Commons Sitting of 22 May 1883

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [May 21] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) (Birmingham and Lambeth) * [192]; Local Government Provisional Order (Highways) (County of Dorset) * [193]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) (Ashton-in-Makerfield) * [194]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) (Barnet Union, &c.) * [195]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) (Bognor, &c.) * [196].
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [170]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) * [176]; Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order (Extension of Time) * [181]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2) * [168]; Union of Benefices Act (1860) Amendment* [183]; Poor Law Conferences* [187]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (No. 2) [51] [House counted out].
Select Committee—New Forest (Highways) * [135] nominated.
Third Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue [140], and passed.

MOTIONS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) (NO. 3) (BIRMINGHAM AND LAMBETH) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board, under the provisions of "The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1807," as amended by "The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1868," and extended by "The Poor Law Act, 1879," relating to the Parishes of Birmingham and Lambeth, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Sir CHARLES DILKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 192.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HIGHWAYS) (COUNTY OF DORSET) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board, under "The Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878," relating to the County of Dorset, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Sir CHARLES DILKE.
  Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 193.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 5) (ASHTON-IN-MAKERFIELD, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Local Government District of Ashton-in-Makerfield, the Borough of Ashton-under-Lyne, and the Local Government Districts of Dukinfield and Hurst, the Boroughs of Burnley and Doncaster, the Town of Hove, the Local Government District of Hucknall-under-Huthwaite, the Improvement Act District of Llandudno, the Borough of Middlesbrough, the Port of Newport (Mon.), the Borough of Rochdale, and the Local Government Districts of Sutton-in-Ashfield and West Ham, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Sir CHARLES DILKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 194.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 6) (BARNET UNION, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Rural Sanitary District of the Barnet Union, the Local Government Districts of Brentford, Chilvers Coton, and Nuneaton, the Stourbridge Main Drainage District, the Borough of Stratford-upon-Avon, the Rural Sanitary District of the Stroud Union, and the Local Government District of Wellington (Somerset), ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Sir CHARLES DILKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 195.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 7) (BOGNOR, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Go-
  696
  vernment Board relating to the Local Government District of Bognor, the Borough of Cheltenham, the Improvement Act District of Chiswick, the Borough of Plymouth, the Local Government District of Skipton, the Borough of Stockton and the Local Government District of South Stockton, and the Local Government Districts of Stroud and Wallasey, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Sir CHARLES DILKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 196.]

  PAROCHIAL CHARITIES (LONDON) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Report of the Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty to inquire into the Parochial Charities of the City of London, which was presented to this House in the year 1880, be referred to the Select Committee on the Parochial Charities (London) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report of the Select Committee on the London Parochial Charities (London) Bills, together with the Minutes of Evidence presented to this House in the year 1882, be referred to the Select Committee on the Parochial Charities (London) Bill.—(Mr. Lefevre.)

  NEW FOREST (HIGHWAYS) BILL.
  Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. DAVEY, Lord HENRY SCOTT, Mr. BUXTON, and Mr. COMPTON nominated Members of the Committee:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.—(Mr. Courtney.)
QUESTIONS.

