take a long time.
    MR. WARTONpointed out that, although there were at present only two verbal Amendments to this sub-section, he had to move another Amendment of importance. He hoped the Attorney General would consent to report Progress.
    Question put, and negatived.
    On the Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Amendment made, in page 17, line 17, by leaving out from "appears" to
    550
    "before," and by inserting "is reported by."
    On the Motion of Mr. GORST, Amendment made, in page 17, line 18, by leaving out "or privy to."
    MR. WARTON MR. WARTON moved to omit the sub-section. It was bad enough, he said, that professional gentlemen should be brought by the Public Prosecutor to the notice of the High Court, or this un-described tribunal; but it was far worse to prevent people ascertaining from professional men what they were to do. He protested most strongly against this, in the interests of the Profession, and also in other interests. It was casting a stigma and a slur on the Courts to require them to go through the farce of assuming that a man had been guilty of misconduct who had not been guilty. As to the drafting of the clause, it would end very well with the word "profession" in line 23, and then these independent bodies could act in the matter if they thought fit, and not be directed to do so by a falsehood or a Jesuitical approach to a falsehood. They could take care of their own honour; but they would be humiliated by this unjust clause.
    Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 23, to leave out all the words after "profession."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. GORSTsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not persist with this Amendment, although he was of his way of thinking. He voted against the whole clause, and he should have been glad if the Attorney General had struck out the sub-section; but the Committee had decided, by a considerable majority, against his view, and in favour of the sub-section. If it was to be maintained, these words were absolutely necessary, because it was no use calling the attention of a tribunal to the conduct of a professional man, unless it was to be allowed to deal with the question of corrupt practice as if it had been misconduct in the Profession. Although he should be glad to see the whole sub-section struck out, it was no use making nonsense of it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Committee had

    551
    discussed this question throughout the evening and taken a Division upon it, and it was not reasonable that they should be now asked to discuss it a second time.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
(Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 154.] COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd July], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" (for Committee on Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill).
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Power to make grants to distressed unions).
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he desired, in moving the Amendment standing in his name, to steer clear of any controversy or any recriminatory speeches. His Amendment was framed with a special view to two Unions in Donegal, Glenties and Dunfanaghy. The population in those two Unions had, since November last, been supported by private charity, and neither the Government nor the Poor Law had done anything for them. He did not wish to go back to that now, but merely to mention that, as a matter of fact, no relief whatever had been given to those poor people from either of those two sources. Private charity had kept them out of the prison; it had purchased seeds which enabled them to re-sow a great portion of the land. There was a promising crop in the ground; a good many of the people had gone away to Scotland for employment; and the object of the Amendment was to preserve those who remained behind, and who had no means of subsistence, until their potatoes were ready, which, in this barren region, would not be until the end of August. The funds which had hitherto supported them were
  552
  now exhausted, and he did not think it was too much to ask the Government to come to their rescue even now, at the eleventh hour, and for a few weeks to take up the work which the priests and other persons had been doing for the last six months. Nobody could question the reality of the distress in these two Unions. The Chief Secretary visited a mere strip of these districts in January last, and was horrified at what he saw—that was, when he trusted to his own eyes, and not to the obsequious officials in Donegal. In March last the Poor Law Inspector, Dr. Woodhouse, admitted that in one of these districts one-third of the people had no means of subsistence. Nothing had happened to alter their situation in the least, for Dr. Woodhouse admitted that none of the people had migrated from Glen-columbkill to Scotland. Mr. Macfar-lane, another Inspector, admitted that the Rosses was the most distressed part of Donegal. Father Gallagher, the parish priest, had stated that the Government had given the people no assistance whatsoever, and they had been left to struggle alone with the monster, Famine. There were, he said, 3,500 people on the poor relief list, and that immense number of human beings were dependent entirely upon him for support; but he was not able to give them half sufficient food. Men were fainting at their work, and, but for Mrs. Lalor's assistance to the children, many of them would have died. The other day he (Mr. O'Brien) had directed attention to a letter in The Daily Chronicle from a lady whose authority he should have thought would have outweighed that of a great many interested officials, Mrs. Ernest Hart. In that letter she mentioned that a Captain Hill had sent his bailiff to collect the rents of tenants who were reduced to the lowest ebb of poverty. She said—
  "While Captain Hill is pressing for his rents, hundreds of wretched tenantry are being kept from starvation by doles of a pennyworth of meal per day, and all the paupers are kept by two biscuits a-day. The poverty seen is enough to make the most stony-hearted weep."
  Mrs. Hart showed the extreme distress existing in Gweedore; how from November to May, 800 persons had been receiving relief in the shape of Indian meal. Of Captain Hill's 600 tenants 400 were so relieved; and in Glencolumb-

