Commons Sitting of 9 July 1883

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For the Borough of Wexford, v. Timothy Michael Healy, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [254]; Sea Fisheries [257].
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [7] [Seventeenth Night]—it. p.; Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act (1874) Amendment (re-comm.) * [39]—R. P.
Committee—Report—Bankruptcy (on re-comm.) [243].
Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping and Manufactures—Patents for Inventions * [3–261] [No. 247].
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Limerick Waterworks) * [197]; Poor Belief (Ireland) [154], and passed.
Withdrawn—Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention* [113]; Charitable Trusts * [179]; 'Police [106]; Universities (Scotland)* [131]; Naval Discipline and Enlistment Acts Amendment [241]; Representative Peers (Scotland) * [242]; Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) * [191]; Yorkshire Register Acts Amendment* [221].

PARLIAMENT—PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS BILL.
Bill reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures;
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 247.]
Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday 23rd July, and to be printed. [Bill 261.]

QUESTIONS.

  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS (GREAT BRITAIN)—UNCERTIFIED DEATHS.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to an article in the "Lancet" of 23rd June, setting forth that, while the average proportion of uncertified deaths in the large towns of England is less than two and a-half per cent., in Scotland, according to the Returns of the Registrar General, the proportion in the eight principal towns in 1881 and 1882 was nearly twenty per cent.; and, whether it is true, as stated by the "Lancet," that the post mortem examinations in cases of uncertified death is decreasing, in consequence of the stringency of the Exchequer in disallowing fees, and—
  "That, in many counties, Procurators Fiscal declare that pressure is put upon them for the purpose of diminishing expenditure in their direction?"
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, I believe the discrepancy noticed in The Lancet between the numbers of uncertified deaths in England and Scotland is more apparent than real. In the first place, the Registrar General in Scotland makes up his return of uncertified deaths weekly, while the medical practitioner may certify the deaths at any time within 10 days, so that a considerable proportion of deaths

  767
  elsewhere in large towns by senior medical students, and also the cases investigated by the Procurator Fiscal and found to present no element of suspicion. "I have no reason to suppose that the number of post mortem examinations in cases of uncertified deaths is decreasing; but questions have arisen in the accounts of Procurators Fiscal whether a post mortem examination was reasonably necessary in particular cases.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—SUSPECTED CASES OF INFANTICIDE IN SUTHERLANDSHIRE.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, "Whether two cases of suspected infanticide in March and April last were reported by the Police to the Procurator Fiscal of Sutherlandshire; whether it is true that in one case the dead body of a child was discovered in an ashpit, and in the other there was evidence that a child which had been born had disappeared; and, whether the Procurator Fiscal held any inquiry into the cases; and, if so, when the Crown authorities received his precognitions?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, two cases of suspected infanticide were reported by the police to the Procurator Fiscal of Sutherlandshire—one in March, and the other in April or the beginning of May. In one case the body of the child has not been found, and in the other it was found near the house where the accused person lived. The precognitions in both cases were reported to the Crown Office on the 6th of this month. In the first case, the child was born on 14th March, and the first witness was examined on the 27th of March. The delay in the proceedings is accounted for by the Procurator Fiscal by the necessity of finding the reputed father, who had absconded, and whoso evidence was essential. The delay in the second case has not yet been satisfactorily explained, but an explanation will be called for.

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE (SCOTLAND)— HARBOUR ON THE NORTH-EAST COAST.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can now state what arrangements have been made for sending down Commissioners to inquire as to the best site
  768
  returned as uncertified is afterwards duly certified. There is no annual return of uncertified deaths; but I understand that the Registrar General some time ago decided that it was desirable to have one. In the second place, there is a considerable number of deaths with respect to which trustworthy information is obtained, though they are not certified by qualified practitioners; for example, the large number of poor patients who are attended to in dispensaries or for a harbour of refuge on the northeast coast of Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, my right hon. Friend has asked me to say that arrangements are in progress, and are almost completed, for sending down Commissioners.
  MR. BAXTER: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me who the Commissioners are?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I am not as yet in a position to give the names.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS—MIDDLE-CLASS SCHOOL AT TUNBRIDGE.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether a final decision has been arrived at with regard to the proposed Middle Class School to be established at Tunbridge or Tunbridge Wells; and, whether, if not, he will consent to receive a representation from the inhabitants of Tunbridge, who consider themselves aggrieved by the proposed establishment of the School at a distance from their own homes?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the scheme for establishing a middle-class school in or near the parish of Tunbridge, as approved by Parliament and the Queen in Council, requires that the site proposed by the Governors shall be submitted to and approved by the Charity Commissioners. The Governors did submit a site at Tunbridge which did not receive the approval of the Commissioners, and in signifying their disapproval the Commissioners indicated their opinion that the school should be at Tunbridge Wells. The Governors have now intimated their intention of proposing another site, which will be duly considered. As the question of approving the site is one which, according to Act of Parliament, is vested in the Charity Commissioners, it is not competent for me or any other authority to interfere in the matter.

  NAVY—THE TRANSPORT SHIP "ORONTES."
  MR. CHARLES PALMERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is correct, as reported, that £60,000 has recently been expended at one of Her Majesty's dockyards in refitting the transport "Orontes;" what was the original cost of this steamer; what amounts have since her construction been expended on her, with the dates, and in what dockyards; and, what were the estimates made previous to the expenditure of such sums?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I will endeavour, as briefly as I can, to answer the several points of my hon. Friend's Question. The Orontes was built by Messrs. Laird between 1861 and 1863; her original cost was, for hull, £83,834; for machinery, £27,328; and for rigging and stores, £12,955. Total—£124,117. Her first large refit was at Portsmouth Dockyard in 1868–9, when she was thoroughly repaired for four years' service, new boilers being put on board and a poop fitted. The estimate for this work was £30,225, and the actual expenditure £33,381. The next large repair of this vessel was between 1874 and 1876, when she was cut in two, lengthened 50 feet, fitted with new engines and boilers, and thoroughly repaired. It was originally intended to lengthen her only 30 feet, and only partially to repair her, and for this work tenders were invited. No one of the tenders was actually accepted; but communications were conducted with Messrs. Laird, who were among the firms tendering, and the result was that they contracted to lengthen the ship by 50 feet, and place new compound engines on board, for £66,500. Further extensive alterations and repairs were executed by the same firm, which brought up the total cost of the work performed bythemto£123,800. A sum of £16,313 was also spent on the ship at Portsmouth in the year 1875–6, of which £11,444 was for rigging and stores, and the rest for completing hull and machinery for sea. No other large repair has been undertaken until the one now nearly completed at Chatham. The estimate for this, for hull and machinery only, was £32,534, and the actual cost will probably be under £40,000, including value of stores, and also including a sum of £3,300 for electric lighting, neither of
  770
  which were provided for in the original estimates.
  MR. CHARLES PALMER: I should like to ask whether it is the practice to receive estimates?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes; from the contractors.
  MR. CHARLES PALMER: But whether estimates are received from the Dockyards, and whether they are approved of by the Board of Admiralty before the work is sanctioned?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In most cases, except those of urgency, that is so; but it is obvious that the estimate, when the ship is first opened up and looked into, may not cover the whole of the needful expenditure before the ship is completed?
  MR. CHARLES PALMER: the answer to the Question discloses such a very unsatisfactory state of affairs in Her Majesty's Dockyards that I beg to give Notice that I shall, next Session, as it is too late this, move for a Select Committee to be appointed to investigate the subject.

  NAVY—THE DOCKYARDS-FIRE-EXTINGUISHING APPARATUS.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the case that, when certain fire-extinguishing apparatus was recently tried at Portsmouth Dockyard, Foster's Chemical Fire Engine Company, whose invention has been highly spoken of by Admirals Sir William Mends and Sir H. Keppel, was not allowed to compete; and, if so, if he would explain the reason why?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, in answer to the noble Lord I have to say that the trial recently made at Portsmouth of fire-extinguishing apparatus was confined to such machines as are capable of being carried about and worked by one man. Foster's machine does not fulfil this condition.

RAILWAYS—ENGINE DRIVERS— HOURS OF DUTY.
MR. THEODORE FRYasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to a statement of the great danger in which the Irish Mail was placed between Chester and Holyhead on Tuesday the 26th, owing to the engine driver and stoker on another engine being asleep and unable to

771
obey the signals; and, if it is a fact that these men had been on duty for 15 hours, and, notwithstanding this great strain, they had been discharged by the Company?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I have communicated with the London and North-Western Railway Company, and am informed that the engine driver and fireman had worked a special goods train from Chester to Carnarvon, and that, there being no load for them to take back, they were authorized to return to Chester with their engine alone; but, in order to obtain this authority, the men, in their anxiety to got home to Chester, wilfully made a misstatement to the effect that they had commenced work at 12.45, instead of 8 o'clock, that morning. I am informed that for this falsehood they have both been dismissed. The signalman at Llandudno Junction exercised great presence of mind when the engine ran through that station in telegraphing to the signalman at Colwyn Bay, as the Colwyn Bay staff was thus enabled to take measures for protecting the line.

RUSSIA AND PERSIA.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as stated in a telegram from Teheran, dated 3rd July, that a Treaty has been concluded between Persia and Russia in regard to the north-eastern frontier of Persia, and that, according to the wording of that Treaty, Merv is to be considered Russian territory, and, in the event of England or any other Power protesting against the Treaty, Persia is to refer them to Russia; if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay any information it may have received on the subject upon the Table of the House?
MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that a Treaty has been concluded, or that negotiations for a Treaty are in progress, between Russia and Persia relating to the frontier of Persia; whether Her Majesty's Government has addressed any remonstrance on the subject to the Government of Russia; and, if so, with what result; and, whether he will lay upon the Table any Correspondence that may have taken place upon the subject?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, in reply to these Questions, I may
772
state that a Treaty was concluded in December, 1881, between Russia and Persia, with the purpose of "accurately defining the frontier of their possessions east of the Caspian Sea." That Treaty, which has been presented to Parliament (C. Asia, No. 1, 1882) defined the frontier up to the neighbourhood of Baba Durmez. Her Majesty's Government have not received any information of the conclusion of a further Treaty between Russia and Persia.
BARON HENRY DE WORMS: the Question I have asked is, whether Merv is to be considered Russian territory?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: We have received no information as to that.
MR. E. STANHOPE: But will the noble Lord answer that part of my Question as to whether Her Majesty's Government has addressed any remonstrance on the subject?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: As Her Majesty's Government have received no information as regards the Treaty, Her Majesty's Government are clearly not in a position to make any remonstrances.

EGYPT—AHMED BEY MINSHANI.
MR. GUY DAWNAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government or the Egyptian Government have as yet recognised, or intend to recognise by any official marks of approbation, the gallantry and humanity displayed by Ahmed Bey Minshani, on the day of the massacres at Tantah, July 13th 1882; and by Hassan Fuad and Shekeeb Bey at Mahallet-el-Kebir, on the same day, in, at considerable personal risk, suppressing the riots, saving the lives of Europeans, and affording large numbers of Christians shelter and means of escape to Ismailia, as detailed in Major M'Donald's report to Lord Dufferin of April 30th, in the Egyptian Papers, C. 3632; and, whether care has been taken, and will be taken, not only to discover and punish those implicated in the massacres, but to reward in as public a manner as possible those Egyptians who during that time gave assistance and shelter to Europeans?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the question of rewarding the persons referred to, and others who acted in a like praiseworthy manner, is a matter for the consideration of the Egyptian

773
Government. Inquiry is being made as to how that Government has acted. The Papers presented to Parliament show that the Egyptian authorities have made every endeavour to discover the persons implicated in the massacres, and to bring them to trial.

ACTS OF PARLIAMENT—PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION.
MR. LEWIS FRYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that many Acts of Parliament, classed as "Local Acts," which are of great importance to the public in the localities they affect, such as Towns Improvement and Gas and Water Acts, are out of print; whether copies of these Acts can be obtained at all; and, if so, upon what terms; whether it is not right that the public should be able to obtain copies of all Acts of Parliament at a fixed and reasonable charge; and, whether he would consider the propriety of supplying local and public institutions, such as free libraries, with copies of all Acts (both public and local) without charge; and, also, of reducing the charge for the public general Acts of each Session with which it is very desirable that all Her Majesty's subjects should be acquainted?
MR. COURTNEY: Sir, my hon. Friend is, perhaps, not aware that under present arrangements the Queen's printers, and not any Government Department, have in their hands the sale of Acts, both Public and Private. The Government have, therefore, no official knowledge whether any Local Acts are out of print. The Queen's printers are bound to sell to the public any Acts that may be required at a price not exceeding 3d. per folio sheet for Private Acts and 1½d. for Public Acts; but there is some doubt whether they are bound to reprint, unless the sale of not less than 25 copies is guaranteed. The present arrangement comes to an end in about two years, and will then be open to reconsideration; I should hope arrangements might be made for facilitating the sale; but I doubt whether the price of the Public Acts could be reduced below the present very moderate price of 1d. per sheet for the Acts of the current year. My hon. Friend further suggests that copies of the Acts should be presented to free libraries and others. Apart from the objections to gratuitous distribution, I doubt very much whether
774
such local libraries, whose space is necessarily limited, would welcome the four or more annual bulky volumes of Private Acts, very few of which could possibly be of the slightest use to their readers.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—CHANCERY DIVISION.
MR. W. H. SMITHasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to the arrear of business in the Chancery Division of the High Court; and, whether steps will be taken forthwith to remedy the great public injury resulting from the present state of the business of the Courts?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, there was, no doubt, a very large amount of Business in arrear, and the attention of the Lord Chancellor had been called to it. There had already been 80 causes referred from the Chancery Division to what was now called the Queen's Bench Division. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that every effort would be made to relieve the Court of Chancery as much as possible.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACTS—EXTRA PAY TO PRISON SURGEONS.
MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government have come to any final decision as to the claim of the surgeons of Irish Prisons for additional remuneration for the extra work cast upon them under the Peace Preservation Acts; whether the Irish Prison Surgeons were not promised by the Irish Executive at the time the duties were imposed that they would be suitably remunerated for this extra work; and, whether any offer has been made to the Irish Prison Surgeons on the subject?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Government have decided that they cannot entertain claims of this character merely on the ground of a temporary increase of work; but the cases of any prison officers who can show that they were put to any extra expense will be specially considered. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, no doubt, aware that this was the principal ground upon which the claims of the police were entertained. I am not aware that any promise of extra pay was made to the prison surgeons, or that any special

775
offer had been made to them on the subject.
MR. GIBSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Carte, on behalf of the prison surgeons, had an interview with the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster), in the presence of Mr. Burke, at which it was promised distinctly that favourable consideration would be given to their claims for extra services under the Peace Preservation Acts; and whether, if on inquiry he finds this to be so, he will have the facts considered?
MR. TREVELYAN: I am not aware of any such interview; but I will make inquiries about it.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, &c. (PATRONAGE).
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked Mr. Attorney General, What arrangements have been made with regard to the patronage formerly vested in the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer; and, under what Statute they have been made?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES), in reply, said, that in the Session of 1881 a Bill was introduced dealing with this subject; but there had been a great deal of opposition, in which he thought the right hon. Gentleman had assisted somewhat. A similar Bill had been introduced in 1882; but it was found impossible to proceed with it. No such Bill had been introduced this Session; but there was an intention to introduce an amended Judicature Bill, in which the question referred to might be dealt with. The amount of patronage was so minute that he could scarcely say it existed at all.

ITALY—THE NEW TREATY OF COMMERCE.
MR. ERRINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, "Whether under the new Treaty of Commerce with the King of Italy any concessions have been obtained respecting the admission of English woollen goods into Italy on more favourable terms than hitherto; if not, whether Her Majesty's Government have reason to anticipate that a revision of the Italian Customs Tariff, in a sense favourable to freedom of commerce, is likely soon to take place; and, if he will state when the Treaty will be in the hands of honourable Members?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the new Treaty of Commerce with Italy provides for a "most-favoured-nation" treatment, and does not contain any special stipulations as to duties on particular goods. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Rome has been asked to report on the question of the proposed revision of the Italian Tariff. The Treaty is contained in the Parliamentary Paper (No. 23 Commercial, 1883), and was distributed last Friday.

ARMY—DOVER CLIFF.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether all due precautions have been taken to prevent injury and loss by the falling of the face of the cliff at Dover, and other injuries, consequent on the firing of the powerful guns in battery at the end of Dover Pier?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, the advisers of the War Office had been consulted on this matter, and they had recommended that certain precautions should be taken in the event of the guns being fired.

IRELAND—COUNTY CESS COLLECTION—CAPTAIN ALISEN.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that Captain Alisen, an officer in the Antrim Artillery Militia, is also a collector of county cess for the barony of Upper Antrim; and, whether it is competent for a collector of county cess to live out of his district?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Secretary of the Grand Jury informs me that Captain Alisen, of the Antrim Artillery Militia, is a county cess collector for the barony of Upper Antrim. It is competent for a collector of county cess to live out of his district, the statutory prohibition which once existed having been long since repealed.

INDIA—CHOLERA AT BOMBAY.
MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the deaths from cholera at Bombay during the last fortnight of May numbered 25; whether it is true that, as the "Bombay Gazette" of the 5th June states—
"There is a good deal of cholera still in the districts, there being in the Thana and Poona collectorates alone nearly 500 deaths in one week;"

777
whether in the last week of May there were 118 deaths from cholera in Calcutta alone; whether these facts were made known by Her Majesty's Government to the Egyptian Board of Health; and, whether it was represented by Her Majesty's Government that the quarantine regulations might be safely removed or relaxed in the case of vessels from India arriving at Egyptian ports?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the figures given by the hon. Member regarding cholera in certain places in India are generally correct; but I may say that cholera has been little, if at all, more prevalent in Indian ports during the last six months than it usually is. In Calcutta the deaths in April were 459, against 318 in April, 1882; in May they were 383, against 380 in 1882; and in June 150, against 254. The health statement of Indian ports is always telegraphed fortnightly for communication to the Sanitary Boards in the Levant; and the cholera deaths in Bombay are telegraphed weekly to the Consul General at Cairo. Her Majesty's Government have objected to the imposition of special measures of quarantine against arrivals from India with clean bills of health, and having no suspicious cases on board after a voyage of 10 days.
MR. O'DONNELLasked whether it was true that at a meeting of the Alexandria Board of Health the English delegate protested against immediate action being taken in reference to vessels arriving from India; and whether it was true, as stated in the Egyptian official journal, that a passenger landed at Port Said on the 18th of June and proceeded to Damietta a few days before the outbreak of cholera in that town?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of that Question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

INDIA (MADRAS)—THE EX-TAHSILDAR OF CONJEVERAM.
MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the ex-Tahsildar of Conjeveram, who was sentenced to imprisonment for theft and forgery by the Madras High Court, has been released on bail; and, if so, on what authority has the release been effected?
MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the case of ex-Tahsildar of Conjeveram is not one which would be reported to the India
778
Office; but it appears from the Indian newspapers that he had been released by order of the Government of Madras.

IRELAND—DISTRESS IN GWEEDORE.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in a letter lately published in a London paper by Mr. Ernest Hart:—
"I have recently been in Gweedore. I took with me copies of official reports, declaring that there was no exceptional distress in that part of Ireland, and nothing but what the resources of the Poor Law could deal with.… I found 14,000 persons in dire destitution and tragic suffering, utterly unrelieved by the Poor Law, the whole of the children in one district living on two biscuits a day each, distributed at the schools, and no small proportion of adults kept alive by a daily pennyworth of meal, made into a stirabout and given by the priests, chiefly in return for small local relief works set on foot and organised by them;"
and, whether he is still prepared to maintain that the existing system of relief is equal to the task of dealing with distress in Gweedore and the neighbouring regions?
MR. TREVELYAN: I am not aware, Sir, that it has been stated in any official Report that there is no exceptional distress in the Gweedore district. What has been stated is that there is no exceptional distress which could not be relieved by the operation of the Poor Law. That has been, and still is, the opinion of the officers by whom the Government is advised, and who are fully alive to their responsibility in giving such advice. I may say, with reference to the ease as stated in the Question, that the whole population of the Gweedore district is under 5,000; and I have no doubt, therefore, that some paragraph must have been omitted which would throw light on the figures given.
MR. O'BRIEN: As to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Poor Law could relieve the destitution in Gweedore, I would like to ask him, is it not a fact that the two principal members of the Dunfanaghy Board of Guardians, instead of doing anything to relieve the destitution, at the Lifford Quarter Sessions last week obtained ejectment decrees against a number of these poor people; and is it not a fact that Father M. Fadden had to pay a half-year's rent out of charitable funds in order to save them from eviction?

MERCANTILE MARINE—PASSENGER ACTS—INFECTIOUS DISEASES IN EMIGRANT SHIPS.
MR. MOOREasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table Dr. Bloxall's Report on Infectious Diseases in Emigrant Ships?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Sir, it is proposed to publish the Report of Dr. Bloxall in the Appendix to the Report of the Medical Officer of the Board; and it is intended that in this form the Report shall be presented to Parliament.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION COURT— MR. RYAN.
MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will draw the attention of the Irish Land Commissioners to the fact that a person against whom an unrefuted charge of disloyalty to Her Majesty the Queen has been made still remains officially reporting in their Court; and, if he will represent to them the undesirability of employing the staff of a political journal, taking a strong view of the working and policy of the Act, in a position which necessarily gives special and exceptional facilities for obtaining information?
MR. O'BRIEN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I would like to ask him whether the official reporters to the Privy Council and the Green Street Commission Court are not gentlemen connected with the permanent staffs of certain Conservative newspapers; and whether, as a matter of fact, there are any professional shorthand writers available for such a purpose in Dublin except gentlemen connected with the Dublin Press?
MR. CALLAN: And, before he answers, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether what is called the "unrefuted charge" is anything more than an imputation conveyed by the hon. Gentleman, having been borrowed from the end of a Question put by another Member of this House?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, in the absence of the mention of any name, I must infer that the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) intends this Question to refer to Mr. Ryan, about whom he has already made inquiry. If so, I can only say that I have already
780
given to the House all the information which I have on the subject; and I do not think the question is of such a character as would justify me in making to the Land Commissioners any such representation as is here suggested. I think the House viewed the matter in that sense when it was previously before them.
MR. TOTTENHAM: Then, Sir, are we to understand that the charge which I have distinctly made in the Question cannot be refuted?
MR. TREVELYAN: Why, Sir, what was the charge? It was that the reporter of a Dublin paper remained seated when the Queen's health was being drunk. [Cries of "Shame!"] I may say I join in that cry of shame. I made careful inquiries from a source of the most undeniable nature with regard to the obtaining of information; and I was informed that Mr. Ryan had never, on any occasion, that my informant or his informants were aware, given any open manifestations of disloyalty. The only possible way I have of getting any further information is to ask Mr. Ryan himself, and I must decline to do that. It is very questionable whether the Irish Government in Ireland, or whether the English Government in this country, should make inquiries if ever there was a report that a person did not take off his hat during the singing of the National Anthem.
MR. TOTTENHAM: Then, Sir, are we to understand that the members of the staff of a political journal are the proper persons to be official reporters?
MR. TREVELYAN: All, or almost all, journals may be said to be political; and when persons are retained for the purpose of taking shorthand notes by members of a Judicial Body I do not think the Executive ought to make any inquiries.
MR. CALLAN: Might I ask the hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) whether what he calls an "unrefuted charge"—[Cries of "Order!"]
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was not entitled to put a Question to the hon. Member which did not relate to a Public Bill or Motion.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—CHANNEL ISLANDS MILITIA.
MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDasked the Secretary of State for War,

781
If He will state the limit of ago at which Commanding Officers of the Channel Islands Militia must retire?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There is no Regulation which limits the age at which Commanding Officers of the Channel Islands Militia must retire.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—CHANNEL ISLANDS MILITIA.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— ALLEGED FORCED LABOUR.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have any information with regard to a statement in the "Cape Argus" of June 12th, that two hundred refugees from Mapoch's stronghold have been allotted to the farmers; and, if not, whether, taking into account the fact that the "Capo Argus" is a highly respectable journal with good means of obtaining information, and that "allotting" men to farmers is generally understood to mean subjecting them to forced labour, the Government will take immediate steps to inquire into the correctness of this statement, and, if necessary, to secure the fulfilment of the fifteenth Article of the Pretoria Convention of 1881, which declares that—
  "The Provisions of the fourth Article of the Sand River Convention are hereby re-affirmed, and no slavery or apprenticeship partaking of slavery will he tolerated by the Government of the Transvaal?"
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, I hold in my hand a copy of The Cape Argus; but I cannot find any paragraph of the nature referred to by my right hon. Friend.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Has my hon. Friend referred to the weekly supplement? He has, perhaps, seen the wrong paper.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I may, however, say that in consequence of my right hon. Friend having called attention to this matter we have written an inquiry to the officer administering the Cape Government, and instructing him, if the report proves to be true, to direct that the attention of the Transvaal Government may, through the Resident, be called to the 15th Article of the Pretoria Convention.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—THE NATIVE RESERVE.
  MR. GUY DAWNAYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colo-
  782
  nies, Whether it is a fact that the Zulu Native Reserve was expressly set apart—
  "For the location of those Zulu Chiefs and people who might he unwilling or unable to come again under the authority of Cetywayo;"
  and, whether there is any reason to doubt the correctness of the statements contained in Despatch No. 8 of Blue Book, C. 3616, to the effect that Uhamu, Umfanawendhlela, and Tyingwayo had signified such unwillingness; in No. 12, in which Umlandela's refusal to live under Cetywayo is also reported; and in No. 71, which includes in the same category Siunguza, Umgitjwa, Zakukaziningo, John Dunn, and Hlubi; and, if not, whether the Government are in a position to carry out the promise made to those nine deposed Chiefs that sufficient locations shall be assigned for themselves and their people in the Re-served Territory?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, I have referred to the Blue Book, and I see the mistake into which the hon. Member has fallen. The Chiefs named in the first portion of the paragraph have certainly expressed their dislike to the restored power of Cetewayo; but they have neither claimed nor apparently desired to come into the Reserve Territory. As to the names set out in the second part of the paragraph, the context in the Blue Book will show that they are given as names of persons already in the Reserve Territory, and cannot, therefore, represent the deposed Chiefs, except, of course, the two—namely, Dunn and Hlubi. I presume that as there is in any English country probably more than one Jones or Robinson, so there are more than one bearing these names in Zululand.

  SPAIN—EXPULSION OF CERTAIN CUBAN REFUGEES FROM GIBRALTAR— COLONEL MACEO.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any further steps to secure the prompt restoration to liberty of Colonel Maceo, who was illegally arrested and handed over to the Spanish Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any further steps at present in this matter.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE "REPUBLIC OF STELLALAND "—MURDER OF MR. J. W. HONEY, A BRITISH SUBJECT, BY DUTCH BOERS.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the murder of Mr. J. W. Honey, a British subject, by Boers, in the country taken from Montsioa, the Bechuana chief, and now known as Stellaland; whether it is true, as stated in the "Scotsman" of June 30th, that he was last seen in the company of three Boers, one of whom was an official; that "his remains were found in the bush perforated with bullets and battered with stones; "and that the magistrates at Christiana declined to make any inquiry into the matter; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will instruct the British Resident at Pretoria to investigate all the circumstances of the case?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, my answer on Friday covered the whole of this Question. I gave all the information we are at present in possession of. I may add that it appears to me that information is more likely to be obtained at Kimberley than at Pretoria; and, as far as the intervention of the British Resident is concerned, this affair did not occur in Transvaal territory, and as it had nothing to do with Natives, it would not come under any of the provisions of the Convention.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is it not a fact that Mr. Honey was taken before the Transvaal authorities in Transvaal territories, tried there, and acquitted of the charges made against him.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I have already given the House all the information I have on the subject. I can add nothing more.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE-THE PLAYFAIR SCHEME.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will now facilitate the granting of a Committee to inquire into the working of the Playfair scheme?
  MR. COURTNEY: Two months ago, Sir, I told the hon. Member that I thought it would be altogether premature to institute an inquiry into the working of the Playfair scheme, and he
  784
  can scarcely expect that I should now think it expedient, after so short an interval, and when we are looking to the end of the Session. The scheme is even now not in full operation, and it would be far too soon to arouse expectations and excite agitation by an inquiry into it. All who are best competent to judge would, I think, deprecate frequent and hasty change in the organization of the Civil Service, and would rather recommend that the new system should be left at rest until its normal action can be ascertained.