  BURIAL ACTS—CONSECRATION OF CEMETERIES—RHOS, DENBIGHSHIRE.
  SIR ROBERT CUNLIFFEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that, notwithstanding that both the Burial Board and the vestry of the parish of Rhos, Denbighshire, had resolved that no part of the cemetery provided for the parish should be consecrated, one half of such cemetery was, on the 24th of April, at the instance of the vicar, and without the authority or knowledge of the Burial Board, consecrated by the Bishop of St. Asaph, who was also kept in ignorance of the facts of the case; and, whether he will lay before Parliament a Copy of any Correspondence which may have passed on the subject between him and the vicar or other parties, together with a Copy of the sentence or deed of consecration executed by the Bishop on the occasion of such consecration, as well as take other steps to ascertain the legality of such proceedings, and to prevent their recurrence elsewhere?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, that before that Question was answered, he should like to ask, Whether it was not a fact that on the 18th of July last the Burial Board in question passed a resolution for the consecration of a portion of the ground?
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he also had a Question to ask, of which he had given private Notice—namely, Whether a Burial Board, formed under the 16 & 16 Vict. c. 85, and the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134, for the purpose of providing a burial-ground for the parish, was not acting illegally in passing a resolution that no portion of the ground should be consecrated; and whether a bare majority of the Burial Board of the parish of Rhos Llanerchrugog had not committed this illegality; and what stops he would take to prevent similar parochial infringements of the Statute Law in the future?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: A Board does not necessarily commit an illegal act by passing a resolution beyond its powers. I must answer the Question of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) in the affirmative. With regard to the Question on the Paper, the resolution referred to does not appear to have been made known to my right hon. and learned Friend. Application was made by the Vicar, who is Chairman of the Burial Board, for the sanction of the Secretary of State to the division into equal portions—consecrated and unconsecrated. The Vicar added that this proportion had been approved by a resolution of the Board passed on the 18th of last July. The sanction of the Secretary of State was given on the 31st of August last. My right hon. and learned Friend is not aware that any useful purpose would be served by laying the Correspondence on the Table—especially as he is advised that the obligation to divide into consecrated and unconsecrated portions imposed by 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134, still continues.

  VACCINATION ACTS—CALF LYMPH.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether a Memorial has been received by him from Mr. Henry Allen, of Holloway, respecting the death of his child, Mabel Emma, on the 19th April 1883, alleging that she died from the effects of vaccination with calf lymph from
  698
  the Marylebone Institution; whether, as the inquest was held without a postmortem or other evidence available to prove the cause of death, he will grant the prayer of the Memorialist for an official inquiry; and, whether it be the fact that calf lymph is usually followed by more inflammatory and severe effects than even human lymph?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Memorial has been received, and the Coroner has been communicated with, who informs me that the jury, in view of the evidence given at the inquest, gave as their verdict that the child died—
  "From the mortal effects of pneumonia, following septicœmia from a labial abscess, and the jurors further say that the death was from natural causes."
  I have had before me the depositions in this case; and I have been advised that the course of the disease in this child, beginning in an altogether different part of the body from the vaccinated arm, and extending to altogether different parts of the body, while the vaccinated arm showed no undue inflammation, was not such as to suggest any connection whatever between the disease and the vaccination. The Board have accordingly replied that they have no power to review the decision of the Coroner's Court; and that, after fully considering the circumstances of the case, they are unable to satisfy themselves that there exists any sufficient ground for an inquiry, such as the Memorialist suggests. It is a fact that calf lymph does produce somewhat more decided constitutional symptoms than are produced by averaged humanized lymph.

  INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX (IRELAND)—DRUMDUFF, CO. LEITRIM.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. SEXTON)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that nine tenant farmers in the townland of Drum-duff, barony of Dromalsuir, county Lei-trim, have been proceeded against for Income Tax (for the first time this year) by a bailiff; whether, in the case of one of the tenants, who, acting on legal advice, refused to pay the tax, the bailiff seized a beast belonging to the tenant, the tenant resisted the seizure of his property, and has now been summoned for resisting the execution of a warrant; and, whether those proceedings in respect of this Income Tax are lawful?
  MR. COURTNEY: The facts stated are substantially correct. The resistance to payment seems to have arisen from a misunderstanding, the tax having previously been collected under a special arrangement. Eight of the nine men concerned paid at once; the other, who had to be summoned, paid the tax and costs, and the summons has been withdrawn. The amount of the tax in these cases can be deducted, in the usual manner, from the next payment of rent. The collector appears to have acted strictly within his right.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—THE PASSING TOLLS ACT—COLLECTION OF THE LIGHT DUES.
  MR. WARTON (for Captain AYLMER)asked the President of the Board of Trade, If any change in the collection of the Light Dues is to be made; and, if so, whether he proposes to obtain Parliamentary sanction for the same?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: There has been no alteration in the collection of the Light Dues. There has been some alteration in the method of accounting for them; but that is a Departmental matter, and I do not think any legislation will be required to give effect to the change.