  553
  kill, on June 22, there were still 600 poor recipients of such relief. Father M'Fadden, last week, wrote to the effect that the funds at his command were gone, and that the allowances of food would have to be stopped. If the Government, he said, would step in with relief during the next six weeks, a few hundred pounds would bring the people safely through; but, unless something was done, he did not know what might happen. If there were any prospect of outdoor relief, the danger might be dealt with; but he was sick of appealing to landlord Guardians, who would not give it. He (Mr. O'Brien) did not contend, and never had contended, that the distressed area in Donegal was not very circumscribed; but that was all the more reason why he implored the Government to have regard to these claims of these impoverished people and of probable starvation. While this Bill proposed to give £50,000 for the relief of Irish poverty, he, if it was of any use, adjured the Government to insure that some portion of that should go to the people most pressingly, most cruelly in need of relief. In these miserable Unions there was no outdoor relief, because the Guardians who were withholding it were those who would have to pay it out of their own pockets; but it would be a different thing if a grant of public money was made in aid of their own resources, and if their powers were enlarged to embrace every case of honest destitution during the next six weeks, then they might exist until, please God, a bountiful harvest took the poor people off the Guardians' hands. He earnestly hoped that the Government would not, for the mere sake of sticking to a theory, leave these poor creatures for the next six weeks utterly helpless. They had suffered enough already, much more than the House would ever know; they would feel it in their emaciated constitutions. He hoped the Government would step in now, after private charity had done so much for the past six months, and do something for them, and, in that hope, moved the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 13, after the word "union," to insert the words—"It shall he lawful for the guardians of any union to whom a grant shall he made under the Act, or, in their default, for the Local Government Board, to
  554
  grant relief, either in the workhouse or outside the workhouse, as to them shall appear expedient, to destitute poor persons, whether such persons are disabled from lahour or not, for any time not exceeding two calendar months from the passing of the Act."—(Mr. O'Brien.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he had an Amendment upon the Paper altogether separate from that which had been proposed by his hon. Friend; but, in the course of the evening, he had handed in a copy of an Amendment he intended to move to this part of the Bill. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had seen it; but, if he had, he would see that the same reasons and arguments used by his hon. Friend would tell in favour of his Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I may inform the hon. Member that I have looked at the Amendment handed in in manuscript, and it appears to me to be identical with the Amendment now before the Committee, and could not be moved. Though I give this information, it would be irregular to discuss it now; the discussion must be addressed to the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, as the Chairman had ruled his Amendment was identical with the present, he should wait until he could put an Amendment before the Committee for discussion.
  DR. LYONSsaid, he regretted to trouble the Committee, and he very much regretted that the measure had been brought on at such a late hour, because it involved a question of vital moment in regard to the position of a portion of the people of Ireland. He was not very sure that the question that had been raised came properly within the scope of the Bill; for, as he understood, the purpose of the Government in bringing in the Bill was with the object of legitimatizing the action of those Guardians who had got into a false financial position, and they calculated that the amount of the grant in aid would be something like £50,000. Therefore, if for the relief of those Unions by loans to that amount the Bill was limited financially, it was impossible to afford any relief for any other object under this measure. He should have preferred that this question had been raised in another, and an in-

  555
  dependent shape. He could speak in regard to several of the Unions in Ireland from personal observation. For certain reasons with which he would not now trouble the Committee, it became his duty to visit considerable portions of Ireland during the present year, and some of the distressed districts he had had an opportunity of re-visiting at a recent time; and he was justified in stating that the amount of distress prevailing in these districts—and into which he had inquired in the closest possible manner with every feeling of impartiality to arrive at the real facts of the case—that the state of destitution was really appalling. Nothing but the superhuman efforts made by a number of individuals acting from feelings of humanity had enabled the people to be kept alive. He visited Donegal, and made a circuit of the whole county in the early part of January; and having made a very close inspection, having visited the houses of the people, having himself made inquiries in every possible way to exclude error and exaggeration, he could state that such was the state of destitution that, but for the exertions made in Ireland, and the charitable contributions there and elsewhere, the House would have had to face an appalling state of starvation there. From all that he saw, and from all his inquiries, and after examination and cross-examination, he was satisfied there was an absolute want of food at that time, and nearly a complete failure of seed potatoes. But for the exertions of the charitable we should be facing, not only famine in the present, but a condition of things infinitely worse in the coming winter, and for some time subsequently. He could not but mention with all honour the exertions made by a lady whose name was now widely known, Mrs. Power Lalor. She undertook the feeding of a number of poor people, a number that reached to 5,000, poorly clad, and who, while experiencing the effects of the storm that swept over the country, had little protection from the weather. He could not fail to recognize that the people must have been swept off in vast numbers, but for the exertions of this most charitable lady, prompted by feelings of charity, and assisted by an amount of personal energy and ability, enabling her to do what in other hands would have been impossible, the work of keep
  556
  ing the people alive. Nor could he speak too highly of the exertions of the local clergy in the districts of Gweedore, Glencolumbkill, the Bosses, and on the West Coast, but for which there would have been a large mortality to face; or the exertions of that very distinguished and accomplished man, the Catholic Bishop of Raphoe. His efforts were unceasing and untiring.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I must point out to the hon. Member that the proposal before the Committee is to amend Clause 1; he must confine his observations to that Amendment.
  DR. LYONSsaid, he understood the Amendment dealt with the subject of workhouse relief. Of course, he bowed to the ruling from the Chair; but he was leading up to his point by showing the exertions made to keep the people alive, and in a manner different from that now proposed. He would come to what he wished to say in that respect. He was briefly alluding to the exertions made to keep the people alive by giving them employment—that was the point he was coming to. The exertions of the Catholic Bishop and the clergy, and the contributions made, were all utilized in giving occupation to the people. He wished to bear testimony in favour of this principle, which was instituted in all eases except those of children and those unable to work. Donations were applied under the direction of the distinguished ecclesiastic and his clergy to whom he had referred in the direction of giving employment. The invariable feeling on the part of the people was for occupation, for honest work, not for doles of charity. The point to which he wished expressly to address himself was this—He did not think the Amendment placed before the Committee by the hon. Gentleman went in a direction which would be acceptable except as a dernier ressort, and to meet the wishes of Bishop, clergy, and people. He had travelled the whole of the county, and in no single instance did he find any disposition on the part of the people to avail themselves of workhouse relief in any shape whatever. Their cry was invariably in the direction of work—honest payment for honest work. He thought it most desirable the Committee should fully understand that there was, undoubtedly, a creditable spirit of independence growing up and finding expression in all