  MINES—USE OF DYNAMITE IN MINING—THE ORDER IN COUNCIL.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to a Memorial presented to him from lead minors and others in South Shropshire on the subject of the use of explosives, Whether He can see his way to make any concessions in the Regulations under the Explosives Acts for those engaged in industrial and mining operations, with a due regard to the public safety?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, could not say he thought it safe that dynamite should find its way into the hands of any persons who wished to have it, without any security that they were proper persons to possess it. In that respect he could not modify the Order in Council. With regard to the miners, no man who was known to be a respectable character could have the smallest difficulty in getting a certificate; or if he did not wish for one the mine-owner could keep in a registered store all the dynamite required, and serve out enough for the day's work, the rest being retained in store. That, after all, seemed the safest and best way of using dynamite in mines. He was bound to say that complaints of inconvenience had not come to him so much from persons who used dynamite as from those who manufactured it. They were promoting Petitions everywhere upon this subject, because they thought it placed them at some disadvantage as compared with the manufacturers of gunpowder.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART—THE ASHBURNHAM MANUSCRIPTS.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he

  785
  has as yet been able to come to some arrangement for the purchase of the Stowe Manuscripts in the Ashburnham Library; and, if so, whether he is in a position to give the House any information as to the disposition of the manuscripts so purchased, especially those relating to Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have arranged to purchase the portion of the Ashburnham Manuscripts which is known as the Stowe Collection, for £45,000, subject to the House of Commons passing the necessary Vote in Supply. An Estimate for this purchase, with Papers on the subject, is in course of preparation. The greater part of the manuscripts will go to the British Museum; but certain Irish Papers will be deposited in Dublin. The Estimate will state which manuscripts it is proposed to send to Dublin, and the institution will be named in the Papers.
  MR. RAIKES: Is there no prospect of other portions of the Ashburnham Collection—besides the Stowe Manuscripts—being purchased?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): the only portion which Her Majesty's Government have purchased, and I think are likely to purchase, is the Stowe Collection.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPLICATION FOR LOAN.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Daniel Murphy, of Ballinclay, county Wicklow, has applied to the Land Commission for a loan to buy Lot 68 on the proporty of Mr. W. R. O'Byrne, said lot being advertised in the particulars of sale as being in possession of the owner; and, if Daniel Murphy's application has been entertained, why a similar application from the evicted tenant of the holding, Joseph O'Brien, was refused by the Land Commission, on the ground that he was not in possession?
  MR. TREVELYAN: the hon. Member for Mallow appears to have been misinformed on this subject. The Land Commissioners report that they have not received any application from Daniel Murphy for a loan to purchase the lot referred to.

  THE AGRICULTURAL RETURNS.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the Summary of the Agricultural Returns cannot be published earlier than heretofore?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, that every effort would be made to secure the publication of these Returns at the earliest possible date consistent with accuracy and completeness; but he was afraid that he could not hold out any hopes of their being published materially earlier than in previous years—namely, about the middle of August, as all the Schedules from occupiers had not yet been received.

  NAVY—THE MEDITERRANEAN SQUADRON.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he could explain to the House the nature of the evolutions in which Admiral Lord John Hay is engaged in exercising the officers and men on board the Mediterranean Squadron now under his command; if any special instructions in the practical working of floating and submarine torpedoes, also in the use of machine guns; how many of these are on board each vessel, and are they of the same calibre as those now in use in the French Navy; if he will, as early as possible, place upon the Table of the House Copies of all Despatches which may from time to time be received from Admiral Lord John Hay relative to the tactics in which he is educating the officers and men under his command; and, if he will furnish similar Despatches when received from the Admiral commanding the Reserve Squadron?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, the cruise of the Mediterranean Squadron, which will occupy some months, is undertaken for the purpose of exercising the squadron in steam tactics, and in fleet evolutions of every description, both under steam and under sail. Exercise in the use of torpedoes and machine guns will form part of the instruction given in the course of the cruise. I cannot give the hon. Member any authoritative information regarding the torpedoes and machine guns in the French Navy; but I believe that the latter are of larger calibre than ours, but much less rapid

  787
  in their fire. The periodical Reports received from Admiral Lord John Hay, and the Report which will be made by the Admiral commanding the Reserve Squadron, are confidential, and such documents are not usually made public.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—THE NIZAM'S TERRITORY—HYDERABAD AND CHANDA RAILWAY.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is the fact that a London Company were in treaty with the Nizam's Government to extend the Railway from Hyderabad to Chanda, on condition of a guarantee by the Nizam of six per cent. on the paid up capital; whether it is true that the existing Railway to 'Hyderabad, built on a similar guarantee of six per cent., does not pay more than two per cent., the rest having to be made up by the taxpayers of Hyderabad; whether the existing Railway was built for strategic objects, and not for the commercial development of the country; whether objection was raised by a section of the Native population against the proposed extension, on the ground that another guarantee of six per cent. to be paid in interest to London promoters and shareholders would unduly tax the resources of Hyderabad; whether persons interested in the success of the London Company applied for the authorisation of the British Resident at Hyderabad to forcibly remove into British territory the leaders of the agitation against the proposed guarantee scheme; whether the attention of Government has been directed to the following telegram in the "Times' of India," dated the 23rd May:—
  "The deportation of obstructionists to the Chanda Railway scheme continues. Last night Mr. Aysagi Hoshang, a Parsi and a third class Talukdar, was deported from Secunderabad, with the aid of the cantonment magistrate, Major Ludlow, and his police. Several other residents of Chudderghaut are likely to be deported;"
  whether Dr. Agornath, Principal of the Hyderabad College, was arrested in the night time, with the sanction of the British Resident, and carried by force into British territory, and is now said to be imprisoned at Sholapore; whether it is true that the offence of Dr. Agornath consisted in calling a public meeting for the purpose of discussing the terms of the Chanda Railway Concession, and to
  788
  protest against its acceptance; and, if inquiry will be made into the reasons for the intervention of British officials at Hyderabad on behalf of a Company of English Railway promoters?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, in answer to a Question on the 11th of June, I informed the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) that for some time past the Nizam's Government has been in negotiation with capitalists in this country for the extension of the present State Railway to Chanda. The negotiations are still pending, and I can, therefore, only say that the guarantee proposed is a terminable one, and is less than 6 per cent. The proposals now under discussion were sanctioned by Sir Salar Jung before his death. The existing railway was not constructed for strategic purposes only, but for the commercial development of the country. At present it pays between 2 and 3 per cent; but the traffic is expected to be largely increased, if the proposed extension to the mineral districts of the State be made. The individuals referred to in the last part of the hon. Member's Question, who are not Natives of Hyderabad, but foreigners residing there, were deported by the Nizam's Government, with the concurrence of the Resident, for their part in a seditious agitation, dangerous to the public peace, and based on wilful misrepresentations of facts. These two foreigners are the only persons who have been deported. On their departure the agitation subsided. Dr. Agornath is not imprisoned at Sholapore. Neither the Government of India nor the Secretary of State have seen reason to interfere with the action of the Nizam's Government.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Was not this Dr. Agornath appointed Principal of the Hyderabad College by the late Sir Salar Jung?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I could not answer that without Notice; but it would not affect the answer I have just given if it were so.

  EGYPT—THE CHOLERA.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state what steps have been taken in Egypt for preventing the spread of cholera; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have given or

  789
  offered to the Government of Egypt any, and, if so, what, assistance to further this object?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, I propose to give to the House a short summary of the information which has reached Her Majesty's Government from Sir Edward Malet and Consul Cookson regarding the measures taken for preventing the spread of cholera in Egypt. These measures are under the control of the Central Government in Cairo. Sir Edward Malet states that the Sanitary Board at Cairo is composed of Native and foreign doctors, among whom is Dr. Grant, the Medical Adviser of Her Majesty's Consular Court. They have, from the beginning of the outbreak, sat every evening, in conjunction with the Minister of the Interior and General Baker; and Sir Edward Malet adds that doctors, medicines, and food have been supplied to the infected places; and he expresses the opinion that the Government have done all in their power to stamp out the disease. At Alexandria, Consul Cookson states that a Commission has been working hard in inspecting nuisances and suggesting sanitary measures; and he trusts that good results will ensue from the appointment of sub-committees, to whom the Government have left, on Mr. Cook-son's representation, great latitude of action. An independent British Committee has, moreover, been formed to visit the houses of British and Maltese residents at Alexandria. The infected houses have been isolated by cordons of police. With regard to the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government, I may state that a Departmental Committee has been appointed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on cholera precautions generally; and a competent medical authority connected with the India Office is about to be despatched to Egypt under the direction of the Board. The Egyptian Government has been informed of the desire of Her Majesty's Government to afford them every assistance in the difficult task they have to perform.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask when this Committee was formed by the President of the Local Government Board?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I think Questions relating to this Com-
  790
  mittee had better be addressed to the President of the Local Government Board.
  MR. ONSLOW: Will the noble Lord say whether this competent medical authority has had any experience of choleraic epidemic?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: At the proper time, either I or my right hon. Friend will be perfectly ready to state the name of this gentleman to the House, and I feel perfectly certain that it will meet with general approval.
  MR. ONSLOW: Might I suggest, as we have a number of troops there, whether it would not be advisable to telegraph for medical officers from India, who have had practical and great experience in the treatment of cholera?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Questions as to the Army Medical Department would be more properly addressed to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War; but I may state at once that every precaution is being taken, and I feel certain that my hon. Friend will see that both with regard to the English and Native troops Her Majesty's Government are most anxious to do everything to prevent disease.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Will the noble Lord inquire into the alleged isolation of the infected districts? Will he see whether it is true, as stated in the German Press, that Damietta has lost by migration more than half of its population, which have escaped on all sides through the cordon and gone by boats over the lakes; that, although the Sanitary Commission are sitting, they have neither soldiers nor police nor any trustworthy representatives to maintain a cordon effectively; and that, to all intents and purposes, no means exist for limiting the spread of the disease at present existing?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; I cannot give accurate or detailed information on these various points; but, as far as I have read the papers, it would appear that a very different complaint has been made—namely, that the cholera cordon has been kept up with such strictness that very painful scenes have been the result. As I am touching upon this subject, I may; perhaps, touch upon its more pleasant side—namely, that during the last few days there has certainly been a diminution of deaths in the very district

  791
  to which the hon. Member has alluded. In the Damietta district, on the 1st of July, there were 141 deaths; on the 2nd, 130; on the 3rd, 112; on the 4th, 111; on the 5th, 109; on the 6th, 107; on the 7th, 92; and on the 8th, 88. These figures show that, at all events, there has been a gradual diminution in the number of deaths in that district. At Mansurah there was also a diminution, though not so marked. On the 5th of July, the deaths there were 68; on the 6th, 39; on the 7th, 45; and on the 8th, 48; so that, on the whole, that shows a certain diminution as compared with the previous dates. There was a very slight increase in three other places; but in Menzaleh, where there were 11 cases on the 7th, the Return on the 8th gives no new cases at all.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the diminution in the number of deaths in Damietta was not due to the fact that many thousands of persons had taken refuge in the surrounding villages; and whether inquiry would be made as to the number of unregistered deaths which were now occurring everywhere over a large space of country in small villages?
  [No reply was given.]

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—THE RIVER CONGO—NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN ENGLAND AND PORTUGAL.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the present state of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Portugal regarding the state of affairs on the River Congo; and, whether there is any probability of any Treaty being agreed upon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, it is not in my power to make any statement on these matters at present.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he would repeat the Question on that day week.

  EGYPT—THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. GOURLEYasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to the opinion recently given by two English counsel relative to the concession of the Turkish and Egyptian Governments to M. de Lesseps for the construction of the Suez Canal; and, if he will be good enough to cause a copy of the concession to be printed and placed upon the Table of the House?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the attention of Her Majesty's Government has already been directed to the opinion referred to by my hon. Friend. The concessions, &c., relating to the Suez Canal were laid before Parliament in 1876 (Egypt, No. 6).

  WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC— THE NEW HEBRIDES—REPORTED ANNEXATION BY FRANCE.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the report that the New Hebrides have been taken possession of by the French Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that there is any truth in the statement referred to.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS— STATISTICS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state what were the numbers of diseased women in hospital in the protected districts previous to the abolition of compulsory examination; and, how many there are now in hospitals, specifying in both cases the respective numbers at each station?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the number of diseased women in hospital at the time compulsory examination was suspended was 267. The number now in hospital is 134. If the hon. Member wishes for the information by stations, perhaps he will be good enough to move for it as a Return.

  TREASURY SOLICITOR ACT, 1876— THE GOODS OF FELONS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If it be the fact that they have given, or are about to give instructions for the confiscation of the furniture of two widows at Port Glasgow, on the ground of forfeiture to the Crown, their husbands having been executed; and, if he is aware that these widows are in extremely destitute circumstances, having the one three and the other five children to support; and, if, under these circumstances, he will give instructions to the Edinburgh authorities not to proceed further in the matter?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, instructions have been sent by telegraph to suspend

  793
  all proceedings for realizing the goods forfeited to the Crown on the conviction of the two Port Glasgow murderers until full inquiry shall have been made and a Report sent to the Treasury.

  TURKEY—GREEK SUBJECTS OF THE PORTE.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has been engaged in correspondence with the Government of the Sultan upon the alleged intention of the Porte to withdraw certain ecclesiastical privileges of the Greek subjects of the Porte; and, if so, whether he proposes to lay such Correspondence upon the Table of the House?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, this matter has been brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government by Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Constantinople and Her Majesty's Minister at Athens, as well as by the Representatives of Turkey and Greece in this country. Her Majesty's Charge d' Affaires at Constantinople has recommended the Porte not to act in such a manner as to promote irritation among the Greek subjects of the Sultan; but Her Majesty's Government do not consider that it is a question calling for their official intervention, at all events in its present stage, nor that any advantage would be gained by publishing the Correspondence.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL—CLAUSE 8—CHARGES ON HOLDINGS OBTAINED UNDER COUNTY COURT JUDGMENTS.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he will inform the House whether he proposes that charges on holdings obtained by landlords from county courts under Clause 8 of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill shall rank after preexisting mortgages and incumbrances on the property, or whether they will take priority of such mortgages and incumbrances as do charges obtained for improvements under 27 and 28 Vic. c. 114, s. 59?
  MR. DODSON,in reply, said, that as the Bill stood these charges ranked in their natural order after pre-existing mortgages and incumbrances on the property.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CONTINUOUS SITTINGS) BILL.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked Mr. Attorney General, If the fact that the High Court of Justice (Continuous Sittings) Bill was allowed to pass its second reading on Thursday without opposition is to be taken as signifying that the Government intend to support the measure?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, that it must not be assumed, because, as a matter of courtesy to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), the second reading of the Bill was allowed to pass at a very late hour, that Her Majesty's Government intended supporting the measure. The Bill, as it now stood, could not be supported by the Government.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether the Attorney General considered it right that the Government should allow to pass the second reading a Bill of which the majority of the House disapproved?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): That is an abstract Question into which I will not now enter.

  PARLIAMENT—SPEECH OF MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE AT ACTON.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the First Lord of the Treasury. If his attention has been drawn to the report of a speech by one of the Junior Lords (the honourable Member for Leeds), at Acton, on 4th instant, when he is reported to have said that—
  "He thought the Government would he prepared, as soon as they could find time, to take up the subject, and try and amend the Irish Land Act;"
  and, whether the sentiments therein contained express the policy of the Government?
  MR. BRODRICKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the Junior Lord of the Treasury in a speech delivered at Acton on Wednesday last—
  "It must he remembered that the Land Act was not perfect, owing to concessions de manded by the Tories, and the Government were anxious to amend those defects; but they were aware of and deterred by the knowledge of the opposition which such measures would have provoked from the Tories, and the pro-

  795
  tracted discussions which would have come from the Irish Members. He thought the Government would he prepared, as soon as they could find time, to take up that subject and try and amend the Act;"'
  whether the Junior Lord of the Treasury was authorised to announce an early re-opening of the Irish Land Question by the Government; and, whether Her Majesty's Government still adhere to the policy announced by the First Lord of the Treasury in March, that—
  "We think it an essential part of our duty to make it clearly understood that we can give no encouragement, either on the ground of crime or on any other ground, for entertaining hopes of the disturbance of the provisions of the Land Act contained in this Bill.…. It would be a violation of our duty were we now to give encouragement to a demand for new sacrifices which we do not think in the main justice requires?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the hon. Member has judiciously in his Question mentioned "the report" of the speech; but he has not committed himself to the opinion that the report is necessarily an accurate one. The only report I have seen of the speech was not so much a report as an account—an extremely succinct account—which it was impossible to accept as an accurate report. I have made inquiry of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), and, as far as I can gather, the position taken up by him was precisely that which has been taken on several occasions by the Government, and it is to this effect:—I stated, as clearly as I could, and very minutely, in a speech at the early part of last year, and again, though less minutely, in a speech this year, that there were certain points in the Irish Land Act with respect to which the Government had always considered it was desirable for the House again to open. These were the date of the judicial rents, and certain particulars as to leases. The third point has been re-opened by the House itself on the urgent representations of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I am not at all sure that it was wise for the House to commit itself by an abstract promise of that kind. But that has been done. It was in reference to points of this class that the hon. Member for Leeds expressed a hope that the Government would be prepared, as soon as they could find time, to take up the subject and try to amend the Act. The
  796
  quotation which the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) has made from the speech refers to alterations in the Act of a totally different character—alterations which we regard as being of a fundamental character; and with respect to these no engagements or opinion at all was expressed by the hon. Member for Leeds.
  MR. BRODRICK: Might I ask the Prime Minister whether the Junior Lord of the Treasury was authorized to make any announcement on the subject?
  MR. GLADSTONE: the hon. Member for Leeds is not the Junior Lord of the Treasury any more than any other Lord; but any Lord of the Treasury is perfectly in his right in announcing what the Government and the Prime Minister have already repeatedly announced.

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When he will be in a position to fix a day for the consideration of the Indian Budget?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, all I can say upon this subject is, that we cannot venture to fix a day for the discussion of the Indian Budget until the House has disposed of the most important and urgent matters which it has before it—namely, the Committee stage of the Corrupt Practices Bill and the Committee stage of the Tenants' Compensation Bill.

  EGYPT—SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it be true that (subject to the approval of the British Government) a satisfactory understanding has been arrived at between the English Directors of the Suez Canal and M. de Lesseps relative to the construction of a parallel Canal; and also for the reduction of the tonnage tariff; and, whether he can now inform the House of the nature of the alleged arrangement?
  MR. CHARLES PALMERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is prepared to make a statement respecting the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Suez Canal Company; and, whether the time has arrived when He is prepared to re-

  797
  ceive representations and assistance from the commercial community, in accordance with his promise made on the 26th of June last?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have to say very little upon this subject; but in saying that little it must not be supposed that I am going to recede from the statement which I made on a previous occasion, in as far as it expressed our belief that there was a fair and reasonable expectation of making progress in our communications with M. de Lesseps. But we have not yet arrived at a point in those communications at which we can make an explicit statement to the House. We were most happy to receive to-day a letter from the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), setting forth what he believes to be the views of the commercial community, and certainly the points so set forth are those to which in the main the Government has given its attention. Not from the hon. Member alone, but from others who are well informed on the subject, we shall be happy to receive communications, and now is the proper time for addressing communications to the Government.
  MR. CHARLES PALMERasked the Prime Minister whether it was clearly to be understood that the commercial community in general would have an opportunity of expressing their views before any Treaty was concluded, and more especially that the House would have the Treaty submitted to it, and have the opportunity of expressing its views upon it before the Treaty was ratified?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not sorry that my hon. Friend gives me a further opportunity of stating the intentions of the Government. No engagement will be entered into by the Government with regard to the Suez Canal except subject to the approbation of the House.
  MR. BOURKE: I wish the right hon. Gentleman would answer this Question, which is of very great importance, whether any concession will be necessary in case a parallel Canal is proposed and adopted by Her Majesty's Government, or in case any other Canal is proposed to be adopted? The right hon. Gentleman has already answered the Question about a Treaty which the hon. Member has put; perhaps he will tell us with whom that Treaty is to be made? At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, answer the Question with respect to the
  798
  future concession. If not, I will put it down for another day.
  MR. GLADSTONE: the word "Treaty" was used by my hon. Friend, but was not used by me. I think I said "arrangement." I have, however, great hopes that upon a very early day either I or one of my Colleagues will be in a condition to make an explicit statement to the House. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will allow the question to stand over.

  POST OFFICE—THE CHOLERA IN EGYRT—MAILS FROM THE EAST.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Can the Postmaster General inform the House what steps have been taken to provide for the transmission of the overland mails from the East which were not allowed to be landed at Brindisi, and what future arrangements will be made with regard to mails coming homeward through the Suez Canal?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, we received information from the manager of the Peninsular and Oriental Company on Saturday that a mob of people had refused to allow the mails to be landed at Brindisi, and the course we adopted was this—a telegram was at once sent ordering the vessel to proceed to Trieste and land the mails there. When I went to the Post Office a short time since we had not been able to ascertain what length of quarantine the Austrian Government would require at Trieste, and consequently it is impossible to say positively when the mails will arrive in London. With regard to the next steamer, which will bring a much heavier mail, the opinion at the present moment is that it would be better, under the circumstances, to order the vessel to proceed direct by sea to England, and instructions will be given to that effect.
  Subsequently,
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEwished to ask, as the right hon. Gentleman said that the next mail would be a heavy one, and instructions had been given for it to be sent by sea to England, whether the Government thought it necessary to establish a quarantine at Plymouth or other ports, or what precautions were to be taken to prevent the importation of cholera?
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that he had communicated with the Privy Council on Friday last. Every care had been taken to disinfect the bags by soaking them in tar. The Sanitary Committee of the Privy Council thought that was a sufficient precaution, and the matter rested with them.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, that such a process would not disinfect the passengers and crew on board the vessels.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he thought the noble Lord would see that that Question was not one for the Post Office. The Question ought rather to be addressed to the Local Government Board or other authority whom it concerned.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—SIXPENNY TELEGRAMS.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEasked the Postmaster General, in reference to the Scheme suggested by him for the reduction of the minimum charge for Post Office telegrams to 6d. and de-scribed as Scheme 1 in the Treasury Minute of the 14th June 1883, proposing that—
  "Free addresses should be abolished, and a ½d. charged for each word, including the address; minimum charge 6d.;"
  whether he is aware that, if that scheme should be adopted, it would effectually prevent there being any 6d. telegrams whatever, and increase the charge for telegrams of twenty words from twenty-five to fifty per cent.; and, whether he is aware that Scheme 2, viz.:—
  "Address of receiver to be free, but that of the sender to be charged for; 6d. to be charged for the first five words, and 2d. additional for each subsequent five words,"
  would also preclude the possibility of 6d. telegrams being used, and would increase the charge for telegrams of twenty words thirty per cent.?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, it will no doubt be the case, as stated by my hon. Friend, that if either Scheme 1 or Scheme 2 mentioned in the Treasury Minute were adopted, the charge for messages containing 20 words in the body of the telegram might be greater than it now is. I cannot, however, agree with him that, under this scheme, no telegrams would be sent at the minimum charge of 6d.; on the contrary, I think the number of such telegrams would be very large. It
  800
  was stated on Thursday last that no decision as to the particular scheme to be adopted would be come to by the Government until next Session. I may add, however, that if a charge were made for the whole or any part of the address, or if the charge for 20 words in the body of the telegram were greater than it now is, it would be necessary, as free addresses are allowed and the present tariff is fixed by Act of Parliament, to introduce a Bill to give effect to the new arrangement. The House would, therefore, have an opportunity of discussing the question.

  POST OFFICE—THE NEW PARCEL POST.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in the new parcel post service, extra servants are to be employed in the carriage to rural districts; whether the present staff of messengers are not in many places quite able and willing to discharge the extra duty in consideration of the additional pay, their salaries being very small at present; and, whether, if the present messengers are employed, they are to be provided by the Government with the means of carriage, or are to provide it themselves?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I may say that extra servants will be employed when necessary in the conveyance of parcels in the rural districts. In many places the messengers will be able to discharge the extra duty without assistance, and in all cases, where the circumstances warrant it, extra pay will be given. Where the present foot service is replaced by a mounted service, either an allowance to meet the expense will be made to the present messengers, or they will be transferred to another walk, and a mail cart service provided at the expense of the Government.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—THE RECENT DISASTER ON THE CLYDE.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the exceptional magnitude of the recent disaster on the Clyde, and the fact that inquiries by procurators fiscal into accidents attended with loss of life in Scotland are conducted in secret, and that their Reports to the Crown Office are never made

  801
  public, he will instruct some competent independent official to assist at the inquiry and furnish a report on the occurrence for presentation to Parliament?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, I am asked by my right hon. and learned Friend to say that at his request Sir Edward Reed, late Chief Constructor of the Navy, a Member of his House, has proceeded to Scotland, and is now holding a public inquiry into the disaster on the Clyde.

