Commons Sitting of 12 July 1883

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Canals [No. 252].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 17 to 24, and 27.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Considered as amended—Metropolitan Board of Works (District Railway).
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Manchester Ship Canal, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) * [230], and committed to the same Committee on which Electric Lighting Provisional Orders Bills (Nos. 1, 4, and 5) are to be referred; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 9) * [238]; Mersey River (Gunpowder) * [262].
Select Committee—Report—Canal Boats Act (1877) Amendment.
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [7] [Twentieth Night]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Prison Service (Ireland) [248]; Companies Acts Amendment * [246]; Sea Fisheries (Ireland) [31].
Further Considered as amended—Friendly, &c. Societies (Nominations) [228–264].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    SIR CHARLES FORSTER SIR CHARLES FORSTER moved—
    "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill he now read the third time (Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown and Duchy of Lancaster, to be signified)."
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he was glad to see the President of the Board of Trade in his place, because the right hon. Gentleman would probably be able to answer an inquiry which he had made yesterday. The question he desired to put to [the right hon. Gentleman was one of great importance. In Liverpool the Conservators of the Mersey were looted up to as the protectors of the interests of the Conservancy. Admiral Spratt was the Acting Conservator of the Mersey; but it had been stated that Sir John Coode had been appointed to advise and assist the Conservators; and he wanted to know what were the scope and object of Sir John Coode's appointment? If they were simply to advise the Conservators of the Mersey there could be no possible objection; but if Sir John Coode's evidence was to be given before the Committee of the House of Lords in aid of the promoters of this Bill, it was felt that the interests of the Mersey would in some degree be jeopardized. Therefore, he wished to know what were the scope and object of Sir John Coode's appointment, and if he had been appointed with the consent of the Conservators of the Mersey?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) would be aware that the Mersey Conservancy consisted of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, assisted by the Acting Conservator, Admiral Spratt. When this Bill was first promoted the Promoters sought to throw a great responsibility on the Conservancy, in requiring their approval to the works to be done in the estuary; and the Conservators felt, after consulting with Admiral Spratt, that they required further experienced advice before they could give any satisfactory opinion on the matter submitted to them. They, therefore, insisted that the Promoters should agree to the insertion of the clause by which they would undertake to pay the expense of any professional assistance which the Conservators of the Mersey might think fit to call in. That clause had been agreed to, and it was in accordance with its provisions that the Conservators of the Mersey had now appointed Sir John Coode, as an engineer of wide experience in similar matters, to advise them and assist Admiral
    1184
    Spratt. He was not at all connected with the Promoters of the undertaking; but he would be employed in a consultative capacity on behalf of the Conservators of the Mersey.
    MR. WHITLEYexpressed his satisfaction with the explanation.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time (Queen's Consent signified), and passed.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (DISTRICT RAILWAY) BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
    MR. MARRIOTT, who had a Motion on the Paper that the Bill be considered on that day week, said, he did not propose to move the Resolution which stood in his name; but he thought the House would permit him to call attention to a few facts in connection with the Bill. It would be in the recollection of the House that the Committee, some three years ago, gave certain powers to the Metropolitan District Railway Company to make ventilators on the public land; but it was not until those ventilators were absolutely put up that the attention of the public was called to their inconvenience. As soon as the inconvenience was felt the matter was brought before the House. As was well known, the House had always a strong objection to interfere with anything a Committee had previously decided, and very rightly so; but when this question was submitted to the House special Instructions were given to consider the matter in connection with another Metropolitan District Railway Bill which was submitted to the House. It was then expressly stated that, as a matter of principle, there were strong objections to undoing the work of a Select Committee. But, in this particular instance, so great was the inconvenience occasioned that the House considered it right to depart from its usual course, and the usual course was departed from by a majority of 110 in a crowded House, and powers were given to the Committee to close the ventilators in the different streets of the

    1185
    City and upon the Thames Embankment upon reasonable terms. He should now like to call the attention of the House to what the Railway Company did after these Instructions had been given by so large a majority of the House. When the Bill came before the Committee the Railway Company simply defied the House. They asked the Committee this question—"Are you going to pay any attention to the Instruction which has been given to you by the House of Commons?" The Committee took time to consider, and then said that they were going to pay attention to it. Whereupon the Hail-way Company rejoined—"Then, we will drop our Bill, and you cannot, therefore, carry out the Instructions of the House." They did drop their Bill, and the Instruction could not be carried out. But the authorities of the City of London and in the Metropolitan area, after beating about in order to see what further steps they could take for stopping the nuisance occasioned by these ventilators, and after a consultation between the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works, came to the House and stated their case, declaring that the only way to get rid of the nuisance was to promote a Bill, and to ask the House to suspend its Standing Orders with regard to it, thereby making it a Public Bill. The House was so convinced of the nuisance, and so desirous of adhering to the opinion they had previously expressed, that they at once gave this power of suspending the Standing Orders, and two separate Bills were brought in—one by the City of London, in regard to ventilators within the jurisdiction of the City, and the second by the Metropolitan Board of Works, in regard to the ventilators which had been constructed upon the Metropolitan area. Those two Bills were referred to a Select Committee; and he must here say a word in regard to the action of the Railway Company, because he thought the conduct pursued by the Company would receive the condemnation of all who respected authority. When Bills went before a Committee of the House it was supposed that the Committee would listen to nothing but the arguments addressed to them by the counsel representing all the parties concerned; that they would hear the evidence laid before them, and then decide upon the merits of the application. But he regretted to
    1186
    say that the Metropolitan District Railway Company took a course unprecedented by any Railway Company in the United Kingdom, because they resorted to out-of-door agitation, in order to bring pressure to bear upon the Committee. There might have been seen in Pall Mall and all over the streets huge placards, with advertisements, announcing—"Awful slaughter!" "Wholesale slaughter of the working classes!" "£40,000 of the ratepayers' money going to be thrown away!" and other devices, never resorted to before by a Railway Company.
    MAJOR DICKSONrose to Order. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Member if he had any proof that the Railway Company were responsible for these placards?
    MR. MARRIOTTsaid, he had this proof—that when the time came for stating their case the Railway Company put forward their engineer, and did not put into the box either the Chairman of the Company or the General Manager. He had, further, this authority for the assertion he made—that the advertisements appeared in every station on the District Line; and he was sure that if the Committee had been able to examine and cross-examine the Chairman and the Manager of the Railway Company, they would have been able to ascertain where the money came from, and it would at once have been admitted that, at any rate, the Company paid for the advertisements. He did not think that any further proof was necessary. If the assertion was untrue, let the Railway Company come before the House and deny it. The agitation did go on, and it was conducted in the most obnoxious and objectionable form. The Railway Company tried, by outward pressure brought to bear upon the Members of the House, to influence the decision by getting up a workman's grievance. They represented themselves as the champions of the working classes; whereas everybody in the House knew that every beneficial institution the Railway Company had introduced had not been at the instance of the Railway Company themselves, but at the instance of the House. Even while their Bill was passing through the House, it was necessary to watch them, and to bring in clauses to protect the interests of the working classes. When he saw the

    1187
    Railway Company holding themselves out as the champions of the working classes, and defying the City and the Metropolitan Board of Works, he was reminded of the old proverb of "Satan reproving sin." The House of Commons had always taken up the rights of the working classes, and it was absurd and ridiculous to assume that the District Railway Company were their champions, and that the House of Commons was against them. He believed the House would concur with him that such conduct on the part of the Railway Company was highly reprehensible and objectionable. He did not think, however, that it had any effect upon the Committee, the. Chairman of which he was glad to see present in his place. He felt certain himself that it had not. He now asked the House to inquire for a moment what it was that took place before the Committee. Two of those ventilators were situated in the City of London. One was extremely dangerous, and the other very harmless. The City of London only objected to one of them, and the Committee ordered that one to be closed. Therefore, the City of London were perfectly satisfied with the decision of the Committee, which ordered the ventilator in Queen Victoria Street to be shut up. But with regard to the Metropolitan Board of Works, their case was altogether different. There were eight ventilators to which the Board objected; but the Committee decided that only two of them should be shut up, that one should be altered, and the other five should be left untouched. He was glad to see the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works in his place, because he believed that, acting for the ratepayers and on behalf of the public at large, the Metropolitan Board were greatly dissatisfied with the decision arrived at. They looked upon these ventilators as a source of danger to the public, and as a nuisance in many ways. The Committee had requested the Railway Company to suggest a clause by which the nuisance might be abated, and the Railway Company suggested that the whole matter should be referred to arbitration. In regard to the nuisance, although he could not give evidence, he would make a statement for himself, and he believed that that statement would be fully corroborated by other hon. Members. Those who walked
    1188
    up and down the Thames Embankment before the attention of the House of Commons was called to these ventilators would be aware that volumes of steam and smoke used to issue from these apertures. ["Oh!"] He was speaking of what took place three or four months ago. No doubt, as soon as the matter was brought before the House those large volumes of smoke practically ceased, and very little would be seen to issue from the ventilators as persons walked up and down the Embankment. Why was that? It was evident that the Railway Company did not wish the nuisance to be seen so long as the rod of the House was held over them; but if this Bill passed there would then be nothing to prevent these volumes of smoke from coming out again, and, if any objection were raised, the reply would be that the ventilators had been sanctioned by Parliament. If the Railway Company wished really to abate the nuisance, let the ventilators be placed under the Railway Commissioners. There were three Railway Commissioners, who had not very much to do; and if this Railway Bill were subjected to the authority of the Commissioners, with power to interfere in the case of any nuisance that might be created, the public, no doubt, would be satisfied, because if the matter went before the Railway Commissioners it was quite clear that the nuisance would very soon be abated. But the question for consideration now was, what the House would do. The House had taken the matter on themselves, and the only question was whether they ought to reject the Bill in the amended form in which it had come down from the Committee. In his opinion, one-half or a quarter of a loaf was better than none; and as the Bill had still to go through the House of Lords, he would venture to let the matter stand where it was, the House retaining to. itself further action, if necessary, in the next Session of Parliament. If that were the opinion of the House, he would ask permission to withdraw the Resolution which stood in his name on the Paper, and he would allow the Bill to pass for the present.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman move any Amendment?
    MR. MARRIOTT: No.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he did not wish to inquire into the manners and morals of the Railway Company. He considered that the whole question of what the Railway Company did, or what they were supposed to have done, was entirely decided. The only question before the House, and the question constantly present to him, was whether these ventilators were necessary for the health of the persons who travelled by the railway. He was entirely convinced that they were, and he exceedingly regretted the action which had been taken by the City of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was satisfied that there would be great and growing discontent even in regard to this partial action on the part of Parliament in shutting them up. In the interests of those who travelled on the Metropolitan District Railway, he desired to say a word. As soon as the subject had been discussed, he had been waited upon by representatives of the working classes in London. As a matter of fact, the borough he represented—Southwark—was not materially served by this railway. Fortunately for the people of the South of London, they generally travelled upon open railways, where it was not necessary to have special means of ventilation; but the working classes of the South of London felt very much for their brother workmen, who complained seriously of the course pursued in respect to this railway. He was told that there were no less than 200,000 working men in London who were prepared, if they had had an opportunity—which, however, was refused to them—of being heard before the Committee, of stating their views upon the matter. In the absence of the information which they could have given upon the subject, the Report of the Committee was necessarily an ex parte one; and, therefore, he contended that it did not take into account various important considerations which ought to have been before the Committee in relation to the question of public health. Now, what had been done in regard to these ventilators? They had been constructed in comparatively innocuous places, and a great deal of sentimentality had been uttered in regard to them. The House had been told of pestilential vapours, injurious both to man and vegetation, constantly issuing
    1190
    forth in puffs of smoke and steam. But they were evils which existed only in the vigorous imagination of his hon. and learned Friend. He (Mr. Rogers) confessed that he had not seen anything of the kind. The fact of the matter was that the whole amount of steam which came out of the ventilators was not half so noxious, and certainly not one-half as visible, as that emitted from one of the steamboats that plied up and down the Thames, and which they did not wish to interfere with at all. The steam and smoke from these steamboats certainly created a very considerable nuisance. But the nuisance from the ventilators was very trifling indeed. In point of fact, the particular kind of coal used on this railway was one by which very little smoke was created. Of course there was a certain amount of steam emitted; but it was quickly dispersed into thin air, without any injurious consequences to health or vegetation. The Committee which sat upon the Bill had closed three ventilators—one at the instance of the City of London—and he regretted exceedingly that the opportunity escaped him of attacking that Bill which enabled the City to close that ventilator. He was informed, on good authority, and he had spoken to several of the guards and permanent officials of the railway since the ventilator had been shut up, that the closing of that shaft would very much interfere with the pointsmen and engine drivers, and that, in future, there would be great risk of danger to persons who used the railway in that direction. He presumed that the ventilator was closed on account of a general disinclination on the part of the City of London—for he could explain it on no other ground—to have light let in upon their proceedings.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERrose to Order. He wished to ask whether his hon. Friend was justified in attacking the City of London on this question?
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he presumed that the Commissioners of Sewers, who promoted the Bill, were part of the City of London, and he regretted that the worthy Alderman was unable to accept a good-humoured jest upon the Corporation as to what went on in the City. With regard to the other two ventilators which were to be closed, there was no doubt that when they were shut up a good deal of the

    1191
    space now rendered comparatively pure would be vitiated. In regard to the general course taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works, it would be observed that just beyond the point where the last ventilator of the Railway Company was opened within the jurisdiction of the City there were a great many spaces which had been utilized on the line of the railway itself, and which might have been employed for building purposes. That was to say, that part of the space belonging to the Company had been devoted to the good of the public, showing that the Railway Company had not been altogether influenced by selfish considerations. He should like to know what was the reason that the ventilator had been closed in Parliament Square? He believed that the only reason assigned was that it was an historical spot. No doubt Tothill Fields was an historical spot; but that did not seem to him to be an adequate reason. The circumstances of the case rendered it absolutely impossible that the Metropolitan Railway could make openings in the streets except with the sanction of the House of Commons, and two years ago Parliament went into the question deliberately, and, whether rightly or wrongly, did give that sanction. He thought Parliament acted rightly when they preferred to consider the public health rather than sentimental considerations. The sanitary condition of the railway as soon as the ventilators were opened was, he believed, somewhat remarkably improved; and he regretted very much that this compromise had been entered into, because he believed that it would be injurious to the people who travelled by the Underground Railway. Although after what had been decided on previous occasions it was unlikely that he should carry the Motion, he, nevertheless, felt it his duty to move, as a protest, that the Bill be considered on that day three 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."—(Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he quite concurred with the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member
    1192
    for Brighton (Mr. Marriott). The Metropolitan Board of Works—and he believed their feeling was shared by the great majority of the inhabitants of London, and also by the majority of that House—could not help expressing great surprise at the decision of the Committee after the repeated votes which had been given by the House of Commons; but as the Committee had given due consideration to the matter, he could only say, on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works, that they were prepared to accept the decision of the Committee, and to go on and take the Bill up to the House of Lords. At the same time, they reserved to themselves the power of doing whatever they thought fit in the House of Lords, dependent on the action of the Railway Company. They were prepared to take what they could get now, and to reserve to themselves the power next year of doing what they might think necessary, if they found that the health of the inhabitants was suffering from these ventilators, and he was very much afraid that that would be the case. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Rogers) had been good enough to introduce the question of the steam issuing from the ventilators. He did not know whether the hon. Member had listened to or read the Evidence before the Committee. If he had, he did not think the hon. Member could have asserted that the smoke from a penny steamer was much more objectionable than that which came from these ventilators. He would give the House an extract from the Evidence given before the Committee, of which his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Stansfeld) was Chairman. It was stated to the Committee that 10 tons of coal were used every day on the railway, and that that coal gave forth 600,000 cubic feet of carbonic acid gas, which went all over the River and the Gardens, and destroyed the trees and flowers and every description of vegetation. It was quite evident, therefore, that the hon. Member could not have read the scientific evidence which went to prove the amount of damage actually done. His hon. Friend said that he represented the opinions of the working classes. All he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) could say was that he had had as many representations from one sort of people as from the other, and that he had received a considerable

    1193
    number of persons who represented the working classes. He knew, however, how much value to attach to the testimony placed before him, because he was well aware that there were a certain number of people who, instead of representing a class, only represented themselves. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to pass, and would accept the decision of the Committee, although they were not getting one-tenth part of what they ought to have got. On behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he was prepared to accept the conclusion of the Committee; but the Board reserved to themselves the power hereafter of taking further steps in the matter.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that, with the permission of the House, he would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered; to be read the third time.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.— [BILL 230.]
  (Mr. John Holms, Mr. Chamberlain.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.— [BILL 230.]

    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. WARTON MR. WARTON moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time upon that day three months. He strongly protested against the course which had been taken in regard to these Electric Lighting Bills. The general Bill was hurried through the House last year at the end of the Session in a way that prevented the House from devoting to it the consideration which it required. To the 1st clause of the Bill he himself had down on the Paper four Amendments, which were absolutely necessary in order to make the clause intelligible. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who was in charge of the Bill, relying on the majority at his back, as he always did, refused to allow any of those Amendments
    1194
    to be inserted, although he (Mr. Warton) had moved that the Bill be re-committed, in order that they might be considered. The Government majority was invoked on that occasion, and the proposition was rejected. Curiously enough, when the Bill went to the House of Lords those very Amendments were inserted; and when the Bill came down again to the House of Commons they were accepted, without remark, by the President of the Board of Trade. He regretted that the President of the Board of Trade should be so impatient to have the regulation of everything, whether it was an Electric Lighting Bill or a Bankruptcy Bill. He (Mr. Warton) thought the House had better wait until they saw how these schemes for electric lighting were likely to work before they hastily pledged themselves to a number of Bills giving a monopoly to various Electric Lighting Companies. His only fear was that they might regret the precipitancy of their legislation a short time hence.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day throe months."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. STEVENSONsaid, he could not think the hon. and learned Member was really serious in moving the rejection of the Bill. It must be remembered that it had been introduced in conformity with an Act passed by the House last Session, after the whole question had been fully considered by the Select Committee; and there were now before the House a considerable number of Bills, which had been introduced in conformity with the provisions of that Act. It must be remembered that the Notices for this Bill were given in November last; that the Board of Trade had held local inquiries, and had heard evidence from all quarters; and these Bills were now brought before the House, after great deliberation and discussion, in the shape of Provisional Orders by the Board of Trade. Exceptional facilities had been given a few days ago to the opponents of these Bills, and any persons interested in the matter would be entitled to be heard before the Committee. He trusted that the House would adopt the usual course of sending

    1195
    the Bill to a Committee; because it would be a very hard case indeed that the inhabitants of London should be deprived of the advantages of the electric light, or that the Companies which were willing to supply them should be impeded in their operations. If the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Vestries, which constituted the local authority, could not agree among themselves they could go upstairs before the Committee and settle their disputes. It was not at all right that the House should be called upon to settle them upon the second reading of the Bill. He sincerely hoped that no hindrance would be imposed by the House at this time of the Session to the trial of this very important experiment, so far as the inhabitants of London were concerned.
    LORD ALGERNON PERCYwished, as shortly as possible, to state some reasons why he supported the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. One reason was the great inconvenience occasioned by the action of the Board of Trade in including in the Bill districts which had agreed to the Orders, and other districts which had not, be-cause it necessitated a district which was opposing one Order to oppose the whole Bill, and go to considerable expense in appearing before the Committee. He regretted that the plan adopted should put the parties to such great inconvenience and expense. He did not understand why the Orders which had been opposed could not have been dealt with by separate Bills. This Bill affected two portions of the locality controlled by the Board of Works for the Westminster district, which, according to the Electric Lighting Act of 1882, was the lighting authority for that district. The Order had been granted in direct opposition to the wishes of that Board, and no opinion had been expressed in its favour, or, indeed, as to the desirability of electric lighting at all by the inhabitants. The two districts were Victoria and South Kensington, both of them rich and important districts; and if a monopoly were given to a Company to light those districts great difficulty would be thrown in the way of the local authorities in obtaining a well-considered scheme for lighting the whole district, because the rich districts—the best for paying and trade purposes—would be
    1196
    taken up and the poorer portions of the locality left out. He thought the Government and the Home Secretary would agree with him that it was important that the poorer parts of the district, for police and moral purposes, should be as well lighted as the richer. The Board had received applications from two other Companies who were prepared to light the whole district—one of them the Edison Electric Lighting Company, and the other the Metropolitan Brush Electric Lighting and Power Company, and they had also received applications from private individuals for licences under which the whole district might be lighted, and a revision of the terms would take place at the end of every seven years. They, therefore, objected very strongly to having a certain portion of the district taken away and given to a particular Company, when other competing Companies had given notice of their desire to deal with the whole district. He submitted that the intention of the provisions of the Electric Lighting Act of 1882 was to encourage electric lighting on terms agreeable to the local authorities, and that the Board of Trade should only step in and grant Provisional Orders where the opposition of the local authorities was of a vexatious character, and contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants. That, however, was not the case in this instance. The Electric Lighting Act of 1882, in Section 3, dealt with and contemplated the granting of licences, and then Section 4 went on to deal with the question of Provisional Orders. The Board of Works of the Strand district, acting on that clause, had already granted licences for the lighting of their whole district, and the present Bill utterly upset and superseded their authority and their opinion in the matter. It might be said that, according to the warding of the Act, the licence had to be confirmed by the Board of Trade; but he submitted to the House that the intention of that provision was only to protect the interests of the consumers, and that it was not intended to supersede entirely the opinion of the local authority. Nevertheless, according to the present Bill, the wishes of the local authorities were entirely superseded, and the power to light these districts was handed over to Companies who would practically have a monopoly and the power of charging

    1197
    exorbitant prices for 21 years, instead of there being a possibility of revising the terms at the end of every seven years. For this, among other reasons, he hoped the House would not consent to the second reading of the Bill, or, if they did, that it would only be on the understanding that the opposed Orders were struck out.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the noble Lord who had just sat down had given some reasons for objecting to this particular Bill now before the House; but the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment had given no reasons whatever in support of it, except the general fear, which, no doubt, governed his whole conduct in the House, that they were proceeding too fast, and his desire to stop all legislation, which appeared even to extend to Provisional Orders. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Chamberlain) would confine his remarks to the objections of the noble Lord. If the Bill were read a second time it would be allowed to go to the Hybrid Committee already appointed, before whom all objections to it would be very properly and fully heard. The noble Lord had an idea respecting the intention of Parliament in connection with the Electric Lighting Committee which was not at all warranted by the facts. The noble Lord appeared to think that Parliament intended that these Provisional Orders should only be granted with the goodwill and consent of the local authority. On the contrary, it appeared to him (Mr. Chamberlain) that the object of Parliament in passing that Act was, in the first place, to protect the community at large against anything in the nature of a permanent monopoly, such as in the case of gas and water; and, in the second place, to protect these important experiments from being stifled in their inception either by want of enterprize or by competing interests, or by the prejudice of the local authorities. When the Board of Trade had to consider the applications made to them they found a very general wish on the part of the local authorities that they should be left entirely alone. That was not an unnatural desire; but if the Board of Trade had yielded to it, this important experiment, instead of having a beneficial result, would absolutely have been stifled in its inception, and there would have been
    1198
    no chance of any further progress being made. Under these circumstances, what the Board of Trade thought it best to do was to hear the authorities and all their objections, either to particular Companies or to the proposed terms of an Order. These objections were carefully weighed and considered, and, as far as possible, were attended to by the Board of Trade; but where they took the form of mere general refusals on the part of the local authorities to allow any wires to be laid down in their districts for the purpose of electric lighting, and a desire to have the whole matter left to them to say when and where the experiments should be made, the Board of Trade thought it their duty to pass over such objections on the part of the local authority, because they did not think it fair to the ratepayers, or to the probable consumers, or to the Company who were willing to provide electric lighting, to allow the local authorities to stand in the way of the experiment and to prevent it from being carried out. As to the Westminster Board, they, and they alone, among the local authorities, although they had been invited again and again to appear before the Board of Trade and state their objections, had refused to attend, and their opposition had to be dealt with in their absence. The case was carefully considered, and it was owing to their own ladies that the particular objections of the Westminster authorities were not able to be heard and fully considered. They had now another opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee, and of being represented by counsel, or in any other way, before the Committee, in order to object to the granting of an Order. The noble Lord complained that opposed Orders had been placed in the same Bill as Orders which were not opposed. The Board of Trade could not tell beforehand whether an Order was opposed or not, and it would have been very convenient if they could have done so. For instance, he found to-day that a notice had been given at the last moment to oppose an Order which up to that time had been unopposed; and, considering that circumstance, he should no longer resist the Motion of his hon. Friend behind him (Sir George Campbell), but would consent to refer the Electric Lighting Provisional Order Bill (No. 6) to the same Hybrid Committee. That

    1199
    Committee would be able to hear the evidence in all of these cases.
    MR. J. R. YORKEregarded the speech of the right hon. Gentleman as a very extraordinary one, because it seemed to be based on the supposition that the measure passed last year was intended entirely to prejudge the question whether electricity, or any other form of lighting, was to be the lighting of the future in the Metropolis, or any other part of the country. There really seemed to be an onus probandi now to prove that the country was not given over entirely to electric lighting as the lighting of the future. In regard to the Westminster Board of Works, the President of the Board of Trade must be aware, from the correspondence which had taken place between the Board and himself, that they had repeatedly objected to being forced against their will, and without any manifestation of feeling on the part of their constituency, to adopt any particular system of electric lighting. At the present moment it could scarcely be assumed that electric lighting had yet reached its final stage of development; and if it had not reached that final stage of development, that it was to be at the discretion of the Board of Trade how far experiments were to be made in various parts of the country. In this instance the district, of which the Westminster Board was the local authority, was to be the corpus viri which was to get very little benefit in case of success, and to pay the whole cost of the experiment; and the arrangement itself was to be concluded for 21 years. The whole of the richer portion of the district would be handed over to the Company it was sought to establish; and if at any future time the local authority, acting by means of a licence or a Provisional Order, sought to grant privileges to any other Company who desired to introduce a different system, they must be told that they must either work by means of another Company who had a present monopoly, or that they must buy that other Company out, and proceed with their own experiments at a great disadvantage. He contended that where they had a great district like Westminster, and when there had been no manifestation of opinion on behalf of the inhabitants favourable to the immediate introduction of electricity, where also they had a local board which
    1200
    was altogether unfavourable—he did not even think there was a minority of one in favour of the experiment being tried at the present moment—it was most objectionable that the President of the Board of Trade should step in and override and supersede all expression of popular feeling. The right hon. Gentleman said—"I will select the Company I will hand you over to; you shall be bound neck and heels for 21 years; no one else shall have the opportunity of trying a rival system; and if you try a rival system you must introduce it under every kind of disadvantage." It was said that they were to have an improved system of local government for the Metropolis next year. If they were to have municipal reform in London, he certainly thought they should postpone the consideration of this question until they had a larger and more responsible body to attend to the introduction and development of so important an element in the future as the electric lighting of the Metropolis. The Westminster Board were unanimously supported by their constituents in opposing this Order; but the Board of Trade had most emphatically shown their contempt for the existing local authority by altogether disregarding and overriding their opinion in a matter in which they had the unanimous support of the ratepayers. Having done this, they might, at any rate, allow the matter to stand over for the comparatively short time which it was understood would elapse before a comprehensive system of Metropolitan Government was introduced. He could not imagine a more fit and proper subject to be referred to the higher intellect of the body proposed to be established than the consideration of the important question it was now proposed to settle by the mere ipse dixit—sic volo, sic juleo—of the Board of Trade. Seeing that the opinion of the local authority had been emphatically expressed, and that it was endorsed by the constituency, he should support the Amendment.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had misinterpreted the remarks which had been made by the President of the Board of Trade. All that this Bill did was to enable those who wished to adopt electric lighting to have an opportunity of doing so. His hon. Friend

    1201
    said that they ought not to have the power of doing this without inquiry. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it ought not to be done without inquiry; but they had already had an extensive inquiry last year by a most able Committee, who went into the whole question, and had it carefully investigated with the assistance of the Board of Trade. Surely, as far as inquiry was concerned, there had been a great deal of it, and the time had now arrived when they should put this invention into practical operation. They were told that these Bills were intended to give a monopoly to particular Electric Lighting Companies. He thought that was a misuse of the word "monopoly," because if any Electric Lighting Company which obtained an Order under these Bills did not carry out the work in a proper manner, or if it could be shown that other Companies could do the work so much more cheaply, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent other Companies from coming in. But, if they were to wait until the era of enthusiastic inventors was over, they would never practically get anything done at all. If they passed these Orders, the public would have the benefit of them. It must be remembered that the electric light had to compete with candles, lamps, and gas; and, therefore, it was to the interest of the Electric Companies to provide the public with electric light on as reasonable terms as possible. The House was told that the Bill referred only to the richer districts, and left out the poorer ones. Now, his own belief was that the poorer districts would be those which would be most valuable for Electric Lighting Companies to take up, because they would be the districts where electric lighting would be most continuously required. The electric light would be at work during the whole year in the houses and workshops of the poorer districts; whereas the richer portion of the population went away from London during a considerable part of the year. In the interest of the poorer members of the community, he begged the House to allow the Bill to go forward. It was not simply a question of lighting, but of fresh air as well, as hon. Members knew very well who had experienced the improved atmosphere of the Library, and other parts of the House into which the electric light
    1202
    had been introduced. There were thousands of workpeople who had to work in close and confined rooms in the Metropolis; and it was important, for sanitary purposes, that they should have the advantage of this system as soon as possible. The people of Westminster, who were said to object to the inclusion of their district in the Bill, would have an opportunity of stating their objections before the Committee to which the Bill was to be referred; and, therefore, he hoped the House would agree to the second reading. He thought that the Resolution passed the other day dealt a somewhat severe blow against the system of Provisional Orders; but, as it had been adopted in one case, he presumed it would be done in regard to the rest of these Bills. Therefore, if the local authorities of Westminster, or of any other locality, had anything to say against these Bills, they would have a full opportunity of ventilating their views before the Committee upstairs.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had expressed a hope that the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) regretted that it was not in the power of the House to agree to those portions of the Bill which were unopposed, and that there was no way of separating the opposed from the unopposed parts of the Bill. On behalf of his constituents he thought he was entitled to be heard against the proposal to include the Southern district and the Westminster district in this Bill. There was no evidence whatever that a single constituent in this district desired to have these powers forced upon him. The ratepayers of Westminster looked with great distrust upon the effect which the exercise of these powers would produce. The local authorities of the district, whose duty it was to make the necessary provision for the lighting of the district, objected altogether to the provisions of the Bill, so far as Westminster was concerned. In one case, the local authorities had already granted a licence for seven years to another Company, which licence would be destroyed by this Company if the Bill passed. He thought it was most undesirable that the experiments about to be made should be tried, not only against the wishes, but at the expense of the inhabitants of