  557
  parts of Ireland, to which statesmen should give full recognition. This was one of the reasons why he expressed regret that this question had been raised in the form in which it had been sought to raise it, and under a Bill strictly limited to an amount of money to be applied, and having for its object the relief of the pressing financial needs of Unions which had, wisely or unwisely, rightly or wrongly, on this or that principle, by outdoor or indoor relief, undoubtedly got themselves into a position of financial distress from which a sum of money must relieve them. He regretted that this discussion should have been taken upon this particular Bill and in this particular shape. It was of the greatest importance, in a statesmanlike point of view, that the Government should take some steps to meet the condition of distress that existed at present; but he did not see how anyone could hope to do it under this Bill, strictly limited in amount and object. Therefore, he regretted that the question was not raised in an independent manner. It would be worth the attention of Government in some other way to deal with it.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): Again I must point out to the hon. Member that he is not addressing himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
  DR. LYONSsaid, he was endeavouring to address himself to the Amendment before the Committee. That Amendment might not be in strict accordance with the principle of the Bill; he did not think it was, and he was surprised that the Chairman had put it; but he was endeavouring to point out how any attempt to relieve the people from their present position in a manner uncongenial to their feelings was not in the direction in which it was desirable the Government should give aid.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not the Question raised by the Amendment. The Question is the expediency of giving certain powers to Guardians they do not now possess. The hon. Member must address himself to that Question.
  DR. LYONSsaid, the Amendment was that where relief was proposed, it should be given the workhouse or outside, and he was arguing that this was not congenial to the wishes and feelings of the people in the County of Donegal and other parts of Ireland; and he begged leave to say that he dissented
  558
  from the principle sought to be established by the Amendment. That was the object to which he was directing himself. He believed it would be quite possible and quite proper for the Government to deal with the distress actually existing, and almost certain to be intensified in the next two or three months; and in regard to that, he thought to contemplate six weeks as the probable duration was to take too short a period, for he believed, having regard to the lateness of the harvest, which at present promised to be a bountiful one, the people must be carried on to the first week in September, for the crops would not be available for the support of the people until then. He challenged the principle which was implied in the Amendment; he was opposed to the principle of outdoor relief. He believed it was not necessary to have recourse to the workhouse, and he believed that Government could readily find means of employing the people on works that would be reproductive, while the people would be raised in every essential point of view from their condition of wretchedness, and a new stimulus would be given to industry throughout the whole of Ireland. That, however, he did not desire to enlarge upon; it was a problem to be solved; but he believed it would be possible, and it was desirable that the Government should take some steps to employ the people in the period that must intervene before the harvest was available for their support. It was not possible that the harvest could be utilized until towards the end of August at least, and in some instances much later; therefore the necessity existed for something being done. He did not believe that what was proposed in the Amendment was the right or the best way, or that most congenial to the people. But at that late hour he would say no more. Anyone who knew the condition of the people could not but feel the duty imposed upon him to make their real condition known to the House, even at the risk of exciting those expressions of impatience which his observations had called forth. He could not support the Amendment before the Committee, and could only express his surprise that it was allowed to be put.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he did not know whether it was absolutely necessary to bring into an Act of Parliament

  559
  a provision for affording outdoor relief to the poor in Ireland between the finishing up of one harvest and the commencement of the next; but one object he had was to shorten the debate, for no Irish Member was more anxious than he was that relief should be given if required, and to have it voted as quickly as possible. He had heard there was some misapprehension about the Bill, and he rose for the purpose of getting some explanation from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, not in reference to the Amendment. There was an idea that the Bill was being passed for the purpose of paying off old debts; and if that point were cleared up when the Chief Secretary rose, it might possibly enable the Bill to pass in a few minutes. The 4th clause seemed intended to cover a multitude of sins.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): It would be quite irregular to enter upon the 4th clause; the hon. and gallant Member must address himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he would ask leave of the Committee just to mention one thing which was outside of the Amendment; and he desired to say that, if he was allowed to mention it, and an answer was given, it might be that the Bill would be got through in a few minutes, and, otherwise, might take two or three nights.
  MR. CALLANrose to a point of Order. There was a Chairman of Committees, and, without any disrespect to the present occupant of the Chair (Mr. Courtney), he wished to ask whether this Bill was not a Bill dealing with the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and whether it was right or proper, on a Bill dealing with Treasury interests, that the Secretary to the Treasury should occupy the Chair?
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): That is not a question of Order.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was not quite certain if he understood the mysterious hint of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer); but, no doubt, the difficulty would be cleared up when Clause 4 was reached; but certainly there never was a Bill which more completely contained on the face of it its nature and scope.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he wished to assist in getting it through quickly.
  MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had raised a point which he knew the hon. Member had much at heart, in a speech which did not surprise him by its earnestness—for he knew how earnest the hon. Member was—but which did surprise him, to a certain extent, by its extreme brevity in putting his case, which enabled him to put the opposite case without a long speech, which he would be unwilling to inflict upon the Committee with reference to the Bill. The hon. Member had spoken several times upon this question of outdoor relief when it had been raised by Resolution; and he could hardly complain that now, when the hon. Member saw an opportunity, not of abstract debate, but of embodying his views in an Act of Parliament, that he should ask the Committee to insert a particular clause in the Bill. But though certainly he did not complain of the course taken, he did not propose to follow by arguing at great length this most important question of dealing with prevailing distress by means of outdoor relief or workhouse test. It had been discussed—he would not say until the House was tired of it, for it was a question too full of interest not to carry the House through two or three debates—but it had been more thoroughly discussed than any other question during the Session. There had been two debates of what he might call first-class order, one in the month of February, and the other last Friday. On the first occasion the House, by a majority which at the moment he had forgotten, but which he fancied was somewhere between 90 and 120 to a minority of 32, decided, after a long debate, that the policy of the Government with regard to outdoor relief should be supported; and on Friday the House came to a similar decision by 82 to 22. It must be remembered in regard to this Division that the majority represented, to a considerable extent, the feeling of the House of Commons, because it was an occasion upon which hon. Gentlemen who took the view of the hon. Member for Mallow were pretty sure to be present in as large numbers as they could muster. On the last occasion he spoke for nearly an hour, and expressed his opinion upon the bearings of this question of outdoor and indoor relief, both as applied to general and normal distress and to exceptional