  ARMY—THE STAFFORDSHIRE REGIMENT.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the series of assaults and robberies committed by soldiers of the Staffordshire Regiment at Athlone; and, whether he will take steps to protect the public from the recurrence of these outrages?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I am informed that the only disturbance which has recently occurred at Athlone was on the 24th of June, when there was a drunken quarrel. It was alleged that a civilian had been assaulted by soldiers of the North Staffordshire Regiment; but when the commanding officer investigated the case, the civilian was not forthcoming, and the soldiers could not be identified. On the 4th of July a soldier was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment for stealing a watch while drunk. With these exceptions the troops at Athlone are said to have been particularly well-conducted.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—THE RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY.
  In reply to Mr. FRANCIS BUXTON,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, with reference to the Railway Passenger Duty Bill that it would be committed pro formâ in order that it might be reprinted, and be in the hands of Members some days before the question was discussed. He would take care that due Notice should be given.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister with re-
  802
  ference to a letter which appears in several newspapers this morning purporting to be addressed by Mr. Brad-laugh to the right hon. Gentleman, in which Mr. Bradlaugh informs him that it is his intention at an early day "to take my seat for the borough of Northampton," and goes on to say—
  "In doing this I shall disregard the Orders of the House made this Session as being in the teeth of the law, and therefore null and. void."
  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received such a letter, and, if he has, what course he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I received on Friday a letter from Mr. Bradlaugh, which I see has been printed in the papers. It runs as follows:—
  "Sir,—In accordance with the requirements of my constituents, I beg respectfully to inform you that I shall, in compliance with the law, at an early date take my seat for the borough of Northampton. In doing this I shall claim to disregard the Order of the House made this Session, as being, to use the words of George Grenville, in the teeth of the law, and therefore null and void. I am confirmed in this view by the judgment of Mr. Justice Field in the suit brought by myself against Mr. Erskine, when, in answer to my hypothesis that the House of Commons had passed a Resolution forbidding me to take the oath, his Lordship said that he could not assume that the House would do an act which in itself would be flagrantly wrong. As the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, and the Standing Orders of the House make no other provision than that the oath shall be taken and subscribed in manner therein prescribed, I beg to inform you that I shall so take and subscribe the oath in the manner binding upon my conscience. When I so took and subscribed the oath on the 21st of February, 1882, I sought to obtain the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice on the legality of the oath so taken by me, but the Court refused to allow a friendly action to be argued or tried. If any legal decision could be obtained, or if the House would discharge me from the services it by force prevents me performing, so that a new writ would be issued, I should be relieved from the painful necessity of finding myself once more in collision with the House; but I cannot and must not passively permit my constituents to be robbed of the voice and vote to which they have a constitutional right.—I have the honour to be, &c., C. BRADLAUGH."
  I am glad, Sir, the Question of the right hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity of placing the House in possession of this information. Her Majesty's Government have, in more than one form, suggested to the House the different modes in which they have thought that an escape would be found from the many difficulties attending the

  803
  subject; but our recommendations have not received, in any case, the approval of the House, and therefore, of course, it will rest with those who have advised the House, and whose advice has been accepted by the House, to act upon the information I have given. I am glad of this opportunity of placing the matter before the House.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, the concluding observations of the right hon Gentleman render it necessary for me to call the attention of the House very shortly to the position in which we stand. Of course, I do not ask the House to reopen the question as to the propriety of Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to go through the form of taking the Oath. That is a point on which the House has decided, and recently decided, by a very considerable majority. But I shall call attention to the fact that from this letter we are led to infer that it is Mr. Brad-laugh's intention, at such time as he may select, to come before the House and endeavour to override that decision to which the House came some weeks ago by some action on his part. In fact, we may pretty clearly understand from the language of the letter that Mr. Bradlaugh's intention is to come before the House as he did two years ago and administer the Oath to himself as he did on that occasion. I need not remind the House that his proceedings on that occasion met with the censure of the House; and, unquestionably, if the House has already determined that it will not allow Mr. Bradlaugh to go through the form of taking the Oath, it cannot sit by and allow such a taking of the Oath as that to which I have alluded. That being so, I apprehend from the notice we have received that we may expect our proceedings will be interrupted at some uncertain period, and therefore we are called upon to act in order to prevent a scandal in the proceedings of this House. I do not think that is a position in which the House ought to be placed. I have by circumstances been obliged to take a part on several occasions which I would much rather had been taken by the Leader of the House for the protection of Order and, as I think, the dignity of the House, and I regret to find myself again obliged to take a similar course on the present occasion. I have always endeavoured, when I have had to propose anything
  804
  with regard to Mr. Bradlaugh, to confine myself to what seemed to me to be absolutely necessary. When on the last occasion of his presenting himself and tendering himself to take the Oath, the House decided that he should not be permitted to do so, I thought it unnecessary to make any further Motion, because I assumed that Mr. Bradlaugh, whatever his opinions might be, would bow to the decision of the House, and not put us to any further inconvenience as long as that Order was in force. It appears that that is not his intention, and therefore it is necessary to take some steps for the protection of the Order of the House. It is quite impossible that we can expect the great bulk of Members of the House to be here at all times and at all hours when Mr. Bradlaugh might present himself, and, therefore, I can see no course open but to make a Motion similar to that made by me two years ago which prevented Mr. Bradlaugh's intrusion on the proceedings, until he gives an assurance that he will not disturb them. Therefore, I make this Motion entirely in what I may call a spirit of self-defence, and for the preservation of that Order which I think is threatened to be disturbed, in the same terms as my former one. It is—
  "That the Serjeant-at-Arms do exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the House until he shall en-gage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House."
  The words are the same as in the former Resolution. It will be recollected that some question arose about the phrase "precincts of the House;" but when the former Resolution was proposed in the same terms as this the House maintained that Mr. Speaker and the Officers were justified in putting on that Resolution the interpretation which it was intended to bear, and excluding Mr. Bradlaugh from the precincts. On the former occasion the words were proposed when Mr. Bradlaugh was present; but I shall now move this Resolution as he is not present. If you, Sir, think it more proper that I should mention" precincts," of course I will make the Motion in that form; but I understand from the decision come to on the former occasion that it is unnecessary.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Serjeant-at-Arms do exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the House until he shall en-

  805
  gage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to ask, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in making this Motion without Notice?
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman makes the Motion on the ground that it is a question of Privilege. The hon. Member for Northampton declares his intention to disregard the Orders of the House, and it therefore becomes a question of urgency on the part of the House to decide what is to be done. That being so, the right hon. Gentleman is quite justified in the course he has taken.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Are you, Sir, satisfied that the word "precincts" is unnecessary?
  MR. SPEAKER: On a former occasion when a similar Motion was passed by the House Mr. Bradlaugh attempted to force himself within the doors of the House. Having regard to the Resolution passed by the House, I directed the Serjeant-at-Arms to exclude Mr. Brad-laugh by force, and the House approved of that course. Therefore, I presume the House will support me in taking, if necessary, the same course again.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am one of those, Sir, who, rightly or wrongly, believe that a Member elected by a constituency derives his right from the constituency to go through all the Forms at the Table necessary for him to take his seat in the House. I merely state that to let the House know that I shall be obliged to challenge a decision of the House on the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not going into this matter at any length; there are only two points on which I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The first is, that I understand that the Whips of the Party of which the right hon. Gentleman is the Head have issued a Notice to their followers to come to the House this evening; and I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it is quite in accordance with fair play to bring forward this Resolution without any Notice, having brought together all those who are in favour of it to vote for it, while those who might be opposed to it were not aware that it would be brought forward? The other point is, that Mr. Bradlaugh has asked the House to void
  806
  the election. He finds himself in an exceedingly difficult position. He has no wish to put himself in antagonism with the House, but he desires that his constituents should be fully represented here; and if the right hon. Gentleman would only move for a new Writ for the borough of Northampton, or support me were I to move for it, I should not complain of the course taken by the House. But I think it is somewhat hard to say that Mr. Bradlaugh is not to take his seat, having been duly elected, and that owing to this action the constituency is to be punished by not being represented by the number of Members the Constitution gives to it. I shall not detain the House, but I feel it my duty to divide on the Question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I think it is but natural on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, on an occasion of this kind, to propose to the House the measure which he thinks necessary to give effect to the decision of the majority. It would not be my province, or that of the minority, to make any such proposal. But I own I do feel it within my province to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and to express an hope that he will not divide the House, because it is part of my duty, on the one hand, to ask the House to make great sacrifices of its time, and on the other, to endeavour to avoid, as far as possible, unnecessary sacrifices. It appears to me that we who are the minority have had ample opportunity of arguing the case in every form in which it has been brought forward. The majority of the House have courteously consented more than once to hear Mr. Bradlaugh at the Bar. We cannot say that we have not been fully and fairly heard. I deeply regret the decision of the majority, and all that I felt on former occasions I still feel; but I think that respect to the majority, and regard to the time of the House, and to the extreme urgency of the position in which we stand with reference to Public Business, ought to prevent us from interposing any obstacle to a Motion if that Motion be reasonable in itself. The question is, is it reasonable? Certainly not, from my point of view. But the unreasonableness of it lies in the unreasonableness of the original decision of the House. From the point of view

  807
  of the right hon. Gentleman it is a strictly reasonable Motion. It is strictly consequent on the Resolution of the House. He declares it to be a Motion of self-defence, and undoubtedly, being a Motion to defend the House against the consequences of the course formerly taken by the House, it is quite natural that the House should adopt this course. Under those circumstances the matter is a very simple one, and it is unnecessary to go over the ground we have gone over before. This Motion is a necessary corollary of the steps taken by the House on a former occasion; and although I am not an approving party to any portion of the procedure, I would deprecate exceedingly the offering of any further opposition to the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman. I will not encroach any further upon that valuable commodity of the House—time, and I will appeal to the hon. Member to adopt a similar course in respect to this Motion.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I am not going to detain the House. I only wish to say that several hon. Members below the Gangway here are as anxious to avoid any waste of time as the right hon. Gentleman; but this is a matter on which we must divide, because we feel that upon every opportunity when steps are taken which we consider to be illegal or unconstitutional we are bound to resist them to the best of our power. On these grounds some of us will feel bound to divide the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 232; Noes 65: Majority 167.—(Div. List, No. 183.)
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I wish to make a suggestion to the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that there is no Question before the House, and if the hon. Member wishes to put a Question to the right hon. Baronet, it should be confined to any Bill or Motion before the House.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I am very anxious to confine myself to the Question, and am most unwilling to intrude unnecessarily upon the House with reference to a subject which is still before it. ["No, no!" and cries of "Order!"] the House has just taken a very necessary precaution, and I wish to ask the
  808
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must repeat to the hon. Member that he is out of Order. When the House was engaged with Questions the right hon. Gentleman interposed with a Question which has been disposed of. The House is still engaged with Questions put to Ministers of the Crown, and if any hon. Member has a Question to put to any Minister he will be in Order; but the hon. Member is not in Order in the course he now takes.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I apologize, Sir. I did not intend to go beyond your ruling. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon who has moved the Resolution now adopted, which has been found necessary to correct and enforce a former decision of the House, whether he will move that this Resolution be made a Standing Order of the House?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish, Sir, in the first instance, to put the question to you as to whether it is competent for me to make that Motion?
  MR. SPEAKER: the question is one of great importance. It is not for me to restrain the power of this House; but as this question affects the political rights of a Member of this House, it would not, I think, be competent for the right hon. Gentleman to move that the Resolution be made a Standing Order.

PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.

    RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOOD PREVENTION BILL.
    BILL WITHDRAWN.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of fulfilling an engagement I entered into with the House on the part of the Government, to the effect that we should this day make as comprehensive a statement as time and circumstances would justify with regard to the state and prospects of Business, and I will preface it by saying that I shall not mention the Bills of comparatively minor importance; but the number of those I shall mention is considerable, and the House will feel that we have redeemed the pledge we have given with regard to the work of the Session. I shall close my remarks by moving that certain Orders for the consideration of the further stages of Bills be discharged

    809
    —the most convenient course to take, I think, if the Government have made up their minds that they must abandon them, so that they shall be at once removed from the Order Book, and the minds of Members relieved from all further care in respect of them. I am afraid the prospect I have to present is not at all a cheerful one with regard to the duration of the Session; because, even if the House consent to make considerable sacrifices the Session cannot, under the most favourable circumstances, reach any but a late termination. In the first place, I may say there are certain Bills with respect to which the House perfectly understands it is the intention of the Government to submit them to the judgment of the House definitively, and therefore I need not dwell upon any of them. These are the Bills which have been through the Grand Committees, and the three Bills that are before the House—the Corrupt Practices Bill, the Tenants' Compensation Bill for England, and the Tenants' Compensation Bill for Scotland. The other Bills which we propose to proceed with are as follows. We think it of great importance to take the sense of the House on the National Debt Bill. We believe that any differences of opinion on the Bill are not differences of detail, requiring time to dispose of, but that may be dealt with in a single and probably not very long discussion. Then there is a Bill which is of great importance to a profession which is itself of the utmost weight and importance—namely, the Medical Bill; and I am encouraged to hope with regard to that Bill the difference of opinion upon which is small, and we propose to proceed with it. With regard to Scotland, we propose to proceed with the Local Government Bill for Scotland, in the belief that it is generally acceptable to those whom it more immediately concerns, and, that being so, we do not anticipate any very great difficulty in its conduct through the House. I then come to Irish Bills. There is the Registration of Voters Bill; the Bill for pauper relief—which I have mentioned because, although it has not actually passed the House, it has gone through all its stages except the third reading, therefore may be considered as having all but passed; the Bill for the re-organization of the Police Service; and there is also a Bill
    810
    which Her Majesty's Government are anxious to introduce, which they think may probably be received with favour by the House—I mean a Bill for the promotion of tramways in Ireland. That is an announcement which contains the answer which I promised some time ago to give to my hon. Friend the Member for County Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). Those are the Bills with respect to which we propose to proceed. With regard to the melancholy list of Bills that we will find it necessary, or at least that we think it our duty to the House at once to drop, the first of those is the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill, and, second, the Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment Bill, with regard to which, of course, we shall place the general law as it now subsists in the Continuance Bill; but we shall get rid of the question of the amendment of the law. The third is the Bill relating to Charitable Trusts, and the fourth the Bill relating to Scottish Universities. That is a Bill of very considerable importance, and its provisions are both weighty and beneficial; but it certainly touches some matters that are of a rather high nature, and which we should not think it justifiable to press on the House at a period of the Session when we could not have a reasonable chance of carrying it forward. Then there is a Bill which comes from the House of Lords, called the Representative Peers (Scotland) Bill, which I believe excited a good deal of difference of opinion, and we do not propose to proceed with it. There are two or three other Bills which we feel it necessary to drop, but, at the same time, which we drop with very great regret. One of them is the Bill for police superannuation, the second is the Bill relating to naval discipline, and the third is the Bill relating to Irish Sunday Closing, with respect to which, of course, we should place the present law in a general Continuance Act. With regard to these Bills, which are on different grounds, I must express a very earnest hope, on the part of the Government, or those who may be the Government, that it may be possible to bring them in at an early period next Session. Naval discipline ought not to continue in suspense, and the Irish Sunday Closing Bill is one which largely interests public opinion in Ireland, and it is very highly disagreeable to us to drop

    811
    it. The Police Superannuation Bill is a Bill of very great local importance for the healthiness and efficiency of the force on which we are dependent for the maintenance of civil order; but there are questions which it raises in relation to the charges imposed under it, with which it will not he in our power to grapple in the present Session. Those are the eight Bills we propose at once to drop, and I shall move for the discharge of the Orders for the further stages upon these Bills. There are three other measures, one of them not yet introduced, and two others that have been introduced, but have not made progress, with regard to which we wish to suspend our judgment for a time, and to form that judgment according to circumstances as they may present themselves perhaps 10 days or a fortnight hence. There is, first, the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill, dealing with a subject of great interest with regard to the education of that country, and the others are the Detention in Hospitals Bill, and the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. In regard to these measures, we ask the House to allow us a little time before arriving at a final decision. I think that the list I have given will be found to include all of what would be commonly considered the important Bills of the Government. Such a Bill as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to to-night in regard to railway passengers will, as a matter of course, form part of the Budget, and Bills of that class I do not refer to in detail; but I have spoken of nearly a score of Bills, and these will, I think, dispose in the main of the subjects upon which, as far as the Government are concerned, the length of the Session may depend. But besides these Bills there are one or two points which I should wish to mention. It is necessary now to refer to the subject of the Grand Committees. I need not refer to the particular nature of the pledge we gave; but it was to this effect—that if we asked the House during the present Session to arrive at any new Resolutions with respect to these Committees, it should be done in the course of the present month, when the House will be in full attendance and competent to deal with such matters of importance and comparative novelty. Now, we stand thus. I will not undertake to an-
    812
    ticipate at this moment what will take place with regard to the several Bills that have been before the Grand Committees; but it is our opinion, looking at the labours of these Committees, that they have proved to be in the present Session, and promise to be hereafter, a great success, and afford very material assistance to the House in the great work of maintaining, or perhaps I ought to say, with due respect, restoring its legislative efficiency, in enabling it to overtake the large and constantly increasing mass of work, which the necessities of the Empire require it to confront. There are two courses which might be taken with regard to the Grand Committees—one, to propose an experimental renewal of them for the next Session only; and another, to submit to the House some plan of a general and more comprehensive character. I do not wish at present to enter upon the question which of these two courses is the better; and it is quite plain that we could not submit at this time a plan of a permanent nature with regard to Grand Committees, without setting aside the Legislative Business which we have in hand. That, I think, we should not be justified for a moment in contemplating, and, consequently, we do not intend to make any extended proposal at the present time. If such a proposal is to be made at any time, it must stand over for the present year. Then the question arises whether it would be wise to advise the renewal of those Committees which we have had already. Now, Sir, undoubtedly, with the opinion we entertain about the working of the Grand Committees, it will be our duty to make proposals with that object. But proposals for a temporary and experimental renewal of the Grand Committees, if such should be the form in which we should ultimately think it wise to proceed, clearly ought not to be made until we come nearer to the time when we can know what Business the House will have to do. The circumstances of last autumn were very peculiar. It so happened that a large number of important and practical questions had to be thrown over for want of time, and we were able to see in the autumn what Grand Committees we should specially want and might make use of for the purpose of trying our experiment. As far as we can anticipate the legislation of next year, we do con-

    813
    template the introduction of certain Bills; and in a country like this the renewal of the Grand Committee with respect to trade and such matters could hardly ever be out of place; but then, again, we may not be able to say, with respect to other matters, what measures it might be the duty of the Government to introduce next Session which might be found of such a nature as to fit them for the consideration of Grand Committees. In fact, the experimental question with respect to next Session ought not to be considered piecemeal, but as a whole. It would be more satisfactory to the House, and far better, that the subject should be reserved until we can see, if not upon a larger scale, yet, at all events, for the coming Session, what is the exact amount of the proposals we should wish to make with a view to the greater despatch of the Public Business. I hope, therefore, that it will be understood, as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, that they have been confirmed in their favourable views of the working of these Grand or Standing Committees as a means of expediting a large portion of the Business of the House by the experience which the present Session has afforded them, and they would consider it a breach of duty on their part were they to allow these Committees to drop. But they do not think that circumstances permit them at present to act either upon a large or upon a more contracted scale, either with a view to a permanent or great scheme, or with a view to another experimental trial; and whatever course they may think proper to adopt, they think that the proper time to propose it will be when Parliament has again been summoned together after the Recess. Then comes the question as to what ought to be the course of procedure. There are many Members, undoubtedly, who have expressed their readiness that we should ask for what is called the whole time of the House. As far as Tuesdays and Wednesday are concerned, that is a proposal which We intend to make for the residue of the present Session. Mondays and Thursdays are always in possession of the Government. Fridays are already in their possession as far as Morning Sittings are concerned, and we do not propose to ask the House for the Evening Sittings on Fridays, for several considerations, One is, that it is not usual
    814
    for the Government to make that request to the House. We are asking the House for Tuesdays and Wednesdays somewhat earlier than usual; but it is not usual to ask for Friday evenings. We are very unwilling entirely to close the door, as far as the Rules of the House are concerned, against the introduction, at the option of independent Members, of subjects which they might deem of great practical and urgent importance. What we do earnestly hope is that, viewing the position in which the House is placed, independent Members will be disposed to waive for the remainder of the present Session—I make this appeal merely to their judgment and discretion—their right of pressing on the consideration of the House the discussion of subjects with regard to which they do not contemplate any immediate practical result. I do not moan subjects which contemplate legislation, because there may be subjects connected with the policy of the Government, for instance, which hon. Members may think it right to question, and they may find opportunities for doing so on these Friday evenings. On the other hand, if they do not take advantage of these Friday evenings, I hope the House will be inclined to allow those evenings to be turned to account by going into Committee of Supply. For the pre-sent, the only Motion I shall make will be a Motion for the discharge of certain Orders. With regard to obtaining a larger proportion of the time of the House, the form of proceeding which I propose is this. To-morrow it is quite understood that matters will stand as they are. But on Wednesday morning at 12 o'clock, if I find the proposal I now make is agreeable and suitable to the House in the circumstances, I shall propose that Government Orders on Tuesdays and Wednesdays have precedence during the remainder of the Session, and in that ease I believe it would be agreeable to the House if on Tuesdays the House were to meet at its usual hour, in lieu of meeting for a Morning Sitting, and then again for an Evening Sitting. With regard to the course of Business to be taken first, I would say one word on the state of the Civil Service Estimates. We are able to go on a little longer with Civil Service Estimates generally; but there are a very few Votes of a non-con-

    815
    tentious character, with respect to which it so happens that more money is required, and on Thursday as the First Order of the Day—I believe it will constitute no material interruption to the present course of Business—we must ask for some money for these particular Votes. Further substantial progress with the Civil Service Estimates must be reserved for a future day. On Monday next we propose to take the Navy Estimates, and on Tuesday we propose to devote the first part of the evening to a Bill which I trust will then be in Committee—namely, the Tenants' Compensation Bill. On that point, however, it is not for me to say how much longer time the House may think it proper to take in discussing the remaining clauses of the Corrupt Practices Bill; but I am unwilling to contemplate the possibility that that Bill will not be out of Committee several days short of Tuesday week. Assuming that the Tenants' Compensation Bill will have got into Committee on Tuesday evening, we shall propose to break off the consideration of that Bill at about 10 or half past 10 oclock, in order to allow of the resumption of the adjourned debate on the Resolution of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) on the subject of the payment of a certain amount of money as a contribution to the expenses of the warlike operations in Egypt. That, Sir, is as much as I can say at present with regard to the exact course of Business, it being understood that the Corrupt Practices Bill and the Tenants' Compensation Bills for England and Scotland form the substance of the engagement we are bound first to redeem, as far as carrying them through Committee is concerned. I have but a few words to add. With regard to the Bills of private Members, the Government have no choice but to say that it is impossible that they should be able to discharge the duties under which they themselves lie, and, at the same time, offer any accommodation to those Members who have Bills before the House. Those Bills, I am sorry to say, are generally in an extremely backward state; but, backward or forward, we are not able to depart from the arrangement I have now sketched out, for the purpose of allowing those Bills to be promoted, should the House be prepared to make to us the gift of time
    816
    for which we ask. I said at the outset that this was not a brilliant prospect; and I think that if hon. Gentlemen will think well in their own minds and consider the number of days that the Corrupt Practices Bill has taken in Committee, and the probability that it may still require a few more days, and the work to be done on the Tenants' Compensation Bill and upon the Bills which have come back from the Grand Committees, and then the measures which I have stated it is our intention to proceed with, they will see that there is a good deal of legislative work in prospect. I speak on the 9th of July. And although the number of days allotted to Supply in the present Session down to the present date has been very considerable, yet the Business of Supply, like other Business, grows and extends. Then it so happens that there are one or two questions of public importance, involving our policy abroad, that will have to be discussed in Supply. It would, therefore, be sanguine to say that loss than eight or nine days would suffice to do what remains to be done. I do not like to enter into minute computations. To those who are experienced in the Business of the House, I think it is quite plain that we have much to do, and that we cannot, in circumstances the most favourable, hope for an early deliverence from our labours. I hope, however, that the House will think that we have made a reasonable contribution towards the attainment of that happy period by the eight measures which we now propose to abandon; and I would, in the first instance, move that the Order of the Day for the Rivers Conservancy Bill be discharged.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for the Second Reading of the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill be read and discharged."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I cannot say that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has been altogether comfortable as regards the prospects of Business. The right hon. Gentleman has frankly told us that there are eight Bills which he proposes at once to strike off the Order Book altogether. But, having taken that course, the right hon. Gentleman has accumulated no less than 14 measures which he hopes to proceed

    817
    with. I must say it is hardly likely that we shall see our way, in an ordinary Session, to dispose of those measures. From my own experience of the conduct of the Business of this House, I am bound to say that Ministers rather fall into an error in trying to keep too much on the Order Book, and retaining it there too long. I have not the least doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to get the whole of the 14 measures through. But, looking to the character and magnitude of some of these Bills, I venture to think that he will find it a difficult task. However, with regard to those he proposes to drop, I suppose he will be altogether justified. I would venture, however, to say a word with regard to Saturday Sittings. We are now making the Government masters of the whole time of the House, excepting on Friday evenings, and I think we have a right to demand that they shall not impose upon us the burden of Saturday Sittings. I mean Saturday Sittings for the purpose of legislation and bonâ fide work, because sometimes, at the end of a Session, a Money Bill requires to be passed through, when the House will sit for an hour or two; but Saturday Sittings for the purpose of legislation are an intolerable burden, and I take this opportunity of entering a caveat against them. Then, with regard to the Estimates, I shall be glad to know what the Votes are which are non-contentious; but I must express some little doubt as to the prudence of beginning on Tuesday a discussion on the Agricultural Holdings Bill and breaking it off about half-past 10. I do not think that course will be conducive to the saving of time. The right hon. Gentleman has not committed himself to any date, but I hope he does not contemplate keeping us here till all these 14 measures are passed, and all the Estimates are voted; but if he does, I am afraid it will be very long indeed. What I would suggest is, that when we have made a little further progress in the course of another week or two, he should take courage and sacrifice a few more measures. I quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman has indicated with regard to the discussion of questions of policy in Committee of Supply. He contemplates that we shall have an opportunity of discussing questions in regard to Egypt, South Africa, India,
    818
    and also the very important question in regard to education.
    MR. RICHARDsaid, that if the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill should not be passed this Session there would be in Wales deep, general, and bitter disappointment. Last Monday the Prime Minister gave a positive assurance that the Government did not intend to abandon the Bill. Wales had given the present Government a very loyal and all but unanimous support. He much feared that if this Bill were abandoned the effect would be to produce general discontent, and a feeling that, for their loyalty, the Welsh people had been unworthily requited by very shabby treatment.
    MR. GUY DAWNAYasked the Prime Minister to use his influence with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to induce him to withdraw his Resolution on the franchise, which no doubt was very interesting, but was of a purely abstract character, in order that he (Mr. Dawnay) might proceed with his Resolution with reference to the state of affairs in Zululand.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not propose to withdraw his excellent Resolution in favour of a Resolution referring to Zululand. He knew his Motion would not, after one evening's discussion, be accepted; but he meant to ask the House to project itself into the future. After the appeal of the Prime Minister he felt that he had only one thing to do, and that was to say that, so far as he was concerned, he would not interfere in any way with the course of Public Business by pressing the Resolution which stood in his name. He trusted the hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Guy Dawnay) would follow his (Mr. Labouchere's) excellent example, instead of bringing on some wild-cat Resolution about Zululand.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that the Secretary for War had promised an early opportunity to discuss the Reserves Vote and the Medical Vote, and he hoped the noble Lord would redeem his promise.
    SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he concurred in the regret expressed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) at the abandonment of the Welsh Education Bill, which might have been passed with a comparatively short discussion, and the abandonment of which would be received with great dis-

    819
    appointment in Wales. Welsh Members would be very glad to sit on a Saturday to proceed with the Bill.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped the Prime Minister would kindly consider the possibility of giving an opportunity for the discussion of his Motion on the subject of emigration from Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that under any circumstances this was a matter of paramount importance; but, after the recent action of the American Government, it might be considered to have acquired the character of urgency. He did not wish in any way to hamper the Prime Minister; but he trusted that an opportunity might be afforded of discussing the question, either upon the Estimates or in any other form in which it might be most convenient to the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman granted facilities for this discussion, He (Mr. J. Lowther) was quite ready to forego proceeding with his Resolution calling attention to the shortcomings of the Government.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER, said, he would remind the House that the Arrears Act passed last year, gave a certain sum of money for Irish emigration. He imagined that the money was nearly all spent, and he wished to bring before his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the fact that if nothing was done this Session all assisted emigration must cease—which, to his mind, would be a misfortune—because he believed much good had been done by it; and by no persons could such a decision be heard with so much regret and lamentation as the unfortunate people themselves. He understood his hon. Friend to say that Bills were to be brought forward for the extension of tramways in Ireland, and he was exceedingly glad to hear it; but he hoped they were not to suppose that nothing was to be done for emigration. As to South Africa, he would reiterate his conviction that the House would not be fulfilling its duty of taking its share in important Imperial questions without some discussion on that subject before the end of the Session. They were, of course, all aware that very little time remained; and on that ground he would avoid asking for a debate on a special Motion for South Africa, and would content himself with a discussion on the Vote. He hoped, however, that the Vote would be brought
    820
    on at a sufficiently early hour to admit of a real discussion taking place.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he thought the House would agree with the right hon. Gentleman in postponing the question of reviving the Grand Committees. He trusted that on Friday evenings, after the Motions, operative Supply might be set down, and not Bills which had no chance of passing this Session. He should also like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister intended to complete the Committee on the Tenants' Compensation Bill before He took the Report on the Corrupt Practices Bill?
    MR. RYLANDSreminded the House that the state of Supply at the present time was extremely unsatisfactory. The total number of Votes in the Army, Navy, and Civil Services Estimates was 193, and of these upwards of 140 had yet to to be passed. He thought Supply ought to have precedence over any Bill, except the Corrupt Practices and the Agricultural Holdings Bills, and those coming from the Grand Committees. If the Government still retained the idea of pressing forward some of the Bills of secondary importance which had been mentioned, the result must be either that those Bills would be very inadequately discussed, or Supply would be driven into a corner, or the convenience of Members would be seriously interfered with by the prolongation of the Session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he hoped that the Scotch and English Agricultural Holdings Bills would be taken nearly together for the sake of facilitating the discussion.
    COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, it would be inconvenient for Members interested in the Agricultural Holdings Bill to return from the Royal Agricultural Society's show at York next Tuesday for the sake of a discussion which would be broken off so early as half-past 10 o'clock.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was rather dissatisfied with the arrangement with regard to the Motion he had on the Paper, inasmuch as he had withdrawn it at a time when, if he had persisted with it, the Government would probably have been defeated. But he did so on the strict understanding that an opportunity for discussing it would be given before the 11th of July. He hoped,