  FISHERY REPORTS.
  LORD ELCHOasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the deputation on the Trawling question which he had consented to receive on Thursday next, he had any objection to lay upon the Table the Reports which had been addressed to the Government by the Fishery officers?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have made inquiries, and I cannot find that any Reports whatever have been received from the Fishery officers. We have no such Reports at the Board of Trade.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CLONMANY, CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, Whether he has caused inquiry to be made respecting the conduct of the constable of Royal Irish Constabulary at Clonmany, county Donegal, in preventing by threats a tenant farmer named Doherty from allowing huts for the shelter of evicted tenants to be erected on his
  700
  farm; whether the tenants referred to were evicted at such a time that their periods of redemption had expired before the Arrears Act became Law; whether in consequence twenty-three families, numbering one hundred and eight souls, are huddled together in the village of Clonmany, as many as four families being crammed into one small house of three apartments, and fever having already broken out in one family, and threatening the rest of the population; whether materials for wooden huts to shelter them were supplied by public benevolence, and a tenant farmer named Doherty gave leave to have the huts erected on his holding, but the local constable, alleging instructions from his superiors, warned Doherty not to permit the erection of the huts, and told him that if they were erected a force of extra police would be quartered in the locality and Charged upon the people; whether, consequently, the families of the evicted tenants are left in a condition dangerous to life; and, whether the Executive will instruct the police to desist from preventing the provision of healthy shelter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have made inquiry into this matter, and find that the hon. Member for Sligo has been greatly misinformed as to the facts. Six evicted tenants with their families, numbering in all 27 persons, are at present residing in Clonmany. In these cases proceedings were commenced as long ago as 1880, and the period of redemption expired in May of last year. One of these persons, a man named P. Tubbins, has, since his eviction, lived in a two-storied six-roomed house, his own property, and with him resides another of the evicted tenants, a relative of his own. For this man Tubbins it was proposed to erect a but, and materials for the purpose arrived at Clonmany in January last. The site selected was a piece of waste land overlooking several evicted farms. The constable in charge of the station feeling persuaded that, from the site chosen, intimidation was intended, warned the owner of the land, Doherty, that the probable result would be the erection of a police hut, which would involve a charge on the neighbourhood. Doherty then told the constable that he had not consented to the erection of the hut on his land. I am informed that it is not the case that four of the evicted families are huddled together in a three-roomed

  701
  house, or that there is any fever in Clonmany.

  EGYPT—THE MASSACRE AT ALEXANDRIA.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any communication from Lord Dufferin, stating that he has refused to receive evidence, which was ready, implicating the Khedive in promoting the massacre at Alexandria on the 11th June, on the ground that he could not place the Khedive on his trial; and, whether the Government will now guarantee the protection of the witnesses who are prepared to give testimony connecting the Khedive with the massacre?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No communication of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend has been received by Her Majesty's Government from Lord Dufferin, and the eventuality contemplated in the second part of the Question has, consequently, not arisen.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Has no communication been received at all as to the action of Lord Dufferin?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMALTRICE: I have said that no communication has been received.

MOTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT—THE DERBY DAY.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL,in moving "That the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday," said, he would have been very glad had he been able to discharge the duty he had undertaken by submitting that Motion in the most formal and briefest manner possible; but he did not know if that course would be considered respectful by the House, and it might be supposed that the Motion which he had to propose was lacking in arguments by which it could be supported. He would willingly spare the House, if he could, "the damnable iteration" of arguments which had been used over and over again on the subject. He should have thought that by this time the continual dropping would have worn away the stony hearts of those who had hitherto shown themselves opposed to the very slight relaxation in their
  702
  duties for which he was asking; but he was given to understand that that was not the case, and that opposition would be shown to the proposal, arising in the same quarter of the House in which they had been accustomed to see it. In moving the Resolution, he would undertake, in the first place, to be very brief; and, in the second place, to spare the House any attempts on his part to be facetious. As a citizen of, perhaps, the most serious nation under the sun, he should be very much at a disadvantage if he attempted to enter the lists with the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), in those sallies of a delightful humour which was supposed to be the inheritance of his race. In the third place, he would undertake that whatever he might say should contain nothing approaching to political acrimony or calculated to stir up Party acerbity. He proposed to rest his appeal on the truly liberal sense of the House, and on the ground of expediency. He asked hon. Members on both sides whether it was expedient to depart on this occasion from the general custom initiated at a period of the history of that House which was not the least illustrious in its annals, and by one to whom the Party now in power owed a great part of the credit they had acquired in times past? He was told it was a pleasant sight in days of yore—those days of yore to which they had been often referred of late as being days when the debates and procedure of the House were conducted with greater decorum and dignity—to see the Prime Minister come down and move the adjournment of the House without exciting any hostile comment. He could not help thinking that it was unfortunate that it should now fall to the lot of a private Member to do that which used to be so well done by the Leader of Her Majesty's Government. He had no wish, especially in the absence of the Prime Minister, to draw any invidious comparison between the right hon. Gentleman and his distinguished Predecessor; but he thought it was to be regretted that that portion of the mantle of Elijah had not descended upon the right hon. Gentleman which would have inspired him with a true and honourable sympathy with the legitimate pastime of the people. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that last year the custom to which he had alluded had been broken

  703
  through; but the circumstances then were most exceptional. In the first place, the country had been plunged into an abyss of grief and shame by recent occurrences in Ireland; in the second place, the House was under the necessity of proceeding from day to day with the arduous and unpleasant duty of passing legislation of a most unprecedented character; and, in the third place, they were on the eve of a war which had now happily terminated. Last year it was understood that the fact of the Adjournment not being moved should not create a precedent; and now that the circumstances were normal he asked the House to revert to its old practice. The arguments by which this Adjournment had been supported had never failed to commend themselves to the House, and especially to the present Parliament, which in 1S80 carried the Motion by 285 to 115, and in 1881 by 246 to 119. He should be surprised and disappointed if the numbers for the Adjournment were lower this year. A special reason why he expected the House to adjourn this year was that the Private Bill and other Select Committees had not yet re-assembled after the Whitsun Recess, so that there would be no expense incurred in that way through deferring the Business of those Committees. The Government last night were able to make some progress in Supply, and the Bills down for to-morrow were of an insignificant and even of an undesirable description. If the Speaker were prepared to take the Chair shortly after 12 to-morrow, there was not the slightest chance of a House being made, and the only result would be that the right hon. Gentleman and the officials of the House would be imprisoned there until late in the afternoon. Therefore, he could not conceive any real or genuine opposition to the proposal he had to make. He supposed the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would vote against it; but he believed that the hon. Member would do so more from ignorance than interest. Perhaps the hon. Baronet was never at the Derby. ["Yes."] Well, then, he only went there to see what sort of a place it was, and very likely came back and said he was filled with shame and remorse. But he (Sir Henry Maxwell) had seen more Derbies, and more recent Derbies, than the hon. Baronet, and could assure him that it was by no
  704
  means the rule for gentlemen to return from the Derby in a state of inebriation, or wearing false noses and sticking dolls in their hats. The hon. Baronet had already had a double innings this year. In the first place, a horse called Zoedone won the Grand National; and, in the second place, the hon. Baronet himself had secured a first place for Local Option. Then the hon. Member could not object to the Motion on the ground that the Derby led to an undue consumption of intoxicating liquors, for if he did he would assuredly receive no support from his own side of the House. Example was better than any amount of precept, and he was credibly informed that at the great Liberal réunion which took place the other night at the Aquarium it took 2,500 bottles of champagne to assuage the thirst of 1,800 members of the Liberal Party. He had no doubt that many Members would go down to the Derby whether this Motion were carried or not, in spite of the maledictions of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. The hon. Baronet was a master of malediction; but the House had got so accustomed to his condemning innocent recreations that he did not think anyone could compete with him in the lists, unless it was the Cardinal of whom we read in the Jackdaw of Rheims, that he treated his enemies in much the same way as the hon. Baronet treated those who went to the racecourse—
  "He cursed him in sleeping, that every night He should dream of the devil, and wake in a fright;
  He cursed him in eating, he cursed him in drinking,
  He cursed him in coughing, in sneezing, in winking;
  He cursed him in sitting, in standing, in lying;
  He cursed him in walking, in riding, in flying,
  He cursed him in living, he cursed him in dying!—
  Never was heard such a terrible curse!
  But what gave rise to no little surprise,
  Nobody seem'd one penny the worse!"
  He would not detain the House any longer, but would merely remind them that although the safty-valve was apparently but a small and insignificant portion of the steam-engine, and did not increase its power, yet it was a portion which could not be wisely dispensed with; and he thought that by assenting to this Motion the House would find that the legislative engine would work more