  561
  periods of distress, and he did not intend to repeat the arguments he then used. The hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) had quite rightly described the Bill as definite and limited in its purpose; it was a Bill for enabling Unions which, with the permission of the Government, had met distress during the winter months by borrowing money on the local rates, to be indemnified, and in addition, in cases where they required it, to enable them to borrow further; and in cases where the Government considered these Unions had placed themselves in an impoverished position by no fault of their own, to enable the Government to make a grant of the amount of the sum they had borrowed; and this was a power of which the Government intended to avail themselves. In a Bill of this sort he could understand why the hon. Member should raise the question of outdoor relief, for this was the first practical opportunity he had of getting his view inserted into a Bill; but he thought the hon. Member would understand—and he was sure the majority of the House would understand—that the Government could not possibly, at that late period of the Session, and at a late period of the distress, the method of meeting which had been so much discussed—they could not quite suddenly face rightabout, and accept an Amendment which would stultify everything they had said in the House and everything they had done in Ireland. He felt, and he respected very much the sympathy which the sufferings of the people of Donegal had raised in the mind of the hon. Member for Mallow; but he had different accounts of the condition of Dunfanaghy. The accounts he had were to the effect that there was ten-fold more labour in the neighbourhood of the Union, and that the condition of the people was such as would enable them to pass through the time between this and harvest in a state which could not be considered one of very exceptional distress as compared with the state in which they had been for the last three or four months. His accounts were decidedly more hopeful, though, he allowed, they came from other quarters than those from which the hon. Member derived his information. He respected the motives with which the hon. Member had brought forward his Amendment; but it was im-
  562
  possible for the Government to accept it. He earnestly trusted that, although the hon. Member was disappointed on a subject he had very much at heart, he would allow the Bill, against the principle of which he did not understand the hon. Member had objection—[Mr. O'BRIEN: Oh, oh!] He (Mr. Trevelyan) did not know what the objection was, except so far as the hon. Member thought any of this money was to be expended in workhouse relief. He earnestly trusted the hon. Member would accept the decision of the Committee on the Amendment, and allow the Bill to go forward.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, it appeared that the impression on the mind of the Chief Secretary was that the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) would impose an obligation on Boards of Guardians to proceed at once to grant outdoor relief in distressed Unions; but it would do nothing of the kind. Simply the Amendment said it should be lawful for the Guardians of any Union receiving a grant under the Bill to grant outdoor relief during the next two months. Here was a sum of money about to be granted to certain Unions in Ireland, granted from an Irish fund, not from the pockets of English taxpayers; and his hon. Friend moved an Amendment giving these Guardians the power to grant relief to destitute poor persons, in or out of the workhouse. This was the Amendment the Chief Secretary said he could not accept, because, he said, it would be turning back from the position he took up a few months ago. Why did his hon. Friend ask for this Amendment? Because he knew that in the Unions where a great deal of distress prevailed a large number of the distressed people were small farmers, who could not go into the workhouse except at the price of breaking up their homes and demoralizing their families. His hon. Friend asked that a discretionary power should be given to Boards of Guardians in these Unions, to give some of this grant from an Irish fund to assist these poor people during the next two months, while they were waiting for the harvest to ripen. In these Unions these small farmers had been kept alive for six or seven months, not by the action of the Boards of Guardians or the Government, but by money contri-

  563
  buted by charitable people. As a matter of fact, on one estate in Donegal, there were 400 tenants whose land had been seeded by the money of charitable people, poor miserable farmers, watching their seed ripening while they and their children were starving. He did not ask the Government to put its hands in the pockets of ratepayers, and to give the money to these people, or to impose an obligation upon the Guardians to give this relief; he simply asked that the Guardians should have the power to give from this grant if they thought it expedient to do so. This the Chief Secretary refused, and he was not surprised at this from a Government which months ago adopted the course they had pursued in Ireland; of course, it would never do to admit that their Irish policy had been mistaken for a moment. Of course, the Irish Members present were small in number, and the Bill could be passed by the votes of English Radical Members. But Irish Members were asking nothing from them; they were only asking that Irish Boards should use Irish money to meet the needs of the starving people of Donegal. This request was denied, and the denial would be sanctioned by the votes of Members who never set a foot in Ireland, and who, bad as they were from a political point of view, and hostile as they were to Irish Members' views, would, he believed, if they saw the condition of the people, be the first to come forward and support the claim. The Amendment of his hon. Friend fell short of what he desired. Did hon. Members know what it was? By the law in Ireland, Guardians could give outdoor relief in cases where a man was disabled from work by sickness or accident; and the Amendment proposed that the Guardians should have power to give that relief to the destitute who were not disabled, but starving from want of work, and yet this discretionary power was refused. This grant of £50,000 was to be taken from an Irish fund; they did not seek to have it said how it should be distributed, but only that a discretion should be given to Guardians to dole out a few hundred pounds in the wretched mountain districts of Donegal, and also that the Guardians should not have this power for more than two months. Care would be taken that the privilege should not
  564
  be abused; the Amendment said the grant might be made, but it did not compel it; the Guardians might grant the relief until the harvest ripened, and then the Guardians would no longer have the power, because the people would have the means of supporting themselves. And this was to be refused. Of course, the Irish Members were too small in number to make an impression upon the Government that night, and it was a sad thing to think that hon. Gentlemen should come down to the House and remain until 3 in the morning, to refuse a concession for which Irish Members could gain no credit if the Amendment were put in the Bill. There was no political reason for their action, that Englishmen, who had sympathy for suffering people in every quarter of the globe, and extended their charity to every part of the world, should come clown to the House to prevent a discretionary power being given to Irish Guardians to use Irish money on behalf of starving Irish people.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Water-ford (Mr. Leamy) did not make full allowance for the attitude of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. His hon. Friend seemed to think that the condition of the poor starving people in Donegal, watching the grain ripening while they suffered the pangs of hunger, had escaped the notice of the Chief Secretary; but he did not think there was anything in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman from which his hon. Friend could form that conclusion. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had, he thought, told the House that it would be an object of contemplation—an interesting subject for contemplation, so long as he had the privilege of misgoverning Ireland from that official Bench. Some months ago, he informed the House that the Government had adopted a certain line of policy; and as the result of the treatment in Donegal, charitable priests and ladies were obliged, by begging in charitable quarters everywhere—of course excluding Government quarters—to make up for the neglect of Government, and by their action they saved the lives of hundreds and of thousands in Donegal and other parts of Ireland; and while the Government made up its mind three months ago to face the risk of the people starving,