    1203
    this part of London; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would consent to exclude these particular Orders from the Bill. If that were done, there would be no opposition to the second reading of the measure; and he believed it would be perfectly possible to proceed with the Orders that were opposed in a separate Bill, when, of course, the local authorities interested in the question would be able to oppose them directly in the House. He strongly objected to any attempt to impose heavy charges upon the ratepayers in opposition to their wishes; and there was a strong feeling in the locality that the provisions of the Bill ought not to be forced upon the inhabitants against their consent. He thought it was a very strange exercise of the power of the Board of Trade to call upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis to appear in a Committee Room to oppose a Bill which would practically give a monopoly to some three or four Companies. It seemed to him to be quite unreasonable that this power should be exercised by the Board of Trade at the expense of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. As he had said, the effect of passing these Orders would be to give a monopoly to particular Companies, and, in the case of the Westminster district, to exclude all other Companies. He thought everyone must see that it would be a most unwise and improper course to allow any Company to take up a single portion, or one or two isolated portions, of a large district like that of Westminster. They could well afford to wait for another year for the further development of electric lighting; and, on behalf of his constituents, he might say that they were perfectly willing that the experiments which the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) said were in course of being made should be made in the interim, so that they might next year have the advantage of the best inventions.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was surprised to hear the somewhat contemptuous tone in which the President of the Board of Trade had spoken of local authorities. As regarded the question of general policy, he quite agreed that a great deal might be said in favour of trying the experiment of electric lighting. What he objected to was, that
    1204
    Provisional Orders should be passed in favour of three or four monopolist Companies, who, within one month of the passing of the Bill, would have obtained possession of the best parts of the Metropolis, and the power of portioning them out among themselves. About one-half of London was proposed to be given over to the Metropolitan Brush Company, which had been started as a Limited Liability Company, with a capital upon which £3 per share had been paid up, notwithstanding which the shares of the Company were at present, he was told, in the market at a few shillings a share. He thought that fact showed that the Company were not in a favourable position to undertake extensive works. It seemed to him, however, that the floor of that House was not the proper arena for discussing the details of these questions. The President of the Board of Trade had done what he (Sir George Campbell) had asked him in the first instance to do—namely, he had consented to refer the Bills to a Hybrid Committee, where the evidence of all who were interested in the matter would be heard. A well-constituted Committee would be able to sift the good from the bad, to accede to those local authorities who wished to allow the experiment to be tried in their district, and to exempt those local authorities who were opposed to it. This Bill proposed to confirm an Order for the introduction of electric lighting into the area of Kensington. The Vestry of Kensington represented him as his local authority, and they had passed a formal resolution, asking for delay. But the Board of Trade replied—"Either do this yourself, or let somebody else do it." Upon that intimation, the Vestry said—"We do not understand the matter sufficiently to oppose the Bill, and therefore we will throw the responsibility upon you. We have not consented to the introduction of your scheme, and you are unreasonable if you choose to force into the district these Provisional Orders. The responsibility rests with you, and not with us." He should vote for the second reading of the Bill, on the understanding that it would be referred to the Hybrid Committee already appointed.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he did not desire to discuss for a moment the merits of these Provisional Order Bills; but, having been a Member of the Committee to whom the question was re-

    1205
    ferred last year, he thought it was only right that he should say a few words. The Act of last year, undoubtedly, contemplated that in many cases licences would be given by the local authorities under certain safeguards then provided; but it also contemplated the possibility that there might be some local authorities—he did not say it in any disagreeable sense—who would obstruct, and who would not desire that electric lighting should be introduced at all into the districts connected with them, however much individual ratepayers, like himself (Mr. Stanhope), might desire it to be introduced. Such obstruction might have the effect of putting off the introduction of electric lighting until an indefinite period. Therefore, the Committee of last year introduced the system of Provisional Orders, by which the Board of Trade was to have power in certain cases, by granting Provisional Orders, to supersede the authority of those who were concerned, and to empower Electric Lighting Companies to introduce the system. At the same time, it was intended to surround that permission with such safeguards as the Select Committee of last year considered to be adequate. It was proposed that the Board of Trade should have the power of doing, in regard to these Provisional Orders, what they did in the case of other Provisional Orders—namely, that they should give full notice to all the parties concerned of their intention to hold a local inquiry, so that they might hear the views of the people most interested. As far as he could learn, in the present case, the Board of Trade had fulfilled all the requirements of the Act, and had called upon all the persons who were interested in these Orders to state their cases be-fore them. In the case of Westminster, he was informed that the local authorities had refused to state their case; and, if so, it was somewhat hard that they should now come down to the House and ask the House to reject the Bill on the second reading, having persistently refused to state what their opposition was to the Provisional Orders proposed to be granted by the Board of Trade. He thought the House would agree with him that there was no reason whatever for departing from the ordinary course which the House adopted in these cases—namely, of reading the Bill a second time and referring it a Hybrid Committee,
    1206
    before whom the whole case might be heard.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he was unwilling to take up the time of the House again; but, in common justice to the position which he occupied, and having had a great deal to do with the President of the Board of Trade in reference to these matters, he felt bound to say that the attacks which had been made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) upon the Board of Trade, were not at all fair. The Board of Trade had displayed the greatest courtesy and the utmost possible consideration towards every local authority. In his (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg's) official capacity, he had been in communication with the President of the Board of Trade upon the subject, and he had invariably been received with the greatest courtesy, and he believed every member of the District Boards would say the same. Of course, there was a great deal of divergence of opinion on the subject. One Vestry wanted one thing, and another Vestry wanted something else; indeed, many Local Boards appeared not to know their own minds. He thought it was a great pity that the Westminster authorities refused to appear before the Board of Trade. All that the Metropolitan Board of Works wanted in the matter was, that there should be power to revise the charges for the electric lighting every seven years. He did not know how his right hon. Friend regarded that proposition, and he admitted that the whole question was a very difficult and complicated one.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, the course pursued confirmed the propriety of the action taken by himself last year in opposing the Electric Lighting Bill when it was rushed through the House in a Saturday afternoon's Sitting. He expressed a fear at that time that the effect of such hurried legislation would be to take some hundreds of thousands of pounds out of the pockets of inventors and place them in those of needy patentees, causing an enormous loss which for many years would not be replaced. Nevertheless, the Bill was passed, and this was the natural outcome of it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade gave

    1207
    a pledge, when the Bill of last year was passed, that all those who were interested in the matter should be fairly heard, and he believed that that pledge had been fulfilled in the spirit in which it was made, because all persons had been invited to attend before the Board of Trade. But that fact did not alter the principle which underlay these Bills—namely, that the ratepayers, and those who were fairly elected to represent them, were not to deal with their own concerns except with the approval of the Board of Trade. That principle, however, had been accepted, and it was too late to complain now. He fully understood the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), that opposed Bills ought not to be included in the same category as unopposed Bills. He wished to put a technical question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, which he thought was of importance to those who had an interest in the matter. He wanted to know why it was that each Order contained in the Bill had not been printed separately? If any person desired to obtain a copy of a particular Order, he could only do so by paying 3s. 6d. for the whole 10 Orders contained in the Bill; whereas, if each Order had been printed separately, he might have obtained it for 6d. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take that matter into consideration, and see whether, in future, he could not print each Order separately, so that the expense to the ratepayers who were affected in particular districts would not be so heavy as it was at present.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAremarked, that in passing the second reading of the Bill, they would confirm the principle of it in regard to every Order contained in it. He objected to the grouping together of several Provisional Orders in one Bill of enormous dimensions. He believed that one of these Orders confirmed a grant to the Swan Company of power to lay down wires for the lighting of the Southern district of the Metropolis. He was informed that the Strand Board of Works had themselves applied to the Board of Trade for an Order to empower them to light their own district, and they had made a provisional contract with another Company—not the Swan Company
    1208
    —to supply the light; but, not with-tanding, there was an Order contained in this Bill in reference to the Strand as if nothing whatever had taken place on the part of the Strand Board of Works, who were the local authorities; and the object of the present Order was to confer on a separate and distinct Company precisely the same powers which the Strand District Board of Works claimed for themselves strictly under the provisions of the Electric Lighting Act. He ventured to say that there never had been a more objectionable proceeding on the part of the Board of Trade or any other Public Department. He should, therefore, oppose the second reading of the Bill if it went to a Division.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 212; Noes 91: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. 196.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    LORD ALGERNON PERCYbegged to move the Resolution which stood in his name, and which, he believed, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was prepared to accept.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Bill be committed to the same Committee to which Electric Lighting Provisional Orders Bills (Nos. 1, 4, and 5) are to be referred:
    "That all Petitions against the Bills, or Orders, be referred to the said Committee; and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard upon their Petition, if they think fit, and Counsel hoard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions."—(Lord Algernon Percy.)
    Motion agreed to.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
    Ordered, That the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill be referred to the same Committee to which Electric Lighting Provisional Orders Bills Nos. 1, 4, and 5, are referred:
    Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, or Orders, be referred to the said Committee; and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard upon their Petition, if they

    1209
    think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions.—(Sir George Campbell.)

NOTICE OF QUESTION

  SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to give Notice that I will to-morrow ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, When and in what form he proposes to bring the proposal regarding the Suez Canal under the notice of the House, so as to give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it? Taking into account the great interest which is felt on the subject, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us to-day what the general course will be?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I cannot now say on what it day it will be brought forward. As to the form, I should prefer to answer the Question after Notice.

QUESTIONS.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is proposed to take a Vote this Session in the Navy Estimates (Greenwich Hospital Vote) to give effect to the provisions of the Greenwich Hospital Bill, should it become an Act of Parliament; and, if he will inform the House what portion of the Greenwich Hospital funds will probably be appropriated annually to this purpose?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: It is proposed to provide in the Greenwich Hospital Estimate, 1883–1884, for the expenditure contemplated by the Green wich Hospital Bill. For the pensions to widows and allowances to children of men who lose their lives in the Service the sum to be taken for 1883–1884 is £1,200. It is intended to provide for not exceeding 200 boys in orphan schools and similar institutions at an annual cost for each boy estimated at £20.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS— STATISTICS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there has been any increase of venereal disease amongst the troops in the districts protected
  1210
  by the Contagious Diseases Acts since the abolition of compulsory examination?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply said admissions to hospital of soldiers affected by contagious diseases had risen from 11·89 per 1,000 in the four weeks prior to the abolition of compulsory examination, to 17·40 per 1,000 in the four weeks since the abolition.
  In reply to Mr. HOPWOOD,
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that no new system had been introduced in the examination of the men.

  CROWN LANDS ACT, 1866—SALES OF CROWN LANDS—THE MANORS OF ESHER AND MILBOURNE.
  MR. BRYCEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the sale of the Manors of Esher and Milbourne by the Commissioners of the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues of the Crown to Lieutenant General Sir Henry Ponsonby, K.C.B., as a trustee for Her Majesty, mentioned in the Sixteenth Report of those Commissioners, has yet been carried out; whether, if the sale has been carried out, any stipulations have been made binding the purchaser not to take advantage of the manorial rights for the purpose of inclosing any part of Esher Common or of Oxshott Heath, tracts of great natural beauty which have long been open to the public; and, whether he can inform the House by whose authority it is that persons are now being turned off parts of Esher Common that have long been enjoyed by the public, on the allegation that such places are private property and no longer parts of a Common?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to my hon. Friend's first and second Questions, I have to state that the sale of the manors of Esher and Milbourne has been carried out, and that the conveyance contains no stipulations such as my hon. Friend's Question indicates. Officially, I have no means of answering my hon. Friend's third Question; but I have communicated unofficially with Sir Henry Ponsonby, and I learn from him that since Her Majesty has acquired the property at Claremont, &c, there has been no attempt to deprive the public of any rights over Esher Common.
  MR. BRYCE: Is it intended?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): It is a matter over which I have no control; but I believe that there is no such intention.

  AFGHANISTAN—SUBSIDY TO THE AMEER.
  MR. SALTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any contributions in money or in arms are in course of payment, or promised, to the Ameer of Afghanistan; and, if so, what is the amount of such contributions, and on what terms and with what object they are being made?
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked whether it might now be assumed that the proposed visit of the Ameer to the Viceroy during the coming autumn would not take place?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Communications have passed between the Secretary of State and the Government of India on the subject referred to by the Question of the hon. Member for Stafford; but Her Majesty's Government are not at present in possession of official information which enables me to make any statement on this matter. I may say, however, that the relations existing between the Indian Government and the Ameer are of a satisfactory nature. I can only state that the contemplated visit of the Ameer to the Viceroy will very much depend on his own wishes.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—THE SHANNON FISHERIES.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the necessary precautions have been taken to maintain a sufficiency of water in the fish-pass at the sluices and dam recently erected by the Board of Works at Killaloe, county Clare; and, if not, whether he will cause stringent orders to be issued on a matter so seriously affecting the fisheries of the Shannon?
  MR. COURTNEY: My hon. Friend need be under no apprehension on this score. Care has been taken that the fish-pass should afford a sufficiency of water at all seasons of the year.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—ROSCREA PETTY SESSIONS DISTRICT.
  MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that there is not
  1212
  a single Roman Catholic Magistrate in the Roscrea Petty Sessions District, and that even the Resident Magistrate and the Sub-Inspector of Police are Protestants; and, whether the Government will take steps to remedy this state of things in a district where the population is almost exclusively Catholic?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I believe the facts are as stated. I cannot, however, give any undertaking that the Resident Magistrate or Sub-Inspector of any district will be of a particular religion; but with regard to the Local Magistrates, I will draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. CALLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to all the districts in Ireland where a similar state of things exist?
  [No reply was given.]

  LAW AND POLICE—EXPULSION OF IRISH RESIDENTS AT DARWEN, LANCASHIRE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any, and, if so, what, foundation for the following paragraph published in the "Manchester Evening News" of June 29th, headed "Banishing the Irish"—
  "The last of the Irish families have left Turton, near Darwen, as requested by the English section of the inhabitants. There was no demonstration made, though large crowds assembled, the Irish taking the expulsion quietly. Some thirty families have been ejected. At one house twenty-eight persons were turned out, but these included lodgers. There is not a single Irish man or woman now in the town? "
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had addressed a letter asking for information to the authorities at Lower Darwen; but he found that Turton was not within their district. He would make further inquiries.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—POST-MORTEM EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, at the recent assizes, the Longford Grand Jury disallowed the fee of the doctor who performed the post mortem examination at the request of the county coroner, on a pauper who died in the Granard Workhouse, and that the judge summarily

  1213
  sanctioned the disallowance, remarking, "The money (£1 1s.) is not worth scuffling about; "whether it is the fact that the doctor in question was specially called in by the coroner instead of the union medical officer, in consequence of the death having taken place in the workhouse; and, if it is the Law that this gentleman is to have no remuneration for services performed at the request of the proper authority because the grand jury chose to disallow his fee, and the judge does not think the amount worth discussion?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the fact that the Grand Jury of Longford, after a careful investigation, disallowed medical foes recommended by the Coroner, and amounting to five guineas, and, as to one guinea of the five, the ruling of the Grand Jury was brought before the Judge for review. The Grand Jury thought that the evidence of the union medical officer was sufficient. His Lordship thought so too, and declined to interfere in such a matter, as he was perfectly entitled to do.

  EMIGRATION AND PASSENGER SHIPS—SCANDINAVIAN EMIGRANTS.
  MR. MOOREasked the President of the Board of Trade, If any and what steps have been taken to remedy the state of things at Hull complained of in the Parliamentary Paper of last Session entitled Scandinavian Emigrants?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, he was informed, since the issue of the Parliamentary Paper referred to, that improvements had been made on various details, whereby the Scandinavian emigrants arriving at Hull were better attended to, and more expeditiously forwarded to their destinations, than formerly. He had received no complaints during the present emigration season, and he had no reason to believe that intervention was necessary.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE REPUBLIC OF STELLALAND—MURDER OF MR. J. W. HONEY, A BRITISH SUBJECT, BY DUTCH BOERS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, On what evidence he stated that Mr. J. W. Honey, who was murdered by Dutch Boers on the Transvaal Frontier last February was "one of the freebooters of Bechuanaland," and also
  1214
  on what authority he stated a man named Ireland to have been Honey's murderer, whereas Honey was last seen in the power of four Dutch Boers; whether these four were Diedericks, "Captain of Police," and his son; Celliers, "the General;" and Adrian le Rey, a notorious Boer bandit, who murdered ten Kaffirs during the siege of Potchef-stroom; whether these four and Niekerk, "the Administrator," whom he stated to have issued the proclamation which described Honey as an outlaw, were the "self-constituted Government" of the "Stellaland Republic," which consists of Dutch freebooters, who have lately, in defiance of the Transvaal Convention, robbed Montsioa and Mankaroane of their territories; whether Mr. Honey, when he heard of the charges against him, went to the aforesaid persons, and demanded proofs of the charges; whether he was taken by them before the Dutch Landrost of Christiana, and by him completely acquitted, and the charges described as wholly baseless; whether the aforesaid "self-constituted authorities" thereupon took Honey by force into the so-called "Republic of Stellaland," and foully murdered him on the road to Vrijburgh; whether Her Majesty still remains Suzerain of the Transvaal; and, whether the British Government in any way recognizes the "Republic of Stellaland" or its "authorities
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The hon. Member must be aware that except the first and last paragraphs I am unable to answer his Questions, as I have already twice stated that, beyond the copy of the Proclamation alluded to, we have no official information. I may take this opportunity of correcting an evident misunderstanding of my answer the other day as to the authority who sent us this Proclamation. It was our own Resident at Pretoria who took it out of The Volksstem newspaper. The evidence on which I stated Honey to have been one of the freebooters is the term used in this Proclamation of outlawry in which he is styled "one of our Volunteers," and is there charged with theft and treason. That a man named Ireland was his murderer I stated on the authority of a telegram sent to the Cape Government by Mr. Bethell, the White counsellor of Montsioa, who said—"Ireland, the murderer of Honey, is now at Griqua-

  1215
  town." The British Government do not in any way recognize the Republic of Stellaland or its authorities. The date of the Proclamation is February 12th.

  MERCANTILE MARINE ACT—IRISH LIGHTHOUSES.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the statement that the Commissioners of Irish Lights had spent on their lighthouses £82,000, and had received for light dues only £21,000, the balance of £61,000 having to be paid over to the Commissioners from the dues collected in England and Scotland, to enable them to carry out the work of lighting the Irish coast, Whether the £21,000 referred to was collected solely in Irish ports; whether the light dues for Irish lighthouses collected in English and Scotch ports are all placed to the credit of the Irish Lights Commissioners in the accounts of the Mercantile Marine Fund; whether the alleged deficiency of £61,000 appears after the accounts have been credited with the amounts due on account of the benefits which the Irish lights confer upon vessels which pass them on their way to English and Scotch ports; and, whether a Return of the dues collected for Irish lights for each year since the passing of the Mercantile Marine Act will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The sum of £21,000 referred to was collected solely in Irish ports; but it includes sums collected in respect of English and Scotch lights as well as Irish lights. Light dues collected in Scotch and English ports in respect of Irish lighthouses are not placed to the credit of the Irish Lights Commissioners, nor are the Irish Lights Commissioners debited with the sums collected in Irish ports on account of English and Scotch lights. The deficiency of £61,000 is the difference between the actual amount of light dues collected in Ireland and the amount expended on lighthouses in Ireland. A Return of the amounts collected for Irish lights cannot be laid on the Table of the House, as the Board of Trade have not the materials for making such a Return.

  EGYPT—SANITARY CONDITION OF ALEXANDRIA.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether
  1216
  the statement in the "Times" of Tuesday the 10th is true, that the slaughter houses from which all meat is supplied to Alexandria and to the troops are in a most filthy state without proper means of flushing or cleansing; acres of ground around them are full of unburied and half buried débris, entrails, and carcases, exhaling a most offensive odour; the establishment is within a short distance of Ramleh, and the Sanitary Sub-Commission, who have made a minute inspection, states that it constitutes a source of danger to the troops; and, if this statement is correct, what steps are being taken for the protection of the health of the troops as well as of the town of Alexandria, the 46th Regiment having now 116 sick out of 803 men at Ramleh?
  LORD EUSTACE CECILwished to ask the noble Lord, before he answered that Question, what steps had been taken for the protection of the troops at Cairo; and, whether a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the state of the slaughter-houses and sewers in that town?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have received two telegrams from the General Officer commanding in Egypt. The first is as follows:—
  "Percentage of sick at Alexandria and Ramleh is seven, of which one-fifth are enteric and other febrile cases, chiefly among Cornwall Regiment; venereal, one-third of sick; no sickness to cause alarm; much fever must always be expected at Alexandria at this season."
  The second telegram adds—
  "Slaughter-house two miles to leeward of Ramleh has nothing to do with sickness of Cornwall Regiment."
  I have also consulted Major General Harman, who recently commanded the troops at Alexandria. That officer reports—
  "These slaughter-houses are nearer to Alexandria than to the barracks at Ramleh. The smell from them is very offensive, mainly owing to the hides and horns of slaughtered animals being kept for dressing. It is an exaggeration to state that acres of ground around them are full of unburied and half-buried débris; although it is a fact that the surroundings are not kept as clean as they ought to be. I do not myself think that any danger need be feared in Ramleh from the slaughter-houses."
  As to the Question of the noble Lord, I stated some days ago what communications had passed between the War Office and the General Officer Commanding in. Egypt, and I said that generally the

  1217
  military authorities are prepared to deal with any outbreak of cholera that might appear among the troops. I think that any Question relating to the sanitary state of Cairo ought to be addressed to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked whether any steps were being taken to prevent the nuisance and danger that arose from these slaughter-houses, which were admitted to be in a very unsatisfactory state?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I understand the Report of the Commanding Officer at Alexandria to be, that there is no danger to the health of the troops from the slaughter-houses. No doubt, as their attention has been called to the matter, the military authorities will take any steps in their power to abate the nuisance.

  THE RIVER THAMES—PIMLICO PIER.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the Board has given its sanction to the removal of the Pimlico Pier from the site where it has so long afforded convenience to the inhabitants of the district; whether the Pier on the south side of the river, opposite to the Pimlico Pier, which is supposed to cause the necessity for the removal of the Pimlico Pier, has only recently been placed there, and therefore ought itself rather to be moved if inconvenient; and, whether before the removal of the Pimlico Pier takes place, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the wishes and claims of the residents in that neighbourhood to have the pier continued in its present site, on the faith of which houses have been built and occupied in that locality?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I beg to inform my right hon. and gallant Friend that two communications have been received by the Metropolitan Board on this subject—the first from the Steamboat Company applying for the Board's consent to the removal of the Pier; the second from inhabitants of the vicinity in opposition. The Board replied in both cases to the effect that having no jurisdiction in the matter they had no objection to offer to the proposed removal. I believe the Pier on the south side of the River has only recently been placed there; but I can express no opinion
  1218
  as to the expediency of its removal. With regard to the last part of the Question, seeing that the Board have no jurisdiction over the position of the Pier, I do not think it would be advisable to enter upon the inquiry suggested by my right hon. and gallant Friend.

  POST OFFICE—THE INDIAN MAILS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Postmaster General, If, during the prevalence of cholera in Egypt, and the consequent difficulty of bringing the Indian Mails through Italy, it is intended to carry the Mails through the Suez Canal in the vessels which bring them from India, instead of sending them by rail to Alexandria and from thence by another vessel?
  MR. FAWCETT: As regards the mail which reached Suez last Monday and is now on its way, orders have been given for it to be brought on by the Indian Mail Packet to Plymouth, the vessel passing through the Suez Canal without communicating with the shore. No definite decision has yet been arrived at as to future arrangements; but I can assure the hon. Member the subject is being very carefully considered.

  TURKEY IN ASIA—THE EUPHRATES AND TIGRIS STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY—NAVIGATION OF THE TIGRIS.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps Her Majesty's Government has taken to protect the interests of the British and Asiatic commerce, in consequence of the hindrance which the Turkish Government has placed upon legitimate exercise of the rights of the Euphrates and Tigris Steam Navigation Company at Bagdad; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will maintain the rights of navigation on the Tigris and Euphrates granted by Firman in 1838, and exercised since that period?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have protested to the Turkish Ambassador in London, and through Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople, against the action of the Vali of Bagdad in forcibly stopping the traffic of the Company's steamers on the Tigris, and have reserved all rights against the

  1219
  Porte for the consequences. They must await the answer of the Porte before anything can be decided as to what further steps it may be necessary to take. The right to navigate the Tigris was not granted by any Firman, but has been exercised under an arrangement obtained by Sir Stratford Canning in 1846, and confirmed by Vizerial letters addressed to the Vali of Bagdad in 1846, 1861, and 1862.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—HARBOUR OF REFUGE (SCOTLAND).
  MR. BAXTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can now state the names of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the best site for a harbour of refuge on the northeast coast of Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Captain Sir Frederick Evans, Hydrographer to the Admiralty; Lieutenant Colonel P. Smith, P.E., Admiralty Director of Works; and Captain Sir George Nares, Professional Member of the Marine and Harbour Departments of the Board of Trade, have been appointed as a Sub-Committee of the Convict Labour Committee to visit points on the East Coast of Scotland, and report on the most suitable position for a harbour of refuge to be constructed by Scotch Convicts.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—MAILS BETWEEN LIMERICK AND KILRUSH.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Postmaster General, Whether complaints have reached him as to the disadvantages incurred by certain portions of West Clare, owing to the non-establishment of the usual summer second post between Limerick and Kilrush; and, if so, whether any steps can be taken to remedy the public inconvenience caused by the disputes between the Railway and Steamboat Companies, which have hitherto performed the joint service?
  MR. FAWCETT: It is a fact, as stated by my hon. Friend, that the second post between Limerick and Kilrush has not commenced for the summer because of a disagreement, as I am informed, between the Railway and Steamboat Companies. I am sorry it is not in my power to do anything to bring about an amicable settlement of the matter in dispute; but I need not say that as soon as the Companies arrive at
  1220
  an understanding, the Post Office will lose no time in re-establishing the second post.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE CALAMITY AT SUNDERLAND.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Vice President of the Council, If it is true as stated in the evidence at the recent inquest at Sunderland that the tickets for the fatal entertainment in the Victoria Hall were in certain cases distributed through elementary school teachers; whether any other similar cases have ever been brought under his notice; and, if he can take any steps to prevent a repetition of such a practice, by requesting managers to prohibit the circulation of tickets in elementary schools for entertainments where admission is only made by payment?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have inquired respecting the distribution of tickets for the entertainment at the Victoria Hall, Sunderland, and I find that advertisements—not admission tickets—wore distributed by teachers in public elementary schools to the children under their charge. I regret to find that this practice has prevailed in the district for many years. I entirely concur in the censure conveyed in the presentment of the Jury at the Coroner's Inquest—
  "That the masters of the various schools were not justified in allowing the children under their charge to be canvassed by Fay or their teachers, and the attendance of the children in effect secured, by free tickets being given to teachers, without some arrangement being made for the proper supervision and control of the children by teachers when at the entertainment."
  This seems to me a scandal and a breach of good order and discipline that our schools should be made the recruiting ground of itinerant conjurers, or the purveyors of any description of public entertainment. It is impossible to lay down rules for the guidance of local authorities, school managers, and teachers that shall be applicable in all circumstances and in every contingency. Moreover, there is great danger in attempting to do so, as it might be argued that what was not prohibited was permissible. I propose, however, to send a Circular to Her Majesty's Inspectors calling their attention to what has happened in this case and to the verdict of the Jury, and instructing them to let it be known at the forthcoming inspections

  1221
  that any such invasion of the schools as I have referred to will be regarded as an infraction of the Code as it relates to discipline, and will be considered in the merit grant, and that children attending any school treat or entertainment of any description promoted by teachers or managers must do so under the care and guidance of their teachers.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—THE MONAGHAN ELECTION.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the authorities has been directed to the issue of a placard on the day of the polling in Monaghan, purporting to have been published in Mr. Healy's interest, and containing reference to Her Majesty similar to that in the alleged "Invincible" placard for which The Kerry Sentinel was seized; whether the police have made any inquiries to detect the authors; whether a secret inquiry will be held in reference to its publication; and, if the Government are prepared to make it an offence under the Corrupt and Illegal Practices to print, post, or issue any placard which, while purporting to emanate from a particular candidate, is really published with a view to damage the candidature of such candidate?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that on the day of the polling two placards containing a disloyal reference to the Queen were posted near Clones; but the same offensive expression used in the placard for which The Kerry Sentinel was seized was not used here. The placards may fairly be said to have purported to have been published in the interests of Mr. Healy. The Constabulary have been making inquiries on the subject; but hitherto without result. It does not appear to be a case for the application of the Prevention of Crime Act. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, it is open to the hon. Member to submit for the consideration of the House any proposal of the character indicated.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— THE CIRCULAR THEORY OF STORMS.
  MR. EARP (in the absence of Dr. CAMERON)asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is correct
  1222
  that the Meteorological Society have abandoned what is generally known as the circular theory of storms, as propounded by Sir William Reid, Piddington, and others; and, if so, whether public notice of the fact has been sent to the commanders, officers, and others of our Royal and Mercantile Navies, and to the examiners at the Local Marine Boards?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no authority over the Meteorological Society; but I communicated with the Secretary, and I am informed by him that it is not true that they have abandoned the circular theory of storms, but that recent investigations have shown that some slight modifications might be suggested.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (RE-ORGANIZATION).
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the deep and growing anxiety on the subject among the officers and men of the force, he will, without further delay, introduce and circulate the Bill by which Her Majesty's Government propose to alter the organization of the higher ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I think it is important to notice the wording of this Question. Whether such an anxiety as the hon. Member refers to exists or not, there certainly is not the slightest ground for it. The scheme of the Government does not affect unfavourably the pay or promotion, the position or the prospects of any officer, and the men of the Force are not affected by it at all. The Bill will be introduced as soon as Her Majesty's Government see any chance of pressing it forward, and the statement that I now make is without any reservation whatever.