    821
    therefore, he was not to be put off with only the fragment of a night. As to the Congo, he trusted that if a Treaty were come to it would be laid on the Table during the Session, and that an opportunity would be given for its discussion.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he hoped that if the National Debt Bill were proceeded with it would be brought on at an early period. He was quite certain, from what he had heard, that that Bill would not pass through the House without great discussion and opposition. He wished also to refer to the question of emigration, and he hoped the Prime Minister would give no time to the discussion of that question in the direction of increasing it. At present he believed there were not at all too many people in Ireland, and a great deal of labour was wanted which could not be obtained. He hoped, however, the result of the Tramways Bill would be to secure employment for the people who were ready to work.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Prime Minister seemed to be under the impression that the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill would not be opposed. That was a mistake. It would receive the greatest opposition, not only from several of the Scotch Members, but from himself. He could also entirely confirm what had fallen from the hon. Member who spoke last with regard to the National Debt Bill. He had no doubt that that Bill would provoke much opposition; but he thought it would be very unwise to break off the discussion on the Agricultural Tenants' Compensation Bill in the middle of the night. Perhaps the Prime Minister would say what Votes he considered non-contentious? He thought it would also be advisable to fix a day for their consideration.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, the Prime Minister had not said that it was determined to abandon the Bill dealing with education in Wales; and he very strongly appealed to him, in his reconsideration of the measure, that he would allow it to be one of the measures to be proceeded with.
    VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, he understood that in 10 days or a fortnight the Prime Minister would state whether he would proceed with the Bill referred to by the hon. Member who last spoke, and he suggested that it would be de-
    822
    sirable to have the Bill introduced and circulated in the meantime.
    MR. GLADSTONE: It has been said, Sir, by my hon. Friend behind me, that Tuesday would be an inconvenient day for the discussion of the Tenants' Compensation Bill, and I think that we had better allow the arrangements for Tuesday week to stand over for further consideration, with the view to suit the convenience of hon. Members as far as possible. It may be found convenient to divide the day, and have a Morning Sitting. With respect to the demands of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), I am obliged to contest entirely what he has said. It is really not reasonable to ask that an entire night should be voted to the further consideration of the question of Indian Finance, unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared to sit here until Christmas. With regard to Zululand, I understand the obstacle in the way of discussing the matter has been removed by the spontaneous action of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) has asked me whether we can give opportunities for the discussion of the Recruiting and Medical Votes. As to that, we shall do the best we can. We are, however, committed to finish the Corrupt Practices Bill in Committee, and then it is proposed to carry through the two Tenants' Compensation Bills. When that part of our work is done we shall have every disposition to give time to bring on this important and interesting question in Supply. With regard to Welsh education, if the noble Lord (Viscount Emlyn) will communicate with my right hon. Friend about the production of the Bill, that will be the most convenient course. The Bill is, I believe, prepared and ready for introduction; but whether its introduction would be convenient at the present moment I will not undertake to say. I am bound to say, however, that I myself am extremely anxious for a Bill of that kind to pass; but this one contains very complicated provisions, involving a great deal of novelty, and I cannot think we ought to pass a Bill of that kind without sufficient discussion; and, therefore, the question will be how much time the House can give in that direction before it is completely exhausted. With re-

    823
    gard to emigration, I quite feel that hon. Gentlemen ought to have an opportunity of testing the feeling of the House upon it, and the question of the Tramway Bill for Ireland will probably afford such an opportunity. If not, I shall be ready to revert to the subject on a future day. The Chief Secretary for Ireland has also something to say on that subject; but he does not intend to make a statement at the present moment. Then, I have been asked whether it is intended to have the Committee on the Tenants' Compensation Bill before the Report on the Corrupt Practices Bill, and I think that we should. I cannot give absolute pledges on the subject; but that is what we shall aim at. As to the question of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) with regard to Congo, the hon. Member may depend upon it that if there be any Treaty—and I cannot throw any light on the probability of there being such a Treaty—we shall lose no time in bringing it under the notice of the House, so that the House may have an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon it. I have taken due note of what has been said about the Local Government (Scotland) Bill and the National Debt Bill; but I do not think it would become me to enter upon either of these subjects at the present time, when the question before us is the discharge of certain Orders. With regard to the non-contentious Votes, before the time comes my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury will endeavour to make a statement with respect to them, and I have no doubt he will be able to do so.
    MR. NEWDEGATEasked when the text of the Italian Treaty would be laid on the Table?
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, there was one important Bill relating to Scotland which the Prime Minister did not mention in the list of measures which he said it was the intention of the Government to proceed with this Session. It was the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, and he was sure the Scottish Members would be glad to hear from the Prime Minister whether it was the intention of the Government to pass that Bill during the present Session. There was another Bill which he should like the Government to go on with, and that was the Bill for the amendment of the Education Act of Scotland. With regard to the Local Go-
    824
    vernment Board (Scotland) Bill, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Assheton Cross) that, so far from there being any opposition to that measure among Scottish Members on the Liberal side of the House, the more they considered it the better they liked it, and he was very glad that the Government had decided to proceed with it.
    MR. R. POWERsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for County Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) in the protest he made against any more time and money of the House being given to the helping of Irish emigration. He regretted, however, that the same hon. Member did not see his way to join the Irish Members on that side of the House when on three or four occasions they tried to reduce the money, the using of which he now thought was so injurious. He wished to ask the Prime Minister what had become of the Union Officers' (Ireland) Bill? Did he propose to massacre also the first legislative effort of the junior Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone)?
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished to ask the Prime Minister whether he could not hold out some hopes that several important subjects which were not in the shape of Bills should receive attention before the Session closed? The first of these was the existing condition of India, and the proposed legislation in that part of the Empire. Her Majesty's Government had afforded the House no satisfactory information with respect to those matters, and all that had been ascertained was that India was gradually going from bad to worse. He thought, therefore, that it was very important that Government should give some early opportunity of discussing the disastrous results of their policy in that country. Another subject was the condition of South Africa, where a serious change of policy had recently taken place. The Government had abandoned their intention of sending out a High Commissioner, and had decided to receive Commissioners from the Boers instead. That, he thought, should be made the subject of discussion, as it doubtless had an important bearing upon affairs in the Transvaal. There were other questions of great importance to the trade and commerce of this country which were likely to be ex-eluded from Parliament—such as French

    825
    aggression upon Madagascar, the Congo, the Indo-Chinese Peninsula, all of which, although the names might be strange and unfamiliar, affected our trade and commerce much more than any of the Bills before the House. Then there was the question of the annexation of New Guinea and the adjacent Islands, which was of the utmost importance to our Australian Colonies and the development of their trade. Yet nothing had, up to the present, been said about it. The home question of housing the poor was also of the greatest importance. That, owing to the influence of the Government over the hon. Member who was to have brought it forward, had been postponed; but he would urge upon the Government that the housing of the poor was a subject of much greater importance than the long, tedious, and impracticable scheme now before the House. He wished to make one very brief protest against the management of Business by Her Majesty's Government. He could not help thinking that it was very unfortunate that the Tenants' Compensation Bill had been made to yield to the Corrupt Practices Bill, as it was very necessary that the former Bill should be sent to the Upper House in ample time to allow of full discussion. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would see their way to devote some attention to the subjects he had referred to before the Session closed.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANregretted that the Government had also massacred another important Irish measure—the Sunday Closing Bill. That measure was looked forward to with pleasure by all classes in Ireland. [Mr. CALLAN: No, no.] He (Colonel King-Harman) insisted that it was a Bill called for loudly by all classes in Ireland. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would reconsider its decision regarding that Bill.
    MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, that he had not intended addressing the House until the Prime Minister actually moved that the Order for the Sunday Closing (Ireland) Bill be discharged. But as his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel King-Harman) had introduced the subject, he must not hesitate to supplement his remarks, and to enter as strong a protest as he possibly could against the conduct of the Government in respect to this Bill. In-
    826
    deed, he felt so strongly about the conduct of the Government, that he should have to be careful lest his feelings caused him to say something which he might afterwards regret. This Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland had been taken up by the Government at the instance of deputations representing every class in the community, which waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland before the opening of Parliament, and his action was supported by the most unanimous expression of opinion from the districts affected which had ever proceeded from the inhabitants likely to be affected by a social measure. The Bill passed through the House of Lords without a Division very early in the Session, and this, coupled with the fact that the Irish Government pledged itself to pass the Bill, caused the mind of its supporters to be quite easy. They took no pains to get a private measure of a similar nature through the House, and here was the result. Why, the Government had placed the supporters of this measure in the position of the historical donkeys which were coaxed over their journey by carrots being judiciously held to their noses. ["No, no!"] Well he certainly felt himself in that position. The conduct of the Government was a direct breach of faith with the supporters of the Bill. On the 27th of April last, replying to a deputation of Irish Members, the Chief Secretary for Ireland used these words—
    "The Irish Government could never acquiesce in the Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill not being passed into law this Session."
    There could be no firmer pledge than that; and yet the Government came and announced the throwing over of the Bill. Now, he must state, in the most emphatic manner, that he acquitted his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland of any chage of mind on this subject. He was convinced that the right hon. Gentleman was of the same mind still. But other influences in the Government had prevailed. He must point out that, in this matter, the Government were teaching a very bad lesson to their Irish Supporters. He, himself, had hitherto been one of the firmest and closest supporters of Her Majesty's Government. Many of the strongest supporters of the Bill were among the supporters of the Government, and from the principal opponents

    827
    of the measure the Government received nothing but opposition. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) and the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) were opponents of the Government; but the Government now played into the hands of those hon. Gentlemen, and they were throwing their own followers overboard. He supposed it was too late to induce the Prime Minister to go on with the Bill; but, at any rate, he would supplement the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite.
    MR. GLADSTONEexplained that the existing Act would be continued.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that the Government had adopted a very reasonable course in this matter, and hoped that the Government would not facilitate measures being brought forward on Saturdays by private Members.
    COLONEL NOLANhoped the Government would next Session take the matter of Sunday Closing entirely into their own hands. He was very glad to see that the Government intended to bring in a Bill to establish tramways in Ireland.
    MR. STEVENSONprotested against Sunday Closing being described as the "fad" of a private Member. It was the demand of great numbers of the people of the country. If there was not any progress to be made with the Irish Bill this Session, he hoped they would give facilities to pass the cognate measure relating to this side of the Channel.
    MR. CORRYsaid, He could not be regarded as a consistent supporter of Her Majesty's Government; but he should say he heard with very much regret the announcement that the Irish Sunday Closing Bill was to be abandoned for this year, after the various representations made by the Chief Secretary that there was no chance of the Bill being dropped. That step would cause immense discontent and dissatisfaction among his constituents. He trusted, however, that the measure would be again brought in early next Session and passed into law.
    MR. MACIVERwished to know the intentions of the Government with regard to the Bankruptcy Bill. He hoped that the House would have timely Notice when the Bill was to come before them.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had asked whether the Government intended to proceed with the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, and he wished to repeat the question, although, as far as he was concerned, he hoped the Bill would be at once abandoned. It was a Bill of upwards of 600 clauses, many containing a great deal of contentious matter, and it would be utterly futile to endeavour to proceed with it at this late period of the Session. With regard to the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill, however, that was a measure which the majority of the Scotch Members highly approved of; and he trusted the Government would endeavour to pass it this Session. It was down for second reading for next Monday, when he was afraid there was little chance of its being reached; and he would suggest that it should be set down for Tuesday, on which day there would be a very good chance for it.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, hoped that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) would take an opportunity of consulting his right hon. Friend on the Bankruptcy Bill.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, he rose to support the request of the hon. Member for Edinburgh that they might be favoured with some information with regard to the Education (Scotland) Bill as well as the Police Bill. The Education Bill was a small one, and he believed it was generally acceptable to Scotch Members, and also was a Bill that was anxiously looked forward to by many people in Scotland. Under these circumstances, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would state what their intentions were with regard to it.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that while the Government believed the Police Bill to be one of great importance, he feared that if many parts of it were made contentious, the measure could not be passed this year, and they should be obliged to drop it. The case of the Education Bill, however, was materially different. That was a comparatively small measure, and he could not think that it would be the subject of much argument. It was the

    829
    intention of the Government to proceed with that Bill.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, with regard to the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, so far as he was concerned, his objection to the Police Bill only applied to a few clauses specially affecting his own constituency. If the Lord Advocate would withdraw those clauses, which had no necessary connection with the Bill itself, he did not see why the rest of the Bill, with the co-operation of the Scotch Members, should not go through this Session, even although its length was so extended, because the majority of the Amendments ought not to occupy much time.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, the question ought to be how to press forward the legislation which was most desirable for the country and most beneficial to the majority. He would say a word as to the Irish measure. Let no one complain of him, an English Member, for mentioning an Irish Bill, for the greater part of their time for many years had been devoted to Irish measures. Anything which tended to the amelioration of Irish misery and distress must be matter of the highest importance. The House had heard a great deal about Irish landlords. But the amount of money taken by Irish landlords from the people of Ireland was small compared with that which had been swallowed by the Irish publicans. It was proved that the Bill passed by late Government had saved the Irish people £3,000,000.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Baronet was not entitled to go into the merits of the question.
    MR. CALLANsaid, notwithstanding the interest which the hon. Baronet professed to take in Irish poverty, he (Mr. Callan) could not help remarking that the other night the hon. Baronet came down to the House and waited up until 4 o'clock in the morning to prevent the Irish Members doing something to relieve Irish poverty. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel King-Harman) called the Registration Bill a Party Bill. He was not surprised at the hon. and gallant Member opposing the Bill, as it was well known a proper registration of voters would make his own seat for the county of Dublin exceedingly insecure. As to the speech of the hon. Member
    830
    for Belfast (Mr. Corry), he wished to say that he spoke in the presence of the two Representatives of Dublin, the two Representatives of Limerick, the two Representatives of Waterford, and the two Representatives of Cork, and these four cities were all opposed to the extension of the Act to them. As to the Union Officers' Bill, he hoped it would pass, as it was a Bill for the benefit of a very well deserving class.
    MR. M. BROOKSsaid, there was no doubt, that notwithstanding all that had been said, that there was in Dublin at least a very strong feeling against the extension of the Sunday Closing Act to that City.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he differed with the hon. Member (Mr. M. Brooks). In his opinion the feeling of the vast majority of the people of Dublin ran counter to what the hon. Gentleman had said, and in favour of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  NAVAL DISCIPLINE AND ENLISTMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].

    [BILL 241.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for the Second Reading be discharged."
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that in his opinion, and in the opinion of the vast number of naval officers he had consulted, the Bill was not one which, in its present shape, would be of any advantage to the Navy, and he was excessively glad that the Bill was not to be proceeded with.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

POLICE BILL.— [BILL 106.]
(Mr. Hibbert, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, The Lord Advocate.)
POLICE BILL.— [BILL 106.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for the Second Reading be discharged."
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, that the statement made by the Prime Minister on this subject would be received with great regret by the Police in Great Britain. It would have been better not to have brought forward the Bill at all than not to press it to a conclusion. In the case of the Scottish Police there was no superannuation at all. He hoped, however, that the Bill would be mentioned in the Queen's Speech of next Session, and pressed forward early.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped that, on account of the opposition the Bill had encountered, it would be introduced early next Session, so as to allow of the questions it raised being thoroughly threshed out.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid he was glad of the opportunity to express his extreme regret that the Bill would not be passed this Session. It was due in justice to the Police Force of the United Kingdom. But, unfortunately, it had encountered such a strong combination of violent opposition from the side of the House to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman belonged, that the Government, seeing no chance of its passing, had no alternative but to withdraw it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

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 6th July.] [SEVENTEENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Miscellaneous.
    Clause 41 (Punishment of bribery or treating committed in houses open for refreshment).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had promised to make a statement in regard to Clauses 41 and 42. Having considered the matter he had come to the conclusion that it would be better to withdraw both of these clauses, the first of which rendered any person occupying premises kept open for public refreshments and
    832
    entertainment in which any intoxicating liquor was sold, liable to indictment or summary conviction for illegal practices if he permitted any act which constituted bribery or treating within the meaning of the Act. Clause 42 involved the forfeiture of the licence by any person licensed to sell intoxicating liquors, when proved guilty of suffering either bribery or treating to be committed on his premises. The object of these clauses was to transfer the power of dealing with these offences from the Election Judges to the licensing authority, who at present had the sole power of dealing with a person carrying on a business of this nature for an infringement of the licence, and of exercising and controlling power over the mode in which the business was carried on. Of course, it would be necessary, in the first instance, before any action could be taken, that there should be a report from the Election Judge. In the event of any person being convicted after he had been reported, the licensing authorities would take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, and would have the same powers as the Election Judge. He found it would be necessary to modify Clauses 41 and 42 for the purpose of substituting the licensing authority for the Election Court or the Special Commissioners, and he proposed to introduce a new clause on the Report. He would place the new clause upon the Paper as soon as it was possible, and, of course, he would afford ample time for the consideration of the question before he asked the Committee to pass the clause. He hoped this course would have the effect of removing the opposition which had been raised to the clause.
    Question proposed, "That Clause 41 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had placed an Amendment upon the Paper to leave out in the first part of the clause the words "premises kept open for public refreshment," in order to insert the words "used either solely or partially for supplying refreshments, or for pleasurable resort and entertainment, &c." He was glad to hear the statement which had been made by the Attorney General, and, as he entirely acquiesced in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would not

    833
    press the Amendment, which he had only placed on the Paper as an act of justice to a particular class of individuals.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he was not in a position to state what course it would be desirable to take in the matter, until he had an opportunity of seeing what the new clause was. He confessed, however, that he did not understand why they should stigmatize a particular occupation or business in this way; and, therefore, he wanted to see how far it was intended to carry legislation in this direction. He thought it would be better to deal with the matter through the Licensing Court, rather than through the Election Court or the Special Commissioner. As to Clause 42, he was of opinion that it was altogether wrong. He would not, however, discuss the matter now, but would defer any observations he had to make until the new clause was brought up.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he thought no one ought to object to the course which the Attorney General proposed to take. There were strong objections to these clauses in their present form, and it would be better to save the time of the Committee by withdrawing them now, in order that a modified clause might be brought up on the Re-port.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he hoped that, in bringing up the new clause, the Attorney General would take into consideration the Amendment he (Mr. Tomlinson) had proposed to move—namely, the omission of the words "suffers to take place," with the view of inserting the words "knowingly permits." the object of that Amendment was to require that any act constituting bribery or treating within the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts should have been done with the permission, knowingly, of the occupier of the premises.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would consider all the Amendments which had been placed on the Paper; and he thanked the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) for postponing his observations until the new clause was brought up.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause 42 (Forfeiture of licence by person licensed to sell intoxicating
    834
    liquors when quilty of committing or suffering bribery or treating on his premises).
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Clause 43 (Removal of incapacity on proof that it was procured by perjury) agreed to.
    Clause 44 (Amendment of law as to polling districts and polling places).
    MR. CALLANsaid, he thought the adoption of this clause would materially increase the expense of an election. In Ireland there had been no complaint of the present system. He believed the practice there was to divide the county into Petty Sessional districts, constituting each one into a polling place; and he thought that was a most efficient and a most convenient mode of proceeding. He believed that the extension of this clause to the boroughs in Ireland would occasion a great deal of confusion; and he, therefore, trusted that it would be modified.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENasked whether the Attorney General accepted the Amendment which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had placed on the Paper for extending the operation of the clause to boroughs as well as to counties?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Amendment had not been moved.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENremarked that as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was not present to move the Amendment, he (Mr. J. Cowen) would move it instead. He had understood that the Attorney General had made an agreement with the hon. Member in regard to certain Amendments by which he had undertaken to deal with them himself; and it was scarcely fair, as far as the Committee were concerned, that that understanding should be departed from, because the hon. Member for Wolverhampton did not happen to be present. The object of the Amendment was to meet the case of large borough constituencies; and in the absence of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton he begged to propose the Amendment which appeared in that hon. Member's name.
    Amendment proposed, in page 30, line 3, after "county," insert "and borough."—(Mr. J. Cowen.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not intend to be discourteous to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler); but he thought both the hon. Member for Wolverhampton and the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) would see that the Amendment could have no result if it were inserted here. The effect of inserting it would be to provide that every county should be divided into polling districts, and that separate polling places should be assigned to each district, no matter how small the borough constituency might be—for instance, the borough of Portarlington and various other small Irish boroughs which had never hitherto been divided into polling districts would have, in future, to be divided, and separate polling stations provided. It was a very different thing in regard to a county; but in the case of small boroughs it was quite unnecessary to divide them, and the only effect would be to impose a large additional expense upon the candidate.
    MR. CALLANsaid, they had now abolished the employment of cars, and it would be necessary in such a borough as Drogheda, which extended for more than five miles into the county of Louth, to have various polling districts. He knew that in one part of the borough there were about 80 voters resident who were at least five miles from the centre of the borough; and as it would be impossible in future to provide thorn with carriages these voters would be obliged to walk to the polling place, a distance of from three to five miles, in order to vote. The case of Galway was a similar one, and in that instance they would oblige many of the voters to walk a distance of more than five miles. He, therefore, hoped the Attorney General would promise on the Report to see whether this difficulty in regard to some of the Irish constituencies could not be removed.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would consider the matter both in regard to Ireland and England; but the two cases of Galway and Drogheda, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, were separate and special cases. If there were any other
    836
    exceptional cases in which the borough was not divided into wards, if any hon. Member would call attention to it he would see what provision ought to be made.
    MR. CALLANsaid, He had only mentioned Galway and Drogheda; but he believed there were other cases.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENremarked, that in England there were boroughs similarly situated—such, for instance, as Morpeth. He would not, however, press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LEWIS MR. LEWIS moved, in line 7, to leave out "three," and insert "seven." the object of the Amendment, which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), was to provide that, whenever it was reasonable and practicable, every elector resident in a county should have a polling place within a distance not exceeding seven miles from his residence.
    Amendment proposed, in page 30, line 7, leave out "three," and insert "seven."—(Mr. Lewis.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he did not know how the Attorney General proposed to deal with this question. He knew a part of Cornwall in which the constituents were small farmers scattered over a wide district, and he wished to know who was to conduct the polling if it was required to be within three miles of the voters' residence? He believed that in many districts, if they fixed this as the mileage, a considerable amount of difficulty would be experienced, and that some of the voters might be left out because there would be no polling booth to which they could have access. He thought if the Attorney General would substitute "five" for "three" miles it would be an improvement, and it would be better than going as far as seven miles.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought the Amendment was a backward movement towards the law as it now stood. They had abolished the use of carriages to convey voters to the poll, and it was, therefore, necessary to bring the voters near to the polling booths. Something

    837
    must be done to render the voting more easy, although, no doubt, the multiplication of polling booths would increase the expense.
    MR. ONSLOWwished to put a ease to the hon. and learned Attorney General. Supposing that a farmer were in the habit of attending a market at a considerable distance from his residence, would he be allowed to vote at the place where the market was held? He might be two or three miles away from his regular polling booth in the district where he lived, and it might not be convenient for him to go there. If, then, he came to the market on business, would he be entitled to go to that central place and record his vote there?
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, that no voter would be able to vote exactly where he liked; but, in a case such as that mentioned by the hon. Member, the voter could attend the Registration Court, and complain to the Revising Barrister of the polling district provided for him being inconvenient.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he had a very important Amendment on the Paper, which he hoped would receive favourable consideration at the hands of the Attorney General. He proposed to add the following Proviso at the end of the 1st section of this clause:—
    "Provided always, That it shall be lawful for any elector, on making a declaration before a Justice of the Peace, to the effect that he is unable to vote at the polling station at which his qualification is situate, to vote at such polling station as he may select, and such selection shall be made in manner following, that is to say, at least two days before the election the elector shall sign a declaration according to form in Schedule, and the returning officer, on receipt of such declaration, shall furnish the presiding officer, at the station selected, with a list of those voters who have selected to vote at such station; and he shall also notify to the presiding officer in which the voter's qualification is situate, that the said voter has elected to vote elsewhere, and the said presiding officer shall thereupon erase the voter's name from the list for that station."
    He wished to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to the Committee generally, that the present provision in regard to polling booths would not help working men in the city which he represented. In the city of Liverpool the vast majority of the working class
    838
    were employed at a considerable distance from their residences, some of them five or six miles, so that it would be utterly impossible for them, under the new regulations, to vote unless they were prepared to sacrifice their day's wages. At present it was the practice to bring them up to the poll in carriages and omnibuses. By that means they were able to vote within their dinner hour, and then return to their work; but it would be utterly impossible for them to walk a distance of four or five miles to record their vote, and then return to their work within the hour; and the consequence would be that a large number of the workmen would be disfranchised. The Amendment simply carried out a principle which had already been adopted with regard to the county of Middlesex, where a voter could select the place at which he would vote. He proposed that an elector should make a declaration before a Justice of the Peace that he wished to poll at the place at which he was working, and not where he resided; and upon that declaration being made two days before the election, the presiding officer of the district in which the voter proposed to vote should have authority to record the vote, having received from the Justice before whom the declaration was made a notice that A or B had decided to vote in the place where he was working. He thought that in that way any attempt at personation might be avoided, and he assured the Attorney General that a privilege of that kind would be most acceptable generally to the vast majority of the working classes, who felt that, under the Bill as it stood, they would be, practically, disfranchised. The class most affected were the really hard-working and respectable members of the working class. Those who worked without any regular employment might be able to vote; but those who were in constant work would be, practically, disfranchised by the Bill. He hoped the Attorney General would consider whether, by altering the present clause, or by bringing up any other clause to effect the object which would equally serve his (Mr. Whitley's) purpose, he could not consent to this request. He (Mr. Whitley) had not met the Bill in any captious spirit. Indeed, he was anxious that it should pass; but he was also anxious to secure that the working classes especially should have the pri-

    839
    vilege of enjoying their votes. He would, therefore, be glad if the Attorney General would accept the Amendment, or bring up another clause to carry out the view expressed in the Amendment in any way that might seem best to himself. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he did so he would earn the gratitude of a largo number of working men who would otherwise be disfranchised. As he had pointed out, there was a precedent in the case of the county of Middlesex, where it was provided that a voter whose name was upon the register should be able to make an application to be allowed to record his vote in another district.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDremarked, that the application would have to be made to the Revising Barrister.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he only wanted to effect that object. He was quite careless as to the way in which it was carried out. He begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 30, line 9, after the word "electors," to insert the words,—"Provided always, That it shall he lawful for any elector, on making a declaration before a justice of the peace, to the effect that he is unable to vote at the polling station in which his qualification is situate, to vote at such polling station as He may select, and such selection shall be made in manner following, that is to say, at least two days before the election the elector shall sign a declaration according to form in Schedule, and the returning officer, on receipt of such declaration, shall furnish the presiding officer, at the station selected, with a list of those voters who have elected to vote at such station, and he shall also notify to the presiding officer in which the voter's qualification is situate, that the said voter has elected to vote elsewhere, and the said presiding officer shall thereupon erase the voter's name from the list for that station."—(Mr. Whitley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, they were all agreed in the desire to prevent anything like the disfranchisement of any voter; but he thought the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) would see that the Amendment he proposed went far beyond what was necessary. The proposal made by the hon. Member was to allow any person to go to the Revising Barrister, to give in his name, the place where He resided, and to state the name of the district in which he wanted to vote. It
    840
    might be advisable to give such power to the voter in boroughs if they were bringing forward a new Registration Bill; but that was not the case at present, and his own opinion was that it was desirable for a man to vote among his neighbours by whom he was known, and that he should go to the poll with his neighbours. If the hon. Member knew the extent to which personation was carried on at elections, he would be induced to see that the only check upon it was that a voter should poll where he was known. Therefore, any suggestion of this kind would require careful consideration, and it would be necessary to see what safeguards there were by which the voting could be surrounded. The Proviso moved by the hon. Member was very loosely drawn. It stated, in the first place, that it should be lawful for any elector, on making a declaration before a Justice of the Peace to the effect that he was unable to vote at the polling station in which his qualification was situate, &c. Now, he confessed he could not understand what those words meant. How could a man's qualifications be situate in a polling station? He did not wish to be hypercritical; but he really did not see what his hon. Friend meant, and he did not think the words of the Proviso would carry out what was desired. The other parts of the clause were drawn with equal looseness. As he had already said, it might be proper, if they were introducing a new Registration Bill, to consider the question; but they ought to be chary how they provided that a man on the eve of an election should vote at some different place from that at which, according to the register, he was entitled to poll. He was afraid that the Amendment would open the door to a large amount of personation. He had every desire to facilitate the power of the elector to vote; but the Amendment moved by the hon. Member was of too dangerous a character to justify its insertion in its present form.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he could not help thinking that the objection which the Attorney General had raised to the Amendment of the hon. Member was illusory. As a matter of fact, people did not vote in the presence of their neighbours, and the only way to prevent personation was to have a personation agent in attendance—some person acquainted with the district from