  565
  they were now prepared to add a couple of months more; for, said he, in those tones of satisfaction that found an echo from the Radical admirers of the Chief Secretary, even if they were in a starving condition they were not in a very much worse condition than they had been in so for several months previously. That was the position of the Chief Secretary. If these sentiments were held by a Cossack savage they would be regarded as barbarous and atrocious; but, coming from the right hon. Gentleman the Liberal Representative of a Liberal Government in Ireland, they were humane and like an Englishman. It was quite clear that argument was thrown away; it was apparent that it was utterly useless for Irish Members to appeal to a Radical Party whose consciences were in the possession of a Liberal Whip; and he did not know really what was to be done, except that it might assist his hon. Friends to make use of those Benches to talk to the Irish people if they were disposed to continue the subject to a length at which it might properly be discussed, when, perhaps, it might help to bring about another Monaghan Election before long. But it was quite clear that, although nothing was asked but that the Boards of Guardians, or, failing them, the official Board in Dublin, should have the power of relieving persons who were disabled from starvation during a short space of two months, though nothing more was asked than the power to relieve grievous cases during a limited period, this was refused because the Chief Secretary said, having laid down certain rules three months ago, the Government could not withdraw those rules now, and if the people went on to starvation, well, they had always been near starvation under a British Government, but the subject would continue to be one for interesting contemplation. The position of the Irish Members was merely to protest, and he was exceedingly sorry they could do no more. Such conduct as Her Majesty's Government were adopting in Ireland, if adopted anywhere else in the world, would be regarded as ample justification for insurrection and rebellion; it was a policy of spoliation, of cruel murderous torture of women and children; it was a policy of detestable barbarity and meanness; it was a policy that deserved the execration and curses of every honest
  566
  man. But the curses and execrations of honest men would always be matter of mirth to Her Majesty's Government, until honest men had got physical force on their side.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he did not wish to detain the Committee at that late hour; but certainly he would, if only as a protest, carry his Motion to a Division, and see how many Members would follow him into the Lobby. Bitter as had been the words of his hon. Friend who had last spoken, he did not in the least exaggerate the feeling that the attitude of the Chief Secretary would create in Ireland. He had represented that thousands of unfortunate people were admittedly without means of support, and he defied the Government to point to anything that the Government or the Poor Law had done for them. He wanted no victory over the Government in the way of putting outdoor relief in an Act of Parliament, but some sort of pledge that something would be done for these unfortunate people, who, up to the present, had been trusting to private charity for support. In official Reports there had been a misrepresentation of facts, he would not say an amount of lying, though that might be justified. On these Reports the Chief Secretary relied, when he said that things were not quite so exceptionally bad as in the past four months; but during all this time the distress had been in full swing. The Chief Secretary seemed to think that he (Mr. O'Brien) had no objection to the Bill; but he must say that the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject convinced him that, whether wisely or not, it was only part of the plan to substitute for help the expatriation of the Irish people, to the discouraging of any other mode of dealing with the distress. What was the Bill for? The right hon. Gentleman had admitted, in plain terms, that the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) had hit the right nail on the head when he said the Bill was to pay off old debts. It was a Bill to pay some debts already incurred by Boards of Guardians, and whom would it actually relieve? It was admitted that there were thousands wanting relief; but would this Bill buy one pound of meal towards relieving starvation? Would it give any relief until the people went into the workhouse, and it was known they would die