  705
  smoothly and more effectively when they re-assembled after the short release which he asked for by this Motion.
  MR. HENEAGErose to second the Motion. He approved the proposal to adjourn, because the Wednesday on which the Derby was run was the one day in the Session on which every Member expected to be able to do whatever he might please. They could never be certain of any other day. They might have a Morning Sitting, or a Sitting on Saturday; but the Derby Day had always been a holiday, and was so treated in balloting for a Wednesday at the beginning of the Session. No one but a novice would think of taking that day for bringing forward any Motion. They ought not, all of a sudden, to refuse to give this holiday; and if in future years they were not to adjourn on the Derby Day, let it be settled at the beginning of the Session by a substantive Motion, so that they might all know what they had to expect. Many Members, it should be remembered, had made special arrangements in the belief that the House would adjourn. More than one hon. Member, for example, might wish to visit an eccentric relation from whom he had expectations; and it should be observed that if the House sat the eccentric relation would not know whether the Member was in the House, or at the Derby. Others had arranged to visit their constituents. ["Name!"] Last year the noble Lord the late Vice President of the Council (Lord George Hamilton) made one of his greatest speeches to his constituents at Middlesex on the Derby Day. [Mr. MONK: Yes; but the House sat on that day.] That was an accident, and the noble Lord Could not have known the House would sit when he made his arrangements weeks before. He understood that a right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) intended to-morrow to criticize the Government at Wolverhampton. That showed that there was a prevalent belief that there would be a holiday on the Derby Day. Some hon. Member said—"Let those go to the Derby who wish; but let the House sit for those who are willing to work." That was all very well; but hon. Members who expressed that opinion ought not to forget how difficult it might be to make a House. A fortnight ago the Speaker had to sit for
  706
  an hour before a House could be made on a Wednesday; and to-morrow he might have to sit for four hours, for the Adjournment could not be moved before 4 o'clock, nor could a "Count" be effective. It would not be fair to render the Speaker and the officials of the House liable to such weary waiting. He would appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle—because he was a strong supporter of Local Option; and would ask him if the course he intended to pursue was not against all the principles of Local Option—if it was not opposed to all those principles that a small and obstinate minority—he did not say it offensively—should try and force their views upon the majority? That, he thought, was a strong argument why his hon. Friend should change his mind, and vote for the proposal on this occasion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he could assure his hon. Friend, who made the Motion in a very good humoured spirit, that he did not intend to talk about drink at all, and he did not wish to curse anybody either, as the hon. Gentleman seemed afraid he should do. He did not want to attack anybody; but he wished to attack the evil system of that House giving its sanction to a great gambling festival. For some years past this Motion had been moved by different private Members—by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) two or three years ago, and after that it fell into the hands of the Irish Members. He was not at all surprised that this Motion fell into the hands of Irish Members, because they made no secret of their opinions. They were straightforward, open, and honest. They cared nothing for the credit of that House; they would be glad to bring it into disrepute. ["No, no!"] That was what they had actually said. They said that they were not there of their own wish, and that they were brought there. Therefore, he was not surprised that they supported a Motion of this kind, for they knew it made the House ridiculous. But he was surprised that the Motion should have fallen into the hands of one who had described himself