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Postmaster General, What tenders have been received for the conveyence of mails between London and Kingstown, and from what companies; and, if he will state the amounts of such tenders, and whether for land and sea service combined, or for each service separately; and, whether he can state on what day

  1223
  the papers will be presented to the House?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that it would be entirely contrary to precedent to give any information as to the tenders received yesterday for the London and Kingstown Service until the Government have decided what course to take upon them. When their decision is arrived at—which I hope will be in a very few days—it will be at once communicated to the House; and the contract, with particulars of all the tenders, will be laid before Parliament as quickly as possible.

  EGYPT—LAW AND JUSTICE—TRIAL OF AHMED BEY KHANDEEL.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What were the respective functions of Ballig Bey and Mr. Grosjean in the prosecution of Khandeel for complicity in the massacres of June 11th 1882, at Alexandria; whether it is true, as stated by the "Standard" correspondent, that Ballig Bey abandoned all charges against Khandeel of knowledge or of complicity with the massacres; whether Mr. Grosjean formally dissented from Ballig Bey; and, if so, in what capacity and under what code of procedure he had the right to do so; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will recommend the Khedive to mitigate the sentence passed on Khandeel of seven years' imprisonment for mere disobedience to orders of which alone he was found guilty?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Report of Major Macdonald on the trial of Khandeel, which would probably enable me to answer the first three Questions of the hon. and learned Member, has not yet been received. In reply to the hon. and learned Member's fourth Question, I cannot do better than read the following telegram from Major Macdonald, dated the 10th instant:—
  "Khandeel has just been found guilty of neglect of duty, and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude at Suakim. He has had a perfectly fair trial, the counsel for the defence having been allowed every latitude of speech—much more than he would have had in England."
  Her Majesty's Government will, consequently, not interfere.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether,
  1224
  in consequence of the acquittal after judicial investigation of Arabi, Suleiman Sami, and Khandeel, of having directed the massacre at Alexandria on 11th June 1882, Her Majesty's Government will advise the Egyptian Government to make any further attempt to discover and punish the real culprits?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to act in the manner suggested by the hon. and learned Member.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—THE NATIVE TRIBES.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Seecretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any information confirming the report that a great battle has been fought in Zululand between Cetewayo and Oham, and that the latter is now a prisoner at Ulundi; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to carry out the Zulu Settlement of 1882, and to put an end to the sanguinary civil war which the restoration of Cetewayo has caused?
  MR. GUY DAWNATasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has received any official confirmation of the report published in the "Globe" of yesterday evening to the effect that Oham's forces have been defeated in a great battle by Cetewayo's followers, and that Oham himself has been taken a prisoner to Ulundi?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: In reply to the two Questions, I will read to the House the paraphrase of a telegram received late last night from Sir Henry Bulwer—
  "July 11.—The accounts of the losses in Zululand given by the English newspapers of the 18th of May are very much exaggerated. To-day I hear that the Usutu party made an attack upon Oham's stronghold, but that the attack has failed."
  This account, the House will see, appears quite inconsistent with the report to which my attention has been drawn.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTremarked that the hon. Gentleman had not answered the second part of his Question.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, it contained matter for debate.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman

  1225
  considers that Cetewayo is responsible for this attack?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I really have not information enough to say. This telegram is all the information we have.

  IRELAND—PAURER EMIGRANTS TO THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that a number of pauper emigrants who were not permitted to land at New York arrived at Queens-town on Monday last, and were landed there at 4 o'clock a.m. in an utterly destitute condition, and were allowed to remain lying on the quay for several hours without receiving any assistance; whether he can state what has become of these people; and, whether the Local Government Board will take care that in future some one representing the Board will await the arrival of ships by which other emigrants returning under like circumstances are expected?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Five families, of about 16 persons in all, were sent back to Queenstown. The emigration agent did not know of the expected arrival of these persons in Queenstown. They were landed about 4 o'clock in the morning; and when the emigration agent heard of their arrival he provided them with lodgings at Miss O'Brien's Emigration Home. They have all been sent back to the Unions from which they were sent out. Only one family complained of having to remain till the agent was informed of their arrival. The Local Government Board will take care to inform themselves when State-aided emigrants are to be sent back to this country, and the Emigration Committee will cause an emigration agent to look after them on their arrival.
  MR. LEAMY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as a matter of fact, it was not stated in all the papers that these persons were coming back; and whether the Local Government Board did not in this way get information as to the fact; and, also, whether he did not consider the Local Government Board ought to take care of all emigrants who were sent back, be they State-aided or not?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes; I think the Local Government Board ought to do so.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Who will pay the expenses of these returned emigrants?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The expenses will be very small. I do not know on whose behalf the hon. Member speaks, whether he is anxious to save the ratepayers or the people themselves. The people themselves will not pay them and I can assure the hon. Member the matter will be very easily settled.

  NATURALIZATION—FEES ON CERTIFICATES.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there has been lately, or within a few years, any change in the fees charged for certificates of naturalisation; and, whether, what under the late Government was £1 has been changed to £5?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: When I came to the Home Office I found the question was under consideration as to raising these fees. I had no hesitation in deciding that they should be raised. One of the earliest cases that came under my notice was one of a very gross fraud. The hon. Member is aware that no man can be naturalized a British subject who has not resided five years in the United Kingdom, and who does not express his intention to throw in his lot with the country in which he is naturalized. The case that came before me was that of a man who I do not believe had been five days in the United Kingdom; but he got a certain number of people resident, I think, principally in Leicester Square, to swear that he had been resident a great many years in England. It turned out that being a man of large fortune, he had done this simply that he might disinherit his family by the English law, which he could not do by the laws of his own country. The relatives came to me in despair, but he was then naturalized, and the thing could not be undone; but I determined to take much greater precaution for the future, to ascertain before a man was made a British subject that he had fulfilled the conditions. These inquiries lead to a considerable amount of expense, and I raised the fee from £1 to £5. Now, I find in the Home Office we charge £79 10s. for making a man a Duke; £62 9s. for making a man an Archbishop; and £7 13 s. 6d. for making a man a Knight; and I do not think £5 is too much to

  1227
  ask for making a man a British subject.

  THE CIVIL LIST PENSIONS—PRINCE LUCIEN BONAPARTE.
  MR. CREYKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that out of the annual sum of £12,000 at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government under the powers of 1 and 2 Vic. c. 2, for the purpose of granting pensions—
  "To persons who have just claims on the Royal beneficence, or who by their personal services to the Crown, by the performance of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in science, and attainments in literature and the arts, have merited the gracious consideration of their Sovereign and the gratitude of their Country,"
  a pension of £250 has been granted to Prince Lucien Bonaparte; and, if so, what services he has rendered to the Crown and the Country to entitle His Highness to so considerable a grant of public money?
  MR. GLADSTONE: This Question, though put by my hon. Friend, and purporting to refer to a matter of fact, is very distinctly a challenge of a proceeding; and the difficulty under which I labour is that it would not be possible for me, within the limits of an answer, to give to my hon. Friend or the House all the information, or any considerable part of the information, which I have studied to acquire. My hon. Friend will, therefore, be kind enough to suppose that what I answer is merely the heads of it, which I shall be prepared to enlarge upon on a future occasion. He asks what services Prince Lucien Bonaparte has rendered to the Crown and the country to entitle him to so considerable a grant of money as £250 per annum. Now, according to the Act of Parliament under which these pensions are given on my responsibility, attainments in literature are considered as services to the Crown and the country. I have, however, been in the habit of imposing upon myself a further limitation; because I am not sure that attainments in literature, taken by themselves, are quite enough to warrant me, according to the view I take of my duty, in giving these pensions. I will state what I conceive are services to literature as distinct from attainments. A man may have great attainments in literature, and may carry those attainments to the
  1228
  grave with him, without doing any good to the world; but services to literature I conceive to be strictly services to the Crown and country, within the meaning of the Act. My hon. Friend will, therefore, ask, what are the services to literature which Prince Lucien has rendered? I do not hesitate to say that, in my opinion, he has rendered very great services to literature indeed; and not only so, but he has rendered precisely the services for which these pensions are specially and peculiarly intended. The services rendered by Prince Lucien are philological services, and philological services are services of a nature indispensable to the effective prosecution either of the history of human thought or the history of human affairs. Every-one who has even the slightest acquaintance with the subject will bear me out in what I say to that effect. But, at the same time, they are services which the public, considered as customers for work, do not remunerate; and I can give a most singular and remarkable illustration of that fact, which may be drawn from recent occurrences. At the present moment, it is probably known to the House that there is in preparation an important extension of the dictionary of the English language. It is now being prosecuted upon a scale hitherto unknown to previous research; and here we are dealing with a great philological work which does concern immediate utility; and yet, notwithstanding, it has been found impossible to find any publisher who would undertake the responsibility of producing this work. The expenses connected with it, and the risks of it, have therefore been undertaken—and, I think, much to the credit of the body—by the University of Oxford. If that is the case with regard to the construction of a dictionary, the House may very well consider what it will be with regard to the case of a gentleman who does not construct a dictionary, but goes down to the minute investigation and collection of the original rudimentary facts, out of which all the knowledge required for a dictionary must necessarily be collected. That may give the House some idea what has been the work and services of Prince Lucien Bonaparte. This gentleman, I am happy to say, is a British subject, and he became one long before my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir William

  1229
  Harcourt) raised the fee, and he has devoted his life mainly to the purposes of philological inquiry; and when he had a considerable fortune—which, I am sorry to say, is not now the case—he spent upon these physological inquiries sums, I apprehend, very much larger than the rather trifling amount which, beginning at 70 years of age, he can hope to derive from this pension. Not only in the collection of books, but largely in the printing of books, and in the gratuitous distribution of books to all students of philology, and to every great Institution connected with philology, the funds which Prince Lucien possessed were largely and liberally expended. I am in hopes that I have said almost enough upon this matter. But suppose I were to take one particular instance to tell my hon. Friend, by way of a specimen. I believe there are no less than 160 of these operations of printing which Prince Lucien has executed in other and happier days—at least in days more abundantly provided—at his own expense. Amongst them is the printing of the Gospel of St. Matthew in 29 dialects and languages, for the accuracy of every one of which he is personally responsible, and which represents absolutely his own work. He has printed The Song of the Three Children in 11 dialects of the Basque language; and he has printed the Parable of the Sower in 72 European languages and dialects. The House knows that comparison—comparative philology—is that to which the mind of all students is directed; and they may conceive what labours these are which could have enabled knowledge to be gathered in quarters so remote and forms so elementary as these. In this country 30 years ago, I believe—but, at any rate, long ago—Prince Lucien Bonaparte received a doctor's degree from the University of Oxford for these labours, and I believe there is hardly a country in Europe in which honorary distinctions have not been awarded to him. Now, Sir, finally, my hon. Friend says this "so considerable grant of public money." Well, Sir, the value of this considerable grant as it can be estimated for a man of 70 is something under £1,600; and I have only to say that while I do not shrink from any part of the responsibility of having awarded this pension, I am extremely sorry—and I am disposed even to say I take some
  1230
  shame to myself—for not having awarded it at an earlier period to this distinguished scholar.

  SUEZ (SECOND) CANAL—PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT WITH M. DE LESSEPS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a few points with regard to the direction of the Suez Canal which might be important—namely, What was the total number of Directors, and how many of them were English; what was the total number of the Executive Council, and how many of them were English; and what was the total number of the Finance Committee, and how many were English?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that most of these Questions, would be answered by documents open to the inspection of the hon. Member, and he did not think it would be advisable or necessary to answer them.
  MR. MONKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any negotiations are in progress with the Porte, or with the Egyptian Government, in reference to the proposed second Suez Canal; and, whether, with a view to the protection of our political as well as of our commercial interests, Her Majesty's Government will obtain for this Country such concession as may be necessary for the construction of another Canal through the Isthmus of Suez?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will answer the Question of my hon. Friend, which is important, with all the care in my power, because it bears very materially upon a clear apprehension of the important subject of the recent provisional arrangement made by the Government. The Question of my hon. Friend is divided into two branches. The first part is—"Whether any negotiations are in progress with the Porte, or with the Egyptian Government, in reference to the proposed second Suez Canal?" Sir, there are no negotiations at present in progress; but, undoubtedly, in order to give effect to that provisional arrangement, if it be the pleasure of Parliament that it should have effect, negotiations will be entered into. The position of matters is this. M. de Lesseps is in possession of a concession, under which it is in his power largely to widen, at great outlay, the present Canal, and to afford additional

  1231
  accommodation to trade, so far as he and his Company may think proper, charging, if they think fit, the same rates as they now charge for the passage of vessels through the Canal. That is exactly his position, that he can make this large improvement in the Canal. But it has been found—and it is certainly thought by the British Government—that by far the best and most effectual improvement would be the construction of a parallel line of Canal, because then the traffic could be conducted as on a railway, passing through one line of Canal in one direction and through the other in the opposite direction. It is not certain that the amount of land at present possessed by the Company is sufficient to enable them to make that second Canal; and that being so, and the land being the property of the Egyptian Government, it would be necessary for them, not to acquire now political concessions, but to acquire land from the Egyptian Government for that purpose. That would be the proper and primary subject of any negotiations which would be necessary for the construction of the second Canal. I am not aware that any privilege of any other kind is required, or any alteration of the concession which he possesses. So much for the first branch of the Question. With regard to the second branch of the Question—namely,
  "Whether Her Majesty's Government will obtain for this Country such concession as may be necessary for the construction of another Canal through the Isthmus of Suez?"
  This Question, evidently framed with great care by my hon. Friend, really goes to the root of the subject, because it practically amounts to this—Is M. de Lesseps in possession of an exclusive right of constructing Canals in the Isthmus of Suez; and, if not, will you take measures for asserting the freedom of the Isthmus, and the right of others to construct them there if necessary? The state of the case is this. We could not undertake to obtain such a concession, for the simple reason that there is no power to give such a concession. M. de Lesseps is in possession of an exclusive right to make a Canal, as far as the Isthmus of Suez is concerned. I say nothing of what lies beyond the Isthmus of Suez; I say nothing as to the geographical definition of the Isthmus, because that is a question on which there
  1232
  might be some argument, though on the whole, perhaps, none of great importance. Nature has, to a great extent, defined that phrase for us. I have said that in our view M. de Lesseps is in possession of an exclusive right. So we are advised by our Legal Advisers; so the Egyptian Government were advised some time ago. On that supposition all the money was subscribed for making the present Canal. On that supposition, I believe, public opinion has proceeded down to the present time, although I am aware an opinion to a different effect has been given by two very distinguished gentlemen. But unquestionably, on that supposition, the whole of the arrangement made provisionally by the present Government with M. de Lesseps is absolutely founded. If that supposition is erroneous, we certainly could not plead any justification for the present arrangement. I think I have now stated distinctly my reply to the Question of my hon. Friend; but the matter is so important that if I have not convoyed my meaning distinctly, I shall be happy to give any further information in my power.
  MR. M'COAN: Will the Government lay on the Table a Copy of the opinion of the Law Advisers of the Crown referred to by the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, that would be contrary to rule. Our Advisers are confidential Advisers of the Government, and I think my hon. Friend will see that to comply with his suggestion would have a tendency to shift the responsibility from the right shoulders to the wrong. We are bound to take the responsibility of the conclusions at which we arrive on the advice of the Law Officers, and we do assume the whole responsibility.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It would be convenient for the House if the right hon. Gentleman would mention the Instrument under which the concession to M. de Lesseps is given?
  MR. MONK: Before answering that Question, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the opinion of the Government, the concession for making a Canal through the Isthmus of Suez not only extends to the making a second Canal, but confers an exclusive right to make any number of Canals through the Isthmus?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not sure whether that point has been explicitly

  1233
  raised; but I apprehend that the powers of M. de Lesseps to make any parallel Canal would be simply limited by the land possessed for that purpose, and the only check would be the necessity to make an application for more land. With respect to the Instrument of concession, I am under the confident belief that it is already a Parliamentary Paper open to reference by any hon. Member.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: There are several Firmans. I thought the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say under which Firman it was; but I shall put a Question.
  MR. BOURKE: I should like to know what is the authority of the right hon. Gentleman for saying that all the money which has been subscribed for making the first Suez Canal was subscribed on the understanding that M. de Lesseps had ah exclusive right to make the Canal? Will the right hon. Gentleman also state whether he does not know that from an early period it was disputed by many eminent authorities, both in the East and West and both in England and in Prance, that that arrangement gave an exclusive right to M. de Lesseps, and that the concession was exhausted by the construction of the present Canal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is no authority whatever on the subject on which I have given an opinion, except that it is matter of history on which it is quite open to the right hon. Gentleman or any other person to hold an opposite opinion. It is our belief and firm conviction—nay, more, in our opinion it is almost a matter of public notoriety—that this was the understanding on which the money was subscribed, and undoubtedly this opinion was entertained by the world at large. Unquestionably, however, it forms absolutely the basis of our proceedings with M. de Lesseps.

  EGYPT—THE CHOLERA.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it was true, as stated in The Daily Telegraph to-day, that the British Government had informed the Egyptian authorities of their desire to render them every assistance during the prevalence of cholera, and had offered to give medical aid, which offers, however, had been declined; whether he had seen the report quoted by The Times
  1234
  Correspondent at Alexandria, from Dr. Mackie, to the following effect:—
  "In a town of which the population is stated to number 35,000 there seems to have been no organized medical hospital service; no help of any sort, for rich or poor. They were shut in the cordon, and left at the mercy of the disease, to die in numbers, and to propagate cholera;"
  and whether, considering the importance it is to this country that the epidemic should be stamped out, the Government would continue to press offers of assistance upon the Egyptian Government, seeing that the British Government was the paramount Power in that country?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have no objection to answer the Question, with the exception of the portion relating to Dr. Mackie, because that Re-port has not reached the Foreign Office. With regard to the principal portion of the Question of my noble Friend I am quite prepared to give an answer. It is true—I stated it a few days ago—that Her Majesty's Government have proffered assistance to the Egyptian Government in regard to stamping out that terrible evil which now prevails in Egypt. Sir Edward Malet was instructed to inform Sherif Pasha, in a formal manner, apart from previous communications, that Her Majesty's Government were anxious to do all that lay in their power, and would be glad to receive any detailed request which the Egyptian Government might wish to make. In reply to offers of assistance thus tendered Her Majesty's Government were met by the Egyptian Government in a very fair and courteous spirit; but, nevertheless, the Egyptian Government did not consider that they were unable to cope with the evil which existed. I think I cannot do better than read the telegram from Sir Edward Malet, in which he conveys the reply of Sherif Pasha. Sir Edward Malet says he had communicated with Sherif Pasha, and the reply was as follows:—
  "That he must thank Her Majesty's Government for their kind offer."
  He says—
  "We have taken all measures rendered necessary under the circumstances, and we have even decided to employ doctors not in the Government service, and send them to the infected places. If this should prove ineffective, we shall have a great pleasure in applying for help to Her Majesty's Government; but we do not consider such an application will be necessary, seeing that the mortality is already decreasing, even if it did not seem likely that the decrease would he localised."

  1235
  That was the reply of Sherif Pasha; but notwithstanding that reply, Her Majesty's Government did not consider that they could see any advantage in going back upon the pledge I gave the House the other day—namely, that skilled assistance, especially the assistance of somebody skilled in the treatment of the disease in question in India, should be given to the Egyptian Government. Therefore, it has been decided again to renew that offer of assistance, and it has also been determined to send out to Egypt a medical gentleman of high position, having the rank of Surgeon General. I hope to be able—though I cannot give a distinct pledge—to communicate the name of this officer to the House to-morrow. He will be sent out, in the first place, to report to the Local Government Board, and particularly to the Committee on Cholera—the composition of which I announced to the House the other day—the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. He will report as to the character of the disease, and any other circumstances which he may think it desirable to state. In the next place, he will be there to support Sir Edward Malet in advising the Egyptian Government as to the proper measures which ought to be taken in the different places under the present grave circumstances undoubtedly existing. Sir Edward Malet will be instructed to inform Sherif Pasha that this gentleman's services are at the disposal of the Egyptian Government in whatever way it may be considered most desirable to employ his ability, energy, and experience.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked whether the Surgeon General, or medical officer, mentioned by the noble Lord was to be sent from England, or whether he was available on the spot?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the gentleman to whom he had alluded would be sent from England. He was a gentleman of great experience; and he thought his noble Friend would see that in cases of this kind it was most important to have the services of some gentleman cognizant with the disease.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— DR. JORISSEN.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for
  1236
  the Colonies, Whether there was any truth in the report that Dr. Jorissen had been dismissed by the Transvaal Government; and, if so, whether he could state the reason of such dismissal; and, whether it was in any way due to, or would have any effect upon, any negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and Dr. Jorissen as Attorney General for the Transvaal?
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he should also like to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it was true, as reported, that the Transvaal Volksraad had passed a Resolution, which he would be inclined to call an insolent Resolution, in regard to the policy of the Government in Basutoland?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: In reply to the Question of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), I have to say that we got a telegram last night from the Governor administrating the government at Cape Town, telling us that Dr. Jorissen had been dismissed by the Transvaal Volksraad, but no reason is assigned and no details given; but if I may hazard a surmise, I may say that I cannot believe it to be in any way due to any action of his while over here, because he was not here as the Representative of the Transvaal Government in any way. In reply to the hon. Member for the City of London, I have to say that the same official also informs us that he understands it is true that a Resolution is on its way to him condemning the action of the Imperial Government in consenting to take over Basutoland. I feel bound to say that, in my opinion, this is a very extraordinary action of the Transvaal Volksraad; and without fuller and further explanations and reasons I fail to see what concern they have in the matter.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS.
  In reply to Sir JOHN HAY.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that after the Notice he gave with regard to the Navy Estimates on Monday, he thought it better that that arrangement should stand. With regard to Tuesday, the very slow progress that had been made with the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill had

  1237
  thrown some doubt upon the Business to be taken on that day, and he was afraid he was not in a position to give a definite answer on that point. The Government was certainly most anxious that they should proceed at once with the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill after the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill; and although certainly his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) had promised—and the Government were bound by the promise—to bring to issue the question about Indian Expenditure in the middle of the month, yet he hoped the House would think that, on the whole, it would be better to postpone that for a few days rather than to allow it to interrupt the course of that important measure. He might say, with regard to the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, that as far as the Government were concerned, they would have been inclined to ask the House for a Saturday Sitting for the purpose of getting through with that Bill, but that they were given to understand that there was a very great objection in the House to that course being taken. As he should be very sorry to introduce a fresh element of discord, he was, therefore, reluctantly compelled to give that up, and to run the risk of being able to carry through the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill on Friday.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) whether it was his intention to proceed with his Motion in reference to the Franchise to-morrow evening? He understood that the hon. Member on Monday last had said that he would not proceed with the Motion; and, if so, it would give an opportunity to his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Dawnay) to proceed with his Motion on the subject of Zululand.
  MR. LABOUCHEREreplied, that he had said he was ready to give up his precedence on Friday on going into Committee of Supply, in order to aid the Government in getting into Supply; but he was not aware that he had said he would give it up to the hon. Gentleman opposite. He had assumed that the hon. Gentleman opposite was going to follow his good example; but the question as to whether he would give up his precedence to the hon. Gentleman was
  1238
  one which he would probably take all night to consider about.
  MR. GUY DAWNAYwished again to ask the Prime Minister whether he would use his influence with the hon. Member for Northampton to withdraw his Motion, and give the House a proper opportunity of discussing so important a subject as that contained in the Motion next on the Paper—a subject which had been deemed of sufficient interest to merit a place in the Queen's Speech? He was sure that the natural loyalty of the hon. Member for Northampton would induce him to defer to any expression of the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I speak under some difficulty, because neither the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton nor that of the hon. Member himself (Mr. Dawnay) is a Motion which I have any reason to regard with favour. With regard to my own own opinion, it would be most for the convenience of the House if the House were to go on with the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill. But I am afraid if the hon. Member for Northampton gave way, the hon. Gentleman opposite could not make his Motion in Committee of Supply. If my suggestion to go on with the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill to-morrow evening is not adopted, I cannot interfere with the hon. Member for Northampton.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he would agree to postpone the Vote for the Secret Service?
  MR. COURTNEY: Yes.

  JAMAICA—THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it was true that although there was not at the present moment any proper Governor of Jamaica, the Attorney General and Chief Justice of that Colony were absent on leave, and who was left to administer the business of the Colony?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he should require Notice of the Question.