  567
  before they would do that? It would relieve the ratepayers, not the people in distress. But for the Bill, there would be nothing left but to declare the Union bankrupt, and the landlords would be the losers—the persons who all along had made light of the distress that they might not be called upon to relieve it, but who made a long face when there was a chance of getting relief from Government. It was the Boards of Guardians—the landlords and their agents—who had persistently followed the Government programme, denying the distress, enforcing the workhouse test, refusing outdoor relief, getting up long lists of emigrants, getting the people into a better mood for closing with the offers of emigration agents—these were the people who were to have this present of £50,000. All he could say was, he was heartily sick of appealing to the Government on this subject. He did not care in what way they phrased it, or gave the guarantee; but that the process of starvation should not continue among thousands of people for two months longer—that was his object.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The hon. Member for Waterford did not move an Amendment, I think, though he intimated his intention of doing so.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he did not intend to do so. His Amemdment was simply to confer a greater discretion upon Boards of Guardians; but he did not think it was any use moving it. He would, however, bring it up on Report, when Irish Members would be prepared to support it, and to have a discussion of some length.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 59: Majority 46.—(Div. List, No. 170.)
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he would move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. He did not know whether the Government had any great objection to it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 17, after the word "pounds," to insert the words "and no portion of such grants shall be applied to the purpose of aiding or assisting emigration."—(Mr. Leatny.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, on this point he was able to explain to hon. Members the peculiar transactions on account of which the Bill was introduced, to show them there was no hidden purpose behind the Bill, and, at the same time, to show them how very small a Bill it was to attract so much attention. Had the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) inserted his Amendment, it would not have been a small matter; but what remained was a very small Bill indeed. There were three financial principles in the Bill, under none of which could any money, or would any money, be spent in emigration. On the principle contained in the 4th clause certain Unions had borrowed money, with the approval of the Local Government Board. Of these Unions, three out of four were Unions that had not contributed a single penny from their funds, or borrowed a single penny for emigration purposes—Bel-mullet, Clifton, and Newport—and in the fourth Union £500 had been borrowed, and none of that had been applied to purposes of emigration. The 3rd clause contained the power to borrow in the future, under the sanction of the Local Government Board; and he was able to say positively that with regard to Unions who might seek to exercise that power in future, the Local Government Board would not give its sanction to their so charging themselves for purposes of emigration. Then, the other object of the Bill was the relief of the four Unions which had borrowed from their debt; and he gave an absolute pledge for the Government that not one single halfpenny of the money should be spent, directly or indirectly, upon emigration. He should consider it a gross breach of faith on the part of the Government to extend a system of emigration which had created so much approbation, and, at the same time, some disapprobation, without giving hon. Members full and fair opportunity of discussing the question again, and of refusing or granting any further contribution from public funds. He was unwilling to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member; because it appeared to him, among other things, that it could scarcely be introduced without appearing to imply that the House disapproved of the system of emigration. He hoped the hon. Member would be content with the explanation and the assurances he had given.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's strongest objection was that it might appear to some people that if the Amendment were accepted the House disapproved of emigration. Now, what was the Amendment? The Bill proposed to grant £50,000 to certain Unions, and the Amendment proposed that no portion of such grant should be applied or spent to aid or assist emigration. That was merely a declaration that a particular fund should not be devoted to purposes of emigration; but in no way did it express disapprobation of emigration, or refer to any other fund. The Chief Secretary said no part of the fund should be so applied. Then, where was the substantial objection to the Amendment? He was not calling in question the right hon. Gentleman's word; he was quite willing to trust him; but suppose the present Government went out of Office—such a thing might easily happen—and another Chief Secretary came in, he might not consider himself bound by the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman. He might probably say to Irish Members who got up and said there was a promise that none of this money should be applied to purposes of emigration—"Oh! many things have happened since then. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman has gone into the cold shade of Opposition." Without offering any disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, and without lessening the value of his word ever so slightly, some better, some stronger assurance, must be asked for. Of course, if the word of a Minister was to be taken as sufficient, then the House might give up passing Acts of Parliament altogether.
  MR. FINDLATERsaid, he understood the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman was given on behalf of the Government; and it was well known that if a change of Government took place such undertakings were always recognized and acted on.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the assurance carried no weight whatever. For weeks the House had been discussing the Corrupt Practices Bill, and the Attorney General day after day gave assurances and opinions; but, to carry out such assurances, he had been obliged to put them into words in the Bill. The Attorney General made statements to the Committee as clear and explicit as that
  570
  made by the Chief Secretary, as to what was the intention of the Bill; but he had to put words into it, clearly showing the limitations of the Act, simply because the Judges would not, in construing the Act, have any regard to what the Attorney General might have said; they would only have that before them which was contained within the four corners of the Bill. In the same way must the word of the Chief Secretary be regarded in relation to this Bill. How unscrupulous Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland were was well known, and they would have the working of the Act. The Chief Secretary said there would be no intention so to use the Act while he was at the head of the Board; then, why should he object to put that assurance in the Bill? His assurance would bind himself in the House; but they wished to bind his successors.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he should like to point out that, in effect, the Act would expire on March 31,1884. Surely, the hon. Member would allow the Government to remain in Office until then.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he did not think that anyone reading the Bill could suppose that the money could be used in the way hon. Members apprehended. The objects of the Bill were clearly stated, and he did not think any stretch of the wording would allow it. It was clearly imagination on their part.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he wished he could agree that it was distinctly stated what the money was for; he was at that moment utterly bewildered as to the destination of the money. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned four Boards of Guardians as the destined recipients, so far as he understood, of grants under the Grants Clause of the Bill; but he (Mr. O'Brien) did not know what was to be done with the margin of the money at all. Of course, anyone would accept the guarantee of the right hon. Gentleman; but they knew very well he was only one partner—a sleeping partner—on the Local Government Board, which directed its policy to the object of driving the people from the country by stress of hunger. If, as the Chief Secretary said, beyond all doubt, it was not the intention of the Government that any portion of the money should be devoted to emigration, he could not, for the life of him, see what