    841
    which the voter came. The Attorney General seemed to think it was desirable that every man should march to the polling booth with his neighbour; but if that were done it would have no beneficial effect, because each man would go in singly to vote, and would be left by his neighbours at the door of the polling booth. It therefore seemed to him that the objection of the Attorney General came to nothing; and as to the verbal criticism of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be got rid of by the insertion of words showing that the polling station was to be "in the district" in which the qualification was situated. If they prolonged the hours of polling into the hours of darkness, he believed that deeds of darkness would prevail. He thought it had been the impression of Parliament hitherto that it was not desirable to extend the hours of polling. He knew that there had been a strong effort made in that direction; but the general feeling of Parliament had been against it. It was thought that they would facilitate corrupt practices by allowing an election to take place at a late hour. The Proviso moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) would get rid of a difficulty in the case of persons engaged in labour. As the Attorney General did not promise to bring up any clause upon the subject himself, and as there was no promise of any future legislation in that direction, he certainly should support the Amendment.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had pointed out serious objections to the Amendment in point of form. Another objection was that it was proposed to add it to the sub-section of a clause which related to county elections only, whereas the contention of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) applied only to borough elections. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not see why they should insert the Proviso in the middle of a clause which related entirely to county elections. The hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) had referred to the question of extending the hours of polling, and had assorted that the feeling of Parliament was strongly against such a change. That was not so, because in the last Parliament the question was discussed on several occasions at some
    842
    length; and not only was the feeling of the House in favour of the proposal, but the hours of polling in London had been extended.
    MR. CALLANremarked that, by the law as it stood at present, no application could be made to the Revising Barrister to transfer an applicant from one polling place to another until next September. He (Mr. Callan) knew from experience that if they adopted the Proviso of the hon. Member for Liverpool, they would have to keep up a very extensive and expensive staff of personation agents. He knew some voters who would require at least half-a-dozen of these personation agents to prove whether they were the proper persons to vote or not.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, the additional objection which had just been made from the Treasury Bench by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was also an objection, upon a matter of form, to the place in which this sub-section was proposed to be inserted. He hoped the fact that the objections were substantially objections to matters of form would induce the Government to give some facility such as was asked for, in order to enable large bodies of working men to record their votes. He knew something of what occurred in a large constituency, where there were a considerable number of working men. He had undergone two contested elections in one of these constituencies, and he must say that serious difficulty was experienced in getting the votes recorded at all. It must be remembered that under the state of things constituted by the present Bill there would be no power to convey voters to the poll. Although in the elections which took place in the Metropolis in 1880 the poll remained open until 8 o'clock in the evening, he knew that there was very great difficulty, in the borough he was specially referring to, in getting working men up to the poll on both sides, even by a very extensive use of carriages. The use of these conveyances was now forbidden, and he was satisfied that in a large district of that kind it would be impossible, even if the hours were extended until 8 o'clock, to get up the full strength of the working men to the poll, unless there were some provision of this kind. He thought it a most desirable provision to add, both in regard to large con-

    843
    stituencies in boroughs and also county constituencies, where there was a good deal of time sacrificed by requiring the voter to vote in the place in which his qualification was situated. It was quite true that in the counties a voter could, by giving notice to the Revising Barrister, select the place at which he should record his vote. But the Revising Barrister sat in the month of September, and the list of voters came into operation in the following January; and it might be that the election did not take place until November, and by that time it might have become a matter of importance for the voter to vote in another district altogether. He trusted that the Attorney General would give proper consideration to the matter, and bring up some clause in order to deal with the subject.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the Attorney General had criticized the manner in which the Amendment was drawn up; but he thought some of the clauses of the Bill itself were very much open to the same objection. He believed that everyone connected with the large manufacturing towns would be desirous of affording facilities for the voting of large gangs of working men who were employed at a distance from their place of residence. In his own district there was a considerable number of shipwrights and engineers who possessed a right to vote, but whose work was situated some six, eight, or ten miles away from the place where they resided. What the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) wished was to give these men facilities for voting without obliging them to lose a day's wages on the polling day; and if that object were not met in the present clause, it might be met in some other way. He (Mr. J. Cowen) was quite sure the difficulty did arise, and, if some provision was not made to guard against it, it would disfranchise a large number of working men.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, it appeared that the only objection raised to the Amendment by the Government was that it would give facilities for personation; and he thought that objection had no foundation. It was quite true that if the elector appeared before the Revising Barrister, and showed that he was working in another part of the constituency from that in which he lived,
    844
    facilities might be given for changing the polling place; but that was not what was wanted in the present case; and in regard to the personation, he failed to see how the Amendment would assist anyone who desired to commit that offence. This provision would enable an elector, on the eve of the election, to apply to the Returning Officer for leave to vote in another district; and, in that case, the name of the voter would be struck out of the list for the district in which he resided, but where he might not be very well known, and would be inserted in the list for the place where he worked, and where he could be identified. In fact, the Amendment afforded security against personation, inasmuch as it required the voter who applied for the change to make a declaration before a Justice of the Peace, and thereby to afford evidence for his identification. If some such modification were not made, he thought a good many electors who belonged to the working classes would be disfranchised.
    MR. STANTONwished to point out that the register must be prepared some little time before the election took place, and the lists were usually prepared at the end of the year. In the case of working men, they were constantly changing their places of abode, and, in a good many instances, were constantly changing their places of work; and if, on a sudden, an election took place, and if the Returning Officer, a few days before the election, when his hands were full of all kinds of arrangements, were to find himself surrounded by 300 or 400 working men who wished to change their place of polling, he would have his labours in connection with the election enormously increased. He (Mr. Stanton) did not think it practicable or possible to change the lists in the short time fixed in the Amendment. A very large number of the lists of voters would be required for distribution all over the borough or county, and the Returning Officer would find it absolutely impossible to conduct the election under this Proviso. He thought the objection of not being able to poll might be met by giving the working classes a couple of hours during the middle of the day instead of the dinner hour, or by extending the hours of polling generally, or by adopting a system of voting such as he (Mr. Stanton) and other hon.

    845
    Members were prepared to support—namely, in the shape of voting papers.
    MR. LEWISsaid, that the question was only one of a choice of evils. He did not think that he should have supported the Proviso of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) if the Bill did not go a great deal further by getting rid of the use of conveyances, notwithstanding the fact that, in many instances, they would have the infirmities of human nature to deal with, and very long distances to travel. All they had to consider was this—whether, for the sake of that idolatry they were all more or less going through with regard to the Bill, it was necessary to say that it was a high crime and misdemeanour to take a man to poll in a cab, or to pay a shilling for conveying a working man or an infirm person to the poll. He failed to see how they were to deal with the question when it arose in regard to the great constituencies of the country, or how they were to provide men with an opportunity of polling at a great distance from the place where they worked. One hon. Member suggested that there should be an hour for polling in the middle of the day; and another suggested that the hours for polling generally should be extended. The present proposition was to allow an elector to make a declaration before a Justice of the Peace, and to get his polling place changed. As it was only a choice of evils, and as the Amendment would prevent the necessity on the part of a working man of travelling for many miles, he should not oppose the Amendment.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) said the Bill got rid of the power of carrying voters in conveyances to the poll; but it was only since 1880 that they had the power of doing that. Suppose on the day of polling 200 or 300 people went to the Returning Officer and said they wanted to go to another polling station, and to have their names struck out from the list in which they appeared, how was the Returning Officer to know the persons who made the application, and be satisfied that they were not cases of personation? Take the case of Liverpool. The place of a man's work might be some distance from the place where he resided. It was said that they might
    846
    have personation agents at the polling booths; but unless the personation agents lived among the people, how could they know who they were? They could not send a personation agent out of the district in which he was acquainted with the electors; and, therefore, this practical difficulty in respect to personation agents would still exist, and upon that ground he opposed the Amendment.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, it was quite true, as the Attorney General had pointed out, that before 1880 it was not lawful to pay for conveying voters to the poll. But the law in 1880 was considerably altered; and the hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that the law in 1880 was not so stringent as it would be made now by this Act. At that time a man could exercise charity by ordering carriages to convey voters to the poll; but at the present moment, if any man did such a thing, He would bring the most serious consequences, not only upon himself, but upon innocent persons. Now, in the first place, he did not think this was a personation matter at all. He took exactly the view of the Bill which had already been stated, although in far better words, by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). He was not at all in love with the clause nor with the Amendment; but he admitted that the Amendment would be better than nothing. He was sure, from his own experience, which was not very small in electioneering matters, that the ban which had been placed upon the employment of conveyances would disfranchise a large number of voters. At the same time, he knew perfectly well that many hon. Members who voted with the Attorney General wished to see a large class of these electors disfranchised solely upon the ground that such electors did not agree with themselves in political opinion. [Cries of "No!"] At any rate, that was his experience, and it was not a very small one. There were many voters who, like the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), desired to see nobody represented or have a vote except they happened to agree with him in opinion. The Liberal Party thought that a large portion of the electors living away from the polling places were likely to vote in a different way from that in which they would vote themselves; and, therefore, they desired to prevent them,

    847
    as far as possible, from being taken to the poll. They all knew the difficulty of getting electors to poll unless the polling place was handy. If the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) went to a Division he should support the Amendment.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down told the Committee that he had had some experience in elections. So also had he (Mr. Torrens), and he deprecated this Amendment most decidedly. He would tell the Committee why. In London there had been an extension of the hours of polling; and he was bound to say, from his own personal observation, that nothing in the world could work better or more orderly, and he only wished the Government could be induced to extend that provision to their fellow-citizens in the country towns. If there was one thing he found it hard to eradicate from the minds of what were called half-educated people, it was the notion that personation, when it was done honestly, was not wrong. He would tell the Committee what happened to himself at the last Election, and he would leave the Committee to judge whether he was dealing with an imaginary case. In the course of the contest he had an interview with a foreman of a large establishment, and he took occasion to ask him if they had voted there. "Oh, yes," he said, "we all voted before 9 o'clock this morning, excepting So-and-so; and we intend to put that all right. I will take care that if he does not come up by 3 o'clock I will go and vote for him." This was said in perfect good faith, and the man evidently thought he was doing something perfectly right. Of course, he (Mr. Torrens) regarded the idea with horror, and told the man to do nothing of the kind, adding that he would only vitiate the election. The reply he received was—"Mr. Charles is as well entitled to vote as any man in England, and we must take care that his vote is not lost." That was a danger which the Committee might not realize Persons of this class had a notion that if a man was qualified his vote ought to be given, and he was afraid that if the Committee consented to pass this Amendment they would only be giving facilities for personation. He would give the Committee another experience he had obtained of a different character. In the Metropolis,
    848
    thanks to the exertions of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, the poll was now kept open until 8 o'clock. At 7 o'clock on a winter's evening he had gone to the furthest suburb of the borough he represented in order to see how things were going on. He found that there was a great portion of the constituency in that part of the town who worked in the centre of London, but who lived at Stoke Newington. They could not give up their day's pay in order to vote; but they hastened from their work to be in time, and they were in time. They came in from the centre of London, and went into the polling booth with such order, regularity, and as silently as a troop of ants. If the Committee was to take the same course in regard to other borough constituencies, and extend the hours of voting, they would have orderly voting; but if they attempted to carry out the Proviso moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) they would only bring about personation, and render elections liable to be vitiated without any real cause.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he understood that the principal objection of the Attorney General had reference to personation. He should be the very last to desire to do anything to encourage personation; but he did not think there was the slightest difficulty on that head. He believed that a certain amount of personation did exist now; but there would be no danger of personation if the Amendment were adopted, and if it were not, great numbers of the working classes would be practically disfranchised. His experience was that it was only the most respectable of the working classes who would avail themselves of the privilege. The Amendment required every man taking advantage of it to make a declaration before a Justice of the Peace, and he would know that in making that declaration he would render himself liable to a serious punishment if he made a false declaration. It would be found that men who were prepared to make such a declaration before a Justice of the Peace would be the last men to attempt anything in the shape of personation. The difficulty he proposed to deal with was no imaginary one. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens) said that an extension of the hours of polling might meet the

    849
    case. Probably it might in some localities, and in regard to large boroughs he was not at all opposed to extend the hours of polling; but, at the same time, a measure of that kind would not remedy the evil in a place like Liverpool. They had in Liverpool tried, on one or two occasions, to prolong the time for election in connection with parochial affairs; but a strong feeling was expressed against voting in the dark hours. In the summer, when the days were long, there was no difficulty in this respect; but in the winter time, in some parts of Liverpool, it would be absolutely dangerous to conduct elections. He gathered from the remarks of the Attorney General, that the only thing they had to guard against was the possibility of personation; and he certainly was of opinion that personation would be prevented if they required a man who wished to change his polling place to make a declaration before a Justice of the Peace some three or four days before the day of polling. The names of such men would then be transferred from the place at which they resided to the place where they worked, and they would be easily identified. If the Government declined to concede this privilege, they would virtually disfranchise a very large number of working men who were among the most respectable men in the borough, and who had a fair claim and right to the consideration of Parliament. They had already made it penal for anyone to hire a carriage and convey a working man to the poll; and under the Bill, as it stood, no working man could hire a carriage to convoy himself and some of his fellow-workmen to the poll. Surely, under such circumstances, the labouring classes had a right to the favourable consideration of the House. Objection had been made to the way in which the clause was drawn; but he did not tie himself to the words of the clause. They might alter it as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) had suggested, by inserting the words "in the district," after "polling station," or he should be perfectly contented if the Attorney General would bring up some clause to meet this very urgent case—a case which he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman would in Liverpool alone affect from 15,000 to 20,000 voters. Surely a case
    850
    like that was worthy of the attention and consideration of Her Majesty's Government. As he had already said, he did not think for a moment that the alteration he suggested would lead to personation, which he would be the last man to defend. The Attorney General said that men ought to go up to the poll in company with their neighbours and friends by whom they were known. That might be all very well in the borough of Taunton; but he (Mr. Whitley) represented from 60,000 to 80,000 electors—men who did not know their neighbours any more than the "man in the moon." the presiding officer would not know them, neither would their neighbours know them; but an opportunity would be afforded, if necessary, of making inquiries and identifying the voter by requiring a declaration to be made before a Justice of the Peace three or four days before the polling took place. He thought it would be a great hardship if the elector was not allowed to make that declaration; and he hoped the Government would seriously consider, if they found themselves unable to accept this provision, whether they could not bring up some clause of their own to meet the difficulty. By that means they would earn for themselves the gratitude of a large number of the working classes.
    SIR CHAPLES W. DILKEsaid, he would appeal to the Committee to come to a decision at once upon the Amendment. As a matter of fact, up to that moment, they had made no progress with the Bill. The first clauses brought under the consideration of the Committee had been dropped, and it was now time that progress was made. He, and his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, had already several times pointed out the objections which were entertained against the Amendment and the form in which it was now proposed. In addition to the other objections, the Amendment would render the conduct of elections absolutely impossible. Towards the close of the poll there might be a large number of voters in a borough desiring to record their vote at a particular polling place under the Amendment, and the Returning Officer would have no means of checking their votes. He would be altogether unable to cope with the difficulty at the last moment.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he did not think the Committee ought to listen for one moment to the suggestion made by the President of the Local Government Board that, although they had been sitting for an hour, they had made no progress with the Bill. No doubt, they sometimes went rather quickly, and sometimes rather slowly; but the real question to consider was how they could best do justice to a large number of their fellow-subjects. The first objection to the Amendment was one taken by the Attorney General as to the manner in which it was worded; but that objection was hardly worth serious consideration, because, in two minutes, the Committee could obviate it by altering the phraseology of the Amendment. The next objection was that the clause was in the wrong place; and that was an objection which was got rid of quite as easily. In point of fact, the Attorney General had pooh-poohed and sneered at the Amendment; but, after it had undergone some discussion, the hon. and learned Gentleman began to see that there might be something important in it after all; and, finding that a considerable number of Members did attach importance to it, another Member of the Government got up upon the Treasury Bench to tell them they ought to divide, because, so far, they had made no progress with the Bill. Now, it seemed to him that the Government had not given the slightest consideration to the proposition; and, if they had any real desire to make progress, they would not have met the Amendment with ridiculous criticisms about the words in which it was framed. The adoption of the Amendment would facilitate the polling of working men; and, upon that ground, he (Mr. Warton) would support it.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he had one or two verbal Amendments to propose which would remedy the objection raised to the Amendment by the Attorney General. In the first place, in line 9, at the end of the 1st sub-section, after the word "electors," he would move to add the words "in any county or borough."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "elector," insert the words "in any county or borough."—(Sir Hardinge Giffard.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, He would accept that Amendment, and also any other Amendment the hon. and learned Gentleman had to propose, in order that they might divide upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) in the form in which hon. Members opposite desired to put it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD moved, in line 3, after the words "polling station," to insert the words "in the district."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD moved to extend the time for making the declaration from two to four days, and also after the words "the elector shall sign," to insert the words "and forward to the Returning Officer." It appeared to him that two days were too short a time for the declaration to be made and sent to the Returning Officer, and he proposed to strike out "two" and insert "four." the second Amendment made provision for the reception of the declaration by the Returning Officer.
    Amendment proposed, in line 5, leave out "two," and insert "four."—(Sir Hardinge Giffard.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in line 6, after the word "sign," insert "and forward to the Returning Officer."
    Amendment agreed to
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment by inserting, in line 11, after the words "presiding officer," the words "of the district."—(Sir Hardinge Giffard.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GORSTrose to Order. He wished to make a suggestion to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Amendment—namely, whether it would not be as well in the last words of line 4 to insert an Amendment requiring the district in which the voter resided to be notified to the Returning Officer?
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he did not think that would be necessary.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKEsaid, that now the Amendment had been amended he should ask the Committee to reject it altogether.
    Question put,
    "That the words' Provided always, That it shall be lawful for any elector in any county or "borough, on making a declaration before a justice of the peace, to the effect that he is unable to vote at the polling station in the district in which his qualification is situate, to vote at such polling station as he may select, and such selection shall be made in manner following, that is to say, at least four days before the election the elector shall sign, and forward to the returning officer, a declaration according to form in Schedule, and the returning officer, on receipt of such declaration, shall furnish the presiding officer, at the station selected, with a list of those voters who have elected to vote at such station, and he shall also notify to the presiding officer of the district in which the voter's qualification is situate, that the said voter has elected to vote elsewhere, and the said presiding officer shall thereupon erase the voter's name from the list for that station,' be there inserted."—(Mr. Whitley.)
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 79: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 184.)
    MR. E. S. HOWARDsaid, he thought the Amendment he was about to propose would not be objected to by Her Majesty's Government, because the Committee had agreed to the abolition of payment for conveyance of voters; and this was an attempt to remedy the inconvenience which some voters would suffer in consequence of that abolition, by bringing the poll nearer to their doors. The clause proposed that every county should be divided into polling districts, and a polling place assigned to each district in such a manner that, so far as was reasonably practicable, every elector resident in the county should have a polling place within a distance not exceeding three miles from his residence, provided that no polling place should be constituted which contained less than 100 electors. That meant that the electors should have the polling places nearer to themselves, and if it were carried out there was no doubt there would be a great increase in the number of polling places where the population was scattered, and a corre-
    854
    sponding increase of the expenses; but he did not think they ought to complain of the latter, because the expense of polling places would be as nothing compared with that of conveying voters to the poll. At the same time, he did not see why needless expense should be incurred for clerks, messengers, and officers, as well as a waste of time. It was his experience that in many of the outlying districts in his county the poll, even where there were 300 or 400 electors, was closed at 1 or 2 o'clock in the afternoon, and that the rest of the day was spent by the officers in chatting with the persons who came in with the election agents. Now, the adoption of his Amendment would utilize the staff during the whole day, because, where the electors were widely scattered in any polling district, he proposed that the poll should be taken at such two places successively as might be determined upon by the local authority, with the proviso that the poll should be open for not less than three hours at each place. At the risk of not having stated the case as strongly as he might have done, having regard to the time of the Committee, he would conclude his remarks by pointing out that the Amendment was only permissive in its character; and if the local authorities did not think it practicable they need not put it into effect. He trusted, under all the circumstances, that the Amendment which he now begged to move would receive the favourable consideration of the Attorney General.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 30, Sub-section 2, at end, add:—"Where in any polling district the electors are widely scattered, the poll may be taken successively at two places which shall be determined upon by the local authority in such manner to equalize as far as possible the distance to the poll to be traversed by the surrounding electors: Provided, That the poll shall be open for not loss than three hours in each such place."—(Mr. E. S. Howard.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he rose to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Cumberland, which, if it were adopted, would provide an especial convenience in counties where the electors were scattered, and where the character of the district rendered communication difficult. In counties like Cum-

    855
    berland and Derbyshire the means of conveyance to the poll had always been especially necessary; and he thought that the restrictions which they had put upon the conveyance of electors in the earlier portion of the Bill placed them under a strong obligation to bring the poll nearer to the door of the elector. He apprehended that the expense would not be so much in the cost of the stations to be provided as in the staff necessary to carry on the business of the polling; and, therefore, if they made the staff do double duty in the manner proposed by the hon. Member, it would make a great difference in the cost on the side of economy. He trusted the Attorney General would see his way to accept this Amendment, or one of a similar character.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, while he could not complain of the Amendment of his hon. Friend being brought forward, He hoped that the Committee would perceive that the question involved in it did not naturally arise on this Bill. It ought to be rather an appendage to the Ballot Bill than to a Bill for the suppression of corrupt and illegal practices at elections. He should be quite willing to consider the hon. Member's proposal in connection with the Ballot Bill; but he could see at once a considerable disadvantage in it, and that was that it would give one staff to two different polling districts, or, in fact, it would cut one polling district in half. In that way they would disfranchise, to a certain extent, persons who went away from their homes in the morning and could not get back before the polling place in their district was closed. Nor did he think it would add to economy in the matter of the staff, who, when they had finished at the first place, would have to follow the presiding officer and catch him up at the second polling place. He trusted his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had been on the point of rising to ask whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Cumberland was in Order. The Committee had passed a clause making the payment of voters' travelling expenses illegal, by which means a large number of persons had been disfranchised. Hon. Members on those Benches would, therefore, have to call upon the Government to
    856
    find some machinery by which those voters who were too poor to pay the necessary travelling expenses would be able to get to the poll. It was all very well to say that the Ballot Bill would offer a more appropriate opportunity of introducing the Amendment of the hon. Member; but the Ballot Bill would not make its appearance that Session, and they could not wait until then for machinery necessary to enable the persons he had indicated to record their votes, because no one could say what a year might bring forth. What he desired to impress on the Government was that they must settle some means of getting voters to the poll before the Bill passed.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought the idea of the hon. Member for East Cumberland an excellent one, although it would take too long to discuss it at that moment, and defend it against the strictures of the Attorney General. But he hoped the hon. Member would not be disheartened by the manner in which his suggestion had been received, and that when the Ballot Bill was before the House he would bring it forward again. The Amendment would be more appropriate to that measure, and he gathered from the Attorney General's remarks that he was not unfavourable to its principle. Having put a stop to the conveyance of voters, some means must be devised, in the case of districts where the electors were scattered, for getting the electors to the poll.
    MR. E. S. HOWARDsaid, that, on the principle that a bird in hand was worth two in the bush, he should have liked to have taken the sense of the Committee with regard to this matter. As, however, it was to be taken up again he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that in line 10 the words "who have" evidently ought to be "which has." He would, therefore, move to make the alteration.
    Amendment proposed, in page 30, line 10, leave out the words "who have," in order to insert the words "which has."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, they might as well

    857
    discuss the question as to whether the Committee has or the Committee have. It was usual for the words to take the form in which they appeared in the clause, and it was hardly worth while altering them.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. RANKINsaid, he wished to propose the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name, which was, after the words "Much Wenlock," to insert the word "Leominster." the object of the 3rd section of the clause, into which his Amendment would be incorporated, was to treat certain large boroughs—East Retford, Shoreham, Cricklade, Much "Wenlock, and Aylesbury—as if they were counties. These places were more like counties than boroughs, and his desire was to include Leominster, the circumstances of which place were similar to those of the places enumerated in the sub-section. Leominster had a large number of voters scattered over a very extensive area—about 25 square miles—and many of the electors lived further than three miles from the polling station; and as conveyances were not to be allowed, and many of these people were poor agricultural labourers, they should be treated as though they were electors for a county.
    Amendment proposed, in page 30, line 16, after "Much Wenlock," insert "Leominster."—(Mr. Rankin.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Leominster' be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said that certain boroughs in this country had for a long time been treated as counties. In 1867, East Retford, Shoreham, Cricklade, and Much Wenlock were treated as counties at the request of their Representatives, and at that time nothing was suggested as to the exclusion of Leominster. He would ask the hon. Member not to press the proposal.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, He had no doubt he should be corrected if he were wrong; but to the best of his recollection there were four places originally included, and that Much Wenlock was added in 1867, which place was included on the representation of a very distinguished man, the present Lord Forester, who, at that time, represented the borough. It seemed to him (Mr. R. N. Fowler)
    858
    only reasonable that Leominster should be added in the same way on the Motion of its Representative.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, there were a large number of other boroughs in the country which could make the same claim, and which it would be difficult to exclude if the request in the case of Leominster were acceded to. For instance, he should be prepared to move that Wolverhampton, with its 25,000 electors, and its area extending 10 or 12 miles, should be included. Wolverhampton was not all one town, but was a variety of towns grouped together; and it seemed to him that any argument that applied in the case of Leominster equally applied in the case of his borough. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: No, no!] He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) claimed to be better acquainted with the place than the hon. Member for Eye. He did not think the Committee ought, on a simple off-hand Motion of this kind, without any inquiry, but simply on the Motion of the Member representing the borough, to adopt a change of this kind. He was sorry that he had not been present when the clause dealing with polling places was considered; but, at the proper time, he proposed to bring up a new clause, providing that all large boroughs should have polling places provided at a distance of not more than a mile from the residence of the electors, provided there were not more than 100 electors in each place. Without questioning the claims of Leominster, he objected to any exception being made in its favour, unless many other places were included.
    MR. H. T. DAVENPORTwished to point out that there was a great difference between the boroughs of Wolverhampton and Leominster. In the case of Leominster, the district was a very large one, and the polling places were very far apart; but in Wolverhampton the polling places were scattered all over the borough.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETThoped the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir. Rankin) would not allow himself to be deterred by the dictatorial instructions of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), because, as the hon. Member who had just sat down had shown, there was an immense difference between the boroughs of Wolverhampton and Leominster. He (Mr.