  TUNIS—ARREST OF A BRITISH SUBJECT.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  1239
  Affairs, Whether it was true that a merchant claiming to be a Native of Malta and a British subject had been arrested in Tunis?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The facts of this case, so far as I have yet ascertained them, are simply these. An Italian, who claimed to be a British subject and a Native of Malta, had been engaged the other day in a quarrel with French soldiers, and the offence having been committed in the French camp, the French military authorities claimed jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other local jurisdiction, and also of the Consular jurisdiction, under which the man would come, assuming him to be a British Maltese subject. The man has satisfied Consul General Reed that he is a British Maltese, and the question is being treated between the two Governments. It is a question of considerable legal difficulty, but not of much importance.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg very respectfully to ask a Question of you. I wish to know, Sir, Whether it is true, as stated in some of the morning papers, that a letter has been sent to you by Mr. Bradlaugh concerning his future relations with this House; and, if that is the case, whether you shall consider it your duty to submit that letter to the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Before the hon. Baronet rose, I was about to inform the House that I had received from Mr. Bradlaugh, Member for the borough of Northampton, the following letter:—
  20, Circus Road, St. John's Wood, London, July 10, 1883.
  N. W.
  The Right Hon. the Speaker,
  House of Commons.
  Sir,—On my return to London I find that an Order of the House has been served at my lodgings "that the Sergeant-at-Arms do exclude Mr. Bradlaugh until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House." As I have since my election in March, 1882, taken no part whatever in the proceedings of the House, except that of tendering myself in orderly manner to take my seat according to Law, and as I desire to avoid, if possible, any conflict with the House, I shall be obliged, Sir, by your informing me whether you would construe my presenting myself, in
  1240
  exact accordance with the statute and Standing Orders, for the purpose of taking my seat, to be a disturbance of the proceedings of the House, within the meaning of the said Order.
  I have the honour to be, Sir,
  Your most obedient servant,
  C. BRADLAUGH.
  To that letter I sent the following reply yesterday:—
  To Charles Bradlaugh, Esq., M.P.
  House of Commons, July 11, 1883.
  Sir,—In reply to your Letter of yesterday's date, I desire to acquaint you that, in view of the Resolution of the House of the 4th of May last and of the Order of the House made on the 9th instant, upon the reading of your Letter to Mr. Gladstone, there can be no doubt that your exclusion from the House will continue until you shall engage not to attempt to take the Oath, in disregard of the Resolution of the House now in force.
  Your obedient servant,
  HENRY BRAND.
  I have this day received the following reply from Mr. Bradlaugh:—
  To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
  20 Circus Road, St. John's Wood, London, July 12, 1883.
  N.W
  Sir,—I thank you for the reply you are good enough to send me; and, while desiring to be in every way personally respectful to you, I am obliged to state that I am advised that both Orders of the House are absolutely illegal, and, unless the House by vacating the seat relieves me from what now becomes the very painful duty cast upon me by Law, I shall, in obedience to the Law, endeavour to take my seat, as the lawfully elected Member for the borough of Northampton. If the House should expel me or discharge me from the service required from me in pursuance of my return, the matter would then be one for the electors, and appealing to them I should cease to trouble the House. At present I am denied entry to the House by no Law; but the Law is sought to be over-ridden by the mere Resolution of the House, backed by the physical force at its command. To this utterly unwarranted use of force it is my duty to notify you that I must, while I remain Member for Northampton, offer every resistance in my power.
  I have the honor to be, Sir,
  Your mo. obedt. Servt.
  C. BRADLAUGH,
  In addition to laying that Correspondence before the House, I have only to add that the Sergeant-at-Arms has been directed by me to enforce the Order of the House of the 9th July.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I presume that that letter is a matter of Privilege, the same as that sent to the Prime Minister last Monday, on which occasion we had a debate when the subject arose. I beg to ask you whether it is possible to found a Motion now on this question as one of Privilege?
  MR. NEWDEGATEremarked, that Mr. Bradlaugh had declared that the Order of the House was illegal, as not being in accordance with the decisions of the Courts of Law. He wished to remind the House that it was only due to the interference of Her Majesty's Government that the fine which would have proved the illegality of his conduct had not been exacted from Mr. Brad-laugh. The decision of the Lord Chancellor that it rested with the Government alone to take steps to enforce the fine had not been acted upon by Her Majesty's Prime Minister. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: When the hon. Gentleman rose I presumed that he was about to speak to the point of Order raised by the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet asks me whether this correspondence raises a question of Privilege on which a Motion can be founded? The hon. Baronet referred to what had taken place the other day when a Motion of Privilege was raised. I am bound to observe to the hon. Baronet that the cases are quite different. When Mr. Bradlaugh wrote to a Member of this House announcing his intention to disregard the Order of the House, I was of opinion that his letter involved a matter of Urgency, and that the subject, therefore, became a question of Privilege. Urgency, however, does not apply to the present case; and, therefore, I do not consider that any question of Privilege is raised on the present occasion.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Perhaps you will allow me to ask one Question on this matter. I think it is fully understood that Mr. Bradlaugh is permitted to go into any part of this building, with the exception of this House, and, as I understand it, he is not allowed to pass the outer door of this House? He asks me to ask this Question.
  MR. SPEAKER: Exclusion from the House I consider to be exclusion from the outer door of this House—beyond the outer door of this House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) £11,659, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, England.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to offer one or two observations on what he considered the unreasonableness of the Government in attempting to force this Vote through the House under the present circumstances. The Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy for the present year had not yet been furnished. When the Commission was established a provision was made that the annual Report of the Commissioners should be laid on the Table of the House within 21 days of the commencement of the Session, and for the present year this had not yet been done, although they were now half through July. He had, on a previous occasion, asked the Under Secretary to the Board of Trade to endeavour to get the Report presented as soon as possible in the Session; and the hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, assured the House that no unnecessary or avoidable delay should be permitted to interfere with its presentation. Nevertheless, it had not made its appearnce at an earlier date than in previous years, and last year it was not furnished until the middle of August, when it was of no practical use whatever. The Returns contained in the Report were of very serious national importance, and he was sure that the people at large had no idea of the growing importance of this question of lunacy in regard to England. In order to give an idea of the increase of lunacy, he would ask permission to read a few figures which appeared in the Returns. In the year 1859 the total number of lunatics in the country was 36,762; by the year 1882—that was to say, in 23 years—the number had increased to 74,842. Whereas of the lunatics in 1879, 15,000 only were in

    1243
    county and borough asylums, and 7,963 in workhouses; last year, although the number in workhouses had not very materially increased, the number in county and borough asylums had gone up from 15,000 to 42,000. The population in the same time had increased only from 19,650,000 to 21,460,000. The total number of lunatics to the population 23 years ago was only 18·67 in 10,000; last year it had risen from that proportion to a total of 28·34 in 10,000. He said that when the nature of lunacy was considered, such an increase, in proportion to the population, became a very serious national question, and that the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners was one which must arrest the attention and secure the consideration of Parliament. Therefore, they ought to be possessed of the information which the Commissioners had to furnish before they were asked to vote the money which was now demanded without any consideration of the great question to which he had referred. The proportion of lunatics in workhouses in 1859 was 25 per cent; the proportion in workhouses last year was also 25 per cent; but an enormous increase had taken place in the number of lunatics who were inmates of asylums, hospitals, and licensed houses, which meant that an enormous number of afflicted persons who ought really to have been kept in the workhouses had, in order to save trouble to the authorities of the workhouses, been sent off, sometimes in shoals, to the county and borough asylums; and their being so sent off involved an amount of cruelty and inhumanity which was almost impossible of belief until the whole of the circumstances of the case were examined. This question of pauper lunatics in workhouses had been pressed on the Government in the Report of the Commissioners year after year; but, so far as he was able to ascertain, without any practical result whatsoever. The evil had become so great that the Committee were now entitled to ask the Government whether they intended to take any immediate steps with the view to its amelioration? In the Report of the year before last the Commissioners said, with respect to Middlesex—
    "There can be no doubt that the question of making additional provision for the insane poor of Middlesex has again become a pressing one;"
    and they went on to say—
    1244
    "The aged and infirm are very numerous, and there are a large number of them who might he adequately cared for in the workhouse infirmaries. Under present circumstances, however, there is but little pecuniary inducement to Guardians to retain such persons in workhouses, or to receive them back again from asylums, the weekly cost of maintenance here, 9s. 7½d., being actually reduced to 5s. 7½d. only, by the 4s. a-week returned from the money voted by Parliament."
    While in the Report of last year, at page 158, they had a very good illustration of the effect of this system. The Commissioners, in speaking of the insane in workhouses, said—
    "In our experience there is now frequently a tendency to send to the asylum patients who might he sufficiently cared for in workhouses. We have no doubt, indeed, that the effect of the Parliamentary subvention of 4s. a-week, allowed to Boards of Guardians for every insane patient maintained in an asylum, has, in many instances, tended to promote the removal to asylums, and has prevented the return back to workhouses from asylums of patients who could, with slightly more liberal provision in the way of food and supervision, be adequately dealt with in workhouses. The rate of maintenance in county asylums is in many districts so moderate that, deducting the 4s. subvention, the cost to the Guardians is less than if the insane person were retained in the workhouse."
    That was the whole secret of the removal of pauper lunatics to the county and borough asylums. Then came the sequel to these observations of the Commissioners. The Report continued—
    "A remarkable example occurred last year at Halifax of the manner in which a large demand was, as we think, improperly made upon asylum accommodation for cases requiring only workhouse care. At this workhouse there have been for many years very good lunatic wards for upwards of 90 imbeciles of both sexes, and our Reports of annual visits have usually been favourable, as regards the condition and management of these wards and their inmates. It appears, however, that the accommodation in the workhouse for ordinary sick paupers had latterly become inadequate, and no further building on the same site could be sanctioned by the Local Government Board. In order, therefore, to give the necessary additional room for the sick, the Guardians decided to remove the imbeciles to the South Yorkshire Asylum at Wadsley, and to appropriate to the sick the wards thus vacated. This proceeding was objected to by the Committee of Visitors of the asylum, but could not be successfully resisted so long as the individuals to be removed could be certified to be insane, and so long as there was vacant room in the asylum. In the course of last summer accordingly 74 imbeciles of both sexes were thus transferred from the workhouse to the asylum."
    That was most monstrous and inhuman. These imbeciles were a class of people

    1245
    who required to be treated as if they were in their second childhood, yet they were confined in lunatic asylums, made to consort with persons whose association had about it something hideous and terrible, and thus the faint glimmering of the hope of recovery, which might have been entertained before, was utterly extinguished by their transfer to lunatic asylums. The Commissioners went on to say—
    "We addressed the Local Government Board on the subject of this improper absorption of asylum accommodation, and the consequent injustice to the payers of county rate, of placing upon them a charge which, as it appeared to us, ought to be borne by the payers of local poor rates; and we expressed a hope that the Board would continue to urge upon the Halifax Guardians the propriety of making speedy provision for their imbecile poor, not requiring asylum treatment."
    Such was the Report of the Commissioners last year. "What the present attitude of the Commissioners was with regard to these workhouses they did not know, because the Report for the present year had not been furnished. The Report of the Commissioners contained the following extract from the Report of the Visiting Commissioner in November last, with regard to the Dudley Union Workhouse:—
    "In my Report of the 18th of November, 1880, I stated as follows:—'Attention has been drawn by the Visiting Commissioners for several years past to the overcrowding of the lunatic wards, but it continues to be as great as ever, and nothing has been done, nor, as Car as I can learn, is anything in immediate contemplation, with a view to remove or abate the evil which in the male lunatic ward day-room is, indeed, becoming worse every year. In the dormitories of this ward also the beds are so close that they touch each other at the sides, and the patients have to climb into and out of their beds over the bottom. Apart from the insufficient space, it can easily be imagined how objectionable it must be for insane patients, many of whom are of dirty habits, and some addicted to bad practices, to sleep in beds actually touching each other. The above description (of a year ago) is applicable in every respect to the state of these dormitories to-day (Nov. 1881), and the day-room is more overcrowded than ever. I saw today 60 patients jammed together at tables not affording proper room for more than half that number taking their dinners in the greatest discomfort, though the food was good and abundant. I have never seen such persistent overcrowding without the prospect of an early remedy. On the 23rd of February last the Guardians, I am informed, stated to the Local Government Board by letter that they proposed "in a short time to build schools and other accommodation for children a short distance from the workhouse, and by making a
    1246
    portion of the space now occupied by the school children available for the use of imbeciles, the overcrowding complained of will be eventually relieved." Plans were, I understand, prepared early in the present year, but they are still (Nov. 1881) in the board-room, not even opened for examination, and there is, of course, no immediate prospect of anything being done to relieve the serious condition of matters above described.' "
    In laying this subject before the Committee, he had used the ipsissima verba of the Commissioners without interposing any comment of his own, his sole object being to place the matter before the Committee strictly upon its own merits. He believed he had shown, not only the very serious growing importance of this question of lunacy, but also that the existing accommodation was utterly insufficient to meet the need of the community. He believed also he had shown sufficient ground for demurring to this Vote being forced through the House, as the Government were endeavouring to force it through, in the absence of the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners, without which it could not be sufficiently and intelligently discussed. As far as he was aware, there should be no difficulty in presenting this important Report, and he could not understand how the Vote could be taken in its entirety without it. The contention that it must be taken at once for the Service would not hold water for a moment; because, if it were necessary that the money for this Department should be voted immediately, it would be equally necessary that it should be voted for Classes III. and IV. and for the Civil Service Votes. But the Government did not propose to take any other Votes than those of Class II. The suggestion, therefore, could not be serious, because there had not been a single argument brought forward in support of it. But, if the Government were not disposed to take a Vote on Account, which he considered a very reasonable proposal; if they were not content to postpone the Vote until the House was in possession of the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners for the present year, he hoped that, at any rate, they were in a position to give some satisfactory information with regard to the difficult points in the previous Reports of the Commissioners to which he had called attention.
    MR. INDERWICKsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Govern-

    1247
    ment to one point in connection with lunatic asylums, in the hope that between this year and the next something might be done to remedy a defective state of things. It had been several times brought to his notice that a great number of the women who were inmates of asylums were insufficiently and improperly supplied with clothing. It was absolutely essential with regard to many of these asylums, and especially private houses, that great attention should be paid to the clothing of women, a matter with which men were not sufficiently acquainted. It had been mentioned, on many occasions, that the Visiting Justices and other visitors had reason to doubt whether the women, under the existing circumstances, were properly clothed, having regard to the seasons of the year. In some cases it was almost impossible for a visitor to ascertain for himself whether that was so or not. He had to take the word of the female attendants; and the suggestion he (Mr. Inderwick) had to make was that it would be desirable, in the interests of the female patients in those houses throughout the country, that there should be a certain limited number of duly qualified females appointed, either temporarily or permanently, as Inspectors, or Assistant Inspectors, who might assist in those investigations which were essential for the personal comfort and good treatment of the unfortunate women in question.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the changes in this Department had resulted in a profit of £6,000 a-year. He wished to know whether a corresponding reduction was made in the Estimate, or whether the Commissioners continued to draw the same salaries as before?
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to ask whether the Government had yet make up its mind to relieve the counties of their burdens with regard to criminal lunatics? His hon. Friend the Undersecretary to the Treasury presided last year over a Committee which made recommendations with reference to this subject, and he would be glad to know whether those recommendations had been carried out, and, if so, in what position the matter now stood? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could inform him whether any cells had been fitted up in any prison or prisons designated
    1248
    for the reception of criminal lunatics, or whether any steps were taken in that direction? He ventured to hope that some steps had been taken to relieve counties of those burdens, which they ought not to bear, in respect of criminal lunatics.
    MR. SALTsaid, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had spoken of the great cruelty of removing imbeciles from the workhouses to lunatic asylums. Actually, the matter was quite the reverse of what the hon. Member had stated. He could assure the Committee that as soon as the removal of these unfortunate persons was effected the very greatest care was taken of them. It was, however, no question of treatment that they had to deal with; it was entirely a question of expense. They had to consider the question as to whether imbeciles of quiet character ought to be removed to lunatic asylums on the ground of expense. The hon. and gallant Member behind him (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had pointed out that a great number of lunatics had of late years been transferred to asylums, and that in consequence the Lunacy Commissioners had been obliged to put undue pressure on the counties to furnish new asylums. The question here was not the kindness or the character of the asylumns, but whether there was any danger that the public might incur a much greater expense than was necessary in order to take care of these afflicted persons. They stood in need of some means to deal easily and conveniently with the persons who were not so insane as to require extensive care; they wanted some means of dealing with imbeciles, a certain number of whom could be taken care of in the workhouses, because they were able to do some kinds of work, and could be allowed to go about at large—although he must say the number of imbeciles of this description was not very large. Were they to improve the workhouses so as to retain these persons, or were they to extend the lunatic asylums? That was really the question. Or, again, were they to have separate imbecile asylums on a very extensive scale? The latter plan had been tried with regard to the Metropolis, as his hon. Friend well knew. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Inderwick) had referred to the question of female Inspec-
    1249
    tors. He did not know whether it would be well to import female Inspectors into the very difficult system of lunacy; but he knew, as a matter of fact, that very great care was taken of all women in lunatic asylums. In one asylum that he was acquainted with there was a matron, who was a person of great experience and of most undoubted character and ability; he knew that the recommendations which she had made, with regard to the comfort and clothing of the female inmates, had always been assiduously attended to by the Committee; and he did not believe that any greater care could be given to lunatic persons than was given by the matron to whom he referred. While he regarded the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member as worthy of consideration, he had great doubt whether any improvement of the kind desired would result from its adoption; while he believed that if any grievance actually existed under this head it could be dealt with satisfactorily in some other way.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was glad to be able to inform the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), who had inquired as to the Report of the Committee which sat to consider the question relating to criminal lunatics, that almost the whole of the recommendations of that Committee had been adopted by his right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt), and that instructions had been given to prepare a Bill dealing with the subject which would be introduced next Session. Wherever any of the recommendations of the Committee could be carried into effect without legislation, that, of course, would be done at once. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who had referred to what had taken place in that House last year in connection with a Bill on this subject, he would point out that that measure had nothing whatever to do with the matter then under discussion. It was a Bill which came within the province of the Lord Chancellor; and, under those circumstances, he trusted the hon. and learned Member would excuse him for not going any further into the subject. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Rye (Mr. Inderwick), that lady Inspectors should be appointed to visit lunatic asylums, the matter was, of course, an
    1250
    important one; but he should not be willing to give an answer with regard to it without further consideration. Lady Inspectors had, no doubt, been appointed in cases where they were fitted for the duties devolving upon them; but he was not prepared to say that the duty of inspecting lunatic asylums was one which it was desirable that they should undertake, or that they would be willing to discharge. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had called attention to the fact that the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners had not yet been received. He (Mr. Hibbert) shared the regret of the hon. Member that this Report was not issued at an earlier date; and, having that morning sent to the Office of the Commissioners for information on the subject, he had received a reply to the effect that the Report would be ready to be presented to the Lord Chancellor before the end of the week, after which time it could be obtained on application by Members of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, although they had not the Report before them at that moment, it would be sent in earlier than last year. He trusted the hon. Member for Queen's County would be satisfied with that assurance; and the Committee might rely that whatever power he had in this matter should hereafter be exerted to insure the presentation of the Report at an earlier period of the Session. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that the Report ought to be in the hands of Members before this Vote came forward. The hon. Member had also referred to the increase which had taken place in lunacy; but, although an increase had undoubtedly occurred, he believed there were causes by which that increase might be easily explained. Those causes he did not wish to enter into at that moment, because they would become matters of discussion on a future occasion. It seemed to him that the question as to whether some arrangement could not be made for the imbeciles and idiots in workhouses was very well worthy of consideration; and he thought that, perhaps, the difficulty might be overcome by having a cheaper kind of asylum, such as that in use in the Metropolis. He believed that one or two places might be prepared for them in which they could be trained, and possibly made useful members of

    1251
    society. That, of course, could not be done in lunatic asylums; and although it was true that, to a certain extent, the educational process might go on, yet it was almost impossible that the unfortunate inmates could be taught to do any useful work. He hoped that when they had adopted a system of County Government the counties would combine to deal with this question. He believed the suggestion he had made would be to the advantage of the poor people themselves, and also to the advantage of the authorities, inasmuch as it would relieve the pressure under which the latter now suffered. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member as to the Middlesex, Dudley, and Halifax Unions, he could assure him that the matters referred to had been continually before the Local Government Board during the last year, and that the Board had given every assistance in their power to the county authorities for the purpose of getting the cases sent back from county asylums to the workhouses; but he regretted to say that their endeavours had not proved successful. He trusted, however, that the exertions which had been made would not be fruitless, and that they would shortly result in a more satisfactory state of affairs. He believed he had replied to the principal points raised by the hon. Member for Queen's County, whom he should be happy to supply with any further information that he might require.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County had done good service in drawing the attention of the Committee to the Reports of the Lunacy Commissioners, and to the late period in the Session at which those Reports were presented. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member that the Committee should be in possession of the Report of the Commissioners before they were asked for this Vote; and he would remind the Committee that the Vote itself afforded the only opportunity they would have of discussing the serious questions connected with Lunacy Reform. He had himself brought forward this subject on a former occasion, when he was met with great coldness and the absence of all argument on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken from the Treasury Bench said that next year there would be legislation
    1252
    on the subject of lunacy. He thought the Committee would agree with him in saying that it would be of the greatest advantage if, on the present occasion, they were able to review the lunacy legislation now existing, so that when the measure foreshadowed by the hon. Gentleman came forward the House would have the benefit of the opinions which had been expressed. The existing Lunacy Laws were full of anomalies; for instance, there were six Commissioners to look after 70,000 lunatics, while there were three Visitors for every 1,000 Chancery lunatics; yet, notwithstanding that the expense and waste caused by maintaining this system were very great, the Government attempted nothing in the way of reform; they remained, in fact, perfectly quiescent. The presentation of this Vote was the only opportunity for ventilating the reform of the existing abuses and reducing the very large expenditure which the Central Authority imposed on the local authorities in all matters connected with lunacy. He would not detain the Committee farther than to say that, in his opinion, it was wrong that the House of Commons should not have an opportunity of discussing, with ample information and at considerable length, the points which had just been referred to.
    MR. SALTsaid, he entirely agreed that it was a matter of great inconvenience that the Reports not only of the Commissioners in Lunacy, but of other Departments, were not presented earlier. At the time when those Reports were most needed they could, as a rule, only get Reports which were two years old, and therefore only partially to be trusted. It was very difficult to see how the matter could be remedied; but, at any rate, it could not be done by merely saying, as the hon. Gentleman opposite had said—"We will try to do better next year." But the Returns on which these Reports were based were so voluminous that they could not be checked and considered in one day, and it was sometimes absolutely impossible to get the Reports into a proper position within the time required by Parliament. The case, however, might possibly be met by getting the Returns in by the 29th of September every year, instead of the 31st of December. He put it before the Committee that the delay

    1253
    was not the fault of the particular Department they were now speaking of; but that it arose from the difficulty of dealing with Returns of so voluminous a character.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he understood from the hon. Gentleman opposite that the Report of the Committee which sat to consider the question of criminal lunatics was to be carried out. He gathered, then, that the counties were to be entirely relieved of persons who had become insane after their trial, and that these were to be confined in one of Her Majesty's prisons. He ventured to hope that that was not a matter which would require to be dealt with by legislation, and that the county asylums would be relieved forthwith of criminal lunatics.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that one portion of the subject would require to be dealt with by legislation.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked if he was right in understanding that criminal lunatics whose term had expired would be kept in some separate asylum, and not returned to the county lunatic asylums?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he thought that would have to be a matter of arrangement.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) had mistaken the impression which the remarks which he had offered to the Committee were calculated to convey. He did not intend to convey that he thought the persons transferred from workhouses to lunatic asylums were likely to suffer from any want of kindness shown to them in their misery. So far from that being his meaning, he was convinced that the labours of the members of the Medical Profession in behalf of these unfortunate individuals were characterized by kindness and benevolence in the highest degree. He was well aware that there was no class whose kindness and patience was more taxed than that portion of the Profession which was concerned in the management of lunatics. The present system undoubtedly left much to be desired; but with regard to the kindness shown in the treatment of lunatics, he did not think there was any cause for complaint. He would ask the hon. Gentleman opposite whether he appreciated the serious difficulties which arose
    1254
    from the want of accommodation in workhouses? The Report showed that applications for admission had been refused within a year to 227 males and 218 females. That was a very serious consideration, and showed the point at which they had arrived with regard to the deficiency of accommodation. It showed, also, that it would be necessary to enlarge the present accommodation by the establishment of new institutions; and he said it was worthy the consideration of the Government whether there should not be intermediate asylums established, so that there might be a classification quite different from that which now existed, except in the Metropolis, leaving in the workhouses those who were imbecile and harmless, and who were capable of performing simple duties about the Union, and keeping in asylums those who required more serious care and treatment, at the same time relegating to the intermediate class those who were little better than imbeciles, and who ought not to be sent to lunatic asylums, not by reason of the treatment they would receive there, but by reason of the terrible association they would undergo with persons with whom no one but the insane ought to be compelled to consort.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, if some intermediate establishment could be arranged for by counties, or combination of counties, no doubt they might be able to transfer to them less serious cases, and this would make room for cases which it was desirable should be treated separately in asylums. The magistrates in one county had established an asylum for chronic cases, which was worked at a small cost as compared with other institutions of the kind.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Stanley Leigh-ton) would continue to urge upon the Government the necessity of dealing with the large and important question of Lunacy Reform. He would not go into the question of the Vote, but would simply observe that the Government were to blame for the long delay which had occurred in dealing with this subject. He had himself taken up the question; but he did not expect that much good would result from his endeavour, because he was sure that real improvement must come from the Government of the day.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he had twice made a proposal to Parliament, which would have had the effect of carrying out the view of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hibbert).
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) £42,207, to complete the sum for the Mint, including Coinage.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was desirous of receiving some information with regard to one or two items in the Vote. First, there were the Extra Receipts, which were shown to be largely in excess of the amount credited last year; that, however, was probably due to the quantity of silver coined. But there was a large increase shown by the Estimate in the item of salaries, wages, and allowances, which had risen from £16,000 in the last Estimate to £21,250, which he hoped would be explained. There was also another point of importance on which he desired to receive information. He asked whether the Government had come to any decision with regard to the large quantity of light gold in circulation—whether it was intended to take any steps to grapple with the difficulty, which was a serious one, and affected the interests of a large portion of the people? It was, he believed, in the power of anyone to refuse to receive in payment a sovereign, or half-sovereign, under its legal weight; and it would be an exceeding hardship if that power were exercised. The amount of light gold in circulation was very large; and he believed that the law placed the legal liability for the loss upon the actual possessor of the gold, although, in many cases, it was absolutely impossible for a person to say whether the gold was light or not. If the strict rights of all parties were exercised, the inconvenience and the loss which would result must necessarily be very great indeed. It was not for him to suggest to Her Majesty's Government how they should proceed in this matter; but as there was a large profit annually accumulating on the coinage of silver—he believed there was no profit on gold—it might be a reasonable suggestion that the responsibility for the loss on gold, wherever it was not intentional, should fall upon the authorities who retained to themselves the right to the profit which accrued.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that for some time during the re-building of the Mint
    1256
    operations were suspended, and the staff was reduced much below its normal strength; but now that they were completing the work of re-building they had to increase the number of workmen, and therefore the cost of wages was increased to the extent of £5,000. The same remarks applied to the staff, whose operations had been suspended during the re-building. With regard to the loss on light gold, he would point out that old and worn silver was received at the Mint at its nominal value. But in the matter of gold there was not a fraction of profit, and the State had to bear the whole burden of the cost of coining. Under this arrangement a person might go to the Mint with a certain weight of gold, and have the actual weight returned to him in coin. To defray the loss upon light gold, even from honest wear and tear, would be a very serious matter indeed. His right hon. Friend would probably remember that nearly 40 years ago the State imposed the loss necessarily upon the last holder. He could not conceive that the State should assume to itself the burden of loss resulting from wear and tear; and, moreover, it was perfectly impossible to detect whether a coin had been lightened by circulation or mechanically. For the reasons he had given, he thought the holders, and not the State, should accept the burden of loss.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he was sorry to find the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) putting forward excuses for the non-production of the Report of the Lunacy Commissioners; but there was another Report which was habitually in arrear, he believed, to a greater extent than that of any other Department. He referred to the Report of the Mint, which there was no reason whatever for delaying; and he trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would take care that next year that Report should be in the hands of Members within not less than three months of the opening of the Session. He remarked that the Estimate for the Department for 1883–4 did not show clearly what was the profit to the country upon the silver coinage resulting from the fall in the price of silver; and he thought the Committee were entitled to some information as to how so large a profit as that of £75,000, entered as a receipt, had been made.
    MR. WARTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury to be good enough to explain how the loss on the gold coinage was four times as much this year as it was last? He thought there should be some set off against that from the profits on silver, and the still greater profit on the bronze coinage, which latter was only worth one-third of its nominal value. But his object in rising was principally to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to the importance of coining a greater number of half-crowns, and discontinuing the coinage of florins. The coinage of florins was altogether a mistake, and was due to an insane idea entertained some years ago about a decimal coinage, which it was well known could never take root in this country. The florin was at best a mean coin, and was not regarded with the same respect as the half-crown; on the other hand, the half-crown was very useful, because with half-crowns and shillings you could pay any number of sixpences, which it was impossible to do with florins. He trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give an assurance that the coinage of florins would be discontinued.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, there was one item in the Vote to which he desired to draw the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury—namely, the supply of bronze and silver coinage to the Colonies. It was an item upon which, in other years, the President of the Board of Trade had moved a reduction, which had been supported by the Secretary to the Treasury. [Mr. COURTNEY said, that that was a mistake.] At any rate, the hon. Gentleman had not voted in favour of the item when the President of the Board of Trade moved its rejection. He regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), who, in former years, had also been active in regard to this Vote, and the objections which the hon. Member had urged certainly held good now. He was afraid the hon. Gentleman, although he sat below the Gangway, was not likely to move a reduction of the Vote now. He wanted to know how the item of £1,500, which now appeared in the Vote, was ascertained; because last year, when there was a much larger amount of silver sent to the Colonies, the charge was less than £1,500. He wanted to make it perfectly clear that an unnecessarily
    1258
    large sum was not named in the Vote. He would also like to know from the Government the reason why there was a larger estimated loss upon silver this year than last year? Was it intended to increase the coinage of silver this year to any great extent? Last year £100 was taken for that item, and this year it was £250. He doubted very much whether in any year the amount taken for loss on silver had not been found altogether beyond what was necessary, and there was nothing in the Estimates to account for any increase in the loss on silver. He had searched in vain in the Reports issued in February last for an explanation. No doubt there had been a delay in furnishing certain Reports to Parliament, and there had been various complaints in consequence; but this Report had been furnished, and he hoped the Government would explain what their objects were in regard to silver coinage this year. So far as he understood the question—but he was not aware that he was altogether correct—there was a difference between the market price and the Mint price, which was 5s. 6d. an ounce, the market price being 51 or 52 pence at the outside, leaving a profit of at least 1s. 2d. If the Committee knew what amount of silver coinage it was intended to take in hand this year, they would be able, with some approach to accuracy, to check the Government demands.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that in reference to the observations which had been made by his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Sir George Balfour), the delay which had occurred in publishing the Reports had been unavoidable. In regard to the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), he was afraid that he could hold out no hope as to the suppression of the florin. The coinage of half-crowns was altogether stopped for years; but afterwards it was found necessary to re-issue them, owing to a desire expressed upon the part of bankers and others, who were of opinion that it was a most convenient coin. The issue of half-crowns had, therefore, been resumed, and both florins and half-crowns were now coined, the desire on the part of the commercial community being to have both. A florin was considered a useful and very convenient coin. As to the matter of loss on coinage, to which the hon. Member