  571
  was the difficulty in putting it in black and white to bind himself, his subordinates, and successors.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. J. N. Richardson) directed attention to the fact that the Bill would only be in operation to the end of March, and surely, he said, the Government would be allowed that length of existence; but he (Mr. Callan) did not know that he would allow them even that length of time, if the hon. Member interested himself in many more elections with such disastrous results as attended his efforts at Monaghan.
  Mr. BIGGARsaid, he did not wish to interfere; but he must confess his experience of the conduct of the Chief Secretary did not encourage his inclination to believe his statements with regard to this or any other question. He had already broken his word once in regard to this Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): I must call the hon. Member to Order. He must retract that statement.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not know what the hon. Gentleman meant.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The hon. Member must retract the statement.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he would withdraw the statement that the right hon. Gentleman had made a false statement; but, at the same time, he stated he would not bring on the Bill after half-past 12, and he had done so.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 8; Noes 59: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 171.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, before the clause was passed, he would like to elicit some definite information as to the destination of the money. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned four Unions, and these were not the most distressed, which were to receive the benefit of the Act. He would like to know how it had been arranged, and whether any other Unions would receive anything?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the operation of the Bill upon what had taken place was confined to the four Unions
  572
  named, and the sum borrowed was very small, in amount about £3,000. These the Local Government Board would assist by the 1st clause; but when the accounts for past distress were wound up, distress which had involved a certain number of Unions in an amount of expenditure that might be fairly called unusual, the Local Government Board would take into consideration, with the object of seeing, in addition to the grants of 1880, whether they should assist any embarrassed Unions, or Unions in the way of becoming embarrassed, out of this sum of money. Hon. Members would remember that after 1880 a sum of something like £19,900 was, under the Relief of Distress Act, given to embarrassed Unions. This sum of £50,000 was named when the Government thought the necessities of the Unions would be greater than would probably be the case now, and it would enable Government to assist Unions to get through a period of embarrassment and start afresh. The four Unions he had referred to would, no doubt, be assisted.
  Mr. LEAMYsaid, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the debt incurred was not more than £3,000; so power was given to the Commissioners to grant £47,000 to other Unions. He had mentioned only four Unions as being in a distressed condition, and the amount of the debt incurred by them did not exceed £3,000; so it seemed to him the sum named was too high, seeing that the Church Fund might be applied to many other legislative objects. The maximum might, he thought, be lowered from £50,000 to £25,000, and he did not quite see the object of asking for £25,000 when the debt incurred was only £3,000.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 8: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 172.)
  Clause 2 (Extension of borrowing powers).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 8: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 173.)
  Clause 3 (Power to borrow).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 8: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 174.)
  Clause 4 (Confirmation of borrowing by Boards of Guardians).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 8: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 175.)
  Clause 5 (Short title).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had an Amendment to propose, which he hoped the Government would agree to. It was, in fact, to make the Act in consonance with its title. It was to make temporary provision for the destitute poor in Ireland, and the short title was the "Relief of Unions (Ireland)." He would move to leave out "Unions," for the purpose of substituting "Destitute Poor."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Unions," and insert "Destitute Poor."—(Mr. Callan.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Unions' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the title in the 5th clause properly expressed the contents of the Bill. It was precisely the purpose of the Bill, which had as its main object the relief of distressed Unions.
  MR. CALLANsaid, if the title "Relief of Distressed Unions" was the proper title, why was that title not given when the Bill was introduced? Was the first title given to mislead? The short title should be in consonance with the title of the Bill when introduced.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was not in favour of christening the Bill with a dishonoured title. It would not be decent to say it was for the relief of destitute poor in Ireland. It had not been very pleasant to the Irish Members to press their opposition; but they would have failed in their duty if they had held any compromise with a Bill they considered a cruel evasion of the duty of the Go-
  574
  vernment towards the people, thousands of whom were in such deep distress in Ireland. Month after month had the Government been face to face with this destitution; the Chief Secretary had witnessed and confessed it; the Poor Law Inspectors had confessed it, admitting that the Poor Law was inoperative; and then, when the supporters of the Government cried shame on the Government, after all the Government came down with this miserable shuffling little Bill, seizing £50,000 of Irish money, not to feed the Irish people—he did not care what was its purpose; its effect would be to relieve Unions that were injuring and banishing the people.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, the Bill was not for the relief of the destitute poor. It was nothing of the kind. He was certain that some of the money would go to Unions which joined in the exportation of the people to America.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, assuredly the objections of his hon. Friends were well founded; but his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) was probably actuated by a desire to maintain the symmetry of the Government proposition. Of course, the Bill was not for the relief of the destitute poor; but, the Government having started the Bill with that description, his hon. Friend tried to preserve the hypocritical character of the Bill from the first line to the last. It was more with a view to artistic effect that he had brought on his Amendment. The Bill undoubtedly was of a deceptive character. It appeared as a Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill; it went on to say it was expedient to make temporary provision for the destitute poor in Ireland, and it was not a Poor Relief Bill; but, on the contrary, when an Amendment was moved to make temporary provision for two miserable calendar months the Government opposed the suggestion. However, though it was almost a pity that the truth should be allowed to come in in part of the title, on the whole he hoped his hon. Friend would consent to withdraw his Amendment, and let a Division be taken on the clause. It would be impossible for him at this stage to invest the Government proposition with any more merit than it already possessed.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, there was one thing in regard to the Bill that should