    859
    Ashmead-Bartlett) might, with much reason, propose the inclusion of the borough of Eye; but, for the satisfaction of hon. Members opposite, he would state that he did not intend to take that course. "What was the difference between Much Wenlock, Aylesbury, and the borough of Leominster? Why should Much Wenlock and Aylesbury be treated as counties, and not the borough of Leominster? Because five places had already been treated as counties, it was no reason why another borough, under similar conditions, should not be treated in that way also.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 93: Majority 54.—(Div. List, No. 185.)
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid the next Amendment was in his name, and it was one which it was hardly necessary to explain at any length. Its object was to provide a polling station for every 500 electors. It was not unnatural that there should have been some considerable discussion to-night upon this subject, and he thought that hon. Members had a perfect right to endeavour to remedy the evils in this Bill with regard to the difficulty that many electors would have of getting to the poll. It might be argued that this was not the proper place to insert such an Amendment as this, and he was not himself sure that this was the best part of the Bill in which to insert it. He made his proposal, however, as much as anything else for the purpose of hearing the views of hon. Members, and of having a discussion on the question. It might be said that the proper place for such a proposal would be in the Ballot Bill; but they had heard that that measure was to be dropped this Session. Well, before that measure passed a great many things might happen. As disabilities were to be created by this Bill, and as a provision preventing the use of conveyances for taking voters to the poll had been adopted, unless some such alteration as that he proposed were accepted many electors would be disfranchised. He begged to propose his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 30, line 18, after "county," insert "Provided also that in every county and
    860
    borough, whether a district borough or not, there shall be at least one polling station for every Ave hundred electors."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Hart Dyke) seemed to think that his Amendment required no explanation; but it would have been advantageous if he had given the Committee some explanation of it. What, for instance, did he mean by polling station? Did he mean to retain those words? [Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE: Yes."] A polling station was not a polling place, but was only a building in which a voter polled. A polling place might be a market place, and, if this Amendment were accepted, in such a place as a market place they would not be able to poll more than 300 voters; and it seemed to him that in very many cases they might have as many as 1,500 voters who would require to poll in a market place. Polling stations and polling places were very different things. In the case of county voters residing in a large area surrounding a town, the people were accustomed to come by railway to the place where there were hotels to dine, and so forth; and it might be convenient for them to vote in that central place—the necessity for them to go elsewhere putting them under very great inconvenience. No doubt the intention was that they should not have too many voters coming to the same polling place, and that the voters should not be inconvenienced by having the polling place too far away. He thought the right hon. Gentleman's desire would be met by the clause as it stood, as it provided that every elector resident in a county should have a polling place within a distance not exceeding three miles from his residence.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he thought that no district containing 500 electors should be without a polling station, and that, it seemed to him, was the clear object of the Amendment.
    MR. GORSTsaid, to his mind the meaning of the Amendment was perfectly clear, and it was only unintelligible to those who did not choose to understand it. There were provisions dealing with the representation of the people requiring local authorities to pro-

    861
    vide convenient polling districts; but none of them laid down any particular limit. They said generally what were convenient districts, but did not point them out. If there were 500 electors in any district, that was surely a district sufficiently large to have a polling place of its own. Probably some districts around central market towns might find it convenient to have their polling station in a market place; but other districts of 500 electors, which were not so situated, might require, and surely were entitled to have, their own polling place. He could not, for the life of him, see the objection to enacting either that, or something like it. Why should they not lay down a limit as to the number of electors in a district which should have a polling place? It did not at all follow that two or more districts should not have their polling places in the same town.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was not surprised that some confusion arose as to this matter, and he had no doubt that his right hon. Friend (Sir William Hart Dyke) had full reason for introducing his proposal. He knew that the Ballot Bill was not to be passed this Session, and the words he proposed were, he (Mr. E. Stanhope) believed, practically taken from that measure. In the 2nd sub-section they gave the local authorities power to divide the county into polling districts, and to assign polling places to those districts; and the right hon. Baronet asked that they should so divide those districts as to have 500 electors for each polling place. It was desirable that polling districts should not be overcrowded, and the right hon. Baronet wished to give the local authorities power, whilst deciding the question as to the polling places, to have regard to the desirability of giving a polling station to each 500 electors.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, a difficulty arose upon this point—namely, as to what constituted a district. His impression was that the 1st sub-section, which provided for the division of the polling districts, and the assignment of polling places to each district, so as to give every elector a polling place within three miles of his residence, would meet the object of the right hon. Baronet. But directly they got their polling district, it did not matter whether 500 or
    862
    600 people polled at one place. If the district was a populous one, and the polling place was central, it would be convenient to send more than 500 people to that place; and it would not be satisfactory to say that, however convenient such place was, no more than 500 voters should poll in it. As he had said, there was some confusion at the polling places and polling stations. He had never heard as yet that there had been a block in a polling station in consequence of voters not having had sufficient accommodation.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he must plead ignorance as to what was the definition the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General sought to draw between polling places and polling stations.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman would see the distinction in the Ballot Act.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that that was no answer. The Ballot Act had been the cause of introducing no little confusion into their proceedings on this Bill. On a former occasion some very reasonable—and, he made bold to say, necessary—Amendments were proposed to the Bill; but the Chairman, acting, no doubt, rightly enough upon that which was then before him, decided that these, although of great importance, and he might say even of urgency, would more appropriately be introduced into the Ballot Act Continuance Bill. Well, he (Mr. J. Lowther) understood that they were no longer hampered with that confusion. He understood the Prime Minister to say that that Bill, which many of them, months ago, were of opinion had no chance of passing, had been definitely withdrawn. The Committee, therefore, was now in a position to deal with this subject as a whole. The right hon. Baronet had proposed that facilities for polling should be given to every body of electors numbering 500. Well, he would not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General into the subtle distinction between a polling place and a polling station, which, to his (Mr. J. Lowther's) mind, was one and the same thing. He had often heard that a polling district might be sub-divided into minute departments; but he would not ask what was the the correct phrase for them. They all

    863
    knew what his right hon. Friend meant. He simply desired to give facilities to voters to record their votes. He wished to ask whether the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) with regard to voting papers, to which he attached considerable importance, would be taken up in consequence of the Ballot Act Amendment Bill having been withdrawn?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that with regard to the distinction between a polling station and a polling place, the law required that every Returning Officer should provide a sufficient number of polling stations for the accommodation of voters entitled to vote at such a place.
    MR. J. LOWTHERasked how the distances were arranged?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there must be a polling place and a polling station. The polling station was the place at which people were to vote; and in a populous district or polling place it would be most convenient to let them go to a particular town.
    THE CHAIRMAN: With regard to the point which the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) submitted for my opinion, I cannot now express any opinion about the clause which I see in the name of the hon. Member for East Sussex. When that clause comes on I shall be ready to give my opinion. As to the other point respecting an Act of Parliament which is at present in force, what I know is that the Ballot Act is at present in operation.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, what he wished to ask was whether he or any other Member would be in order in moving an Amendment raising the question of voting papers or any other matter dealt with in the Ballot Act?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is premature to express any opinion upon that now.
    COLONEL NOLANbelieved that the Amendment would create no increased facilities, but would add to the expense.
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, he would like to put it to the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) whether the discretion of the local authority might not suffice to deal with this queston? There was ample power given to the
    864
    local authorities, and they had every motive to arrange for polling stations in the best way, with a view to the convenience both of the candidates and of the voters. He was afraid that the Committee was going too much into detail in this Bill. This was not a matter in which the Imperial Parliament should lay down rules for all possible cases; but it was rather a matter in which the local authorities might be safely left to make the most convenient arrangements.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, he was loth to take up the time of the Committee; but he thought it due to himself to explain why he had put the Amendment on the Paper. In the Ballot Act Amendment Bill, which was now not to be proceeded with, he saw in the 1st Schedule a proposed addition to Rule 15, providing that in every county and every borough, whether a district borough or not, there should be at least one polling station for every 500 electors. That provision, however, was not to apply to municipal elections. Seeing that these words were in that Bill, and observing the disfranchising effects of this Corrupt Practices Bill, he thought it fair to bring the question before the Committee. If this provision was fair and right, he thought it was not unnatural that he should bring it before the Committee, and ask them to consider this point carefully—namely, whether, as by a clause in this present Bill a great number of voters would be virtually disfranchised by being deprived of all means of getting to the poll, the Committee should not consider the advisability of inserting in this Bill the words which were proposed in the other Bill? With regard to the question of polling stations, the object of his Amendment was to place a polling station within the reach of every 500 voters.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought that the right hon. Baronet's explanation was very reasonable. The provision for polling stations was intended to prevent a crowd of electors at one particular spot; but that would not meet the right hon. Baronet's view as to bringing people to the poll. A station was a building, and the object was that too many voters should not be brought to one particular building or booth.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he thought there was a great deal in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Parker), that this matter should be left to the local authorities. That was at present done; and in the borough which he represented there were two polling places provided for Parliamentary Elections, although he thought that was one too many. For municipal elections there was only one polling station, and, so far as he knew, no more would be wanted, and this Amendment would only increase the expense. When a Returning Officer saw that, Tinder this Bill, conveyances were not allowed to be used, he would, no doubt, decide that he must have more polling stations. He (Mr. Onslow), however, thought it would be very hard to lay down in this Bill that in every county and borough there should be, at least, one polling station for every 500 electors. Suppose there were 1,()00 electors, how many polling stations should there then be? According to the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, there would have to be four; but he did not believe that so many would be required. This matter had much better be left in the hands of the Returning Officer.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, for he thought the right hon. Baronet could not have considered its effect upon borough constituencies. In the borough he represented (the Tower Hamlets), instead of 20 polling stations, which were now required, 90 would be needed under this provision. Such a number would be entirely superfluous, and would enormously increase the expense. He did not say that they might not have some more; but such an increase as would take place if this Amendment were adopted was not at all necessary.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsuggested the substitution of ballot boxes for stations. People found great difficulty in finding time to go up to the Presiding Officer to get their ticket and then put it into the ballot box. If it was said that the local authorities should not be interfered with, it must be remembered that they were already interfered with. The difficulty was that men had to wait until the Presiding Officer could give them their papers; and if it were laid down that only 500 people might place their papers in one ballot box, then, he thought, the difficulty might be overcome.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, he was prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he observed that Clause 65, Section 2, prevented the application of this clause to Scotland. Clause 45, which would shortly be under consideration, allowed, as he understood it, the use of vessels and boats to convey voters at the expense of the candidates; but this clause did not apply to the Islands to which this Amendment referred. He should, therefore, ask leave to withdraw an Amendment which he had been asked to move, if the Attorney General would see whether some arrangement could not be made by which floating polling places might be provided and taken to the Islands to voters who otherwise might be disfranchised.
    Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 45 (Conveyance of voters by sea in certain cases).
    MR. CRAIG-SELLARsaid, the object of the Amendment he wished to propose was to enable candidates to act as heretofore in certain counties, especially Scotch counties, which were difficult of access, and in which the electors were widely scattered, and to enable them to bring electors to the poll at their expense. It was apparent that in this clause the principle was admitted that there must be certain exceptions made to the prohibition against the conveyance of electors. If there was no such exception with regard to Scotland the effect would be that 40 or 50 per cent of the voters would be unable to go to the poll. The object of his Amendment was to extend this exception to a slight extent. He proposed in certain counties to allow, in addition to sea conveyances, the use of land conveyances under certain circumstances; and, as a matter of fact, in those very counties intersected by arms of the sea, unless land conveyances were allowed as well as steamboats and other vessels, voters would not be able to vote. In the district of Lochgoilhead there were from 35 to 40 electors, and in order to vote they had to go by road about 18 miles to St. Catherine's, and then across Loch Fyne to Inverary. In the Islands of Colonsay, Oronsay, and Jura, there were

    867
    69 electors. They had to poll at Bow-more, in Islay, and had to be taken some 15 miles to Portaskaig by sea, and thence 15 miles more by road to Bowmore. At Arisaig, in Inverness-shire, there were 40 to 50 electors, and they had to poll at Fort William, 40 miles away by road. In the parish of Laggan there were 45 electors who had to go 30 miles by road to their polling place; in the parish of Fortingall, in Perthshire, there were 124 electors, of whom 33 were within five miles, 23 from 10 to 20 miles, and 10 over 20 miles from the polling station. Then, in Banffshire there were nine polling stations; and in No. 1, the electors were from six to seven miles from the polling station; in No. 2, seven to nine miles; in No. 6, 10 to 12 miles; in No. 9, 22 to 23 miles. In one polling district in Argyllshire—that at which he (Mr. Craig-Sellar) voted—there were 219 electors, of whom only some 15 were within five miles of the polling place. It was obvious that some provision must be made in order to enable those electors in the Highland counties to have the benefit of the franchise. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Far-quharson) had suggested earlier in the discussion that the Returning Officer should authorize the employment of carriages, and charge the expense to the candidates; but the Attorney General had shown that that would not work effectually. Another hon. Gentleman had suggested that there should be perambulating stations, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay) had suggested a floating station. He thought the Committee, however, were satisfied that neither perambulating nor floating stations would exactly answer the purpose. Then it had been suggested that additional polling places would meet the case. But additional polling places in these remote regions involved very great additional expense. In the county of Argyll at the last Election there were 14 stations, and the expenses were about £600; and the reason of that was that in that county there was not a sufficient number of men learned in the law who were able to act as Presiding Officers, and the Returning Officer had to import professional men from Edinburgh and Glasgow, who went down with their clerks, and charged from three to five guineas a-day. If, therefore, the suggestion of
    868
    additional stations were adopted, the expenses would be increased enormously, especially as these stations would have to be provided and manned with Presiding Officers and their staff, whether there was a contest or not. Then, there remained his own suggestion, and he thought it would answer very well. He proposed that where the nature of the county was such that the electors were widely scattered, a certain amount might be paid for means of conveyance, in addition to the maximum amount allowed by the Bill. If that were adopted, he thought it very likely that the agents of the two candidates would meet and arrange for a coach or omnibus to go and take up the voters for both sides, and take them to the polling station, and in that way the expense would be comparatively small. That plan was adopted at the last Election, and he had no doubt that it would be followed in most counties. The Amendment referred exclusively to resident voters, and not to out-voters or faggot-voters, and he limited the distance to five miles. He did not insist on that figure, because three, seven, or ten miles would suit his purpose. Then there was the further safeguard to which he especially wished to call attention—namely, that, by the additional Amendment which he would move if this were carried, the Registration Officer and Revising Barrister—the Assessor and Sheriff in Scotland—would, when they revised the register each year, have to make up a list of the electors in each polling district who should be entitled to be conveyed, and none but these could be conveyed. The clause, so safeguarded, could not possibly be abused. He should probably be told that the object of the Bill was to diminish expense; but he did not think his Amendment would much increase the expense, and if it did there was something to be considered besides the mere expense. There was the question of the enfranchisement or disfranchisement of voters, and he was sure the Attorney General would not wish to disfranchise electors wholesale who were duly qualified. The danger had been recognized by the partial provision made in the Bill for such cases. He did not urge this Amendmenton Party grounds, for it would apply equally to both Parties; he urged it in the interest of qualified voters who, without some such provision, would be unable to vote.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 30, line 31, after "thereof," insert "or where in any county, the electors are widely scattered, and where it has not been found reasonably practicable to divide the county, so that every elector resident in the county shall have a polling place within a distance not exceeding five miles from his residence."—(Mr. Craig-Sellar.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he hoped the Government would make a concession upon this matter. Under the provision of this Bill, as it at present stood, total disfranchisement must result in many parts of Scotland which were remotely situated from the polling place, and the Attorney General had already given some concession in that direction. But that concession was only a marine concession, and he hoped he would give a dry-land concession as well. He did not in any way wish to weaken the Bill, and he was sure that all who represented counties were grateful to the Attorney General for endeavouring to diminish the expenses; but he hoped that if the Attorney General could not accept this Amendment, he would be able to devise something which would diminish the chance of disfranchisement with regard to Scotch electors while not weakening the Bill.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he entirely concurred with his hon. Friend in regard to this Amendment. He would not detain the Committee by an argument in addition to those which had already been submitted to it, as he thought they fully made out the case. He hoped the Government would make some concession.
    MR. LEWISsaid, it was pleasing to find this chorus of opinion amongst Scotch Members who had been persistently voting to their hearts' content against any conveyance of voters in England, Ireland, and Wales. Directly, however, the shoe pinched themselves they were inclined to cry out, and in most piteous tones entreat the Attorney General to allow them to pay travelling expenses for voters in certain cases. This Amendment would be a complete departure from the principle of the Bill; and hon. Gentlemen opposite who had felt there was some difficulty about the conveyance of voters by sea, ought to remember that there was an equal
    870
    amount of difficulty in the conveyance of voters over mountains. If there was difficulty in crossing an arm of the sea there was quite as much difficulty in crossing mountains. As a matter of fact, he believed there were some men who would rather swim across an arm of the sea than climb over a mountain. Hon. Gentlemen from Scotland voted against the conveyance of compatriots in England, Ireland and Wales; and he wondered that they had not a disposition to be straight and fair all round, and object to the conveyance of voters in Scotland also. For his part, speaking from an abstract point of view, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar) was a very sensible Amendment; and in order to be consistent, if the hon. Gentleman went to a Division—which he doubted very much, for it was the practice of hon. Gentlemen opposite to propose an Amendment and then run away—he (Mr. Lewis) should vote with him. He cordially tendered his sympathy and his vote to the hon. Gentleman.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that all throughout his wish had been to make voters go to the poll, as much as a voluntary effort of theirs as possible. Unless they had a boat at their command, it would be physically impossible oftentimes to bring a person across an arm of the sea. And this clause was intended to remove physical impossibilities—as, for instance, when an arm of the sea separated a voter from the mainland on which his polling station might be situated. He must remind his hon. Friend that, while he spoke eloquently for Scotland, he had made his Amendment apply to the whole country; and in regard to this Amendment he (the Attorney General) must be consistent. When they were endeavouring to prohibit the conveyance of out-voters in counties, 20 Conservative Gentlemen voted with the Government, and those Gentlemen he could not now desert. Let them see what would be the effect of the Amendment. If they let their carriages loose, what guarantee had they that they would only bring up voters marked on the list for conveyance? They could not control their drivers, and it was impossible to put a limit upon the number of people conveyed. They would, therefore, do that which they had already decided should not be done—

    871
    they would send out an unlimited number of carriages; they would let loose in a constituency a large number of carriages without the slightest guarantee that they would bring up to the poll only the voters marked on the list. This Amendment, therefore, which applied not to Scotland only but to constituencies generally, would be in direct contradiction of what was voted in the Committee by a large majority, including, as He had said, many Conservative Members. The Amendment was one that he could not accept. He admitted that he had had some communication with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Donald Cameron) and other Scotch Members as to whether Scotch counties could not be excepted from the provision prohibiting conveyance of voters. He admitted the difficulty of the position, and he should earnestly endeavour to consult the wishes of hon. Members, and see if there was any way in which the difficulty could be met and overcome. If the Committee would allow him, he would consult further with hon. Members from Scotland, and see what could be done in this matter; because, while adhering to the principle they had adopted, he should be glad to find some way out of the difficulty. He certainly could not accept an Amendment which would allow carriages, unchecked in number and uncontrolled as to their destination, to go forth on the polling day.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) prided himself upon his consistency; but he (Mr. A. F. Egerton) failed to see it. He did not see the difference between the proposal now made by the hon. Member for Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar) and the present system. He (Mr. A. F. Egerton) was at one time a Member for a division of a county, and at one of his elections he was obliged to convey a voter from Bury to his polling station in Manchester—a distance of many miles. By this Amendment the hon. Member (Mr. Craig-Sellar) proposed that a voter living on an island should come his 10 miles, or whatever the distance might be, at the expense of the candidate. He (Mr. A. F. Egerton) could not see the difference between conveying a voter by boat across an
    872
    arm of the sea, and conveying him by carriage overland. Voters had to be brought up, and it really did not matter whether they were brought by sea or by land. As a matter of fact, the only remedy for this possible disfranchisement rested in this—that they would have to come to a system of voting papers.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he was of opinion that the Committee ought not only to reject this Amendment, but the clause as well.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, He could not compliment the Attorney General on his consistency in regard to this matter. In his own county—Lancashire—it was quite as impossible for many men to get to the poll, as it would be for the voters in Scotland who had an arm of the sea to cross. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL dissented.] the Attorney General shook his head. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, was a young and a very active man. But many of the voters in the county which he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) represented were very old. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said that up to the present he had not been able to see his way to accept this Amendment; but he would be glad to see what could be done in the matter. This Amendment had been down on the Paper now for weeks. Therefore it was quite time the Government should make up their minds as to what they would do. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) voted in favour of payment being allowed for carriages for the conveyance of voters in counties, because he saw most clearly that unless the use of carriages were allowed a great number of people would be disfranchised. Certainly, if the hon. Member went to a Division, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would vote with him. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would go to a Division. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) could not allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, the question of conveying voters in Scotland was totally different from the conveyance of voters in many boroughs in England. He and his hon. Friends wished to prevent excessive expenditure at elections; but in some counties in Scotland the conveyance of voters was a matter of necessity. If some means of bringing up outlying voters to the poll were not

    873
    provided the result would be the disfranchisement of a large number of men. Unless conveyance were permitted in certain cases, a much larger number of polling stations ought to be set up at the expense of the county. The Government, however, had said that they would not do that. They, therefore, ought to be prepared to meet the distinct physical difficulties which had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar). The Attorney General, in stating his objections to the clause, had said that if carriages were hired they might take up other than voters scheduled by the Returning Officers. But the hon. and learned Gentleman hardly realized the character of the country in which the voters were to be picked up; there was no one else living in the country except the voters themselves. As he (Mr. Buchanan) understood it, it was proposed that the Returning Officer should make a list of the voters who had a right to be conveyed to the poll; and it would be found that in the districts in which the Amendment was supposed to apply, no other people but the scheduled voters could possibly be picked up.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, now that the Attorney General appeared to be in a frame of mind which would allow him to reconsider some of the opinions he had rather hastily formed, he (Mr. J. Lowther) would like to throw out one suggestion for the hon. and learned Gentleman's consideration. He owned freely, in the first place, that he was utterly unable to follow the line of reasoning which had led the Attorney General to the conclusions contained in the Bill. He could not understand the Attorney General saying, as he did the other day, that if electors had not a polling station at their doors, they deserved to be disfranchised. The hon. and learned Gentleman apparently forgot that they were discussing the case of electors who were legally entitled to record their votes, whose possession of the franchise was an unalienable right. What did the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General say as to the non-resident voters? Why, that if an elector did not reside within easy distance of the poll, it was his own look out. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would not dissent from the conclusion he (Mr. J. Lowther) had drawn as to
    874
    the sense of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, in effect, that he had no sympathy with non-resident voters—that non-resident voters in his opinion ought not to exist—he even thought the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the non-resident voter ought never to have existed, at any rate he was not prepared to afford him any facilities for recording his vote. He wanted to ask the Attorney General, now that he had admitted that there were electors who could not conveniently get to the poll without assistance, what right he had to draw an invidious and illegal, if not an unconstitutional, distinction between one class of electors and another? In one clause of his own Bill—in Clause 45—the hon. and learned Gentleman, in effect, contended that it was right that candidates should have to put their hands in their pockets, and provide means for a certain class of the electors to be brought to the poll. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee by what line of reasoning he came to the conclusion that one class of electors, who were not within easy reach of the poll, ought to be brought at the expense of the candidate, while another class ought not to be so conveyed? His main object, however, in rising was not to go over ground which had been already covered, and which, in the present temper of the Committee and especially of the Government, it would be useless for him to do, but to ask the Attorney General, now that He had held out some slight hope of reconsidering some of the hastily-formed opinions which led to the framing of this Bill, whether he would not once more consider the subject which they were now free to touch upon—namely, the subject of voting papers? He desired to put this question at the present moment, with the object of saving time, and he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would admit that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had contributed rather more in the saving of that commodity than Members on the Ministerial side. It was found very difficult to bring Mahomet to the mountain, therefore he desired the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the advisability of bringing the mountain to Mahomet. That might be effected by a system of voting papers; besides

    875
    which the adoption of voting papers would lead to a great saving of expense. One of the main objects of the Bill, they were told, was to diminish the expenses of elections; and he was persuaded that if the Attorney General would consider how far he could adopt the system of voting papers, and accommodate it to the principle of secret voting, he would do good service in the interest of the representation of the people. Possibly, voting papers in the form in which his noble Friend (Viscount Galway) had suggested might be objected to on the ground that they would be somewhat inconsistent with the general tenure of the Ballot Act. He, however, did not think his noble Friend had put his Motion upon the Paper with a determination to reject any Amendment which might be moved. He (Mr. J. Lowther) would be prepared, when the proper time came, to move an Amendment which would enable the system of voting papers to be accommodated to the system of secret voting, in accordance with the principles of the Ballot Act. If the system of voting papers were adopted, there could then be no objections raised as to the impracticability of any electors recording their votes.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, it was evident to the common sense of the Committee that this Amendment could not be confined to purely Scotch constituencies, but that it must really be applied to all other parts of the Kingdom. The difficulty seemed to him to be rather a financial than a physical one. One could easily find carriages, but not so easily find his way to the candidate's pocket. Why could not electors in Scotland find their way to the polling booth just as they now found their way to fairs, and markets, and churches? If they were obliged to rely on their own resources for their own accommodation in regard to attending the places he had specified, why could they not also do so when they required to exercise a Constitutional right? The Committee would make a great mistake, if they allowed a principle they had already adopted to be broken down in the interests of a few.
    MR. DUNDASsaid, he had been led to consider, by the condition of affairs in the Orkney and Shetland Isles, how the difficulty in question could be met. In nearly all villages there was a school,
    876
    and there was a schoolmaster who was more or less educated. It appeared to him that these schoolmasters might be utilized as poll-clerks, and the schools might be made available for polling stations. In this way the poll would be brought almost to the very door of every elector. He believed that the adoption of such a plan would be regarded as a very great boon to the electors in poor districts.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, this was a plain and simple question, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General re-opened it with regard to the conveyance of voters in Scotland, He (Sir Walter B. Barttlelot) and his hon. Friends would expect the re-opening of the whole question of the conveyance of voters in England. Every one of those Gentlemen who now advocated the claims of Scotland, voted against the use of conveyances for voters in England. They wished to put a stop even to the use of private carriages; and now they came forward, forsooth, because they found they could not convey some voters in Scotland, and asked to be allowed to provide the means of carrying these voters. As a matter of fact, many of the voters in the county he represented were in quite as awkward a position as many of the electors in Scotland. On the Downs, for instance, there was a very sparse population, who resided many miles away from a polling station. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said that in no district in England were out-voters to be conveyed. Why, therefore, should out-voters be conveyed to the poll in Scotland? He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would vote against the Amendment, because he wished them all to be tarred with the same brush. He would not give an advantage to anyone which was denied to himself and his hon. Friends.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Haddington Burghs applied to England as well as to Scotland, and for that reason he should vote in favour of it.
    COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, as the Committee had decided that voters should not be conveyed to the poll, he did not see why any exception should be made in the case of people whether separated from the polling places by sea or any other natural obstacles. He could per-