    1259
    for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had referred, that was a loss derived simply from this fact. A certain weight of gold had to be converted into coin; but in the process of making it into coin a part was lost and wasted. The same remark applied to the conversion of silver into coin, and this loss represented the waste during the process of converting gold and silver into coin. The hon. Member for Queen's County had referred to the action of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in former years in moving the reduction of this Vote in regard to the Colonies. Now, he did not think that he (Mr. Courtney) had ever supported that Motion. It was altogether a matter of pure bargain between the Mint at home and the Colonies, which were supplied not with Colonial, but with Imperial coin. The English shilling and the English sixpence were sent out at their nominal value, so that the Imperial Government received a sovereign for 20 s. in silver, and consequently made a considerable gain. On the whole, there was a large profit on the transaction; and, having regard to this, it was not unreasonable that the Mint should consent to bear the cost of packing and freight. He might add that this year they were going to make more coin than usual—both silver and gold.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman had given to the Committee some valuable information. He quite understood that the loss upon the coinage arose from waste; but that did not answer the question how it was that the loss was four times more this year than it had been before?
    MR. COURTNEYremarked, that the loss was greater, because a greater amount of coin had been made.
    MR. WARTONwished to know, in regard to the florin and the half-crown, if there were as many half-crowns made as florins? He believed that considerable inconvenience had been felt on account of the suppression of the half-crown for so many years. In regard to the Colonies, he thought they ought to get the profit as well as the loss. At present, they were charged all the waste upon the gold coinage; but they did not get the profit upon the silver.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that with respect to the supply, the object of the Mint was to supply half-crowns and
    1260
    florins as they were required. [Mr. WARTON: In equal quantities?] No; as they are asked for.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £24,057, to complete the sum for the Patent Office, &c.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, that the increase upon this Vote was not a very large increase; but it was one which seemed to require explanation. He found there was an Assistant Commissioner in the Trade Mark Registry who received £1,000 a-year; whereas last year there was no such item in the Vote. He wanted to know whether this salary was personal to the Office; and, if so, why the Office was not filled last year, and why it was filled this year at £1,000? The next item mentioned that the maximum salary of the Office was £800 a-year. He, therefore, wanted to know, in the first place, why this officer was receiving more than the maximum salary, and whether it was an additional Office that was not filled last year?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, this was a matter connected with the re-organization of the Department. If his hon. Friend would turn to page 132 he would find that there was an Assistant Registrar down at £600 in connection with the Trade Mark Registry, and this Assistant represented the same Office; but instead of being restricted to Trade Marks he was now Assistant Registrar. The fact that he received £1,000 instead of £800 was due to the circumstance that the gentleman who held the appointment was formerly a Registrar in the Law Courts, which gave him that salary; and, as a matter of convenience, it had been considered advisable to employ him, rather than to give him the pension he would be entitled to on retirement.
    MR. DILLWYNasked if one of the two offices was a sinecure, or did one officer perform double duties? He found that this gentleman was down for £600 a-year, and that he also got £1,000.
    MR. COURTNEYremarked that the £600 was for last year.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) £6,970, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commission.
    (5.) £16,896, to complete the sum for the Record Office.
    (6.) £36,144, to complete the sum for the Works and Public Buildings Office.
    MR. DILLWYNasked upon what principle the Committee were taking these Votes, because he saw they were skipping over a good many Votes, and not taking them in their regular order.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, there were six Votes, of which this was the last, which must be taken that night. Directly these six Votes were disposed of, the Committee would resume the consideration of the rest in their regular order.
    MR. SALTsaid, he happened to have a Notice down on the Paper in regard to this Vote, which he took to be a very large Vote, considering that it was merely for administrative expenses. If they compared the Vote with the cost of the Department at the time it was first created, in 1852, they would find that it had enormously increased. There were some Departments which had to do with the Business of the country, which must, of necessity, increase largely as they became developed and the requirements became greater; but, in dealing with an administrative Department, if they once had the Department well organized, the increase ought to be very small through the additional work which might be placed upon it. Now, this Department of Public Works and Buildings, if they examined it carefully, was purely an administrative Department. There were charges in other Votes for the expenditure upon Public Buildings, the Royal Parks, and other things of one kind or another, which amounted to a very large sum indeed. The present Vote related merely to the cost of supervision. The Motion he had placed upon the Paper was not intended to challenge the Vote in any particular way, but to challenge generally the increase in the expenditure upon Public Departments. He had no doubt that the officers of a Department performed their duties very well; and he was sure that, so far as his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works was concerned, the Department was admirably administered. But his object in saying anything at all about the matter was this—not that he expected so much to see the expenditure reduced, because he knew that was an extremely difficult thing. When they got an administrative
    1262
    Department up to a certain point it was impossible to reduce it. If they had a number of competent men around them, they must keep them, because they could not properly dispose of them otherwise. What he was anxious to prevent was the idea that these administrative Departments were always to be increased. He had taken this Department as a specimen, not because he objected in particular to this Department, but because it was a very good specimen, inasmuch as it was, as he had said just now, a purely administrative Department. There was nothing in the present Vote except what was for the expense of management in connection with other Business which was paid for in other Votes. It was a sort of Central Department over other Departments. Speaking from his own experience, and an experience which many other hon. Members must have had, he had found that whenever they were dealing with a Central Department they were obliged to keep a firm hand indeed upon it in order to prevent it from growing too large. A Central Department might be extremely economical and exceedingly effective; but a Central Department that was purely administrative might increase its work very much indeed, without increasing its staff, because it ought to have, in the first instance, a man at the head of the Department who was competent and capable of managing a large concern. Therefore, when the work increased it was merely the addition of a few clerks to carry it on. He had no wish to say anything that might assume the nature of an attack upon this Department; indeed, he had no wish to criticize its method of working, but he did want to see if they could not try, if possible, to check the expenditure upon the Central Departments of the Government. That expenditure had been growing year after year; and he was perfectly certain that although increased expenditure in some cases might be necessary, still, as a general rule, it would not lead to increased efficiency; and they must always remember this—that in dealing with administrative Departments of any kind whatever, whether they were Public Departments or Departments of a commercial character, it was to the interest of those who were at the head of the Departments, perhaps unconsciously, to make them as

    1263
    large as possible. The larger a Department was, the more the persons connected with it could lay claim to increased salaries, increased honours, and increased position. Although he did not for a single moment believe that the country was not exceedingly well served, and honestly and ably served, by its public servants; yet, whenever a public servant had it placed directly before his mind that by the increase of the Department he would obtain greater pay and additional honour, it was very difficult to induce such a man to study economy. Human nature was only human nature after all. Last year there would have been so many thousand letters sent out; this year there would be so many thousand more letters sent out; and thus the expenditure would go on increasing, being very much larger today than it was five or 10 years ago. No doubt there was a natural increase in the public work generally; but it all led to the idea of the exaltation of the Office, and the exaltation of the business generally, and consequently of increased expense; and he was perfectly certain that an increase of expense was not in all cases followed by an increase of efficiency. He did not for a moment blame the Government; but it was for the House to say that it would, so far as possible, require that its public servants—able, efficient, talented, honest, and patriotic as they were—should turn their minds not to the increase and enlargement of their Offices, but to the carrying on of the Public Business as efficiently as ever, but, at the same time, with the greatest possible economy, especially economy in details. Economy in details seemed a small thing to talk about; but it was a matter of very great importance. The economy practised in a Department coloured the whole administration of that Department. He had merely taken this Department because it was purely an administrative Department; and whether his right hon. Friend, who was well able to administer it, or anybody else, was in Office, he was most anxious that the principle should be laid down that these administrative Departments should, if possible, try to secure economy as well as efficiency. He was quite sure if nothing was done in that direction they would go on increasing their Estimates year by year, and would lose all control over them.
    1264
    New officers were appointed, and the expenses were increased, and the House might waste considerable time in discussing the Estimates; but nothing would be done unless they said—"Do, for goodness sake, let us feel that we are at the top of the tide of expenditure, as far as the Department is concerned." If he went into details he might show how many thousands of pounds might be saved without in any way sacrificing the efficiency of the Department; and he certainly wished to impress upon his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works that the expenses of this particular Department had enormously increased since it was first created in 1852.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was quite ready to subscribe to the doctrines which had been laid down by his hon. Friend opposite. He could assure his hon. Friend that he had no desire to exalt his Office by increasing the number of officers; and he concurred with his hon. Friend that when an Office was properly organized, it ought to be able to increase its work without any undue increase of expenditure. At the same time, he was bound to say that the work of the Department now under the consideration of the Committee had accumulated during the last four or five years to such an extent that it had been found absolutely essential to increase the staff of surveyors, and it was to the increase of the staff of surveyors that the augmentation of the Vote was due. The hon. Member, however, would be glad to hear that since the Estimates were framed this year he had in another direction been able to make a considerable diminution. He had reduced the Assistant Secretary to the Department by £1,000 a-year, which he considered to be a considerable reduction. He found that the clerks could work the Office without an Assistant Secretary, and the Assistant Secretary had accordingly been retired. Therefore, while, on the one hand, he had found it necessary to increase the staff of surveyors, on the other hand, he had been able to reduce the expenses of the Office by the retirement of the Assistant Secretary. With regard to the work thrown upon the surveyors, he need hardly remind his hon. Friend that the Post Office work had increased enormously of late years. No one could have any idea of the in-

    1265
    crease during the last few years, and certainly during the present year it had been enormous. It had been found necessary to re-organize nearly every Post Office in the Kingdom, in consequence of the introduction of the Parcels Post; and, in addition to that, the Customs and Inland Revenue Offices had been the cause of great expenditure. It was absolutely essential that these charges should be incurred, in order to increase the efficiency of the Public Service; and it had, therefore, been necessary to add considerably to the staff of surveyors.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned the burden entailed upon the Department in consequence of having to send out surveyors in connection with providing increased accommodation for the Post Office. He wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there were certain quarters in which a visit from the surveyor had been promised, but in which the promise had not yet been performed. There was one case to which he wished to call particular attention—namely, the case of the Post Office at Plymouth. It had long been understood and promised that a surveyor should be sent down to Plymouth to consider the position in which the Post Office there was placed; but no surveyor had yet been sent. It was not a matter on which he intended to say much upon this Vote, because the immediate question before the Committee was the grant of money for work actually done; but he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would say something to supplement the observations he had already made in regard to the Post Office at Plymouth.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right in saying that he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had promised to send down a surveyor to Plymouth to look into the Post Office and two or three other buildings there, and he should certainly have done so if it had not been for the enormous amount of work which had been thrown upon the surveyors. At this moment there were something like 200 Offices under the consideration of the Department. He could assure the hon. and learned Member that as soon as possible he would send a surveyor down to Plymouth.
    MR. SALTsaid, the Office had been overburdened with work on account of the additional Post Office building. He believed great economy of time, money, and temper might be brought about if some of these details were left to the Departments themselves, and if the Central Authority were occupied more with supervision. He wished to throw out a suggestion—although he would not go deeply into the matter—he thought considerable time was wasted by requiring this excellent Office to do a great deal of the work of detail which would be more naturally performed by the Departments themselves.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, there was a great deal in what the hon. Member had said with regard to the Surveyors, and he considered that a great deal more might be left to the local authorities in small matters. They ought, however, to look to the Chief of the Department, in whom he had very great confidence, to say whether and when surveyors should be sent out. They should not be sent out for every petty job that had to be done. The surveyor was responsible for the expenditure, and had to see that the money was properly expended.
    Vote agreed to.
    (7.) £11,832, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked for an explanation on certain points connected with this Vote.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that a charge was made on account of the examination and tabulation which had to be made in connection with the preparation of new tables for the grant of life annuities. The work had been taken in hand only recently, and from it was to be gained the result of the past experience of the National Debt Office. The Treasury were now in receipt of the Report of the Actuary of the National Debt Office, embodying the labours of that gentleman. As the matter involved many questions of extreme actuarial importance, it had been found desirable to refer the principle of the examination of the Government Actuary to an independent authority. As soon as the questions of principle involved were decided, the actual work of framing the new tables would be proceeded with with great rapidity. He was afraid the result would not be known before the

    1267
    House rose; but it would be made known during the autumn.
    MR. SALTasked whether these tables were those in which the Post Office annuities were given?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, they would be available for those annuities.
    MR. KENNYwas understood to ask for information as to whether there was any amount included in this Vote for the administration of the Suez Caual?
    Vote agreed to.
    (8.) £19,784, to complete the sum for the Postmaster General's Office.
    (9.) £46,985, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.
    (10.) £404,110, to complete the sum for Stationery and Printing.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, the Committee ought to have some information upon this subject. A total sum of rather more than £500,000 seemed to him to be a most extraordinary amount to pay for the Stationery Office. the Vote was always increasing—there was this year an enormous increase. He did not contend that it was not necessary for the Vote to increase; but, at the same time, the advance which was being made under this head was so enormous that it seemed to him necessary that some explanation should be given with regard to it. He saw an increase for salaries, wages, and allowances; but about that he would say nothing. There was an increase for paper of £4,000. That was a great deal, and he was at a loss to know what had brought about such a large increase this year. Why should they have had more paper this year than last year? Then he saw an increase of £ 1,000 for parchment. Surely, that was an enormous development. The total amount this year for parchment was £11,000, which was an enormous sum to pay for sheepskins. There was a large increase, again, in the item of binding, the total being £49,000. Then there was an enormous sum for small stores, of which the details were given afterwards. The increase was £1,000, the total being£54,000. They were asked to vote £120,000 on those four items alone—namely, paper, parchment, binding, and small stores. There were other increases, into which he would not go at the present moment. This had always been a painful subject—questions had
    1268
    always been raised as to this Stationery Vote; and the Committee, no doubt, would agree with him that they were paying far too much under it. Last year they were paying too much, and this year they were paying even more than last year.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was well aware of the natural jealousy of the Committee with regard to this item, which was one of enormous dimensions, and which grew every year, and, he was afraid he must add, would continue to grow every year. The increase in the Vote represented, to a great extent, the activity and range of our whole life. The greater the amount of activity which was displayed, and the greater the amount of Business which had to be done in Parliament and by the various Departments of the Government, the greater would be the amount of demand on the Stationery Office. As every Department and every Office had an increased amount of work thrown upon it, so were increased demands made upon the Stationery Office, not only for pens, ink, and paper, but for printing also. That was a general observation. But then the hon. Member went through several items, and took the item of parchment, for instance, as one upon which to make special complaint. Well, in this case the increase was simply in consequence of the growing demand for stamped parchment, which was supplied by the Inland Revenue and consumed by law stationers, solicitors, and others, who required stamped parchment for deeds. The increased amount expended on this item, of course, came back in the form of extra receipts—the receipts grew in proportion to the amount of parchment supplied. The increase which took place under the item for paper was to be accounted for by the fact that the Stationery Office was now taking upon itself a great deal of the supply which was formerly undertaken by the printing contractors. It might be taken generally that this Stationery Vote would increase just in proportion to the adoption of any new business or operation. For instance, the fact of the existence of the Land Court in Ireland accounted for an increased consumption of stationery, as did also the extensive operations which had taken place abroad. Altogether, it would be hopeless to endeavour to keep the Stationery Vote at the point at which it

    1269
    was at present, as it must always keep pace with the increasing activity of the different Departments, which were pushed on in their business by that House. As to the complaint of the number and cost of Returns, hon. Members knew perfectly well that the Government were anxious to keep within reasonable bounds the supply of Returns, which were moved for from time to time by private Members. They found it extremely difficult to do this, and were obliged to supply a great many documents of this kind, because hon. Members wanted them for some purpose or other, notwithstanding that very little information was contained in them. Some of these Retnrns were resisted, although the Government in that way gave great dissatisfaction to those who moved for them; but, whatever resistance they might make, there was no doubt that the total under the Vote for Stationery would go on increasing year by year.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, that he had not intended in his observations to include printing for that House, although that item was pretty large.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he had ascertained that the table now entered in the Estimates, and which had been prepared upon his recommendation, showing the amount of stationery supplied to the various Departments, so as to show the cost for five years, as well as the cost for printing, would soon be completed, and that then the data would exist for ascertaining the excesses of the Departmental demands. For instance, he found that the Admiralty and War Office expenditure under this head had increased by £5,000. It could not be said that this increase was owing to the country having been at war, because the fact was that in time of war there was less money spent in stationery than at other times. The authorities were too busy to use pens, ink, and paper, [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed; but he knew something of war, and that was his experience. When these tables were prepared they would be better able to criticize this matter than they were now. He wished to suggest to the Financial Secretary that it would be advisable to have the particulars arranged under the heads of England, Ireland, and Soot-land, as he believed the division of these
    1270
    enormous sums would be useful in comparing the Estimate for one with the Estimate for another. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) would find that there was a large increase for Ireland. There was a larger amount of business being done in that country than there had been, and he was afraid that there was no chance of any diminution.
    MR. EARPsaid, the observations which had been made upon these items rather pointed to some modification in the system of accounts. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had explained that there were many items, the increase upon which was owing to a development of the supply of commodities which were paid for by the public. This was what they might term a profitable increase. It seemed to him that in these cases the charges which were made on account of that which was a profitable business, as was the Post Office and the Stamp Office, should be debited in the accounts to those Departments. It was true that year after year attention was drawn to the heavy increasing charge in regard to stationery; and it appeared to him that they were wandering away from what were legitimate charges for the Services of the State.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, there were two points upon which he should like to ask questions. The first was as to the Parliamentary Debates—namely, whether any final decision had been come to about reporting or non-reporting of the proceedings of the Standing Committees? He did not wish it to be understood that he desired to have the Standing Committees reported; on the contrary, if the decision rested with him he should certainly not have them reported. He did not think it was necessary that a charge should be made in regard to this matter. But the question had been discussed repeatedly in private conversation and in debate, and he was anxious to know whether any decision had been arrived at on the point. He wished to be thoroughly understood as guarding himself against expressing any opinion in favour of reporting the Committees, because he believed they had quite enough Hansard at present. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member (Sir George Bal-

    1271
    four), he (Mr. Gibson) was prepared to make some statement; but as the hon. and gallant Member had gone away he should defer that statement to another occasion.
    MR. HINDE PALMERremarked, that there was a large mass of Papers distributed to Members of Parliament which must cost a large sum of money, and which was comparatively useless, as Members did not read one-half of it. He would suggest that, instead of Members being deluged with Blue Books, there should be some understanding arrived at in order that those Members who took an interest in a special subject should have the books on making application for them, or expressing their desire to be supplied with them. A great saving might be effected in this way. Hon. Members should be required to say what Papers they desired to have, and these should be sent to them, and they should not continue the practice of sending round all the Papers published to every Member. More than this, he was inclined to think that the Secretary to the Treasury might well consider that a great many Returns were moved for by private Members which were really, he should not like to say frivolous and useless, but, comparatively speaking, unnecessary, and added without sufficient reason very considerably to the expense. He did not want to say much about the Grand Committees; but he certainly thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) was justified in putting his question to the Government. He (Mr. Hinde Palmer) was certainly of opinion that there was no utility in publishing the reports of the proceedings of these Committees as a sort of supplement to Hansard. He did not suppose the Government entertained any such idea; but, at any rate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seemed to have some apprehension of the kind, and it was, therefore, quite right that the matter should be, if possible, cleared up.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he had a fear on this subject.
    MR. HINDE PALMER: Yes; the right hon. and learned Gentleman feared that the Government might intend to have the Committees reported. He thought the suggestion he had made with regard to the non-circulation of all
    1272
    the Blue Books to all the Members of the House well worth consideration. Whenever books were published upon a subject in which hon. Members were particularly interested, such books should be supplied to them gratuitously; but all printed matter should not be sent round to them, irrespective of its character or of the requirements of Members.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid, the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hinde Palmer) was a very good one. On the part of the War Office he should like to say that they were making careful inquiries every time a Return was moved for as to what was its expense. A very large Return had been moved for only very recently by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot); but it was found to consist mainly of extracts from gazettes on soldiers' unclaimed balances, the printing of which would be so expensive that the Secretary of State had ordered it should not be printed. The Return itself was accessible in the Library to all hon. Members who wished to see it.
    MR. SALTremarked, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir George Balfour) had suggested that when the country was at war the Stationery Vote was reduced. He trusted that they would not go to war in order to reduce the Votes. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hinde Palmer) respecting the non-delivery of Blue Books, there was this difficulty to be considered. When a Blue Book was printed, the printers did not know the number which would be required. A thousand copies of one Blue Book might be printed, and it might be found subsequently that 3,000 were required. There was no clue as to the number—no guide as to the quantity which should be supplied; therefore, the printer was obliged to furnish sufficient for the whole House. As to the question of the expense and convenience or inconvenience of leaving the Blue Books in circulation, or of keeping a number in the Office to be applied for, on the whole he believed the present system was more convenient and caused the least trouble. If the books were kept in the Office to be applied for, and only a limited number were printed, it would often be found

    1273
    that a Blue Book which was not expected to be of much interest when printed, but which afterwards became a matter of first consequence, would be so largely called for that the trouble the Office would be put to would be much greater than that experienced at the present time. There was very often a sudden rush for a Blue Book. No doubt the expense of the present system was very great, and he had often turned it over in his mind, being anxious to effect economy in detail as far as possible; but he certainly thought that the use of printing was so absolutely necessary for their daily life and their daily habits that little economy was to be effected in this matter. The enormous quantity of printed matter which they required in order to carry on their business satisfactorily would always necessitate a very large Vote under this head. But here, again, came in what he had ventured to point out just now—namely, that economy in these particulars depended more than anything upon the Heads of Departments. A really good Head of the Stationery Department would, he was certain, save the country thousands of pounds. He did not mean to say the present Head of the Department was not a perfectly good one; but he had seen economy effected by really zealous Heads of Departments in other concerns, and he was satisfied it might be done by these high officials if they were so inclined. A good Head of a Department, as compared with a careless Head, would save many thousands of pounds. He did not wish to suggest that the Department was not thoroughly and well organized at the present time; but he wished to draw attention to the necessity of looking after the Heads of Departments. As to Returns moved for by private Members, it was true that there were a large number granted which were almost useless; but that was owing, amongst other reasons, to the fact that very frequently the information given in one Return was, in a great measure, to be found in other Returns, so that confusion was caused; and sometimes in one Return they got very little more information than had been given in a Return which had preceded it. He did not think that difficulty would ever be really overcome until there was some new arrangement established with regard to the Statistical
    1274
    Returns. The statistics were prepared in the various Departments; the Departments were under pressure of other work, and of necessity the Returns were extremely incomplete and inaccurate. He hoped the day might soon come when they might have a Statistical Department, which would deal with all Returns, instead of their being dealt with by the several Departments. The preparation of Returns was a great trouble and a great source of expense; and he believed that some time or other the idea of establishing a small and efficient Statistical Department would be carried out with great advantage. That Department would have at its fingers' ends all the information Members might require, and when any Member desired information he would simply have to go to the Department and get it. There was just one other suggestion which occurred to him in relation to the expense of Returns—namely, that if it were possible, it would not be a bad plan to put upon each Return published the cost to the country of its preparation; because, if a Member who moved for a Return saw at the top, printed in tolerably legible words, "This Return is published at a cost of £20, £50, £100, or £200," as the case might be, it would be some little check upon the voluminous and the many unnecessary Returns which were moved for.
    MR. FRANCIS BUXTONsaid, perhaps he might be allowed to say a word or two upon the subject of the many worthless, useless, extravagant, and somewhat frivolous Returns which were often moved for by private Members. They had a curious and very remarkable instance of that on the Paper of to-day, for he found upon to-day's Paper three very lengthy and very voluminous Returns moved for by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston), Returns which might be of some use to the hon. Gentleman himself in respect to some special object he had in view, but which could not be of any use or value to the House at large. He (Mr. F. Buxton) presumed that, as the Returns were on the Paper, the Secretary to the Treasury had himself sanctioned them—[Mr. COURTNEY: No.]—at any rate, had allowed them to be put on the Paper as unopposed. [Mr. COURTNEY: No.] He (Mr. F. Buxton) was glad to know that the Returns were to be op-

    1275
    posed; and he hoped the Committee would exercise its discretion in the matter, and require from the Secretary to the Treasury, before the Returns were passed, a statement of the expense and use of the Returns now moved for. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hinde Palmer) had referred to another matter of great importance—namely, the distribution of Parliamentary Papers to private Members. It was computed by the Stationery Office that during the last Parliament every Member who drew all his Papers received a ton of literature, through which he had to wade during that Parliament. Now, whether that Parliament did much good with ail that literature or not was, perhaps, an open question; but at least it would be undisputed that three-fourths of the literature was perfectly useless, and found its way into the waste-paper basket. The Controller of the Stationery Office had made a proposal as to the issuing of Notice Papers every morning to Members, instead of sending the Papers themselves. It was suggested that this Notice Paper should give a short digest of the contents of each Paper issued on the day, and that Members should have a counterfoil in which to fill in the Papers they required, so that they might draw only those Papers, and no others he (Mr. F. Buxton) had it on good authority that the Stationery Office would quickly find out what Papers would be drawn in the greatest numbers; and that if the plan suggested were adopted, there would be a saving of £5,000 immediately, and probably of a very much larger sum in future. The Stationery Office felt that hon. Members would not draw Papers of a dull and of a somewhat uninteresting character, but that they would draw others in much larger numbers. He himself had brought forward this subject on a previous occasion; but for some reason or another hon. Members seemed to like to receive their Parliamentary Papers, though those Papers might include some which were not of the slightest interest to hon. Members in general. The Controller of the Stationery Office had suggested that hon. Gentlemen should have the power of saying at the beginning of every Session that they would have all the Papers delivered to them as at present, and that those hon. Members who were of an
    1276
    economical and more careful turn of mind should be allowed, if they chose, after seeing the Notice Paper, to draw only those Papers they required. The Secretary to the Treasury was a Member of the Joint Committee of the two Houses which sat two years ago on this subject. That Committee reported that the proposal of the Controller of the Stationery Office was worthy of adoption; and he (Mr. F. Buxton) sincerely hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury was still of the same opinion, and that in the next Session, or in a very short time, they might see practical effect given to the suggestion of the Controller of the Stationery Office.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, his hon. Friend was certainly a very determined advocate of this mode of saving expense in the Printing Department; but he (Mr. Rylands) was of opinion that, so far from the Parliamentary Papers being too much circulated, they might be made very much more valuable for the public good, if each Member of Parliament had the right to send one copy of each Parliamentary Paper to any place in the United Kingdom free of postage. He was quite sure that, while it might be perfectly true that many of the Papers published were not of interest to individual Members, there was scarcely a single Return or a single Paper published under the authority of Parliament which did not contain information of more or less interest to certain classes of the community; and he, personally, would be very glad if he had the opportunity—and he had no doubt other hon. Members would also be equally glad to have the opportunity—if, when he got his Parliamentary Papers in the morning, he found that one of them probably was of interest to persons connected with the Medical Profession, giving very important information with regard to subjects affecting national health, he could send that Paper down, say, to a member of the Medical Profession, in the district with which he was connected. There were other Papers published with reference to factories and mines which were not very interesting to individual Members of Parliament, but which contained matter of the greatest value and importance to the people connected with factories and mines. And so with regard to other subjects. There were Reports of Consuls and Secretaries to Legations with

    1277
    regard to foreign trade, and with regard to the several arrangements of foreign countries. These Reports contained a vast mass of most valuable information. It was quite true that hon. Gentlemen found that they were not able to read all the Papers themselves—it would take very much more than 24 hours a-day for any hon. Gentleman to read all the Papers which were distributed in the course of the day—but he did think that, considering the public who paid the money they were voting were very much interested in the Papers which were presented to Parliament, it would be a very wise utilization of the Papers published if Members had the opportunity of sending them to their constituents, or to public Libraries, or to people who might be peculiarly interested in a particular Paper. Now, he had frequently sent Papers in that way, either by parcel or by post; but, as hon. Gentlemen knew, Members of the House of Commons were exposed to very considerable infliction in the way of postage already. Every one of them constantly found that they were absolutely deluged with correspondence, not actually upon their own business, but upon the business of the country, and it was a source of great expense to Members to carry on that correspondence. What happened, however, in our Public Offices? Why, the rulers of the country and the permanent servants of the Crown had the privilege of franking; they could frank a great Blue Book without the slightest difficulty, and they could send, in fact, their private notes franked. He certainly considered a little more privilege might be given to Members of the House of Commons; and in regard to the circulation of Parliamentary Papers the privilege might be used for the public good. It would cost very little to send the Papers by mail; but it would give to the Parliamentary publications an enormous amount of importance in the public mind. His hon. Friend the late Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Duncan M'Laren) raised this matter in former Sessions. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had also introduced the subject in a former Parliament; and he (Mr. Rylands) believed that at one time they would have succeeded; but the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord
    1278
    John Manners), who was then Postmaster General, and who seemed rather disposed to make the arrangement, was controlled by the public officials. The public officials set themselves against the proposal. There were many of the public Libraries who would be very glad to have the Papers of a more interesting character. Now, in the Stationery Vote, there were payments made for expensive publications. What became of those publications? They were not even distributed to Members, though they were issued under the authority of the Government. They were not even sent to any of the local Libraries; but he could not help thinking that it would be for the public advantage if they were wisely and judiciously distributed amongst the Libraries of the country, instead of a largo stock of them being kept in some London building or other. Hon. Gentlemen had received a curious document issued by the Home Office in relation to an inquiry made by a Departmental Committee into the promulgation of Public Statutes. It was very interesting reading, and through the means of the document they found how the money was spent when a Department was able to manage matters without the knowledge of Parliament.
    THE CHAIRMANcalled upon the hon. Gentleman to address himself to the Vote before the Committee.
    MR. RYLANDSbegged the Chairman's pardon. What he wished particularly to point out was, that if they desired to reduce the Stationery Vote, it was most important that the different items of expense, which were increasing every year under the control of the Departments, should be carefully investigated. An hon. Member opposite—when they were voting the Supplementary Vote on a former occasion—suggested that the Stationery Department might be subjected to a careful inquiry by a Committee of the House. He (Mr. Rylands) would be glad, in the case of those large Votes, increasing, as they were, year by year, if a system could be adopted of referring them, not to a Departmental Committee, but to a small Select Committee of the House, in order that it might be ascertained where the money went, and how it was wasted. He believed that if the House took the matter carefully in hand they would be

    1279
    able to effect many and very large economies.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDquite agreed with a good deal that had fallen from the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. P. Buxton). He considered that a great deal of expense now incurred in Parliamentary Papers would be obviated if a little less red-tapeism was exhibited. He (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) had been sitting on the Grand Committee to which the Bankruptcy Bill was referred. Now, day by day, or nearly so, the Bill, as amended, was printed and circulated amongst the Committee. When the Bill had passed through Committee, he went to the Office and asked whether they would soon have copies of the Bill, and he was told they would not. He said—"The Bill has been printed day by day, and therefore it must be in type." The answer he received was, that it was printed in the Votes by one set of printers, and that when it was required to be printed for the House it was printed by another set of printers. The Committee would, therefore, see that the printing of the Bill twice must necessarily lead to great expense. He gave this example in order to show that a great deal might be done in the way of economy if matters were only managed in a common-sense manner.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]
(Mr. Attorney General, Sir William Hat-court, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles Dile, Mr. Solicitor General.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 7.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 11th July.] [TWENTIETH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  New Clause:—
  (When petition presented Commissioners to be sent down.)
  "When any petition against the return of any member shall have been duly presented, the election judges shall, before trying the same, forthwith appoint two barristers, of not
  1280
  less than seven years' standing, as Commissioners; and such Commissioners shall forthwith proceed to the county or borough to which such petition shall relate, for the purpose of inquiry, and report as hereinafter provided, "—(Mr. Edward Clarke.)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, the clauses he proposed to add to the Bill were the result of practical experience, and were drawn up with the object of making Election Petitions of a more practical character than they were at the present time. If the Committee were anxious to make Election Petitions so that they would work, they could have no difficulty in adopting these clauses, at any rate in a modified form. The first was with regard to the time at which an Election Petition should commence after the security was lodged. His object in bringing forward this clause was, in the first place, to put a stop to the enormous expense incurred by both the petitioner and the respondent; and, in the second place, to stop the utter hindrance to carrying on any business in the borough or place in which a Petition was pending, and also to stop the ill-feeling which always existed whilst it was on the tapis. In his own case—and he believed he was the only Member of the House who had won his seat on a Petition—his Petition was lodged in the month of July, but it did not come on for hearing until December; the consequence being that during the whole of the interval both parties had kept the borough in a state of perpetual excitement. Directly one man had given his evidence he was watched by both sides. He was watched by one side to see that he was not got at by the other side, and he was watched by the other side to see if they could get at him. The state of feeling in the borough was such that, practically, all business was suspended. Without taking up any more time he would simply move the first paragraph of his clause.
  New Clause:—
  (Trial of election petitions.)
  "The trial of an election petition shall commence within one month of the day on which security is lodged, provided the Election Judges