  575
  be noticed, and that was that the first two lines and the last two lines diametrically contradicted each other. He did not think that hon. Gentlemen should think it strange that he should raise doubts as to the veracity of Gentlemen who directly contradicted themselves in a document they introduced into the House.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the Chairman had prevented him putting a question, some two hours ago, by which he then hoped to prevent a long discussion; but the discussion had now been raised upon the title. He was particularly anxious to know from the right hon. Gentleman—and this was the question he wished to put before—whether this money was wanted to meet distress between the present time and the harvest, or whether it was all to be devoted to the relief of former distress?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had stated the sum which had been borrowed, the total amount being £3,000. That was the total amount of borrowed money which would be paid off. If there were other Unions which had hampered themselves, which could not pay their way, or come near paying their way, the Government would consider whether they should be relieved. The Unions sure to be relieved were the four he had named.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, then four-fifths of the money would be devoted to relieving distress between now and the taking in of the harvest. He knew there was a misunderstanding on the subject among hon. Members below the Gangway, they believing that the money was going to the payment of old debts. If the Chief Secretary would say that £40,000 out of £50,000, or, at all events, a very considerable proportion, would go to relieve distress existing, or likely to exist, in the next two months, it would stop a long discussion.
  MR. CALLANsaid, his sole object in his Amendment was that if the Bill was honestly intended the title should be that under which it was introduced. By his Amendment he had marked the divergence in title, one falsifying the other. The probable effect of the Act would be equally to falsify the assurances with which it was introduced and the pledges given. He begged to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was sorry the Chief Secretary had not yet cleared up
  576
  the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer). The hon. and gallant Member was plainly under the impression that the Bill made provision for distress actually existing, and which would continue to exist for the next two months. Now, he would ask the Chief Secretary, was there any provision in the Bill that would give 1 1b. of meal to anyone actually starving at the moment, or was the Bill meant to do more than to clear off the liabilities already incurred?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the probable effect of the Bill would be to clear off the liabilities already incurred. The Bill gave power to Unions that might find it necessary for the relief of distress to borrow between this and the 25th of March, 1884, to do so. He hoped and trusted that there would not be such distress in Ireland as to give occasion for that clause being brought into operation; and he thought it probable that, as the Government provided against a much greater amount of embarrassment than had actually occurred, that £50,000 would not be needed. Such of it as was spent would be spent in relieving those four Unions, and any others that had embarrassed themselves in the relief of distress.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was a great master of language; but he might have said "Yes" or "No" in answer to the question of his hon. and gallant Friend. That question referred to Clause 3, which gave to Boards of Guardians power to borrow money, and that was altogether independent of the £50,000. He wanted a specific answer to the question—was any of the £50,000 the Commissioners took power to lend to Boards of Guardians to be spent in the relief of distress existing at the moment, or likely to exist in the next two months? "Yes" or "No."
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, it might be spent in relieving such distress; but spent in relief under the present Poor Law.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, the effect would be, in those Unions which were of all most affected, that of which he had complained all along. In those Unions, owing to extreme poverty, the landlords were in dread of being mulcted for outdoor relief; therefore, in those Unions the Act would have no effect at all, but

  577
  an encouragement even would be given to those Boards of Guardians who had been refusing to relax the Poor Law rules. Nothing absolutely would be done for the relief of distress; but some thousands of pounds would go to remunerating Guardians.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he had voted with the Government on the assumption that some of the money was going to the relief of distress in Ireland; but, as he had got to the fact that the money would simply go to pay off debts that had been incurred, he would give the Government Notice that he would oppose the Bill on the third reading.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, when that was confessedly the object of the Bill, he wanted to know why the Bill was introduced under a deceptive title? Here was a Poor Relief Bill, and it gave no relief to the poor. It was described in the most hypocritical and mendacious manner as a Bill to make temporary provision for the relief of destitute poor. Why, next day there would be leading articles in the Press denouncing the conduct of Irish Members who opposed a Bill for the relief of destitute poor in Ireland! Thus, by false pretences, was the opinion of the country turned against sympathy for distress in Ireland in a scandalous and disgraceful manner.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would not answer the epithets of the hon. Member. The title of the Bill was perfectly justified. The debts these Unions had incurred were debts to flour and potato merchants, debts incurred for the support of people in the workhouses and the infirm and persons incapable of labour outside, and therefore the Bill was described justly as for the relief of destitute poor. He quite allowed that hon. Members did not agree in the mode of spending it; but every penny was well spent in feeding and clothing destitute poor. As to confessions being wrung from the Government, he would remind hon. Members that he gave the same explanation last Monday when he moved that the Bill be allowed to go into Committee.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he would point out that the Bill was described as a Bill to make temporary provision for the relief of the poor; and did that not convey the meaning that it was to meet immediate pressing wants? But now the Chief Secretary admitted that its object was to merely pay off old debts. They had no
  578
  objection to the Chief Secretary granting as much of the £50,000 as was necessary to pay off debts; they had not fought the Bill on that ground. What they asked from the first stage of the Bill was that, while taking £50,000 of Irish money, the Government should give some of it for the temporary relief of the poor in Ireland. What other object had they in their speeches that night?
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, no charge could be brought against them that they had any wish to obstruct Business; their action in regard to this Bill was because they felt that miserable people in the North of Ireland were starving. He could not, for the life of him, understand why the Chief Secretary should object in a Bill taking £50,000 to spend £1,000, £2,000, or £3,000 to keep the people from starvation. It was not the first time that the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer), who usually differed from Irish Members in politics, had voted with them on questions relating to Ireland of a practical nature; but he was grieved to find the Liberal Members from Ulster opposed. But he supposed the Government were persuaded that so long as the Liberal Members from Ulster backed them up, they must be right, and that they had the approval of the people of Ireland. He hoped they would regret their harsh conduct to the miserable starving people of the North of Ireland.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 9: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 176.)
  Motion made, and Question propose d, "That the Bill be reported without Amendment."
  MR. O'BRIENgave Notice that on the Motion for third reading he should move that the Bill be re-committed, with a view to the insertion of clauses making temporary provision for the destitute poor in Donegal County.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 7: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 177.)
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

DETENTION IN HOSPITALS BILL.
(The Marquess of Hartington, Secretary Sir William Sarcourt, Sir Arthur Hayter.)
DETENTION IN HOSPITALS BILL.

  [BILL 247.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading [9th July] read.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTNGTONsaid, owing to an inadvertence there was an error in the Votes in the description of this Bill. The Votes did not agree with the Notice he gave, and which was assented to by the House. In order that the Bill might be re-constituted, he would move that the Order be discharged, with the intention of introducing a fresh one.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Order for the Second Reading be discharged,"—(The Marquess of Hartington,)—put, and agreed to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  Leave given to present another Bill instead thereof.

DETENTION IN HOSPITALS (NO. 2) BILL.
Bill to provide for the Detention in certain Hospitals of persons affected with Contagious Diseases, and to repeal the Contagious Diseases Acts, 1866 to 1869."
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 259.]
House adjourned at a quarter after Four o'clock in the morning.