    877
    ceive no reason why there should be any distinction between the people who lived on the high hills of his county and those who lived on the hills in Scotland; the principle of conveying them three miles in either case was the same, and he should therefore oppose the Amendment.
    MR. SALTsaid, the Amendment, to a certain extent, had the same object as the clause they were discussing. He was unable to see any difference, so far as the Bill was concerned, between men living in an island who had no boat and men living at the top of a mountain who had no cart. It was, to his mind, perfectly illogical not to treat them in the same way; and for that reason he should vote for the Amendment, with the intention, if it were lost, of opposing the clause.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought the remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) constituted a conclusive argument against the clause itself. Were they to maintain the principle of the Bill with regard to the conveyance of voters intact or not? If it was right that voters should not be taken to the poll at the expense of the candidate, then let the principle be carried out fully; but he objected to its being frittered away by exceptions which would lead to a great amount of difficulty. If they were to give facilities to persons living in the places contemplated by the clause and the Amendment, how were they to deal with voters who lived 200 miles from the place of election? It appeared to him that the proper way to deal with the matter was to give no advantage to one class of voters over the other.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that there was no clause of this kind in the Bill introduced last year, and he was unable to see that the Attorney General was consistent in introducing it into the present measure.
    MR. KNIGHTsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would not treat this as a Scotch question only, but consider the question generally. He trusted that an arrangement would be made under which all voters who lived five miles from the polling place might be conveyed there.
    MR. CRAIG-SELLARsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would give some indication of his intention with regard to this Amendment. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would say that he
    878
    was willing to put the Scotch counties into a Schedule for the purposes of his Amendment, he should be only too happy to withdraw his opposition to the clause in its present form; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman could not give such an undertaking, he should be obliged to press his Amendment to a Division.
    MR. HOPWOODhoped that, if any assurance was given, the Attorney General would give the assurance that He would withdraw the clause.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 148: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 186.)
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, although the Government had made provision for the conveyance of voters to the poll across the sea, they had not made any provision for taking them back again. He would, therefore, move the insertion of words that would carry out the latter object.
    Amendment proposed, in page 30, line 32, after the word "to," insert "or from."—(Captain Aylmer.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. LEWISsaid, he saw no distinction, so far as the conveyance of voters was concerned, between crossing an arm of the sea in a vessel and crossing the country in a cart. He thought that to be consistent the Government should take this clause out of the Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the clause had been introduced because the Government considered there was a distinction between the provision which it contained and the main principle with regard to the conveyance of voters, If the Committee thought fit to go further, or deal differently with the matter, they could, of course, do so; but he was not prepared to withdraw the clause or yield to the arguments of the hon. Member for Londonderry, He should, of course, accept the decision of the Committee on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 147: Majority 59.—(Div. List, No. 187.)
    Clause 46 (Polling station and committee room not to be in the same building).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that although he thought this a desirable clause, and held that the polling booth should not be in the same building as a committee room, as it would be difficult to make the clause effective if the heavy penalty which a disregard of its provisions would entail upon a candidate were retained, he would not oppose its rejection. He would agree for this clause to share the fate of the last.
    Question, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Legal Proceedings.
    Clause 47 (Trial in Central Criminal Court of indictment for corrupt practices at instance of Attorney General).
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he had waited to see whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) intended to move the Amendment standing in his name, and, finding that he did not rise, he (Sir Hardinge Giffard) would himself propose it. The Amendment proposed to insert, after the second "the" inline 14, the words '-Court may, if it think fit." He did not think the Committee generally appreciated the effect of this clause. It was about the most unconstitutional clause that any Attorney General ever suggested. He had not any distrust of the Attorney General. He had lately very often desired to intrust more to the Attorney General than the Attorney General was inclined to accept; but did the hon. and learned Gentleman see what the effect of this clause would be? It looked innocent enough; but the fact was, it would make a Court of Justice merely a registry office of the Attorney General's will. As the law stood, if there was any reason why the venue should be changed in respect of a particular case, the Court might, if it saw fit—which was the language adopted by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton—order that the trial should take place in a particular Court. Now, the Attorney General would not
    880
    trust the Court to do that, but asked that the power giving that direction should be in the hands of the Attorney General. That was to say, that in an essentially political offence the Political Officer of the Government should have it in his power to determine where the case should be tried. He (Sir Hardinge Giffard) deliberately stated that it was not for the Attorney General to give this direction. If the hon. and learned Gentleman really appreciated what this clause was, without doubt he would at once join with him (Sir Hardinge Giffard) in recommending to the Committee the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He begged to move that Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 31, line 14, after the second "the," insert "Court may, if it think fit."—(Sir Hardinge Giffard.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he must explain the object of the clause. No doubt, the Committee would understand that trials in localities where political feeling had run high, and where it continued to run high, were places where to try such cases would be an insult to justice. Scenes which had recently occurred in Court had shown the impossibility of obtaining either a fair trial or that proper decency in Court which ought to be maintained in cases of such importance. He did not know whether his hon. Friend was aware of the instance to which he referred; but in these cases he had been informed that jurymen had stood up in the box cheering, that verdicts of acquittal had been received with open manifestations of approval in Court, and that scenes which were highly discreditable, and which ought not to be allowed to occur, had taken place. Where they had heated political conflict they could not find 12 jurymen to bring unbiassed judgment to bear upon the point. What was the object of this clause? Not that the Attorney General should choose a tribunal, but that in all cases the tribunal should be, in fact, the Central Criminal Court. In the first place, they then got a London jury; and he knew no city in the world where they would be able to obtain a more fair and impartial trial without

    881
    local prejudice being brought to bear. The clause did not say that a trial should take place here and there, but that it should take place in the Central Criminal Court by the direction of the Attorney General. No one could want more than an impartial trial. Did the hon. and learned Member wish that trials should take place in the localities where they would have upon them persons who were political partizans on the one side or the other? His hon. Friend proposed the words "if the Court thought fit;" and sooner than have a heated discussion upon the matter, and in order to arrive at an understanding, he (the Attorney General) would accept a modification of the clause, and agree to the words "if he thinks fit." That would be a concession he should be prepared to make; but if the Committee thought that the Attorney General would have an arbitrary power he would disabuse their minds. The Attorney General would have no desire to exercise arbitrary power.
    MR. GORSTwished to ask the Attorney General a question—namely, whether, if this Amendment were accepted, there would be any use whatever in adhering to the clause? With the proposed Amendment the clause seemed to be simply declaring what was the existing law.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he had reason to know that it would go somewhat beyond the existing law.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General would find that 19 & 20 Vict. c. 16, was almost in the same terms as the clause as amended.
    MR. CALLANremarked, that the Bill seemed to have been framed for England, and that Ireland had only been included as an afterthought. In the last paragraph of the 66th clause he found—
    "The provision with respect to the removal of cases to the Central Criminal Court shall not apply to Ireland."
    He would ask the Attorney General how he proposed to deal with Ireland in similar cases?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he should propose in this matter to leave Ireland exactly where she was.
    MR. CALLANasked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would tell
    882
    him what was the course of procedure in Ireland? The Attorney General had said he would leave Ireland as she was; but he did not tell them the position of Ireland with respect to these trials.
    [No reply was given to the hon. Member.]
    MR. CALLANsaid, he insisted upon having an answer before being called upon to vote for this clause. They had adopted an Amendment, at the instance of the hon. and leaned Gentleman, which was wholly inapplicable to Ireland. He wished to know what the course of procedure in Ireland was to be in cases where it was considered that they could not obtain affair trial? Did the hon. and learned Gentleman in this respect intend to leave Ireland out of the Act, or did he intend to propose any machinery for this change of venue?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)replied, that the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Porter) was not present, and in his absence he preferred to postpone answering the question.
    MR. GIBSONpointed out that the matter should be discussed on the 66th clause, which related to Ireland. Upon that clause the question would arise whether the section, and any utility there might be in it, should be applied to Ireland. The question could be dealt with by saying the provisions in Clause 46 should be so and so.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Yes; I will deal with the matter on Clause 66.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendmen proposed, in page 31, line 14, after the second "the," insert "if he thinks fit."—(The Attorney General.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 31, line 15, leave out from "tried" to end of Clause.—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 48 (Limitation of time for prosecution of offence).
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he had to propose, in page 31, line 20, to leave out "two years," and insert "one year." He did not know whether the Attorney General was prepared to make a concession on this point. The clause as it stood stated that a proceeding against a person in respect of an offence of a corrupt or illegal practice, or any other offence under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, or this Act, should be commenced within two years after the offence was committed, and his (Mr. Raikes') proposal was to reduce that term to one year. It seemed to him very undesirable to keep open the door to these prosecutions for too long a time; and that appeared to him to be the intention of the law as it at present existed. He was not aware that there had been any failure of justice in the matter. They had provided that the candidate should be free from the terrors of the law within some 28 days of the time he had taken his seat, or within a certified specified time; and it seemed to him, therefore, not unreasonable to say that proceedings against a person in respect of corrupt or illegal practices should be commenced within a year after the offence was committed. The clause which referred to the sending down of an Election Commissioner within six months after the sending down of a Special Commissioner to inquire into corrupt and illegal practices had been struck out; and, having abandoned that provision, it seemed very strange that they should adhere to so long a period as two years for the trial of these offences. It appeared to him that it would be in harmony with the decision taken the other day if they accepted this Amendment, and inserted "one year," instead of "two years."
    Amendment proposed, in page 31, line 20, leave out "two years," and insert "one year."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would not, unless it were necessary, have too long a period in which a prosecution should take place, and all these prosecutions for corrupt practices should follow the Report of the Commissioners. When the Commissioners reported it should be the duty of the Attorney General to prosecute all persons charged with grave offences, unless they had certificates of
    884
    indemnity, and he (the Attorney General) knew of no prosecution which would take place unless founded upon the Report of the Commissioners. But this practical difficulty would arise. It would take a long time for the House to move for a Royal Commission, to begin with. In the elections which took place in March, 1880, it was found impossible to move for a Royal Commission until late in the Session, and nearly 12 months elapsed before the Commissioners could be appointed. The result would be, if this Amendment were accepted, in such cases that there might be no opportunity of knowing who were the persons to be prosecuted. The Commissioners, after the last Election, had to hurry through their work, and to curtail it, in order to give the Attorney General time to see whether the persons guilty of offences should be prosecuted or not. That was a state of things which would occur again and again if prosecutions had to take place exactly within 12 months. Many people might escape who ought to be prosecuted, on account of the Commissioners not having sufficient time to report their offences. He only wished sufficient time after the Commissioners had reported to enable the prosecution to be instituted. He should be glad to agree to an Amendment of this kind, if it would meet the views of the Committee—namely, that a prosecution should take place within one year of the commission of the offence, or within three months after the Commissioners had made their Report.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, he should be very happy to accept the compromise suggested. The Attorney General would, no doubt, accept his Amendment, and after the word "committed" insert "and three months after the Report of the Election Commissioners."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that was the substance of his proposal. He did not pretend that the words were absolutely correct.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, it would be as well to put in a maximum period, so that in no case should the time exceed two years.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that was his intention. He was willing to accept two years as a maximum.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of the ATTORNEY GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 31, line 20, after the word "year," by inserting "and not exceeding two years;" in page 31, line 20, after the word "committed," by inserting "or within three months after the Report of the Election Commissioners."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 49 (Persons charged with corrupt practice may be found guilty of illegal practice).
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he should like to ask a question upon this clause. It appeared to him to involve some difficulty with regard to drafting. As he understood it, any person might be indicted for corrupt practices; but illegal practices might be punished by summary conviction. The proposal here was that any person charged with corrupt practice might, if circumstances warranted such finding, be found guilty of an illegal practice, which offence, for that purpose, would be an indictable offence. That was very curious. It was to the effect that they would be entitled to punish a person on indictment for an illegal practice, provided they did not charge him with the offence of which they convicted him. That was to say they might charge a man with an offence he had not committed, that was, a corrupt practice which was an indictable offence in order that they might punish him for an illegal practice, which was an indictable offence. It seemed to him that the first part of this clause ought not to be in the Bill at all.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this was a principle known in a great many cases. For instance, they charged a person with murder and frequently found him guilty of manslaughter. It was better to leave the case as it was than that a person should be twice vexed with the same matter. It would be found that frequently this clause would save a man a second trial.
    Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 50 (Application of enactments of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, and 26 & 27 Vict. c. 29, relating to prosecutions for bribery) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 51 (Prosecution on summary conviction, and appeal to Quarter Sessions) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 52 (Application of Summary Jurisdiction and Indictable Offences Acts to proceedings before Election Courts and Special Commissioner) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 53 (Exercise of jurisdiction of High Court and making of rules of Court) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 54 (Director of Public Prosecutions and expenses of prosecutions) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 55 (Recovery of costs payable by county or borough or by person) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Supplemental Provisions, Definitions, Savings, and Repeal.
    Clause 56 (Obligation of witness to answer, and certificate of indemnity).
    Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 7, to leave out sub-section 3.—(Mr. Lewis.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, for he thought there ought to be a distinction drawn between criminal prosecutions and absolute absolution.
    MR. GORSTsaid the Committee had already discussed this point at some length, and had decided that a certificate should not carry entire exoneration.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, it was well known that Gentlemen, who were attacked by Election Petitions, sent down a solicitor or other person to the place to investigate the case against them, and to collect the means of defence. He was told, however, that gentlemen so sent down were liable to be examined, and to be bound to disclose evidence. It was a well-known principle of law that as between solicitor and client, the client was protected against disclosure by the solicitor. The Election Commissioners had held that that did not apply in regard to Election Petitions, and so a solicitor was liable to be required to disclose the in-

    887
    formation he had collected for his client. A gentleman sent down in that way had to make the most searching and confidential inquiries in order to be able to advise his client as to the exact position of the case, and to meet the allegations. To do that he must see all the witnesses he could, take their evidence in the most minute manner possible, and make himself thoroughly acquainted with all the facts. His proposal was that a solicitor sent down for that purpose should not be liable to examination. He did not propose to extend that privilege to anyone connected with the election; but he thought it might fairly be extended to the solicitor acting for the Member attacked. Otherwise, persons whom he had seen and obtained information for might be convicted out of his mouth, and the client would be deprived of the assistance of the solicitor.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 35, after sub-section 4, insert,—"(5.) Election Commissioners shall not be entitled to summon or examine a Solicitor or Parliamentary Agent who was concerned only in or in relation to an Election Petition, who took no part and was not concerned in the election, to be enquired into by the Commissioners, and who was not resident in the constituency in question."—(Mr. Gregory.)
    Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he would accept the principle of this proposal, and if the Amendment were withdrawn he would bring up a new clause on the subject.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 57 (Submission of report of election court or commissioners to Attorney General) agreed to.
    Clause 58 (Breach of duty by officer) agreed to.
    Clause 59 (Publication and service of notice) agreed to.
    Clause 60 (Definition of candidate, and saving for person nominated without consent).
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS moved to omit the words "at an election," in order to raise the question of when the expenses which could be brought against a candidate should begin and end.
    Amendment proposed, in page 36, line 15, to omit the words "at an election."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the Attorney General ought to seriously consider this matter, and, therefore, he (Mr. Warton) begged to move to report Progress. If the Attorney General would do him the honour to look at this extraordinary clause he would see the strangest inversion of time. In the first place, they had a person nominated as candidate; then they had what really came before that, a person declared a candidate; and then they had the writ for the election. He earnestly asked the Attorney General to consider what he could do to meet the objections raised by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), and to consider also carefully whether he could not put the different events of a candidature in a proper and orderly way. Let them know where a candidature commenced and where it ended. In order to enable the Attorney General to arrange this clause in a proper sort of way, he begged to move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was not serious in the Motion he now made.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSShoped they would be able to finish this clause.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLproposed, in page 36, line 19, to leave out from "on or after" to "being issued," in line 21, both inclusive. He hoped that without any remarks from him the Attorney General would be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 36, line 19, leave out from "on or after," to "being issued," in line 21, both inclusive.—(Sir George Campbell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, as at present advised he would prefer the words to remain; but he would be prepared to consider the matter between this and Report.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he considered that this was a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter. He, however, could not help remembering that on every day the Committee had sat, the Attorney General had been on the Treasury Bench, and therefore he had had very little time to turn his attention to the subject. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would be quite willing, therefore, that the matter should be left till the Report. The difficulty was a great one, and he did not think the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) solved it at all.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that if the words—
    "On and after the day of the issue of the writ for such election, or after the dissolution or vacancy in consequence of which such writ has been issued,"
    were struck out, the clause would be even more absurd than it was at present.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that something would be done on Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of the ATTORNEY GENERAL, Amendment made, in page 36, line 22, after "candidate," by inserting "at an election."
    MR. LEWISsuggested to the Attorney General that after the word "may," in line 31, the words "if he thinks fit," should be inserted, because they knew that, as a rule, the word "may," in Acts of Parliament, was interpreted as "shall." He thought it ought to be made clear that the word was really "may," and not "shall."
    Amendment proposed, in page 36, line 31, after "may," insert "if he thinks fit."—(Mr. Lewis.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. LEWISsaid, they were now dealing with the case, presumably, of a person who had been nominated without his knowledge or consent. He did not understand how, under such circumstances, agents were to be appointed at all. Clause 18 provided that an election agent was to be nominated on or before the day of nomination as the agent for such election. Now, if a man was nominated as a candidate without his knowledge or consent, it was out of the question that he could nominate an agent. There was no provision made in such an event. There ought to be no mistake about this, because it was rather a serious question who was a properly appointed election agent.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that his view of such a matter was that the persons who nominated a candidate, in his absence, would represent the candidate. It was necessary that an election agent must be properly nominated, because, if he was not, the whole thing would come to an end. He thought it would be a question whether those who put a candidate forward were not the proper persons to conduct an election
    MR. LEWISsaid, he did not wish to take up the time of the Committee; but supposing the persons who nominated a man as candidate did not appoint an election agent, what then? There was nothing in any part of the Bill which required them to do it. If an election agent were not appointed, would it be understood that the candidate would be the sufferer?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, clearly that must be so, because no contract would have been made, inasmuch as there was no machinery for the election provided.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he was quite content to leave it to the Attorney General to consider whether he would not, by the introduction of a few words on Be-pert in Clause 18, make that clear which, at present, seemed in doubt.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the difficulty might be met by the insertion of the word "if any," after the word "election," in line 33.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)could not accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). His hon. Friend the Member for London-

    891
    derry (Mr. Lewis) had been good enough to direct his attention to the question. There must be an election agent appointed, either by the candidate, or by someone on his behalf. It was clear that if there was no election agent there would be no machinery for an election.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he trusted the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) would not persevere in his suggestion. He (Mr. Lewis) had no wish to make an absurdity of any part of the Bill.
    MR. SHEILasked if it was the intention of the Government to proceed further with the Bill to-night?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was in the hands of the Committee. There were only some half-dozen other Amendments to the clauses of the Bill; and, therefore, he hoped the Committee would think it right to dispose of the clauses at this Sitting. If they did that, there would only remain for consideration the new clauses and the Schedule.
    MR. SHEILsaid, that the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was most remarkable. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imagine that, because there were only six Amendments on the Notice Paper to the remaining clauses, none others would be moved. The experience of the Committee must be that many Amendments were proposed which were not printed. He, himself, knew that there were several Amendments, not on the Paper, but of considerable importance, which were to be proposed to the remaining clauses. At this hour of the night he considered it his duty to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sheil.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that surely the Committee might be allowed to finish this clause.
    MR. SHEILsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) seemed to forget the question he had put to the Attorney General. He (Mr. Sheil) had asked the hon. and learned Gentleman if he would agree to report Progress after this clause, and he (the Attorney General) declined to answer the question.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had simply expressed a hope that the Committee would proceed a little further with the Bill. He was, however, in the hands of the Committee.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he always obeyed his Leaders, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had expressed a wish to finish the clause tonight, he (Mr. Warton) would offer no opposition. He certainly agreed, however, with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil) that they ought not to go beyond this clause. He (Mr. Warton) had several Amendments to propose to the remaining clauses; and he altogether objected to rattling off Business as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General seemed to desire.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he thought it was not unreasonable for the Attorney General to desire to take this clause to-night. There were, besides, a great number of technical objections to be taken to the Interpretation Clauses, which it would be impossible to consider to-night.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSthought they might be allowed to take this clause, and then report Progress.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. GORSTsuggested that those Members who had Amendments to the remaining clauses should place them on the Paper.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsuggested that, so far as they had gone, the Bill might be printed.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

BANKRUPTCY BILL.— [BILL 243.]
(Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. John Holms.)
BANKRUPTCY BILL.— [BILL 243.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN MR. CHAMBERLAIN moved that the Bill be re-committed in respect of the six clauses relating to the abolition of offices and the compensation to existing officers. This was a formal Motion made in consequence of the pledge which he gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), whom he was sorry not to see in his place. He had only to point out to the House that as soon as the Committee had reported upon these clauses, which alone would be re-committed to the Committee of the Whole House, the whole Bill would stand for reconsideration, as amended; and, of course, that would be the time when the Amendments of the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) could properly be considered. Of course, he did not propose to take the next stage until the Committee on the Tenants' Compensation Bill had been concluded.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of six clauses relating to the abolition of offices and compensation to existing officers,"—(Mr. Chamberlain,)—put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday 23rd July.

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

  [BILL 154.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he had given Notice of opposition to this Bill, because he considered that it had been brought forward in an irregular and improper manner. Had it been, as its title implied, a Bill purely for the relief of the poor in Ireland, he would have been the last person in that House to oppose it. They all knew there was a great deal of distress in Ireland since the last harvest; and he was sure that it was the desire of every hon. Member that that distress should be relieved. But the House was simply being played with so far as this Bill was concerned. The heading of the Bill said it was "to
  894
  make temporary provision for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland." That was saying distinctly that it was to make provision for the destitute poor; but when he looked at the last clause he found that the Act might be cited as the Distressed Unions (Ireland) Act; so that, after being told that it was for the relief of the distressed poor, they found it was only for the relief of distressed Unions. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had allowed that some portion of the money was to go for the debts of Unions; but he had been unable to get from him any statement as to the amount which was to go to the relief of actual existing distress in Ireland. The 1st clause of the Bill said that money might be granted under it to a Union, having regard to the financial condition of such Union, and the pressure of distress within its limits, to aid in providing for relief at the present time; therefore, in the very Preamble of the Bill the House was made to believe it was to relieve existing distress. The 3rd clause provided that the Boards of Guardians might, with the consent of the Local Government Board, for the purpose of defraying any expense to be incurred by them, borrow under this Act; but it did not at all imply that this was to pay for old debts incurred by the Union without the sanction or knowledge of the House of Commons. Clause 4 provided that whereas before the passing of this Act the Boards of Guardians in certain Unions where the funds were inadequate for providing for the relief of the destitute poor in such Unions had borrowed money and were now in debt, all such loans were confirmed by the Act. That, again, referred to the borrowing which took place before the Act passed, and did not imply that any part of this money was to be held for the purpose of repaying the loans in question. It simply said, with regard to any loans sanctioned by the Local Government Board, that they were confirmed, and that an indemnity was given to those persons who raised them. He thought it was a breach of Privilege of the House to bring in a Money Bill, even for so small a sum as £50,000, with the implied statement that it was for the relief of the temporary distress now existing in Ireland, when there was no

  895
  other intention than the paying off of debts incurred before the passing of the Act, not one word being said as to the way in which the money had been spent. When the money was voted he believed the House would want to know for what purpose the money had been spent, and by whom. In the meantime, believing that the Bill was vicious in principle and contrary to the intentions as well as the practice of the House, he begged to move that it be read that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Captain Aylmer.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, they were asked to vote £50,000 of Irish money to make temporary provision for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland. Now, Irish Members on those Benches pointed to the districts of the country in which there was admittedly distress verging on starvation, and in which, at the lowest calculation, there were 10,000 persons dependent on what crumbs of charity the priests could collect; and said that not a single pound of this £50,000 would reach those famished creatures—that was to say, as they were justified in saying, that from beginning to end the Bill was a falsification of its title; and although it gave a sort of solace to the English conscience and a sort of idea that something was being done to assuage Irish distress where it was keenest and most frightful, he said that the distressed people would not benefit by it to the extent of a cup of cold water. They had their own special opinion with regard to that cast-iron scheme of the Government—emigration, and the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the Unions which benefited would be those which contributed most to that scheme. The right hon. Gentleman said that this money was to be devoted to paying off the liabilities incurred in meeting distress in districts where the Guardians had given as much outdoor relief as they had it in their power to give. But in one Union not a single pound had been spent in outdoor relief, although the people were actually decreed for the amount of the seed-rate at the moment when their children were
  896
  dying of hunger. The Unions were of a wretchedly low valuation—£10,000 in one case and £14,000 in the other—and they were in consequence utterly unable to meet the distress which existed there. They were, moreover, controlled by landlord Guardians; and, having been cautioned that they had nothing to expect, and that they would have to pay everything out of their own pockets by-and-bye, they stuck to the workhouse-test, well knowing that the people would cut off their right hands rather than go to the workhouses; and although they saw, as he had seen, children dying of fever for the want of a cup of milk, yet they were protected and sheltered by the Government in acting as they had. Everything was to go to those Unions where outdoor relief had been distributed; to districts in which the potatoes were nearly ready for digging; but not one penny was to go to districts were the distress was most frightful, on the ground that because nothing had been done for them up to the present nothing was to be done for them now. Many of the people in those districts had decrees against them for rent only due a few weeks ago; they were undergoing deprivation and suffering of the severest kind; but for them not one penny was given under this Bill, although they were the most wretched and abandoned creatures on God's earth. The people of Ireland had no love for outdoor relief; they hated mendicancy in every form. Irish Members had pointed out endless opportunities of making good land out of the millions of acres lying useless in Ireland, which, sooner or later, the Government would have to reclaim. There would be tens of thousands of people destitute during the next six weeks, and the question they had to face was what should be done with them. This Bill passed them by on the other side of the road, and its enactment to them would be positive cruelty. There were £50,000 passing under their very eyes and they were not to have so much as a cup of cold water. He made no factious opposition to the Bill; he was simply impressing on the Government the absolute necessity of doing something to tide these people over till the next harvest. They wanted no Party triumph in the matter; everyone knew that the position of these poor people was altogether beyond Party politics. All they wanted

  897
  was some assurance or hint of the right sort from the President of the Local Government Board, that the Boards of Guardians, having neglected their duty, should be forced to do it even at the eleventh hour, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have some such assurance to give.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that a Bill was brought in last year very similar to this in character to which he had given his support, although many other Irish Members did not do so. That Bill provided £100,000 from the Imperial Treasury, and although he did not altogether approve the scheme he regarded it as a liberal application of money on the part of Her Majesty's Government. But in the present Bill the Government were dealing with £50,000, which came not out of the Imperial Treasury, but out of the Irish Church Fund; and this money, instead of being devoted to Irish harbours, which would supply work to a great number of workmen, was to be devoted to emigration. He said that when it was proposed to take Irish money and spend it upon something that was considered objectionable, the matter was one which Irish Members should decide. As he understood that the sum named was to come out of the Irish Church Fund he should vote against the Bill; whereas if it came out of the Imperial Exchequer he should vote for it.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) complained that this Bill, which professed to be for the relief of the poor in Ireland, turned out to be only for the relief of embarrassed Unions. He would like to know on what, in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member, this money had been spent? The hon. and gallant Member could hardly imagine that the Unions had become embarrassed by the Guardians applying the rates to their own private advantage and amusements. He could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that every penny of the money had been spent in food and clothing for the poor. The Unions at the time of the distress were actually in debt to the potato merchant for the supply of food necessary for outdoor relief, in some cases to the extent of £500 or £1,000. Now, how were the Government to assist those Unions, and enable them to do what the Bill professed to do—
  898
  namely, to relieve the distressed poor in Ireland? There was no public money provided for the purpose, and the only way in which the Unions which required assistance for the relief of the poor could be assisted was to allow them to borrow money, and then, if necessary, to reimburse them the money borrowed. It was because they were not able by law to borrow money, and because the Government were not able to reimburse them without the consent of Parliament, that this Bill was introduced. The Government provided for the poor by telling the Unions that they might borrow. [Captain AYLMER dissented.] the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone shook his head; but it was impossible to found any argument upon that. [Captain AYLMER: the Bill is retrospective.] the Bill was retrospective then; but at the time of its introduction it was prospective, and, for the purpose of the relief of the poor, it mattered not whether it was passed in February last or in the present month of July. The object of the Bill was to carry out what he had informed the House at the end of the Autumn Session was the intention of the Government. In answer to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he said on the 20th of November last year—
  "The permanent officials of the Local Government Board have reported that at present the information before them respecting the anticipated distress in certain districts in the West of Ireland, where it is most apprehended, is not of such a character as would lead them to believe that the relief which may be afforded under the existing Poor Law Acts will be found insufficient to provide for the wants of the destitute poor in the coming winter. They have already issued a Circular to the Unions in the West of Ireland—that is, to all the Unions in Connaught, and to the Unions in the counties of Donegal, Clare, Kerry, and West Cork, calling their attention to the necessity of making every provision both for indoor and outdoor relief, and especially to see that the relieving officers' districts are not too large, and that the relieving officers are within easy reach of the poor persons residing in every part there of. The Local Government Board will also call upon their Inspectors to report as to the sufficiency of the arrangements in this respect made by the Guardians in each Union in their charge. In short, the Government have given every care to see that the normal machinery for the relief of distress is in proper order; and they expect to be able to meet the distress with the aid of that machinery. If exceptional pressure comes, it will be their duty to see that the administration of the required relief is not interfered with from the want of sufficient funds. I