  1281
  are not engaged on another petition, in which case it shall commence as soon as such petition, or any other that has precedence, is finished,"—(My. Dixon-Hartland,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he only now moved the first paragraph of the clause. The second paragraph provided for the continuation of every Election Petition de die in diem from the time of its commencement on every lawful day until its conclusion, and the third paragraph had reference to the place of trial.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was impossible to make it obligatory upon those engaged in Petitions to commence within a month of the day on which security was lodged. The security had to be inquired into, and very often it took a long time to do that and to deliver particulars. It was impossible to say that, under all circumstances, a Petition could be lodged within the time specified in the clause.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was glad his hon. Friend (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) had brought this matter before the Committee, because undoubtedly sometimes there had been very considerable delay in commencing the proceedings in the case of Election Petitions. No one could doubt that if there was a considerable delay after a Petition was presented there was great risk of certain operations being carried on which not only tended to the want of success of the Petition, but led to a great deal of corruption taking place in the borough. If they could adopt means to ensure a Petition being heard at the earliest possible period it would be well, and it seemed to him, therefore, that this clause was worthy of the utmost consideration.
  MR. WARTONconsidered the real evil they had to deal with was the insufficiency of the Judges appointed to try these cases. There was an admirable rota of three Election Judges; but when a General Election came, and there was a good crop of Petitions, it was found that the Judges were too few, and that was the real secret of the delay which, in matters of this kind, ought not to be allowed to take place. It was
  1282
  not correct, as the Attorney General suggested, that the delay was owing to the necessity for instituting inquiries with regard to the security. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, or some Member of the Government, would use his influence one of these days with his Colleagues in order to get more Judges appointed for work of this kind, he would be doing very valuable service. Chancery at this moment was in a disgraceful state of block. The Judges cost very little considering their value; and, looking at the fact that when a General Election came it might be necessary to have double or even treble the number of Election Judges that at present could be supplied, he thought his suggestion ought to receive the very best attention of the Government. He ventured to predict that after the next General Election there would be an immense crop of Petitions owing to the action of this measure.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the substance of the clause, whatever exception might be taken to the way in which it was worked out, was to require the parties engaged in an Election Petition to proceed with due speed with the case. To the best of his belief in every action in a Court of Justice it was necessary that each stage should be taken within a certain period. If the Attorney General thought the mode proposed was too summary, and that the period of time was not sufficient to allow an Election Petition to mature, he would suggest that some negotiation or arrangement should be entered into between the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General and his hon. Friend (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) before the Report stage, to see whether some scheme could not be devised for effecting the object they had in view. Such matters as these ought not to be left in an indefinite state and allowed to linger on, and it was essential, in the interest of justice, that Petitions should be heard with all speed; and they ought to insist upon regular progress. If this clause were not now accepted, it should only be refused on the understanding that the question would be dealt with later on.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked whether the Attorney General would accept two months as the period at which the Election Petition should com-

  1283
  mence after the lodging of the security?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not even accept that, seeing that inquiry had to be made as to security and into the allegations of the Petitioners.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, the next clause he had to move was as to the continuance of the trial, and, to his mind, it was even a more important one than the last clause he had moved. He had in his eye the case of the Worcester Petition, which had been heard in the Court for nine days, when the Court rose to proceed somewhere else for the purpose of hearing another Petition. The Court rose for two months and a-half; and what was the result? Why, the result was this—that witnesses—he would not say on which side—were unfairly got at during the interval; and when the Judges came back, and the Petition came on again, it bore an entirely different character to that which it had assumed before. He now proposed that the trial of every Petition should from the time of its commencement be continued de die in diem on every lawful day until its conclusion. He also thought that the rota Judges, should their authority expire before the close of a trial, should have their powers prolonged, so as to enable them to hear a Petition to its conclusion.
  New Clause—
  "The trial of every election petition shall from the time of its commencement be continued de die in diem on every lawful day until its conclusion, and in case the rota of judges for the year shall expire before the conclusion of the trial, the authority of the judges shall continue for the purpose of such petition until its conclusion."—(Mr. Dixon-Bar-Hand.)
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the instance to which the hon. Gentleman referred was, to the best of his belief, the only one which had occurred. He did not wish to express an opinion upon that, lest it should be thought that his opinion was that the Judges had not acted properly.
  1284
  He quite agreed that no lengthened postponement should take place if it could be prevented; but that which had taken place at Worcester was a thing which had never occurred before, and which, in all likelihood, would never take place again. Therefore, it seemed to him that in adopting a clause of this kind they would be going further than there was any call upon them to go. The clause said—
  "The trial of every election petition shall from the time of its commencement he continued de die in diem on every lawful day until its conclusion."
  Well, it might be impossible to obey that provision, for the reason that an adjournment might sometimes be necessary for the production of a witness, or on account of the illness of the Judges, or of some sudden calamity. He appreciated the spirit of the proposal; and as there was only one case in which a difficulty had arisen—a case over which the late Lord Justice Lush had presided—he would ask the hon. Member whether he really thought it necessary to press the clause, which would impose great restrictions upon the discretion of the Judges, and which could not in all cases be carried into practical effect?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was glad to hear what fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General as to the desirability of having Election Petitions tried without delay. Though the hon. and learned Gentleman did not desire to express an opinion with regard to the postponement of the Worcester case, he (Mr. E. Stanhope) was not at all reluctant to do so. To his mind, that postponement was one of the greatest scandals which had ever occurred in connection with a like matter. If he had had an opportunity, which, unfortunately, he had not, he should certainly have brought the matter under the notice of the House; because he considered they ought to mark in some special manner their sense of what had taken place on that occasion. He did not desire to go into that questiod now, however, No doubt, the reasons which had moved Her Majesty's Judges were good and sound to their minds; but the effect had been most injurious; and if this sort of thing happened in the future, the effect of this Bill in putting an end to corrupt practices would be entirely defeated. He

  1285
  believed the hon. Member was perfectly justified in bringing this clause before the Committee; and, if he (Mr. E. Stanhope) might make a suggestion, he would propose to insert in the section some words to this effect—"as far as practicable," so as to meet a difficulty which might arise in the course of the hearing of an Election Petition by a Judge being taken ill, or an adjournment being necessary for the production of a witness. At any rate, they ought to take some means to declare in that House their opinion in favour of Election Petitions being carried on without delay.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) with regard to the rota Judges was a very good one, because it would lead to great inconvenience if the authority of a Judge expired in the middle of a trial. He had a strong recollection of a difficulty having occurred in regard to this matter—he forgot exactly what it was; but he believed it was some thing like the Petitioner having lost his costs.
  MR. LEWISremarked, that the hon. Member who had just sat down was right in his supposition that there had been a difficulty in regard to this matter. What had happened was this—that on the very day before the judgment was delivered the rota expired, and the Judge, being pressed by counsel who were likely to be defeated in the judgment, considered that he had a right to discharge himself in that case, and give judgment, as the case had been fully heard. As to the substance of the proposed clause, it appeared to him (Mr. Lewis) the fact that only one case of the kind had occurred was not an argument against the proposal, but rather an argument in favour of it. If the Legislature refrained from marking its sense of disapprobation of things of this kind, they would be very likely to have them repeated in the future. The rule as to delivering to respondents the particulars of cases against them was that they should be given in three or five days after having lodged security—in fact, he had known them delivered as late as five days. The theory was that they should not allow the respondent to know the names of the persons who were alleged to have been bribed any sooner than could be avoided, to prevent possibility of their being got at. Let them
  1286
  consider how this would work out in a case like Worcester. Suppose a respondent knew five or six days before the case came on the individuals who were to be charged with bribery, he would have those five or six days, plus two or three months, before most of these people were examined, in order to get at them. The object of the new clause was one which it would be difficult to get over by argument, and it did not appear to him that it would be any stigma upon the Judges if they inserted it in the Bill. He would suggest, however, that, in order to leave some discretion with the Judges, it would be well, after the word "commencement," to insert the words "except for some special reason." That would obviate any interference with the discretion of the Judges. He would, therefore, move the insertion of these words, either after the word "commencement" or after the word "conclusion "—
  "Except for some special reason sufficient in the opinion of the learned Judge."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)suggested that, after the word "shall," they should insert—
  "So far as is practicable consistently with the interest of justice."
  MR. LEWISsaid, he was afraid that the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman would just let in the very case of the adjournment in the Worcester Petition. The ground for that adjournment was that the Judges wanted to go and try some other case, and they might, under these words, have adjourned on the plea that they were doing so "in the interest of justice."
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the difficulty now pointed out by the hon. Member for Londonderry had suggested itself to his mind at the same moment. He thought they should adopt some words which would prevent anything like a repetition of the Worcester case. It would be better to provide for another Judge than to allow a second Worcester case to occur.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, there would be no difficulty, if his clause were adopted, in adjourning to procure a witness. That had been done in one case within his knowledge. In a case where a notorious witness from Birmingham was required, the Judge hearing

  1287
  the Petition adjourned the proceedings for his production.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that the clause expressly stated that a Petition should go on do die in diem.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDremarked, that if the clause remained unamended that difficulty could be got over, because it would be very easy to meet in the morning, and immediately adjourn.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, they might say that a Petition should be heard, as far as was practicable, de die in diem. That would allow an adjournment for the production of a witness.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he should be glad to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General in connection with that of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson).
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought that, under the present system, the Judges were rather under the control of the Lord Chief Justice, who seemed to send them anywhere he liked. He (Sir E. Assheton Cross) certainly thought that while Judges were trying an Election Petition there should be no power to call them away to the Old Bailey, or anywhere else, to try criminal or Nisi Prius cases. That was what it was now sought to prevent by this clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken—no such cases had ever occurred. Election Judges on the rota had all fulfilled their Election duties before they came back for ordinary judicial work. The only one case in which a Petition had been postponed for any time was that of Worcester, where the Judges left one Petition to hear another Petition. He thought it would be easy later on to frame words to meet the difficulty in question.
  MR. WARTONsuggested that they might get over the difficulty by accepting words to this effect—
  "So far as was practicable consistently with the interest of justice in respect of the case under investigation."
  Clause read a second time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he should be willing
  1288
  to accept the clause if, after the word "shall," they would permit him to insert the words—
  "So far as is practicable consistently with the interest of justice in respect of such case."
  MR. LEWISsaid, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow him to correct his memory in one particular. The late Lord Justice Lush had taken the course he did for the reason that they had got through the case, and had only to deliver judgment. If they had been in the middle of the examination of a witness or an incomplete case, it would not have been done.
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 1, after the word "shall," insert "so far as is practicable consistently with the interest of justice in respect of such case."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MONKasked whether it was intended to leave in the latter part of the clause with regard to the rota Judges?
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, that was part of the clause which they had just read a second time.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he now begged to move the third part of his proposal—namely, that—
  "Every Election Petition shall be tried within the limits of the constituency."
  In his own case, the Judges had decided that, as there was not a house in which they could reside in the borough, they would go to a neighbouring city. The result was that the witnesses and persons concerned in the trial had to go from Evesham to Worcester, a distance of some 15 miles, every day; and the consequence of this was that the parties were put to enormous expense. On one side alone the cost was £2,500, which, when brought before the Taxing Master subsequently, was reduced to £213. It seemed to him to be a public scandal that, for the sake of suiting the convenience of the Judges, a Petitioner should be obliged to pay such an enormous sum as that. What ought to be done was this. If it were impracticable for the Judges to reside in the borough in which the Petition was to be heard, the Judges

  1289
  should be conveyed from their lodgings to the place where the Court was being held by special train, instead of the whole paraphernalia of the Petition being carried to the Judges. The parties had done their best to curtail the number of witnesses, and the consequence was that very often they had, at the request of the Judges, to send off special carriages to bring down witnesses who had never been before, or to fetch back those who had already been in attendance. To his mind it seemed most important that the trial should take place within the limits of the constituency.
  Motion made, to insert the following Clause:—
  "Every Election Petition shall be tried within the limits of the constituency."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not agree with this proposal. The law at present was that the trial should take place in the county or borough to which the Petition related, unless in the opinion of the Court—namely, the Court of Common Pleas Division—special circumstances existed that rendered it desirable that the trial should take place elsewhere, in which event the Court might appoint some other place for the trial. According to the hon. Gentlemen's proposal, whatever the special circumstances might be, it should be positively necessary for the trial to take place within the limits of the constituency. The Committee could well understand that there might be cases in which it would be positively dangerous to insist on the trial taking place within the limits of the constituency. There might be cases in which there was no Court-house, and no facilities for hearing a Petition, or there might be the probability of intimidation or rioting in a place in which Party feeling ran very high. In fact, there might be a combination of circumstances of this kind, which would render it highly undesirable that the trial should take place in the immediate locality, and yet the hon. Gentleman wished them to say that the Court should have no power
  1290
  whatever to remove from the limits of the constituency. At present they could not remove to another place without special permission from the Court of Common Pleas; and he certainly did not think that it would be advisable to deprive that Court of the power of exercising their discretion.
  MR. LEWISexpressed a hope that the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) would not tell them anything more of his Worcester experience, or they would be led to believe that they were very unruly people in that part of the country, and were absolutely unable to do anything regularly or properly. He would propose that as they had now done away with the use of public-houses for committee rooms, and put a stop to all corrupt practices in those places, they might now very well be used for the hearing of Election Petitions. It seemed to him that the grievance of his hon. Friend was a very serious one, and one which ought to be remedied by the Committee. It should be made more clear in the Bill that the candidates, with their witnesses and counsel, were not to be taken away miles and miles from the locality in which the questionable practices had occurred, without some very special cause—they should not be removed for the mere reason that it would be more convenient for the Judges to sit in a large city.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKwanted to know why the case referred to was not tried in Evesham. Was it owing to the absence of a Court-house? There were many boroughs in England where, although they had a Court-house accommodation, there were no Judges' lodgings; and he should very much like to know from the Law Officers of the Crown whether the fact that there were no Judges' lodgings in a certain district was a reason why an inquiry should not be held there? If there were no Judges' lodgings, then came the question as to whether the Judges should or should not have allotted to them for their occupation premises which were licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors? Why should not the Judges stay in one of the hotels or taverns in the constituency? This was a most important point—at any rate, it was very important to the parties who took part in proceedings connected with Election Petitions.

  1291
  He certainly thought that the Judges should be moved to the constituency, and not the constituency moved to the Judges.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he thought that words could easily be put into the clause to meet the difficulty suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. Many persons would be prevented from petitioning when they knew that the case would not be tried in their own borough. Would it not be possible to insert words to the effect that the Petition should be tried within the limits of the constituency, unless rioting, disturbances, or something of that kind was likely to happen?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it seemed to him that they could not do more than let the words of the Statute to which he had referred remain in force. It was necessary, in order to justify a removal, that the circumstances should be special circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court of Common Pleas. No doubt the Court, in ordering the change of venue, had had regard to the special circumstances of the case.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was sorry to hear that, because it seemed to him in the instance which had been referred to the Judges had made an ill-advised change of venue. It appeared that they had gone to Worcester instead of remaining at Evesham because they had not had sufficient accommodation. The question of accommodation for the Judges in that case had put the parties to a cost of some £6,000 for the conveyance of their witnesses and counsel to and from Evesham and Worcester. Such an evil as that ought to be met; although, no doubt, on public grounds there should be a power left to the Court of changing the venue under certain circumstances. The latter point, however, had nothing to do with the case they wanted to meet, and it certainly seemed to him that because the Judges wanted to live in better rooms than they could get in one borough was no reason why the venue should be changed, as it had been in the case of Worcester.
  MR. GORSTreminded the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General of a maxim which was always observed in practice at the Bar—namely,
  1292
  that they should not act too hastily upon ex parte statements. In this case they ought to hear what the Judges had to say before they passed a vote of censure upon the Court of Common Pleas for what they had done in the Worcester case. For his own part, he should be most reluctant to believe that the Court of Common Pleas really transferred the venue from Evesham to Worcester, merely because there was not a place for them to live in the former borough. he did not think, unless they really felt that the Court of Common Pleas, or the Lord Chief Justice, could not be trusted with discretion, they could better the words of the present Statute to which the Attorney General had referred. Under this Statute the Court of Common Pleas had power to remove the venue under certain circumstances. Somebody must be trusted with a discretion in the matter, and if they could not trust the Court of Common Pleas, who were they to trust?
  MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he could not help thinking that if the decision of the Court of Common Pleas was subject to any appeal, it was not necessary that any alteration should be made in the law. Some discretion must be left with the Judges.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he believed the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas was transferred to the Queen's Bench Division. He thought there had been an appeal from their decision; but he fancied there was none now.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, that unless some clause of this kind was adopted, it would go forth to England that certain constituencies would not be able to have a Petition at all—constituencies, for example, where there were no Court-houses, or where there were no Judges' lodgings large enough to satisfy the Judges. He would agree with anything the Attorney General liked to insert in the clause; but he certainly thought that something should be done to ensure Petitions, where possible, being tried within the limits of the constituency.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he hoped the clause would be withdrawn, and the matter would be left with the Judges. He should not think the Judges would arrive at conclusions which were disastrous to the parties; and if anything of the kind had been done in the

  1293
  past, it must have been with, very great reluctance on the part of the Judges. He was acquainted with the Judges who had sat upon the Petition in question. It would be impossible for the Committee to ask for more than they already possessed in the Act of Parliament to which reference had been made.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, the next clause he had to propose was with regard to scrutiny, and ran as follows:—
  "When a person who has been a candidate petitions against the election and claims the seat, the election judges may declare the petitioner to have been duly elected without requiring a scrutiny if the return shows that the rotes recorded in favour of such petitioner amounted to not less than two-thirds of those obtained by the candidate who was returned at the election."
  In his own case, he had been able to upset 45 votes on a scrutiny. He proposed that the Petitioner should be declared duly elected only where he had obtained a substantial number of votes. If the Attorney General could not accept his proposal exactly as it stood, he, at any rate, trusted that he would accept it in principle, and amend it as he thought desirable.
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he did not understand the reasons of his hon. Friend for proposing this clause. He did not understand why, supposing he polled 9,000 votes, and the opposition candidate polled 6,000, and it was proved that someone in his name, but without his knowledge, had committed some illegal act which rendered his election void, his opponent should obtain the seat. It seemed to him impossible to accept this proposal.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Member (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had anticipated not only his objection to the clause, but also the very figures he had been about to suggest. He could not accept the clause.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, he wished to propose the following Clauses in page 28, after Clause 36:—
  (Appointment of Election Commissioners in every case of successful petition.—Amendment of 15 and 16 Vic. c. 57.)
  "(1.) (a.) In every case of a petition trial in which the respondent is unseated for corrupt or illegal practices committed by himself or through his agents, it shall be the duty of the Attorney General, at the earliest convenient day, to lay upon the Table of the House of Commons the names of three barristers [status, &c, in accordance with the Act fifteenth and sixteenth Victoria, chapter fifty-seven, section one, as amended by thirty-first and thirty-second Victoria, chapter one hundred and twenty five] as Royal Commissioners, to be appointed to inquire into the corrupt and illegal practices which prevailed at the late election, or any previous election.
  "(b.) If the names be not challenged within one month, the Attorney General shall appoint these persons as Election Commissioners. If the names be challenged, the Attorney Genera shall, within a period of one month, move that these, or such other persons as he names, shall be appointed as Election Commissioners; and the House shall thereupon appoint these persons, or some other three persons possessing the required qualification, as Royal Commissioners."
  (Report of Special Commissioner, if adverse, to he followed by Royal Commission.)"
  (2.) If a Special Commissioner t, section forty) reports that, to the best of his knowledge, corrupt and illegal practices 'extensively prevailed,' it shall be the duty of the Attorney General (acting in accordance with the instructions contained in the Act of the fifteenth and sixteenth Victoria, chapter fifty-seven, as amended by the thirty-first and thirty-second Victoria, chapter one hundred and twenty-five) to move for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter."
  (Suspension of writ.)
  "(3.) The writ shall in every case be suspended until after the Election Commission shall have reported."
  (Prosecution of guilty persons.)
  "(4.) (a.) If there is evidence sufficient (contained in the Report of the Royal Commissioners or elsewhere) to justify and support a prosecution against any persons reported as guilty of corrupt or illegal practices by the Election Court, the Election Commissioners, or the Special Commission, the writ shall be further suspended until after the prosecutions have taken place.
  "(b.) It shall he the duty of the Attorney General to introduce such prosecutions at that earliest convenient date."
  (Issue of new writ in every case.)
  "(5.) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General, at the earliest convenient opportunity after the Election Commissioners have reported, or, where prosecutions are instituted, after they have been decided, to move in every case the issue of a new writ [the persons scheduled by

  1295
  the Election Commission being, under sections thirty-one and thirty-two, incapacitated from taking part in the subsequent election]."
  (Instructions to the Election Commissioners.—Amendment of section 6 of 15 and 16 Vic. c. 57.)
  "(6.) The instructions given to the Election Commissioners shall run as follows:—
  "Such Commissioners shall, by all such lawful means as to them appear best, with a view to the discovery of the truth and to the subsequent punishment of the guilty, inquire into the manner in which the election …… has been conducted; and whether any corrupt or illegal practices have been committed at such election …… and if in the course of their inquiries it appears to them that any of the candidates, agents, or chief workers at the election were guilty of corrupt or illegal practices, they shall fake especial care not to call and indemnify all or any of these persons. And, generally, they are to call and indemnify as few of the bribers as possible consistently with a substantial revelation of the corrupt or illegal practices which prevailed …… they shall report to Her Majesty the evidence taken by them, and what they find concerning the premises, and especially such Commissioners shall report, with respect to each election, the names of the persons whom they find to have been guilty of corrupt or illegal practices …… and all other things whereby, in the opinion of the Commissioners, the truth may be known, and the guilty punished."
  This proposal might seem somewhat startling, because it practically involved the total abolition of the disfranchisement of peccant boroughs; but he thought he could show that it was not so devoid of common sense as it might appear on the face of it. He presumed it was the endeavour of the Committee, in passing a Bill of this kind, to obtain the exposure of crime and the punishment of the guilty; and the only possible means by which it could be obtained in this Bill, more especially as the 40th clause had been withdrawn, was by removing all stumbling blocks out of the way of bonâ fide Petitioners. Well, it seemed to him that the existence of the punishment of disfranchisement did throw an enormous stumbling block in the way of bonâ fide Petitions. It could easily be understood that no one would care about petitioning, if he were certain that instead of obtaining what he desired—namely, the unseating of a candidate—it would be shown that corrupt practices extensively prevailed, and the borough would be disfranchised, thus punishing the innocent as well as the guilty, and involving them both in one common ruin. The law, as it stood, was no more likely to encourage Petitioners
  1296
  than they would be likely to encourage prosecutions by enacting that a prosecutor on proving a prisoner guilty should receive the same punishment as that imposed upon the guilty person, and no benefit at all. It was notorious that very frequently before a Petition was actually brought, at the last moment, a great deal of influence was brought to bear upon the parties intending to petition to induce them to refrain for fear of the disfranchisement which would follow. He believed that in the case of the Sandwich Election Petition one side, if not both sides, had offered to pay the whole of the election expenses of Sir Julian Goldsmid—that was to say, the costs to which he had been put—if he would withdraw the Petition, so that there might be no exposure, and so that Sandwich might continue in its iniquity. He thought in the same way the fear of bringing about disfranchisement deterred witnesses in many cases from giving evidence. In the case of Gloucester, it would be remembered the Election Judges reported that they had discovered a few cases of bribery; but they were unable to say whether corrupt practices had extensively prevailed or not. The House actually divided upon the question as to whether a Royal Commission should be appointed. That Royal Commission having been appointed, nearly 2,000 persons were, in the result, scheduled for bribery committed at that election. That was sufficient to show that Election Petitions were sometimes hushed up in a most scandalous manner. After a Petition had been presented, it was very often the desire of the parties to minimize the guilt of those who had committed corrupt practices, in order to reduce the chance of disfranchisement following. As many as 8,000 people had been scheduled for bribery by the late Royal Commissions, and in only 12 cases had certificates of indemnity been refused. The punishment of disfranchisement was one of the worst possible punishments. It was rarely enforced, as it was much too heavy a punishment to be lightly inflicted; and it was not inflicted at the time of the commission of the offence, and, therefore, had no deterrent effect upon those who were guilty of the iniquities. During the excitement of election no one thought of disfranchisement, or if they did, perhaps, they

  1297
  would bribe even more for the sake of preventing the presentation of a Petition. It seemed to him that if the punishment of disfranchisement were got rid of, they would get rid of all sympathy for a peccant borough, and it would be the desire of all people to obtain the exposure of guilt; and they would be much more likely to arrive at the result at which they were all aiming—namely, to obtain the detection of real crime, and the punishment of the guilty.
  New Clauses brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clauses be read a second time"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, these clauses were open to very grave objections. The hon. Member proposed that in every case of a Petition there should be a Commission, even if there were only one case of bribery. Then it was proposed that the Attorney General should, at the earliest convenient opportunity, move the issue of a new Writ in every case—that was to say, if five-sixths of the constituency were proved to have been corrupt. It was true that the clause said "after all the prosecutions had been decided;" but that did not make the proposal any the less objectionable. Under the circumstances, he was unable to consent to the introduction of the clauses.
  Clauses, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. STANTONsaid, it was, in his opinion, desirable that the person petitioned against should be able to give retaliatory evidence, and the clause which he asked to be read a second time would allow the Court to call for evidence of other persons than the person petitioned against having committed illegal or corrupt practices, if the Court thought fit to do so. It seemed to him a clear injustice that the Petitioner who himself had been guilty of corrupt practice should be enabled to attack and unseat a successful candidate, and that the successful candidate should not be allowed, in any way whatsoever, to challenge the conduct of his opponent. The principle he contended for was recognized in some Courts of Law and Justice, where the plaintiff could not obtain a verdict unless he came into Court, so to speak, with clean hands;
  1298
  and he therefore trusted the Attorney General would have no difficulty in agreeing to the introduction of the clause. He believed its adoption would, in many cases, prevent the presentation of vexatious Petitions, and remove a clear injustice. As the Bill stood, if the successful candidate had been guilty of corrupt practice his seat could be successfully petitioned against; while his opponent, also, perhaps, guilty of the same offence, quietly walked over the course. His own borough offered an illustration of this; and he was certain that, in that case, if it had been in the power of the successful candidate to produce evidence of the kind described in the clause there would have been no Petition at all. He begged to move the following Clause, on page 25, after Clause 37:—
  (Evidence of corrupt practices at trial of election petitions.)
  "At the trial of an election petition the Court may call for evidence of any person having committed an illegal or corrupt practice, although that person be not named in the petition; and the person or persons petitioned against may produce and give evidence of corrupt and illegal practices by the petitioners or their agents, or by any candidate or his agents at the election before the Court; and the Court shall deal with such evidence and such persons in the same manner as they would deal with evidence or persons brought before it by the petitioners."—(Mr. Stanton.)
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he regretted his inability to accept this clause. It would be impossible that the parties to the Petition could have notice of the evidence to be given against them under this clause, as was the case with the parties against whom the Petition was presented. The proposal of the hon. Member would add very much to the cost of Petitions, which was already very great.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he thought that all the practical effect which the hon. Member for Stroud had in view might be obtained by the clause providing for the intervention of the Public Prosecutor.
  MR. STANTONsaid, he did not think the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) would

  1299
  quite meet the object lie had in view. The best persons to find out corrupt practices on the part of the Petitioner were the parties who were themselves attacked. The knowledge necessarily acquired by a successful candidate in defending his own position gave him opportunities of finding out, better than anyone else could, the delinquencies of his opponents. With regard to the argument of the Attorney General that the clause would lead to great expense, surely it would be far less expensive to have the inquiry he advocated than the cost of a second Petition presented against the Petitioner who was successful on the first Petition. Although the Attorney General had not seen his way to adopt the clause, he was satisfied that the more the hon. and learned Gentleman reflected upon it the more its equity would appear, and the more chance there would be of its subsequent adoption.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn,
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, it sometimes occurred that a gentleman went down to a constituency and nursed it for three or four years; that he was then elected; and that a Petition being afterwards lodged against his return he was unseated. Further, when the new candidate came forward he assisted him in his canvass and introduced him to the constituency, and as the result of the bribery he had previously practised he got the new candidate elected without difficulty. This had happened in a case with which he was acquainted. It was found impossible to prove that the new candidate had employed the unseated Member, who swore in the witness-box that he had not been so employed; but who, nevertheless, when the trial was over, actually brought an action against the man whom he had assisted, and claimed from him £1,000 for services rendered. He (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) contended that it was most unjust to allow a man turned out of a constituency to make use of the bribery already practised by him for the purpose of securing the return of another candidate; and he therefore begged to move the following Clause on page 25, after Clause 37:—
  (Employment of unseated candidate.)
  "No person who has been unseated on petition, or who has been scheduled by the judges
  1300
  on such petition as guilty of a corrupt practice, shall take any part in an election for the purpose of supplying the vacancy just caused, and any act done in contravention of this provision shall be an illegal practice, and if done with the knowledge or connivance of the candidate or his election agent shall render the election void."——(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
  Now Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that the effect of this clause would be that a person unseated on account of an act of bribery committed by his agent was to be treated as a pariah, and not allowed to take any part in an election. In the course of these discussions he had heard a good deal of the penalties proposed in the Bill; but it went beyond anything of the kind that he was acquainted with—that a man, for the act of his agent, should lose his civil right of walking through the streets of the borough when an election was taking place. he was prepared to do everything that was right and proper in order to put down corrupt and illegal practices at elections; but he was not prepared to go the length proposed by the hon. Member for Evesham.
  MR. LEWISsaid, although he had no right to call upon his hon. Friend to pursue any particular course with regard to the Bill, yet it did appear to him that, in framing this Amendment, he had taken a leaf out of the Attorney General's book. It was pleasant to hear that hon. and learned Gentleman expressing his views of the Amendment in the words they had just listened to; because it would seem that hon. Members on those Benches had at last inoculated him with a little leniency. Under the circumstances, he would appeal to his hon. Friend to withdraw the clause.
  MR. WARTONsaid, it was very amusing to hear the Attorney General speaking so strongly against a person losing his civil rights, seeing that he had already provided in the 4th clause of the Bill that a candidate guilty of a corrupt act should be precluded from sitting-in that House for seven years. The Attorney General had only put the case of a Member unseated by the act of his agent; but he would put it to the

  1301
  hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was right that an unseated candidate should go about the constituency and procure for a new candidate the benefit of the bribery he had himself committed?
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked if the Attorney General would accept the clause with the words "personal bribery" added?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): No.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he had no wish to take up the time of the Committee unduly, and he should therefore simply move the clause standing in his name, the object of which was to reduce the cost of Election Petitions. He proposed to insert, on page 25, after Clause 37, the following Clause:—
  (On hearing of election petition counsel may not appear.)
  "On the hearing of any election petition no person, whether petitioner or respondent, shall appear by counsel, but each party shall be entitled to appear and he heard by one solicitor."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not agree to the clause, the effect of which would be to substitute the cost of solicitors for that of counsel.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the conveyance of voters to the poll having been prohibited, fears were entertained that unless some provision were made for an increased number of polling places a large number of voters would be disfranchised. They had provided that there should be a polling place within three miles of every elector; and he now proposed that in boroughs there should be a polling place at a distance not exceeding one mile from the voter's residence. He trusted the Attorney General would see his way to adopt the clause; and he would not occupy the time of the Committee further then to say that there was a feeling in the country that increased facilities ought to be
  1302
  given for the polling of the working classes. He proposed to add, on page 30, after Clause 44—
  (Polling places.)
  "Where a borough has been divided into polling districts, every elector resident within the borough shall have a polling station within a distance not exceeding one mile from his residence, so nevertheless that a polling place need not be provided for less than one hundred electors. This section shall not apply to the boroughs mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act."—(Mr. H. S. Fowler.)
  New Clause, brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought this would be found to be a very difficult question to solve. Although he had looked into the matter, he was not at present in possession of sufficient information to enable him to deal with it. Some of the boroughs which were not populous covered districts of a considerable area—that was to say, of three miles in diameter or 18 miles in circumference—and if they said that every voter should have a polling place within one mile of his residence, they would run the risk of multiplying the polling places, which were already very numerous, and unduly increasing the expense. It was no question of the number of polling places, but of the expense that would be incurred in providing them. The question was entirely a practical one, and he did not think that abstract speaking on the matter would solve the difficulty they had to deal with. His view was that polling places should be provided for not less than every 200 electors, and not for every 100, as the hon. Member proposed. He suggested that this would be a safer limit; and if the hon. Member was willing to insert "two hundred," he would assent to the second reading of the clause, but on the understanding that it should be subject to further inquiry and consideration on Report. He would, however, prefer the withdrawal of the clause, so that information might be taken from the borough Members.
  MR. C. H. JAMESsaid, he did not think it would be possible always to get 100 voters in an area where the polling place should be not more than a mile distant from the residence of every voter.

  1303
  It was most necessary to proceed carefully in this matter, and he trusted his hon. Friend would follow the suggestion of the Attorney General.
  MR. LEWISsaid, as the proposal was of an abstract character, its discussion might lead to embarrassment. As the conditions varied, he thought the matter required further investigation before the clause was agreed to; and therefore' he trusted the hon. Member would withdraw the clause, as suggested by the Attorney General.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERdenied that this was an abstract proposition—it was a practical proposal; and he felt so strongly with regard to it that, although he was ready to follow the suggestion of the Attorney General, he should certainly raise the question again. He was willing to withdraw the clause in order to give an opportunity of obtaining further information, and upon the understanding that the hon. and learned Gentleman would bring up a clause on Report. If it was the intention of the Attorney General to consult the local authorities, he would say at once that he did not attach great importance to their opinion, because they would always recommend the establishment of the smallest number of polling places. He was willing to accept the "two hundred" limit. He maintained that where there were 200 electors in an area they required a polling place near their residence, and that they ought to have it. With regard to the expense, he thought the arguments founded upon that were being carried a little too far. Candidates had been relieved from all the expenses of conveying voters to the poll, and he thought they were in a position to afford the cost of the additional polling places that were actually necessary.
  MR. BROGDENsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would take into consideration the desirability of enabling voters by some convenient means to register their votes near the places where they worked. Many members of the working classes had to walk a considerable distance from home to the place where they were employed; and unless the facility he asked for was accorded them it would be impossible for those persons to vote at all, seeing that conveyance to the poll had been prohibited.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid, his views of this matter were the same as that of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Brogden). There were 120 polling places in Liverpool, which were sufficient for all but those who had to go miles from home to their business. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would meet the view of the hon. Member opposite, he would confer a great benefit on the working class, and remove a difficulty that he was convinced could not be obviated by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had, on a former occasion, drawn the attention of the noble Lord the Member for North Nottingham (Viscount Galway) to the fact that an Amendment dealing with voting papers could not be moved, because it proposed in part to deal with the Ballot Act, to do which the Committee had received no Instruction. Having looked into the present Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, he confessed that he was not able to understand its precise bearing. If he were given to understand that the clause was in any way in contravention of the Ballot, he should rule it out of Order.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, his intention was to prevent personation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)rose to Order. As the clause provided that the voter should sign the voting paper and forward it, the Presiding Officer must have a knowledge of how the voter had voted. He submitted that that was a violation of the secrecy of the Ballot.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, his clause would in no way interfere with the Ballot Act. He wished to prevent the disfranchisement of electors who, as in the case of many he was acquainted with, possessed small freeholds, and had gone to reside 20 or 30 miles from the property. He should be glad if the Committee would allow the clause to be read a second time; the provisions which it contained would completely guard against any advantage being taken of the voting papers.
  MR. GREGORYpointed out that the 1st section of the clause provided for absolute secrecy as to the way the elector voted. The voter was bound to place some cover over the signature, which

  1305
  was a complete guarantee of sercecy. Nothing would be known except that the voter had received a voting paper; there would not be the slightest indication of the person for whom he voted.
  MR. GRANTHAMagreed that the clause as it stood did affect the Ballot Act, because it was the object of that Act to prevent any name being on the voting paper. He hoped, however, the clause would not be ruled out of Order on account of one line in it which might be easily altered. There was simply an inaccuracy of statement on the part of the noble Viscount, and he suggested that the omission of a few words would carry out the object in view.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he had never heard that it was out of Order to move an Amendment to any Bill, because by implication it would repeal or modify an Act of Parliament. It appeared to him to be no reason why the clause of the noble Viscount should not be moved, to say that its effect would be to modify or repeal the Ballot Act.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, there would be no difficulty in seeing how a man voted under the proposal of the noble Viscount, because everyone knew the order in which the candidates' names followed each other, and the gumming and folding would be no protection in this matter.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that, although the noble Viscount had stated that the signature on the paper was intended to avoid personation, it appeared to him that the secrecy of the Ballot Act would be thereby entirely destroyed. It would be for him to hear what proposition the noble Viscount made with regard to the clause before he decided the question as to whether it could be moved. The noble Viscount was not bound to move the clause as it was on the Paper.
  MR. GORSTrose to Order. Was it the ruling of the Chair that no Member of the Committee might move an Amendment to a Bill, which Amendment altered or affected an existing law?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was unnecessary to go into so large a subject. The Committee, having received no Instruction to deal with the important Act of Parliament referred to, would not be justified in considering the Amendment in its Present form.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he wished to ask the Chairman what was the difference between an important and an unimportant Act of Parliament?
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, the question which he desired to bring before the Committee was the practical disfranchisement of a large number of persons which would result from the passing of the Bill in its present form. There were in his own constituency a considerable number of freeholders who had left their property and gone to reside in some of the towns whose railway fares, to and from the polling places, it was under the existing law competent to the candidate to pay. The Committee had decided that the conveyance of voters should be abolished, with a view to the saving of expense. Whatever its effect in that respect would be, he contended that the provision ought not to be used for the purpose of disfranchisement, nor did he think that disfranchisement should form any part of the scheme of hon. Members opposite. He was not proposing anything on behalf of faggot-voters; his clause had reference only to bonâ fide freeholders who had an interest in the country, and who, unless it were adopted, would be precluded from recording their votes. He felt very strongly on this subject, because it was opposed to one's sense of justice that a provision which was intended merely to save expense should be made the means of disfranchising a great number of voters. It was only right that the case of the persons he had in view should be fairly met; and his desire was simply that those voters who resided at a distance from the polling place, and who would suffer a considerable pecuniary loss if they went there at their own cost to record their votes, should be enabled to vote in the manner described in the clause. With regard to its supposed interference with the Ballot Act, he had endeavoured to make it so that the vote should be given without the knowledge of the Justice of the Peace. Before receiving the voting paper the elector would have to make a declaration of his identity, and no one but the Justice of the Peace would see him sign the paper. He believed the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke), who was so strong an advocate of the Ballot, would see that, so far from interfering with its provisions, he was endeavouring to carry out the Act.
  MR. LABOUCHERErose to Order. Was the noble Viscount in Order in making a speech, on an Amendment which was not before the Committee?
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, his object being to prevent personation, he would add to the 1st paragraph of the clause the words—
  "Before marking such voting paper the voter shall sign a declaration of his identity,"
  and then move that the clause be read a second time.
  New Clause, page 30, after Clause 44—
  (Voting papers for out-voters.)
  "Any elector residing more than live miles from the nearest polling station shall be entitled to vote by voting paper, in the following manner:—
  The voter shall, in the presence of a justice of the peace, place a cross or mark in the figure or square printed on such voting paper opposite the name of the candidate or candidates for whom he votes, and shall fold over the names of the candidates, and fasten with gum or other adhesive substance, a portion of the ballot paper, so as to conceal the names of the candidates;
  The voter shall subscribe such voting paper with his own name, and such signature shall be attested by a justice of the peace;
  The voter having thus marked on the voting-paper the candidate or candidates for whom he votes, shall return it in a registered letter to the returning officer, who shall, previous to the election, appoint at what polling booth such papers shall be received;
  The expenses for sending out such voting-papers, and for the registration and postage of such letters, may be legally borne by the candidate, in addition to the maximum amount of expenses allowed by the Act,"—(Viscount Galway,)
  —brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not conceive that the majority of the Committee could possibly accept this clause. The proposal amounted to this—that a person sitting in his own house, without receiving any official paper, taking up any paper he found before him, in the presence of anyone, or at the dictation of anyone, might put his name, or even his cross, opposite the name of any candidate, and when he had done that in the presence of anyone who might be looking on during the operation, he was to gum a piece of paper over the names
  1308
  of the candidates, sign the paper, and send it to the Returning Officer. Under those circumstances, the Presiding Officer would only have to look at the signature or cross in order to see for whom the person voted. But the declaration proposed by the noble Viscount was more remarkable still. What was to prove the identity of the voter? Would the Presiding Officer know his handwriting? He could not perceive how the identification was to be effected. The Chairman had, in his opinion, pointed out a most serious objection to the clause, because they were not dealing with the Ballot Act, but with corrupt practices at elections. The Ballot Act said that a man should vote with secrecy; but by means of the clause and declaration of the noble Viscount, the voter would tell the Presiding Officer how he voted, and the Presiding Officer might tell anyone else what had occurred. But if the Presiding Officer alone were told, the secrecy of the Ballot Act would be entirely gone. That Act was intended to prevent undue influence; but with this provision of the noble Viscount in existence, a landlord might go to a voter and say—"Sign your voting paper here, but do not let me see how you vote;" and that would be a perfectly good vote. This question was an old one, and it had been mooted over and over again—in 1867 and previously—and decided against; and he said that what was regarded as objectionable then was no less objectionable now. The noble Viscount said the clause did not apply to faggot-voters; but he had not excluded them from its operation, and his proposal meant that a rich man could sit in his own drawing room and vote for many constituencies. That was a principle which the Government could not import into a Bill for the prevention of corrupt and illegal practices at elections, one form of those practices being undue influence.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General seemed not to have understood the point of his noble Friend that there would be absolute secrecy in the mode of voting which he proposed. His noble Friend desired that a voter who resided at a certain distance from the polling booth, if he could not get to the polling place, should be allowed to go

  1309
  before a Justice of the Peace, or some officer provided for the purpose, and obtain there a voting paper to be filled up in the manner described. Everyone knew that before this voting paper could be obtained the elector would have to put down his name and address; and his noble Friend said that before he got hold of the voting paper the individual should make a declaration that he was Mr. So-and-so. His noble Friend wanted the same evidence of identity as was required by the Presiding Officer when he asked the voter's name and address, and then turned out his number in the book. The Attorney General said the moment a man made a declaration of identity, the Justice of the Peace, or anyone before whom he appeared, would know for whom he was going to vote. But that was not so, be-cause, after the declaration of identity was made, the voter would get his paper, and, after signing it, he would fold and gum it over the names and send it to the Presiding Officer; and, under those circumstances, no one in the world could know how that man voted. Therefore, he said that the objection raised to the clause on the ground that it would violate the secrecy of the ballot did not lie.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that although the object of the noble Viscount was to provide for non-resident voters, yet the effect of the clause would be to preserve and perpetuate the class called faggot-voters by means inconsistent with the Ballot Act. Under those circumstances, he could not support the clause. He thought it would be better if the Attorney General would advise the withdrawal of the clause, and the Committee could then proceed to discuss, on the next Amendment, the position of a class of persons who ought not to be deprived of the right of voting.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) could not have read the clause of the noble Viscount, or he would not have described it as one for the perpetuation of faggot-voters. The next Amendment referred to county electors only; whereas the Amendment of his noble Friend referred to any elector resident five miles from the nearest polling station. He pointed out that an enormous number of borough voters would on any particular day be residing
  1310
  more than five miles from the nearest voting place, and that in London there were many who lived at a much greater distance. Nor did the clause refer to those alone who resided at a distance permanently, because they would have to include persons who went to work at a distance from the constituency for which they were entitled to vote. If the Committee rejected the clause they would disfranchise almost every workman who happened at the time of the election to be at a distance from the constituency in which he had an interest. In deciding this question they must have a clear issue before them. The clause had been drawn with a great deal of care, in order not to infringe on the Ballot Act. It was aimed entirely at preserving secrecy of voting by nonresident or absent electors; and it was not a question between secret and open voting, but whether Members were prepared to say that there should be an absolute disqualification for temporary absence from a constituency. That was the issue before the Committee, and those Members who voted against the clause would have to accept the responsibility of deliberately determining to disfranchise a considerable number of electors who happened to be away for the time from the place where they ought to vote. The Bill prevented the payment of travelling expenses, and imposed increased penalties in the case of those employers who might be disposed to give their workmen a holiday. That would, therefore, attach to the exercise of the franchise very great difficulties and great embarrassment, thanks to the Party who had in old times been most studiously desirous of extending the franchise. This was the Party which at this moment desired to go to the country, with every confidence, upon the strength of their desire to enfranchise those who had not now got votes, but who, he thought, would not be able to put forward that desire with great sincerity if they passed a Bill which would disfranchise 10 per cent of those who now enjoyed the franchise in boroughs.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was not surprised that hon. Gentlemen made a strong point of this matter, or that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) said it did not infringe on the Ballot Act. In 1867 there was a lengthy debate on this subject, when the Conservative Party were

  1311
  very strong in favour of voting papers. Lord Salisbury, who was then a Member of this House, with that candour which always distinguished him, fairly and fully explained to the House the grounds on which he thought it desirable, from the Conservative point of view, to pass that proposal; and he used a phrase which caused a great noise at the time—namely, "that voting papers would convert every magistrate's parlour into a polling booth." It was very well to say John Jones would turn down the paper; but he would be afraid of the magistrate, and there was no doubt that the strongest influence would be applied to induce men to vote as the magistrate or landlord desired. That Parliament was, perhaps, not so Liberal as the present, and the proposal was voted down by a very large majority.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, there was a good deal of frankness in the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and through that he thought the real objection to this proposal could be seen. The hon. Member and those who sat near him were very likely of opinion that it was right to confine every elector to the constituency in which he resided; but the Bill was not intended to deal with such questions now. That subject must be put on one side, and the discussion confined to the clause upon its merits. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) had shown very shortly what the real object was. By the Bill travelling expenses were forbidden; and so, while rich men who were at a considerable distance from the constituency in which they had votes might bear the inconvenience, poor men were likely to be disfranchised. The Bill was said to be for the purpose of preventing corruption; but here was a proposal which was meant to avoid disfranchisement, and to provide an escape from any charge of inducing anything like undue influence. Reference had been made to the discussions on the last Reform Bill in 1867, which, of course, they all remembered. He was a Member of the Government which introduced that Bill; and it was perfectly true that when a similar clause was under discussion objection was taken to it, that it would give a Justice of the Peace before whom a vote might be registered an opportunity of exercising
  1312
  some undue influence on the voter; and, as elections were taken at that time, it could not well have been otherwise, because all voting was then open, and when an elector went to a polling booth to vote he did so openly, as he would anywhere else. That would give an opportunity for the exercise of undue influence, and no doubt that fact prevailed in inducing the House to reject the clause; but now the case was quite different. Now, votes were given by the secret Ballot, and if secrecy could be secured in the polling booth or anywhere else, the danger of undue influence was got rid of. The noble Viscount had drawn this clause with great care, in order to avoid undue influence. If hon. Members thought he had not succeeded in doing that, they might amend the clause; but the noble Viscount contended, and he thought everybody would agree with him, that the clause would protect voters from any undue influence if fairly worked the question now was, whether that clause was worthy of consideration? He thought they were over scrupulous in some of the provisions respecting conveyance; but if they thought it necessary to make those provisions to prevent undue influence, they were at least bound to correct the injustice of disfranchisement which was threatened. He thought the arguments were. entirely in the noble Viscount's favour, because there were only two objections advanced—one, that the clause would allow undue influence, because it did not provide secrecy; but, in principle, at all events, it did provide secrecy; and, if it did not, it could be amended. The other objection was one which had nothing whatever to do with this Bill; but an effort was being made to introduce, by a side-wind, a principle which the Government did not dare to announce openly—namely, the disfranchisement of non-resident electors.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, it did not seem to him that the question of voting papers had anything to do with the consideration of a Bill for preventing corrupt practices. As to whether this clause would interfere with the secrecy of the Ballot, he thought he could show that it could not possibly be worked without interfering with that secrecy. In the first place, the elector would have to go and be shut up with a Justice of the Peace, in whose hands

  1313
  he was to place Ms voting paper, after marking it. He had the greatest respect for Justices of the Peace; but some were not as intelligent as others, and there was nothing to prevent their looking over the shoulders of voters while they were marking their papers. There was, under this clause, none of the machinery which was provided at polling booths, where it was impossible for anyone to know how an elector voted. But there was a much more serious objection to the proposal. The right hon. Member (Sir R. Assheton Cross) suggested that, in order to his being identified, a voter should sign a declaration; but such a declaration would show the Presiding Officer how the person voted. How was a Justice of the Peace to identify a man who asked to be allowed to vote? When a voter presented himself at a booth the officer could identify him by means of the Register; but was every Justice of the Peace to have a Register? Identification could only be obtained in that way, and in no case could secrecy be secured.
  MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he thought secrecy might be secured by adopting the present method, by which voters were identified, on applying for voting papers, by numbers. What was there to prevent a voter, living five miles away, applying to the Sheriff beforehand for a voting paper, and, having obtained it by means of his number, take it to a magistrate, and make a declaration that he was the person to whom it had been sent? That would, he believed, get over the difficulty; and if that were done there would be no difficulty in carrying out this clause. Although he did not think it would be wise to pass this clause, still he thought it could be carried out in principle; and he should vote for it with the view of its being amended. As to this question of voting papers having nothing to do with the Bill, the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch was rather straining a point, because the clause was proposed in order to get over the difficulties with regard to voting which were now, for the first time, introduced.
  MR. GREGORYpointed out that the Committee were only dealing with a question arising out of a clause which had already been passed. The question was, whether out-voters were to be disfranchised,
  1314
  or some means should be found for enabling them to exercise their franchise, as this clause proposed. These out-voters were generally people of independent means, and not likely to be intimidated by employers or magistrates. The idea of their being influenced was a chimera, and he should support the proposal.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, no one had ventured to answer the observation he had made as to this clause being meant to provide for secrecy, whether it really did so or not. Judging from the debate, a great many Members appeared to desire to disfranchise the out-voters; and they attempted to do that by pulling to pieces the proposal for enabling these electors to vote, by showing its defects in detail; but they did not discuss its defects in principle; and, therefore, he was justified in saying that the object of the Government and of many hon. Members was to disfranchise these out-voters. The principle was that they should be enabled to record their votes without incurring any unnecessary expenditure. That might be dealt with by saying the voters should send to the Revising Barrister the names of the places where they wished to vote. It might be provided that voting papers should be sent to the towns in which the votes were claimed, so as to prevent the voters incurring railway fares and expenses; and the question of identity might be met by requiring them to prove their identity before a Justice of the Peace.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he hoped the Committee would not be forced to a Division upon this clause, which really put him and his hon. Friends in a difficulty. A good many of them could not vote for a clause drawn in this way, and it was open to everything the hon. and learned Member for Christ-church (Mr. Horace Davey) had said. He could not say he had much sympathy with the question of out-voters; for he thought that out-voters were an expensive luxury, and not of very much use to either Party. With regard to voting papers, he did not believe they could ever be made secret; but he was distinctly in favour of them, because he had always been in favour of open voting. He quite recognized the irreconcilability of voting papers with secret voting; but if they were not

  1315
  not reconcilable this clause was impossible as it stood.
  An hon. MEMBERsaid, be had voted against the conveyance of voters to the poll; but be thought something ought to be done which would allow the out-voters to record their votes. The Attorney General had objected to the clause on the ground that it would perpetuate faggot-voting; but, surely, if faggot votes were illegal votes, the proper way to deal with them was to abolish them altogether. So long as they were legal they ought to be allowed to be duly recorded. He certainly could not see why these out-voters should not be allowed to record their votes. Another objection which had been urged against the clause by the Attorney General was, that it would destroy the secrecy of the Ballot Act. But it was not true that there was perfect secrecy under that Act at present, because one of the clauses of the Act provided that in certain cases where a man was blind, or otherwise incapacitated, he should be allowed to mention, in the presence of the Returning Officer and of the agents on each side, the name of the person for whom he was going to vote; and if the out-voter were permitted, under this clause, to send his vote to the Returning Officer, the secrecy of the Ballot Act would not be any more impaired than it was at present. On the other hand, a very large number of persons would be enabled to register their votes, who could not do so under the Bill as it stood. He could not see why the Government should oppose the clause, for he regarded it as a very salutary provision, although it might be possible that some of the Amendments which stood in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman might meet the case better the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Edward Clarke) had objected to these out-voters, on the ground that they were very expensive luxuries; but, surely, the object in view was to do away with the expense which might otherwise be involved.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of prolonging the discussion; but he wished the Attorney General to define what he meant by "faggot voting." That was a term which was very much misused by the Prime Minister during his tour in Mid Lothian, where he made use of many expressions which he afterwards
  1316
  had to withdraw. A faggot voter was not a legitimate voter; and he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) would venture to define what he was. He was a voter who was put, on the Register without possessing a bonâ fide qualification, or a voter, in fact, who had never paid or given any real consideration for the qualification under which he claimed. But a bonâ fide owner of a freehold was not a faggot voter. Would the Attorney General venture to say that he was? Any bonâ fide owner of a 40s. freehold was not a faggot voter, but was as much a legal voter as the hon. and learned Gentleman, or any other hon. Member in the House who possessed a large freehold property. This clause ought to be inserted in the Bill, unless the Government meant to do away with small freeholders altogether—those who happened to be small freeholders, yet who did not reside on their freehold. That was a distinct and intelligible proposition. So long as there were these bonâ fide small freeholds an opportunity ought to be given to the owners to record their votes.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that anyone reading the first line of the clause would fancy that it was meant for voters in a mountainous district far away from a polling place. But the fact was it was very badly drawn, and really applied to any persons living outside the constituency. He could show many ways in which, as the clause was drawn, the secrecy of the Ballot Act would probably be violated; and he maintained that it was impossible, under any system of voting papers, to have that secrecy properly preserved. As had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke), when the Ballot Act was passed no attempt was made to extend it to the Universities, because the House knew that a system of voting papers and secrecy were incompatible. Possibly some day some system might be devised by which voting papers could be used and secrecy still preserved; but that could not be done as they went along. And it should be remembered that not only would the secrecy of the Ballot be violated, but the door would be opened for fraud upon the Returning Officer, upon the Justice of Peace, upon the whole world, for any man could write to the Returning Officer and say he was a particular

  1317
  voter; and the only check which the Returning Officer would have would be to consult the list, and he would not be able to tell whether the man applying was the particular man or not, and he would be obliged to send that man a voting paper. If the clause proposed by the noble Viscount should be agreed to, something would be done which would be of far more importance than the whole Bill. He (Colonel Nolan) hoped the clause would not be accepted, because if it were it would certainly upset the Ballot Act.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEwished, before they proceeded to the Division which he hoped would be taken upon the clause, to ask the Attorney General to take the idea of the clause into his consideration. It would not, he thought, be very difficult so to frame the clause as to make it perfectly compatible with the secrecy of the Ballot. Several hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House had objected to the wording of the clause as proposed by his noble Friend; but if those hon. and learned Members had instead exercised their ingenuity with the view of so framing the clause as to make it insure the secrecy required under the Ballot, no doubt they would have succeeded in doing so. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke) had declared it impossible so to frame a clause as to provide secrecy under such a system of voting; but he (Viscount Folkestone) should be sorry to think the hon. and learned Gentleman's ingenuity was so small as to be unequal to such a task. The reason why he asked the Attorney General to take this matter into his serious' consideration was that in such constituencies as that which he (Viscount Folkestone) had the honour to represent (South Wilts) more than half the voters would be disfranchised without some such provision as this; and the hon. Member for North Wilts (Mr. Long), who sat near him, was in a similar position, having many constituents who resided quite five miles from the polling station; and it would be quite impossible for a great number of them to find time to go and leave their work in order to record their votes at the polling station. The consequence would be that quite half of his (Viscount Folkestone's) constituents, and more than half of the constituents of
  1318
  his hon. Friend the Member for North Wilts, would be entirely disfranchised, unless something was done in the direction proposed by this clause. They should also remember that there was an intention in the mind of Her Majesty's Government to further lower the franchise in counties and assimilate it to the borough franchise. But if, with the present county constituencies, one-half of the voters already in existence would be prevented by the provisions of this Bill from recording their votes, of what use would it be to extend the borough franchise into the counties? That was an argument which ought to go homo to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, because if the constituencies as they now stood were, to a great extent, to be disfranchised by this Bill, it would be of no earthly use proceeding to lower the franchise in future.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he thought that if the constituents of the noble Viscount (Viscount Folkestone) who resided five miles from a polling place were to be disfranchised because of their want of inclination to vote for their favourite candidate, they would deserve their fate. He hoped there would be no yielding on the part of the Government with regard to this clause. The clauses which had been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke) were much preferable to this one, and it would save the time of the Committee if they were to divide at once. He hoped the clause would be effectually squelched, because it was a bad one; and the clause of the hon. Member for. East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) was even still worse, for it gave the voter power, in the presence of a Justice of the Peace, to place a cross upon the voting paper, and thus was an absolute repeal of the secrecy of the Ballot Act. If the proposal were introduced upon the Ballot Act itself, there might be some excuse for it; but he appealed to the Chair to know whether such an Amendment came within the scope of a Bill for the prevention of corrupt and illegal practices? He hoped that in the Division they would, by an emphatic and large majority, utterly rout those parties who were encumbering the Paper with Amendments, and really endeavouring to defeat the Bill by obstruction and procrastination.
  MR. STANTONsaid, he thought the discussion had been a very interesting one; but while he entirely sympathized with the intention of the noble Viscount who proposed the clause, he did not think the clause itself was calculated to carry that intention out. He had clauses of his own to propose later on, to the drafting of which he had given great pains; and he thought they would much more nearly, if not entirely, meet the case, by allowing the out-voter to vote without violating the secrecy of the Ballot.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 163: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 197.)
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSproposed the addition of the following new Clause after Clause 44:—
  (Conveyance of poll to voters in certain cases.)
  "Where a local authority, having power to divide a county into polling districts, is of opinion that there is a portion of the county containing less than one hundred electors, which it is inexpedient to form into a separate polling district, but that, owing to the nature of such portion, the electors resident therein will be unable by reason of having to cross the sea, or a branch or arm thereof, or a mountainous district, to reach, their polling places without a large and disproportionate expenditure, such authority may resolve that further provision ought to he made for taking the votes of such electors at some convenient time within the hours fixed by Law for taking the poll, and in accordance with 'The Ballot Act, 1872,' and this Act, either by conveying a presiding officer and ballot box to the said portion, or otherwise, so that the secrecy required by 'The Ballot Act, 1872,' be duly preserved.
  "The local authority may also, by resolution, fix the maximum charges to be made by the returning officer for making such provision.
  "The local authority shall cause notice of every such resolution to be forthwith given to the returning officer, and the returning officer at every election held more than two months after the date of such resolution shall make the provision required by the said resolution, and shall give notice thereof in the public notice he is required to publish relating to polling stations; and may charge for such provision, in addition to the sums allowed by 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875,' any sums allowed by the said resolution of the local authority.
  "The local authority may from time to time revoke and vary any resolution under this section, and pass a fresh resolution."
  The right hon. Gentleman observed that this clause was of quite a different character from the one just disposed of. As Clause 45 stood originally, it contained
  1320
  a provision for carrying voters across an arm of the sea by steamer; but the Committee rejected that clause. He was quite sure, however, that the Government would agree with him in thinking that some provision should be made for voters who were placed in such a position, and who would practically be disfranchised, unless some provision was made for them. In such a case as the Orkneys, for instance, it was quite necessary that some such provision should be made to allow the electors to give their votes, for they were a poor people, and it would be perfectly impossible for them to go to the poll unless some arrangement was made. The Government had shown, by the clause which they originally placed in the Bill, that they had no intention of practically disfranchising such voters; and as their clause had been thrown out, it was quite clear that some other provision ought to be made for securing the votes. As it had been determined that the voter should not be taken to the poll, he thought it would be well to provide that the Returning Officer and his assistants should be allowed to take the poll to the voter, and the clause had been so drawn as fully to preserve the secrecy required by the Ballot Act. The clause would provide that, in certain cases where the local authorities thought it necessary, the Returning Officer should go round the Islands in a steamer with the ballot box and collect the votes. It would not be necessary in these cases that the poll should be kept open for the whole time, but only for a convenient time. As he had drawn the clause, it also included the case of those mountainous districts in England in which it was very difficult for voters to get to the poll. If hon. Members would look not simply at this Amendment, but at another Amendment of which he had given Notice, to come in after Clause 65, and which specially related to the case of mountainous districts in Scotland, he was quite sure they would see a great difference between the two cases. If the poll was taken to the voter, they might have absolute secrecy preserved, and that could easily be done where the ballot box was kept on board a steamer going round to the various Islands; but it was not quite so clear that could be as easily done in the case of mountainous districts, where the same facilities would not be afforded.