  899
  may say that this is a subject which, of all others, is most engaging the attention of the Government."—(3 Hansard, [274] 1711.)
  Well, the administration of relief was interfered with for want of sufficient funds, and the Government took the only course which would properly relieve the pressure; they allowed the Unions to borrow on their own authority, taking it for granted that Parliament would afterwards indemnify them. The noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) asked, on the occasion he referred to, from what source the additional funds would be supplied? And he (Mr. Trevelyan) answered, that matters of that kind had always been the subjects of special treatment by the Government, and that, adopting the example of preceding Governments, they would provide funds to keep the people from starvation, trusting to Parliament to support them afterwards. Well, there were a few Unions embarrassed and unable to supply relief, except to a very small extent. Under those circumstances, the Government permitted those Unions to borrow from their Treasury, which he believed in all cases was the National Bank, and took measures to reimburse them the amount so borrowed. The sum of £50,000 was named, because the Bill was brought in when it was uncertain how great the distress would be; and it was still uncertain whether it would be necessary, for the public interest, to assist certain other Unions which had embarrassed themselves during the past winter. With reference to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), he could assure the House that not one penny of this money had been employed, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of emigration. He did not propose to enter at length into the arguments of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). Although he had no hope of convincing that hon. Member, he had taken great pains to convince himself whether or not the action of the Government had been justified by the event, and whether it was such action as they could continue. Two interesting Reports had recently come to hand, in the first of which the Inspector said that in no locality in Donegal was there anything more than the ordinary pressure which usually existed between the old and the new crop of potatoes. The second Report was to the
  900
  same effect. He was bound to say that the experience of the charitable relief now being given was not at all such as to make the Government regret the course they had taken. Many people who were in receipt of that special charitable relief were unwilling to get work, be-cause they did not wish to disentitle themselves from obtaining the charitable relief offered them. It was only in districts where special relief was given that they now heard anything of continued distress; and it was only in those districts that labour offered its temptations to people unwilling to accept them. He did not wish to say anything derogatory of those benevolent men who had been employed in providing charity to a large extent in the same manner as that agency was employed, probably, in every Union in England, Ireland, and Scotland. The Bill was so arranged that it would not discourage private charity, which, in the opinion of many people, had much more discernment than outdoor poor relief indiscriminately given. He must say he thought it was only in those Unions where this private charitable relief was being given that the appearance of exceptional distress and want of employment were at all prominent. He could not help thinking that he had answered the objections to the Bill. Before sitting down, he, perhaps, had better give the best answer he could to the hon. and gallant Member for Galway County (Colonel Nolan). The hon. and gallant Member asked why the money should come from the Irish Church Fund?
  COLONEL NOLAN: Yes; why does it not come from the National Exchequer?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had very little voice in regard to the source from whence the money was taken. This was an Irish purpose, and this Church Fund was, of course, an Irish Fund; and the hon. and gallant Member, he thought, might well be content. He would repeat again his assurance that not one single penny of this money would be spent upon emigration.
  MR. LEAasked whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) intended to print the Reports of Mr. Macfarlane and the other Gentlemen who had been engaged in inquiring into the distress? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to make some statement about this later on. As to

  901
  what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Galway County (Colonel Nolan), he perfectly agreed that this money ought not to come out of the Irish Church Fund, the circumstances being such as to require that all assistance given should come from Imperial sources. It should be understood that the Harbours Bill, when it came into Committee, should not be affected in any way by the grant which was now proposed—that was to say, that the £50,000 which were to be given by this Bill should not be deducted from the £250,000 which were so much required for harbours. This was not a good time at which to go into the question of general distress; but he might just observe that distress of this kind would always be recurrent in Ireland until the Government made up its mind to bring in a substantial scheme for opening up communication in that country. Last Easter he had been discussing with two Donegal farmers the condition of the country; and, in spite of the distressful character of some districts, these persons had assured him that, beyond their own labourers, when they required additional assistance it was absolutely impossible to get the men. This was an extraordinary fact, when so near to them there were labourers absolutely starving through want of work, and this sort of thing was sure to continue until some money was expended upon the extension of communication in Ireland. Money expended upon an object of that kind would do far more good, and be far more useful, than an expenditure of the kind contemplated by this Bill.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he hoped, if the Chief Secretary did have the Reports of Mr. Macfarlane and the other Gentlemen printed, he would do the same with the evidence which had been given by Father Gallagher before the Sub-Commission at Carrick, Glencolumbkill. The rev. gentleman had stated that at Glencolumbkill between £4,000 and £5,000 had been expended by him on various kinds of relief. He said that in the beginning of October last it was apparent to all in the parishes that the potatoes were gone, and that starvation was impending. Not only this, but the storms had swept away most of the oats, and even the hay, and had actually stripped the roofs off the poor people's houses. He said that with the aid of two or
  902
  three of the more well-to-do in each townland he had instituted a house-to-house inquiry, and it was found that many families had no live stock at all, and that the bulk of them had only a cow or two of inferior quality. Parting with this poor animal practically doomed the family to a black and milkless diet. Father Gallagher, in the course of his cross-examination, gave it as his fixed opinion that poor people during the past year in these parishes had absolutely died through want of food, and that, beyond doubt, many hundreds would have starved but for the assistance sent them, while many more would have died from diseases superinduced by famine; and he added that Mr. Hamilton, Poor Law Inspector, told him, as early as last November, that he might expect disease such as fever. Father Gallagher gave some evidence regarding seaweed as diet, which was worthy of recording for the benefit of the millions who knew not how their fellow-creatures lived. He explained that there were three kinds of seaweed of which the people made use. One was called dillisk, another sloke, and a third duleinan, a coarse box-wrack. Even in times of so-called plenty the poor people used dillisk and sloke; but the third kind was not only unpalatable, but unhealthy and unnatural, and was never used except at starvation point. In the early part of the present year, so great was the demand for the better kinds of seaweed for food that the supply was soon exhausted, and then, through sheer want, the people were obliged to use the box-wrack. These statements referred to a district where the right hon. Gentleman told them that exceptional distress existed; and, oddly enough, he would have them to believe that the distress was there prevalent because a charitable people exerted themselves to supply the miserable poor with food. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the ordinary machinery of the Poor Law in Ireland was sufficient to meet the distress. Would the right hon. Gentleman really consider what was the condition of the Poor Law? Here was a section of an Irish Act of Parliament. It said—
  "Any person in the occupation of more than a quarter of an acre of land, if requiring relief, shall He relieved in the workhouse, and not otherwise."

  903
  How did the ordinary machinery of the Poor Law of Ireland for relief meet the position of these miserable cottier farmers in Donegal? Why, the Poor Law Guardians had no power to relieve them, unless they gave up their land and went into the workhouse; and the right hon. Gentleman surely had sufficient knowledge of the Irish people and the Irish character to know that that was about the last thing they would ever think of doing. The right hon. Gentleman had stated his policy at the beginning of the year; he had stated that he knew the Irish people had a disinclination to go into the workhouse; but he had said—"Let them feel the pinch of hunger, and then they will come in." the right hon. Gentleman desired that the Irish peasantry should feel the pinch of hunger before they were relieved. He wished them to be driven to madness, for it was to madness that the Irish people were forced, when they were compelled, themselves and their children, to associate with the infamous characters which were usually found in the workhouse. No wonder the poor people cried out—"For God's sake, send us to America. Send us anywhere out of this." the right hon. Gentleman said this money was required in order to relieve Unions which had contracted indebtedness in their endeavour to cope with the existing distress. The right hon. Gentleman was asking for £50,000. The Chief Secretary had stated the other night, when they had what they were pleased to call "an entertainment," that these Unions were indebted only to the amount of some £3,000. What, then, did he want with the extra £47,000? Was it too much to ask that some portion of it—seeing that it all came out of an Irish fund—should be devoted to meeting the distress which these people in some of the districts of Donegal were suffering at the present moment—for the purpose of meeting the distress not over any long period, but only during the next few weeks, while they were waiting for the harvest to ripen? Surely this was not too much to ask. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly free to get up in that House and make a statement such as he had made, knowing very well that no Englishman knew anything at all about the terrible condition of Ireland, and could know nothing about it, and that they naturally
  904
  were satisfied when he was taking this money from the National Exchequer. They would hear more about it, for hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House would require full information as to how it was to be expended. Under the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman was sure of carrying his Bill, as the Irish Members who were opposed to it were only a small number, and could not hope to do more than raise an earnest protest against the system it contemplated. He (Mr. Leamy) could only hope that what had occurred within the last few days might possibly open the right hon. Gentleman's eyes to the fact that the Irish people were beginning to be determined that some means should be taken for meeting the distress in their country other than those which the English Liberal Government had adopted. He would recommend to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the declarations of the Irish Bishops, which were published in the English papers today, and which had been published in the Irish papers on Tuesday last. And, so far as those Bishops themselves were concerned, he (Mr. Leamy) would advise them, if they wanted to bring the English Government to their senses, to give up coquetting with it, either here or in Rome, and not to confine themselves to passing resolutions and sending them to The Freeman's Journal, but to join with the people of their country in opposing one of the most monstrous measures they had ever had.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had had an opportunity lately of speaking to some of these Bishops, and He could assure his hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy) that it might be said with perfect certainty that they would not confine themselves to merely passing resolutions on this question, but that they had made up their minds to take definite and strong action to bring home to the Government the real aspects of this question. The most extraordinary thing about the relief question proposed in that House was the nomenclature of these measures. The first Relief Bill they had in this Parliament was called "Relief of Distress Bill." That measure was supposed to be for the purpose of relieving distressed tenants, and it seemed that the method which had suggested itself to the Imperial Legislature for relieving distressed tenants in Ireland was by

  905
  giving money to distressed landlords? What was the result of that measure? Why, it was that which had been foretold, over and over again, by the Irish Members—they had foretold that the money which was given nominally for the purpose of giving the tenants employment, so as to save them from starvation, would be taken back by the landlords in the shape of arrears of rent, and that had turned out to be true. Within a very few months after these prophecies had been derided, the right hon. Gentleman the then Chief Secretary had to get up in the House and announce that the money given for the relief of distress had been confiscated by the landlords. The Bill now before them was entitled—"A Bill to make temporary provision for the Belief of the Destitute Poor in Ireland; "but on examination of the Bill, in concert with the declaration of the Chief Secretary, they found that it was really a Bill for the relief of those who were precisely the least destitute in Ireland. He was sorry to find that the right hon. Gentleman still stuck so consistently to his statement with regard to Donegal. He ought to be very careful, looking at what had followed on the action of his Predecessors, before making official statements of that kind. There was not a single official statement made upon this subject which was not confuted and disproved by the statements of gentlemen on the spot, who had no interest whatever in making false assertions. The right hon. Gentleman told them, on the strength of the official Reports, that no exceptional distress existed in those localities of Donegal to which reference had been made. Well, in order to accept those official Reports, what had they to force their minds to acknowledge? Why, if there were no distress in these districts, the veracity of Father M'Fadden—and, he might add, the Bishop of the diocese—was discredited, and they must believe that these gentlemen were appealing to the charity of the world, on what were neither more nor less than false statements. Either Father M'Fadden, Father Gallagher, and the Bishop of Raphoe, were convicted liars, or there was terrible distress existing in these districts at the present moment. If they believed that those ecclesiastics were not telling the truth, they must be prepared to believe that a dietary of
  906
  diversified kinds of seaweed was voluntarily accepted by the people in place of proper food; they must be ready to believe the statement, on which the Chief Secretary relied, that the fathers and mothers in these districts were feeding their children upon a couple of biscuits a-day in order that they might parade their destitution before the world, for such were the statements made by trustworthy representatives of English newspapers in Ireland. Since the right hon. Gentleman had given such a high character to the Boards of Guardians, they had had some of the gentlemen composing those Boards before the Law Courts of the country. Was it not a fact that one of these gentlemen had applied to a Court to compel payment of a year and a-half's rent, and had only been allowed half a-year, and had been told, in addition, that proceedings must be stayed until the 30th of October? Had not the presiding Judge said—"I admit these people are in a very poor condition? "He would put the testimony of Father M'Fadden, Dr. Logue, Father Gallagher, and the decree of the County Court Judge against the statements of Mr. Macfarlane and other gentlemen upon whom the right hon. Gentleman relied; and he had no hesitation in saying that more credence was to be placed on the ecclesiastics and the Judge than upon the evidence of these officials. The right hon. Gentleman had been rash enough to recapitulate to the House the promise which he had made last year with regard to these districts. He (Mr. O'Connor) asked the House whether there was a single one of these pledges which had not been broken in the spirit, if not in the letter? The right hon. Gentleman had told them that none of the Irish peasantry were to be allowed to starve; but would not the people have had to starve, so far as the authorities were concerned, if it bad not been for private effort—nay, had not the people actually died of starvation? So far as the Government were concerned had not the people been allowed to sink into the lowest depth of destitution; and if a great many of them had not starved, was it not due to private charity, and not to any action on the part of the Government? The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned something about outdoor relief in his statement in reply to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr.

  907
  Parnell); and the impression left upon that hon. Member's mind, and upon his (Mr. O'Connor's) mind, and upon the minds of many hon. Members on that side of the House, was this—that the right hon. Gentleman meant to convey that if outdoor relief was required it would be given. Yet, had there been any outdoor relief distributed? Another point to which he wished to allude was this—the right hon. Gentleman had again committed himself to the extraordinary statement that Father M'Fadden was keeping the people from going to work. Well, he had a letter in his hand addressed by Father M'Fadden to The Belfast Morning News, and in that letter the rev. gentleman said that he had publicly from the altar impressed upon his people the necessity of seeking work wherever it could be obtained in order to tide over the distressful season coming upon them. He also stated that crowds were going off to Scotland every day, despite the unfavourable reports which reached them of the condition of things in that country. The statement of the Chief Secretary was that these people would not work; but the statement of Father M'Fadden, who knew the secrets of almost every household amongst these people, was that they were actually going to Scotland seeking work. The rev. gentleman stated that he had initiated an extensive system of work, and he declared that he had seen women as well as men at work—that he had seen a woman carrying gravel from a pit whilst her husband was digging it. On the whole, he (Mr. O'Connor) found the policy of the Government, as represented by this Bill, a complete and consistent whole. He looked to the real source of the Government policy, and not to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this Bill—he looked to the statements of other officials connected with the Irish Government. More than that, he looked to the statement of Lord Derby with regard to the policy of the Government, as shown in this and other Bills brought forward by them. Lord Derby, and, no doubt, the rest of the Government, thought a few millions spent on emigration would pay them well. He (Mr. O'Connor) had recently been in Ireland, and had been shocked to find the deplorable completeness with which this system of enforced emigration was
  908
  taking place every day. The Government were not merely satisfied with emigrating persons accused of crime—he did not complain of their taking any measures they might think desirable to put down crime—but they were emigrating the young people of the country. But that was not the only policy pursued. They went to districts where the Land League had existed, and they found there some person who had been recently in revolt against the originators of the misgovernment to which the country had been subject. They found him a person whom they knew to be incapable of taking part in any crime; they entered his house in the middle of the night; they knocked at the door, and entered the apartments, it might be, of his aged mother, perhaps of his wife and sisters, and the man, if he were weak-minded, and certainly the women, were terrified. The effect of this action was that this man abandoned all polical activity whatever, and fled to America, where at least he would be free from nocturnal visitations on the part of the police. In the more distressed districts the Government said to a man—"Go into the workhouse, and, if you will not do that, go to America." The policy of Lord Spencer was the policy of making intolerable the homes of as many people as possible, so that when they could no longer live in the districts in which they were born they should cross the Atlantic. The Irish Members did not agree with Her Majesty's Government in their endeavour to fill the emigrant ships with the Irish peasantry. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Government had no idea of the depth of the feeling which existed in Ireland on this question of emigration; and he would also tell the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy) that if he had had such conversations with the leaders of the people in Ireland as he (Mr. O'Connor) had had, he would have found that there was hardly likely to be lukewarmness on their part in this matter. The Bishops were now saying—"Are we to be the Bishops of our people at home, or are people abroad? All our people are leaving us." One Bishop had said—
  "I. have 1,400 families in my parish; but within the last 12 months there have been only 20 marriages—all the young people have gone ont of the country."

  909
  There could be no marriages, because there were no people to marry. The feeling against emigration in Ireland was becoming deeper and more intense every day; and the people regarded more and more every day the policy of Her Majesty's Government as akin to that of the Roman Consuls, whose endeavour was to "make a solitude and call it peace." the policy of the Irish Representatives was to band together all the national forces of Ireland, and compel the Government to abandon a policy of filling the emigration ships, in their endeavour to bring the Irish people to a state of contentment in their misgovernment.
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Galway (Colonel Nolan) had touched upon a very important subject—namely, the fund from which they were to take this £50,000. The Chief Secretary had said that it was not in his Department, and that it was a matter altogether for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide. He (Mr. O'Shea) was sorry to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, and though the Secretary to the Treasury was present he did not seem inclined to give them any opinion as to the view of that Department on the subject. It was clear that if distress, such as now existed in some parts of Ireland, existed in England, the money for relieving it would have been provided, not out of any essentially English fund, but out of the National Exchequer. It was manifest to everybody that there was a divergence of view between the officials and Bishops and clergy of the district; but, even if that were so, there was independent evidence of the exceptional distress in Donegal, such as that of Mr. Ernest Hart. No one could suppose that that gentleman had any object in making statements which were absolutely opposed to those of official Inspectors. Under these circumstances—first, because these Reports had not been printed; and, secondly, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present to hear the arguments against this money being taken from the Irish Church Fund instead of from the Imperial Exchequer, which seemed to him to be the proper and the just source—it would be much better not to pass this Bill without the House having full information and full opportunity of impressing on the Chan-
  910
  cellor of the Exchequer the justice of the demand that this money should be taken from the Imperial Exchequer. He thought the debate had better be adjourned, and he should therefore move its adjournment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. O'Shea.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion. He had listened to all the arguments, and he gathered that hon. Members were rather against something which was not done by this Bill than against that which the Bill proposed to do. He gathered that the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) objected to what the Unions had done, and hold that other things should have been done to meet the distress. That argument was very good as bringing the attention of the Government to other measures; but it was surely no argument against this Bill, which provided a sum of money for Unions who had done what they could do, and ought to have done, to relieve the distress. He could quite understand the character of the argument addressed to the Government by hon. Members outside the Bill; but they did not go against the Bill because the money had been spent, or would be spent, by the Unions for the relief of the poor in their districts. Under these circumstances, he thought the House would see the justice of passing this Bill to provide money which would probably, under similar circumstances, be spent for these purposes. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed.
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. DALYsaid, he thought the Home Secretary laboured under some misconception as to the argument of the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien). The hon. Member's objection was to £50,000 being drawn from Irish sources, and allocated in a manner distasteful to Irish Members. On the allocation of Irish funds surely Irish Members had a right to express their opinion.
  MR. SPEAKER: A Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate having been made, and not withdrawn, the observations of the hon. Member are not in Order.
  MR. DALYsaid, he was addressing himself to the observations of the Home Secretary, who objected to the Adjournment, and he was showing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument was based on an entire misconception. The Irish Members wished for an adjournment because they thought English Members were not aware of the circumstances. They wanted to have this £50,000 applied to the relief of starving people in Donegal, whom the Unions had tried to drive into the workhouse.
  MR. SPEAKER: the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate not having been withdrawn the hon. Member is not in Order.
  MR. DALYsaid, he would reserve his remarks until the Motion had been withdrawn.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, it was true that the Irish Members did not object to what the Unions had done, or to their being indemnified; but what they did object to was that the Unions had only spent £3,000 in relief, and to the House not being told what was to be done with the remaining £47,000. If the Chief Secretary could not now explain that, the debate had better be adjourned, so that the Government might have time to consider when that information could be given.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was sorry that he had been so dull in his explanation. The sum of £50,000 was originally named in order to cover demands that might be made on the public funds to meet the distress in Ireland. The sums expended would be repaid; how much more would be applied for the purpose under the Bill he did not know yet; but he thought it extremely unlikely that £50,000, or anything like that amount, would be consumed. It was necessary to mention that sum when the Bill was introduced; but if hon. Members should propose to reduce that amount the Government might possibly consider the matter. They intended to confine their operations to the exact lines laid down in the Bill, and if those operations required less than £50,000 they would be very much pleased.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, the reason why he wished the debate to be adjourned was that the matter might be brought before the Prime Minister and
  912
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be fair and honourable to take this money from the Imperial Exchequer; and, whether the object was good or bad, it was contrary to Parliamentary principles to do what was now proposed.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he thought the debate should be adjourned, in order that the matter might be brought before the Prime Minister.
  The House proceeded to a Division:—
  Mr. SPEAKERstated he thought the Noes had it; and, his decision being challenged, he directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and Thirteen Members only having stood up, Mr. SPEAKER declared the Noes had it.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. DALYsaid, he would now renew his remarks. The contention about this matter was that many of the debts incurred by these Unions had arisen from their having expended money in promoting emigration to America; and they protested against that, and against the policy of the Government, which had severed these poor people from their homes and compelled them to become paupers. It was extremely unfair of the Government to press this Bill forward at an hour when there was no opportunity of showing how strongly the Irish people felt upon this matter; and he would gladly remain up to oppose the Bill being taken now.
  DR. LYONSsaid, he wished to draw attention to one point, and that was the disposal of the surplus funds under this Bill. With regard to Donegal, he was led to believe, on authority which he could not doubt, that in some instances the recovery of the seed loans had been enforced under circumstances which bore very harshly and unjustly on those who were supposed to have the benefit of the seed. The imperial regents, a variety of potato which were recommended on the authority of the Government, were a complete failure; and, in many cases, there was no return from the seeds at all. Under these circumstances, it seemed extremely harsh to prosecute the unfortunate individuals who had been induced to purchase the seed. Under this Bill provision was made for the relief of the Unions which, rightly or wrongly, had acted in the

  913
  distress and got themselves into debt; and he would ask hon. Members opposite to bear in mind that these Unions must, in some way or other, get themselves out of their financial embarrassments, either by imposing an additional rate, which would bear hardly and injuriously on people already in extreme distress, or by the means now proposed by this Bill. He thought a great deal might have been said earlier as to the propriety of taking this money from the Irish Church Fund; but, the Bill having been allowed to pass the second reading, it was now too late to challenge that proposal. He was strongly of opinion that the money should not be drawn from that Fund, which he had always regarded as being held in trust by the State for the purpose of works of a reproductive character; but it was quite evident that, in one or other of these two ways, these Unions were in an unfortunate financial position, and they must find relief in some way; and, on the whole, he thought the proposal in the Bill was the more merciful method. As he understood, these four Unions had not been materially concerned in promoting emigration. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he found that this money was more than he required for the relief of those Unions, he would look into the question of the seed rate, for which so many people had been so harshly pursued?
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 12: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 188.)
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 10: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 189.)
  Bill passed.

METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 254.]
(Mr. Courtney, Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 254.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he would have been glad if this Bill could have been taken at an hour when it could have been properly discussed. Millions upon
  914
  millions of money was levied on the people of London, and they knew nothing about the matter at all. In fact, there were not 100 people in London who knew anything of the proposal which the House was now asked to pass. He ventured to say that, from the beginning to the end of the year, there was no more monstrous farce—a farce to which the Secretary to the Treasury lent his sanction—than the passing of this Bill. The Bill proposed that the Board of Works, which was a body which did not represent the ratepayers of the Metropolis, and over which Parliament had no sort of control—this Bill proposed that the Board of Works should have authority to borrow £4,000,000, to spend as they themselves thought proper. No explanation was afforded of the Bill; indeed, the only thing that they would be told was that the Bill had been carefully examined by the Treasury. Certainly, he did not consider the inquiry of the Treasury was worthy of the name. The provisions of this Bill ought to have been examined by those who had to find the money. The people of the Metropolis had to find the money, and upon them the duty of investigating ought to be laid.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he did not wish to take up the time of the House at that hour of the night (2.55.) He need only point out that the greater part of the money voted in this Bill had been voted for eight years in succession. The Bill had been before the House from time to time, and the only other matter which this Bill contained related to three artizan schemes, and a scheme for street improvement, which was now before the House of Lords, and which would very soon pass into law. It did seem an anomaly that hon. Gentlemen should get up in their places and question the representative character of the Board of Works. He maintained that the Metropolitan Board of Works did represent the ratepayers of the Metropolis; and he maintained, moreover, that the matters dealt with by that Bill had been gone into most carefully by the Board, and had passed the ordeal of Committees of the House, and had passed the House itself. Surely, when these ordeals had been gone through, the hon. Member for Chelsea had no reason to grumble. Three

  915
  o'clock in the morning he did not consider a proper time to go into figures, which had been carefully gone into by the Treasury, and received their approval. Every figure contained in the Bill had been laid before the Secretary to the Treasury by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea had himself examined the figures he would not have delivered the speech he had just made.
  MR. MONKsaid, that 3 o'clock in the morning was not a proper time to consider a Bill which imposed taxation on the ratepayers of the Metropolis to the extent of £4,100,000. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had said that those figures had been considered often enough by the Treasury and by himself——
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: And by the House of Commons.
  MR. MONK: And, no doubt, by the Board over which he presided. That was not sufficient for the House of Commons. When Estimates were brought before the House it was the intention of Parliament that the House should consider them in detail. It was unreasonable that a lump sum, amounting to £4,000,000, should be passed at that time of the morning. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Truro had also said Committees of this House had sanctioned that expenditure; but he (Mr. Monk) disputed that that was so. It was said, too, that the Metropolitan Board of Works had carefully gone into the sums of money now asked for; but the House had no confidence in the Metropolitan Board of Works. This expenditure was becoming fabulous, and year after year the taxation of the Metropolis was increasing. What on earth was meant by an expenditure of £100,000 upon lamp standards? If the Board thought fit to spend so much money on lamp standards, the House of Commons ought to know something about the matter. He would not move that the debate be adjourned; he would be sorry to do so if they were to have a discussion in Committee.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman who opened the debate (Mr. Firth) would not expect him to enter upon a discussion concerning the constitution of the Metropolitan Board of Works. This was simply a
  916
  Bill to continue the borrowing powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the several claims made and received had been considered and approved by the Treasury. It was not a new Bill at all. The question which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had raised had not now been raised by him for the first time; and therefore he (Mr. Courtney) did not propose, unless the Committee desired it, to prolong the debate.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 130.]
(Mr. Trevelyan.)
SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 130.]

  SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th June] read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be further adjourned till Monday 23rd July."—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
  MR. CALLANsaid, the Prime Minister had stated that the Order for this Bill would be discharged. It was rather incomprehensible, unless there was something beneath the surface which hon. Members could not understand, why the Order had not been discharged. He knew it was said it was necessary to keep the Order on the Paper for the purpose of putting the Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That argument, however, was absurd, because the Act was now in force, and could be included in the Continuance Bill without the Order remaining on the Paper. He thought that the Order ought to be discharged, as long as the Government had given a public pledge in the House to that effect.
  Motion agreed to.
  Adjourned Debate further adjourned till Monday 23rd July.

SEA FISHERIES BILL [Lords].— [BILL 257.]
(Mr. John Holms.)
SEA FISHERIES BILL [Lords].— [BILL 257.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. John Holms.)
  MR. A. PEASEsaid, he hoped that it was not intended to take the Committee stage at once.
  MR. BIRKBECKtrusted the House would agree to the second reading, because the Bill dealt with the very important question of putting a stop to the outrages by foreign on English fishermen, and ought not to be delayed.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT (1874) AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 39.]
(Mr. Blake, Mr. O'Kelly, Dr. Commins, Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT (1874) AMENDMENT (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 39.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. O'Kelly.)
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that this Bill, as re-committed, had not been laid before the House, and the original Bill was brought in in exactly the same way. He objected to the Bill being taken at that hour of the morning, and under the conditions he had mentioned. He therefore moved that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Colonel King-Harman.)
  MR. BLAKEsaid, that the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) had been a long time before the House. Its provisions were perfectly understood; and in the opinion of everyone, save and except the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman), the Bill was a most useful one. As his hon. Friend would have so few opportunities, considering the very heavy state of the Notice Paper, of bringing the measure forward during the entire Session, he (Mr. Blake) trusted he would persevere to get the Bill into Committee to-night.
  MR. SHEILsaid, he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) would not press his Motion. Certainly, the House was entitled to hear some reason why the Motion should
  918
  be made. At present he had only heard that the hour was somewhat advanced, and that the Bill was not circulated. He did not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself would deny that the Bill was a useful one, for its object was simply the distribution of small sums of money, under very necessary circumstances. The reason given for an adjournment was so small that he ventured to hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not persist in his opposition.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not think that the opposition was quite so unreasonable as had been suggested. The Bill had been re-committed in order to receive numerous Amendments, and to be re-printed. It had not yet been re-printed, so that the form in which it was to be considered in Committee was not known. He would, however, suggest this compromise—that the Speaker should be allowed to leave the Chair, and that, immediately afterwards, Progress should be reported, on the understanding that the Committee stage should not be taken until the Bill had been re-printed.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, he was quite prepared to accept the compromise proposed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney).
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had Amendments on the Paper, which had been taken off, and he had no means of knowing at present whether those Amendments ought to be again put on the Paper. Upon the understanding, however, that the Committee stage would not be taken until the Bill had been reprinted, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.