  1321
  His object, however, had been to meet the special case of the Scottish voters; and if the Government could see their way to accept the clause so far as Scotland was concerned, leaving out the mountainous districts of England, he should be content. Although his clause had been very carefully drawn, he did not presume to say that its wording would exactly meet every case that ought to be met; and if the Government wished to alter the wording, so as to meet the case of the Scotch voters, and would either accept the clause now, or bring the subject up again on the Report, he should be content. But he felt bound to propose the clause as it stood, so as to bring the matter before the Government, and to press it upon the Committee, or otherwise great injustice would be done. He did not wish to detain the Committee any longer, and therefore he would move that the clause be inserted.
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not think it was wise to leave to a local authority power of legislation, because, by this Amendment, a local authority would virtually have power to enfranchise some men and disfranchise others; and they might exercise their own views in relation to the way in which the secrecy of the ballot was to be maintained. Having regard to the provisions of the 45th clause, he could not see how it was possible to accept this Amendment; and, although he was anxious to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman, he must ask him to withdraw this clause. If, however, a mode could be discovered of meeting the difficulty, he should be very glad to adopt it.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked if the Government would be good enough to consult the feelings of Scotch Members from that part of Scotland which this clause would affect? There was ample time, between now and Report, to consult Members on both sides of the House in regard to this matter. He did not want to delay the course of the Bill; therefore, if the Government would give him the assurance that before the Report stage they would consult hon. Gentlemen
  1322
  from Scotland, and, if needs be, bring up a clause of their own on Report, he would be willing to withdraw his clause, and support any clause the Government might bring up to grapple with the evil.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had consulted Scotch Members, and Clause 45 was the result of that consultation. They now told him that Clause 45 was what they adhered to. If he could receive any other suggestion that he thought better than Clause 45, of course he would listen to it, and see if it could be dealt with. He would, however, again consult Scotch Members, and see what could be done in the matter.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, there was no doubt that many of the Scotch electors would be disfranchised. On Clause 45, an Amendment was moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Haddington Burghs (Mr. Craig-Sellar), and fault was found with that Amendment by many hon. Gentlemen opposite. As a matter of fact, when they came to vote on Clause 45, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) voted against it himself, and now he said he had heard a good deal on the subject since that time. The other night, in a few remarks the right hon. Gentleman made on the subject, he entreated the Attorney General to make up his mind as to the course he would take respecting conveyances. It certainly appeared that the right hon. Gentleman was suffering from somewhat similar vacillation, because now, having voted against Clause 45 the other night, he came with a proposal of a similar character, and claimed the support of the hon. Member for the Haddington Burghs.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was entirely in favour of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment; and he thought Members representing Scotch constituencies ought to be very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. As he understood the Attorney General, he accepted the principle of the Amendment, but not its details. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): No!] He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman had accepted the principle of the Amendment; at all events, he promised to consider the matter; and he (Sir George Campbell) hoped, on consideration, that he would

  1323
  accept the principle. So far as he understood the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), it seemed to him to be the best that could be proposed, for it was that there should be a kind of peripatetic polling booth going about to the different parts of the country.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHasked if the Committee was to understand that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had no intention of dealing with the mountainous districts of England? If they took one step in accepting this Amendment, there was no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would urge them to take a subsequent step. It must be remembered that the Returning Officer's expenses were really defrayed by the candidate, and that, in reality, what was now proposed was only an indirect way of creeping into the candidates' pockets.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked leave to withdraw his Amendment. He believed that the mountainous districts of England would suffer; but there were many difficulties in regard to those districts which it would be hard to over come. He was satisfied with the assurance of the Attorney General that, so far as Scotch Members were concerned, he would do all be could to deal with this matter on Report.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ANDERSON MR. ANDERSON moved to insert the following Clause after Clause 46:—
  (Election Commissioners not to inquire into elections before the passing of this Act.)
  "Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act 15 & 16 Vict. cap. 57, or any amendment thereof, in any case where, after the passing of this Act, any Commissioners have been appointed, on a joint address of both Houses of Parliament, for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of corrupt or illegal practices in any election, the said Commissioners shall not make inquiries concerning any election that shall have taken place prior to the passing of this Act, and no witness called before such Commissioners, or at any election petition after the passing of this Act, shall be liable to be asked or bound to answer any question relating to any corrupt or illegal practice prior to the passing of this Act: Provided that nothing herein contained shall affect any proceedings that shall be pending at the time of such passing."
  He did not know what views the Committee were inclined to take with regard to this clause; but it was a clause of considerable importance as regarded the
  1324
  future working of the Act. It took for granted that there would be in future greater purity in consequence of the passing of the Bill, and that, partly in consequence of other events that had taken place within the last year or two, a very considerable change of public opinion had arisen as to the question of corrupt practices. It had been too much the practice hitherto to consider everything fair that took place before an election; but he thought such events as the recent imprisoning of certain gentlemen, as well as the passing of this Bill, would create a new public opinion in the matter of corrupt practices. Well, that being so, it might conduce to the working of this Bill if they were to make up their minds that on the passing of the Act there should be a clean bill of health for what had gone before; that bygones should be bygones; and that the new public opinion should have a fair chance of working out a better state of things in the future. In a great many constituencies which had been hitherto very corrupt indeed, there might be, after this Bill passed, a genuine desire to stop all corrupt practices. When it came to a question of a Petition arising under this Act, without such a clause as this, both sides would say to themselves—"If we petition, undoubtedly the Judges must go back and inquire into previous elections, into the circumstances of elections in the old and evil days; and, therefore, a great many of our practices at that time, and of which we are thoroughly ashamed now, will be exposed." The effect of that would be that both sides would agree that they would not petition; and in that way, if there were malpractices under the new Act, they would not be exposed, and would not be punished; therefore the new Act, to a large extent, would be as inoperative as the old Act. It was with the view of endeavouring to avoid such a state of things, and to make the old constituencies purer and better in the future, that he had put down this clause. He hoped the Government would look upon it with some favour.
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, this was a very important clause, and he thought every Member of the Committee ought to bear the responsibility of determining how it should be dealt with. For his part, he thought it would be an advantageous clause, and that they ought to have the moral courage to accept it. His reason for thinking that this clause ought to be passed was not so much to give an armistice to those who had been guilty of corrupt practices, as because he thought that bygones should be bygones. It was a practical question. Once let corruption exist in a constituency to a large extent, by saying it had existed either on the one side or the other, or on both, no Party would dare to petition, and the result was that an impure Party had its opponent at its mercy. If it was said—"Your Party bribed in past times; you have influential men who dare not stand exposure; they will stop a Petition, and the consequence is that we will bribe as we like, because we know that you dare not petition;" if this clause were passed no such argument would hold good. Those in a constituency who were pure would know that they had nothing to fear; and they would know that their opponents, if they indulged in corrupt practices, would be at their mercy; and an impure portion of a constituency dare not indulge in corrupt and illegal practices, because they would know they could be fought with a weapon that was at least certain. There might be some persons who would say that the Members of this Committee were taking this course for the protection of themselves. He had no such fear; he should support this clause simply on the ground that it would enable the pure portion of a constituency to say—"We have no one to save; we have nothing in the past to protect; now we will be pure and attack those who are corrupt." In short, he considered that this clause would be a valuable addition to the Bill.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he was very glad, indeed, to find the Attorney General prepared to accept the principle of this clause, because he believed the clause would be as valuable as any part of the Bill in restoring purity of election to a good many boroughs in the country. There were certain boroughs in which corruption
  1326
  had become traditional, and it was very difficult to get rid of that tradition. He only rose, however, to ask the Attorney General's consideration to the structure of the clause now under consideration. He (Mr. Edward Clarke) had proposed a clause having a like object; but which, in some respects, was substantially different to the present clause. The clause now proposed provided that—
  "No witness called before such Commissioners, or at any election petition after the passing of this Act, shall be liable to be asked or bound to answer any question relating to any corrupt or illegal practice prior to the passing of this Act."
  He confessed that seemed rather an unfortunate provision, because he thought a witness ought to be liable to be asked such questions as far as they affected his own credibility, although the Judges should not have power of inquiring into the circumstances of past elections. He did not know which form of clause the Government would be most willing to adopt; but he should be very glad to see either form take its place on the Statute Book.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he thought the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Edward Clarke) would stand in the way of getting witnesses, or probable witnesses, to agree to allowing any Petition at all; and, therefore, it would not quite meet the case so much as his (Mr. Anderson's) clause. He (Mr. Anderson) was glad to have got so much support from the Government, and he would be quite willing to put the clause in their hands, so that they might deal with it as they thought proper. He had been told that some Members would have great difficulty in proposing an Amendment of this kind; but as Scotch constituencies had such a well-known character for purity he, as a Scotch Member, had ventured to propose a clause of this kind without any hesitation whatever.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONproposed to insert the following Clause after Clause 49:—
  (Any person other than an elector may not interfere in case of a petition.)
  "Any person other than an elector of any county or division of a county, or of any borough or university, in respect of the election of any Member of Parliament of which a petition is being or has been presented, who shall,

  1327
  directly or indirectly, and whether by himself, or in conjunction with others, advance money or incur any liability in reference thereto, and any person giving or receiving any money, meat, drink, entertainment, provision, advancement, or promise of advancement, in respect of such petition, except the actual expenses of attendance at the trial as a witness on the trial of such petition, or in payment of such sums as the taxing-master shall allow in respect of such petition, shall be guilty of a corrupt practice in reference to the said election, and shall be liable to the penalties incident thereto."
  He said the object of this clause was to throw round the unfortunate respondent—for he was an unfortunate person always—some sort of protection. This Bill was, as everybody knew, very severe in its provisions; and, in all probability, it would give rise to a great many Election Petitions. The battle of constituencies would probably be fought quite as much, in some instances, in the Election Courts as in the elections themselves; therefore it was necessary to guard the persons petitioned against from any unfair practice. The object of his clause was, in the first place, to prevent any outside interference. As hon. Gentlemen know full well, while it was necessary at present to deposit a certain sum of money, if that deposit were limited to be made by some elector, or by some person who took an interest in the district, that might be all very well; but if the money was to be provided principally by some outside organization, or by some person utterly unacquainted with the character of the borough, the unfortunate respondent might be placed in an unfair position; and, more than that, the constituency itself might even be prevented from having as its Representative the person of its choice. It was impossible to disguise from themselves the fact that the expenses of Petitions were so enormous that few people would be able to incur them; and, therefore, the choice of constituencies would naturally be limited. A person would not venture to come forward and contest a constituency if there was a great possibility of being petitioned against by large and influential bodies unconnected with the district. He need not say this Bill was a very severe one, because it was probably the first instance in the legislation of this country where, in respect of a Criminal Act, they had been obliged to import into it an Equity Clause. He did not know what their ancestors would have thought if they had been told that in
  1328
  this age it would be necessary to import an Equity Clause into the criminal jurisprudence of the country. As he had already said, the first part of the clause related to outside interference; but, beyond that, there was also a chance—and a very great chance—of corruption in the borough or county itself with regard to an Election Petition. Those hon. Gentlemen who had been unfortunate enough to go through an Election Petition knew very well what a hot-bed of corruption was disturbed the moment an Election Petition was thought of. Evidence was collected in a very strange manner; witnesses were got out of the way; evidence was almost advertised for; and a respondent had to contend against the greatest difficulties. If a respondent were contending against these difficulties in the presence of a jury, he did not think there would be any necessity for this clause, because a jury would be perfectly conversant with the character of almost all the witnesses called before it; but when they left the consideration of these matters to a Judge, the whole circumstances took quite an altered complexion. A Judge was a stranger to the district; he came down knowing nothing of the people; the evidence brought before him was of a character quite new; the respondent would be allowed to make no inquiries into the character of the persons giving evidence; and, indeed, there would be quite a different state of things to what there would be if the Petition were tried before a jury. It was necessary, therefore, to provide that any persons playing an improper part in relation to an Election Petition should be liable to punishment. That was all he suggested in this clause; he desired to provide for the proper protection of the respondent. He certainly looked forward to the time when the House of Commons would again have recourse to its own Members to decide Election Petitions; because he knew no tribunal so equitable, or so much to be depended upon, as one composed of Members of the House of Commons. The time, however, had not arrived for taking such a step; and, therefore, as elections had to be tried by a Judge, it was necessary they should provide punishment for any individual who influenced witnesses in an improper manner. There was another passage at the conclusion

  1329
  of the clause to winch he wished to call attention—namely, that relating to the enormous expenses incurred upon Election Petitions. He did not suppose that he spoke to a very sympathetic audience when he said that some limitation should be placed on the expenses incurred in retaining counsel to conduct Election Petitions. That expense was now very large, and he put it frankly to the Members of the Legal Profession in the House whether they ought not to be content with less fees than they asked now; whether they ought not to be content, for instance, with the costs which the law of the land allowed? He could see no reason whatever for going beyond the scale of charges allowed by law. At that hour of the night he would not trespass on the Committee longer. He hoped, however, that the Attorney General would be disposed to look upon his clause in a favourable light.
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)opposed the clause, and pointed out that it would result in preventing a man presenting a Petition; because, for instance, he would not be allowed to even borrow money from his own brother.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. S. SMITH (for Mr. CARBUTT)MR. S. SMITH (for Mr. CARBUTT) moved the following Clauses:—
  (Closing of public houses during elections.)
  "All the provisions of any Act now in force whereby the sale or exposing for sale of intoxicating liquors, or the opening or keeping open of any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors, is prohibited during any hours or times are hereby extended to the hours of polling on the day of election of any knight or knights of the shire, or burgess or burgesses, to serve in Parliament shall take place, to the extent following (that is to say):—
  Where such election shall be in respect of a burgess or burgesses to represent any parliamentary borough, such provisions shall be in force with respect to such borough."
  (Penalties.) "
  "All penalties now in force under the provisions of any Act for selling, or exposing for sale, or purchasing, or opening, or keeping open any premises for the sale of any intoxicating liquors during any hours or times, and all provisions of any Acts now in force in reference to such penalties, are hereby extended
  1330
  to any violation of the provisions of this section."
  He said, he would not at that hour enter into any lengthy arguments in favour of these clauses. They all knew, of course, that one great source of corruption at the time of an election was the use of public-houses. In many parts of America, and in some of their own Colonies, it was the practice to close public-houses on an election day; and he thought it would be a very welcome provision to compel their closing in this country.
  New Clauses brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clauses be read a second time."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government had a great deal of sympathy with the object of his hon. Friend. There was a great deal to be said on moral and social grounds in favour of clauses of this kind; but considering the large amount of interference with personal liberty, and the real personal hardship which the clauses would entail, they could not bring themselves to support them. They hoped, however, the subject would be retained for future consideration, because it appeared to be a subject which might be very properly discussed in connection with the question of closing public-houses on other occasions. The Government thought that the severity of such an enactment as this would be too extreme. For instance, it would prohibit people from getting refreshment when they came from a considerable distance; they could not even bait their horses, because they could not leave the stable open and shut the house. The individual inconvenience would be so great, and the interference with liberty so extended, that they were not able to accept these clauses, though they would not say they did not form matter for future discussion.
  Clauses, by leave, withdrawn.
  BARON DE FERRIERES BARON DE FERRIERES moved the following Clause:—
  (Disqualification of brewers.)
  "No brewer or wine and spirit merchant, owning public or beerhouses, shall be eligible to represent a borough in which his licensed houses are situated, and, if elected, his election shall be null and void."
  He said he had no doubt this clause

  1331
  would appear to the Committee a very extraordinary one, and that it was presumptuous on his part to move it. H, however, thought that when the Committee considered the very severe restrictions placed on candidates who were not in the brewing trade, they would come to the conclusion that justice required that some restrictions should be placed on the owners of public-houses in boroughs especially. Under this Bill, it would be utterly impossible for a candidate to give refreshment of that kind which had hitherto been allowed, and which all the people who worked for a candidate had always considered their due. A brewer who happened to have a large brewery in a borough would, in all probability, also hold the greater part of the public-houses in the place, and he would be able to carry on a system of treating all the year round, and in a way which would give him an unfair advantage over any other candidate A great deal of corruption in boroughs was practised at municipal elections. These elections took place every year, and there was a constant system going on of treating electors, not merely with the view of promoting the return of Town Councillors of a certain political Party, but with the view of influencing matters at a Parliamentary election. Hence, in boroughs, the holder of a large number of public-houses possessed advantages over men not so similarly situated; and he wished simply to put brewers who might stand for a constituency on an equal footing with other candidates. In the interest of fair play, he trusted this clause would commend itself to the Committee.
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)opposed the clause, and said, it was patent that if a constituency wished to be represented by a brewer they had every right to be so represented.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he could not help thinking that personal motives had led to the introduction of this clause. The late Representative of the borough of Cheltenham, who sat for some time in the House, and who,
  1332
  he (Mr. Edward Clarke) believed, was an intended candidate at the next election, would, if this clause were accepted, be struck out of the list of candidates. One could thus appreciate the purity of motive which dictated this proposal. The introduction of this clause might have been gracefully left to one not so similarly situated as the hon. Gentleman (Baron De Fernères).
  Clause negatived.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (for Mr. GIBSON)SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (for Mr. GIBSON) moved the following new Clause:—
  (Deliberate false charges.)
  "Any person who before, during, or after an election, by poster, placard, cartoon, caricature, or other publication, knowingly publishes any false charge of or against a candidate, or any false statement of the withdrawal of a candidate in order to influence such election, shall be guilty of an illegal practice."
  New Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not think it would be desirable to accept the whole of the clause; but he would be prepared to accept it, provided the words "cartoon and caricature" were omitted.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he thought it ought to be made an illegal practice, in some form or other, for persons to post placards containing false statements calculated to damage an opponent.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not accept the offer of the Attorney General, because he was confident that great damage might be done to a candidate by means of cartoons and caricatures, because by these things falsity was really implied.
  MR. E. N. FOWLERsaid, he hoped the Attorney General would take this matter into serious consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman would recollect the case of the Mid Kent Election. In 1865, the right hon. Gentleman who now represented that constituency (Sir William Hart Dyke) was a candidate, and a false report was sent the night before the poll all over England that he had retired. Such a report could only be calculated to damage the right hon. Gentleman's prospects, and

  1333
  he was put to great expense in telegraphing to contradict the misstatement.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, the time had now arrived when instinct told them they ought to go to bed; and he, therefore, proposed that the Chairman should now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite said "No, no;" but he knew they were quite as anxious to go to bed as he was, but they dared not say so.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Alexander.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was aware that the Government owed a great deal to the Committee for the consideration it had shown with regard to the progress of this Bill. He had, however, to ask one more favour of the Committee, and that was that to-night they might be allowed to proceed a little later. He did hope they would be allowed to finish the new clauses to-night; and that tomorrow, when he hoped to proceed with the Bill at the Evening Sitting as well as the Morning, that they might conclude the Bill.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had a most important Amendment to propose. His Amendment was far too important to discuss at that hour of the night; and, therefore, he certainly hoped the Motion would be pressed, unless the Government would accept his Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 105: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 198.)
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the Government would not expect them to go further with the Bill tonight. He himself had been engaged ever since half-past 10 o'clock on Thursday morning, and he was really very tired.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that if the right hon. Gentleman put the matter in that way he would not ask the Committee to go further.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

PRIVILEGE.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose to a Question of Privilege. Since the Speaker gave his ruling in the evening with reference to a letter he had received from Mr. Bradlaugh, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had been informed by the Serjeant-at-Arms himself that he (the Serjeant-at-Arms) had received a letter from Mr. Bradlaugh as well as the Speaker. In his letter to the Serjeant-at-Arms, Mr. Bradlaugh stated that he proposed to present himself, in pursuance of the Statute, and in accordance with the Standing Orders, for the purpose of taking his seat in the manner therein described. It appeared to him (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) that that letter differed from the one which the Speaker had received; and he wished to know whether, in respect of that letter, he would not be permitted to make a Motion?
  MR. SPEAKER: The letter to the Serjeant-at-Arms is not at all before the House; the House has no knowledge of the letter to the Serjeant-at-Arms.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he would bring it before the House. The Serjeant-at-Arms had stated to him that he had received it.
  MR. SPEAKER: It appears to be a private communication between the Serjeant-at-Arms and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). The letter is not formally before the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PRISON SERVICE (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Trevelyan.)
  PRISON SERVICE (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 248.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. O'BRIENasked whether the rights of the officers, as they stood under

    1335
    the present Act, in respect to their superannuation allowances, would be in any way altered for the worse by the provisions of this Bill?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, the Bill did not precisely alter the position of any of the officers. It had been introduced for one purpose. It had been found that the Act of 1877 did not cover the cases of officers who, at the time of retiring, happened to be serving in different counties. This clause was being substituted for the Act of 1877, and to bring that Act in accord with the English Act. It was, therefore, purely an enabling Act, and did not, in the slightest degree, affect the status or the amount of pension of any of the officers.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, there was some fear among the old officers that the Bill would destroy their right to superannuation under the Acts of 1873 and 1877, which allowed a superannuation of two-thirds of their yearly salary and emoluments. That was why he had asked these questions; and he was glad to find that that was not the case, and that this Bill sought to bring all without distinction under the Act of 1859.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2 agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  FRIENDLY, &c. SOCIETIES (NOMINATIONS) BILL.— [BILL 228.]
  (Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Mr. Burt, Mr. Albert Grey, Mr. Northcote.)
  FRIENDLY, &c. SOCIETIES (NOMINATIONS) BILL.— [BILL 228.]

    FURTHER CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED.
    Amendment proposed, in Clause 9, page 3, line 32, to leave out the words "or standing to the credit of any person in a savings bank."—(Mr. Whitley.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment made.
    Amendment proposed, in Clause 9, page 3, line 38, to leave out the words "or otherwise."—(Mr. Whitley.)
    Question, "That the words 'or otherwise,' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in Clause 9, page 3, line 41, after sub-section (1), to insert the words—
    "(2.) If the total sum standing to the credit of any person in any Savings Bank at his or her death exceeds, after deduction of any moneys payable under the registered or certified rules of such society for the purpose of defraying the funeral expenses of such member, the sum of fifty pounds sterling, the directors shall, before making any payment, require production of probate or letters of administration, or a letter or certificate from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue stating that no duty is payable.—(Mr. Whitley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he could not accept the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendments made.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 264.]

  SEA FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. Blake, Mr. Leamy, Mr. O'Connor Bower, Mr. O'Donnell.)
  SEA FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 31.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Commencement of Act).
    MR. BLAKEproposed to alter the date from January to October, pointing out that if Members of Parliament were appointed on the Commission, they could not possibly attend its meetings, and be in Parliament at the same time.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "January," and insert the word "October."—(Mr. Blake.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'January' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he could not see that it would be possible, without great inconvenience, to bring the Act into operation by next October; but between now and Report he would see whether this proposal could be accepted or not, if it were now withdrawn.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he thought the proposal of the hon. Gentleman a fair and reasonable one; but he must point out that it was most desirable that,

    1337
    before any works were undertaken, there should be a full and exhaustive inquiry made by the Commission. No doubt, they would receive many applications, most of which would deserve most serious consideration; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would give the fullest consideration to this proposal. The Bill, he believed, would be received with a great deal of satisfaction by the people interested.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Lord Lieutenant may appoint commissioners for the Irish fisheries).
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he thought the proposal of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake), to have four persons in addition to the Inspector, was better than that of the Government to appoint four Members of Parliament, or three Members of this House and one Peer.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Bill, as originally drawn, was drawn certainly in good faith; but it involved a very serious and a new principle. The Government would be extremely unwilling to let the fact of Membership of this House be in itself a title and qualification to a seat on a Commission to spend public money. As he understood, the clauses were not seriously contested, and he could not accept the proposal.
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining Clauses agreed to.
    Several New Clauses agreed to.
    New Clause:—
    (Constitution of Fishery Piers and Harbours Commission.)
    "For the purpose of aiding the Commissioners of Public Works in carrying this Act into effect, a Commission shall be constituted, to he styled the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commission, consisting of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries and of one other person, to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, who shall hold his office during the pleasure of the Lord Lieutenant, and shall be the chairman of the Commission, and shall have a casting vote. The person so appointed shall not he paid any salary or remuneration for his services, and shall not, by reason of such appointment, be disqualified from being elected or sitting as a Member of the House of Commons, and, if he is a Member of the House of Commons at the time of his appointment,
    1338
    shall not cease to be a Member by reason of such appointment.
    "It shall he the duty of the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commission to give such assistance to the Commissioners of Public Works as the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries have heretofore given in the execution of the Fishery Piers and Harbours Acts; and to confer with the Commissioners of Public Works relative to the works proposed from time to time to he executed out of the Sea Fisheries Fund; and generally to aid in carrying this Act into effect, in such manner as the Lord Lieutenant may from time to time direct.
    "The Commissioners of Public Works, before forwarding to the Treasury the Report as to any proposed work which they are required to forward pursuant to the tenth section of 'The Fishery Piers and Harbours Act, 1846,' shall furnish to the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commission a copy of the plans and specifications relating to the proposed work; and the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commission may make such observations relative to such plans and specifications, for the information of the Treasury, as they think fit,"—(Mr. Trevelyan,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. STEVENSONsaid, he understood that the Government were willing to wait for the Report of the Committee on Harbour Accommodation, which was to meet to-morrow. He believed that the question of Irish harbours was to form part of their deliberations; and he could hardly reconcile that state of things with what appeared to be the intention of the Government, who, without waiting for the Report of the Committee, prescribed the constitution of the Fishery Piers and Harbours Commission.
    Clause agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

MOTION.
  PROMULGATION OF STATUTES.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he wished to move the Motion which stood in his name on the Paper, and which was as follows:—
    "That it is expedient that the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to consider and revise the

    1339
    List of 1801 for the Promulgation of the Statutes, and the revised List contained in the said Report should he adopted, and that the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office should he authorized and directed to cause the printing and delivery of copies of the Public General Statutes and the Public Local and Personal Acts, according to the mode of distribution contained in the said Report and Revised List, and the Secretary of State, with the sanction of the Treasury, may vary the distribution authorized by the said Revised List from time to time."
    In moving this Resolution, he wished to say that it was intended for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations contained in the Report laid on the Table with regard to the Promulgation of the Statutes. He wished to say that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had intended to move an Amendment as to the mode in which the Statutes were to be distributed to the House; but on receiving an explanation that the Statutes issued to the House of Lords were not more expensive than those issued unbound to Members of the House of Commons, the hon. Member had been satisfied, and had withdrawn his opposition. He (Mr. Hibbert) found that the unbound copies of the folio edition presented to the Members of this House actually cost more than the bound copies presented to the House of Peers. It would be safe to say that in future Members of the House of Commons would, on application to the proper quarter, receive bound copies in place of the unbound copies they had hitherto received.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he wished to express his sense of the good work the Committee had done; but, at the same time, he also desired to enter a protest against its being considered a final Report. He was satisfied that experience had shown that the number of copies of Statutes now supplied was far greater than it ought to be; and he thought that, after supplying Members of both Houses of the Legislature, no copies should be delivered free, except to magistrates or judicial bodies. He said this simply as showing that they did not entirely assent to the Report of the Committee.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that in the revised scheme laid before the House there were fewer copies than had been previously supplied.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked whether Members of the House would have
    1340
    the option of having the Statutes as they were, bound or unbound, delivered to them at the end of the Session?
    MR. HIBBERTreplied in the affirmative.
    Resolution agreed to.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.