  707
  as a Representative of the "most serious nation under the sun." His hon. Friend on his left (Mr. Heneage) said just now that horse-racing was very popular, and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was not going to stand up and say that horse-racing, and all its concomitants, was not a most popular thing with the people of this country, because he knew it was popular with the aristocracy and the democracy, with Princes and peasants; and as to the newspapers, there was not even a family paper that did not devote columns and columns to the state of the "odds" every day. He was pleading to-day for the minority. Of course, it was the system in this country that the majority should rule, and on questions of public good the minority must give way; but he did not think anyone could say this was a question in which the public good was very much involved. It was only a question of their own convenience and amusement; and lie thought it would be more generous and candid if the majority of that House, strong as it was, had a little consideration for the feelings of others in this matter. They might call them prejudices; but it was one of those cases in which a strong majority would be justified in taking the honourable course of paying attention to the views of the minority. He objected to this Motion, as he had often done before, on this ground—that if they took a national step it should be for a national object; and he did not think they were justified in saying that horse-racing was a national object which should receive the sanction and imprimatur of that House. He should oppose any steps of this sort. He should oppose the Adjournment, even if it had nothing to do with horse-racing. A great public entertainment under the auspices of the "Blue Ribbon Army" would win his hearty approval; but if anyone were to propose the Adjournment of the House in connection with that entertainment, he should oppose the Motion. He should say—"No; let us respect the feelings of the drunkards." That would not be a national question, and he should object to the Adjournment for that, just as much as he did for the Derby. His hon. Friend opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was afraid he would come down on racing men. He was not going to do anything of the kind; for he knew that many racing men were as honour-
  708
  able as many Members of that House; and the late Baron Rothschild, who knew a good deal about them, had said that racing men were as honest as gentlemen in the City—and he was inclined to agree with him in that. He would ask the House to remember what the law said about the gambling to which they would give their sanction if they should adjourn. From the time of William III. until now, in all legislation concerning gambling, betting had been described as—
  "Unlawful and deceitful, contributing- very much to the encouragement of idleness and impoverishment of the people;"
  and the law, as laid down in the Act passed in the year 1868, was as follows:—
  "Every person playing or betting by way of wagering in any street, road, highway, or other open or public place, or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access, shall be deemed a rogue and vagabond within the true intent and meaning of the recited Act, and as such may be convicted and punished under the provisions of that Act."
  He did not think that the House ought to adjourn in recognition of a sport which attracted "rogues and vagabonds," to use the words of their own Act of Parliament. In a celebrated article which appeared in The Quarterly Review in 1833, giving a most wonderful account of the Turf in those days, the writer said—
  "Woe betide the day when Englishmen look lightly on such desperate inroads on public morals as have lately passed under their eyes on racecourses. Can this familiarity with robbers and robbing be without its influence on a rising generation? We say it cannot."
  He challenged anyone who knew anything about horse-racing—and there were plenty of them in the House—to say that the Turf was any better now than it was in 1833, when that article was written. He would be greatly surprised if those who knew it best did not say it was worse. It was in 1847 that this proposition to adjourn was first made in the House. Lord Palmerston was the first man who made it a Ministerial question; and it so went on until the great and good Tory Administration which was overthrown in 1880 came forward and said it would be no longer responsible for moving the Adjournment, that it must be left to private Members to move the Adjournment for the Derby,

  709
  if it was to he moved at all. Now, he hoped they were going backwards in the right direction. They had got back to the time when it was moved by private Members, and he hoped to-night they should get to the time when it would be upset altogether. It was now out of the hands of the Government and the Leaders of the Opposition, and the House itself was responsible for what it did in the matter. His hon. Friend opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell) touched very lightly upon one point of considerable importance. He hardly gave sufficient weight to the fact that last year the House did not adjourn. They broke through the evil practice, and what happened? They spent the day satisfactorily in discussing an Irish Bill. He saw the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) shake his head; but it was an Irish Bill he assured him. And who was any the worse? Those who wanted to go to the Derby went, and those who did not wish to go stayed here and attended to the Irish Bill, and they got on perfectly well without those Gentlemen who went to the race. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire did not go to the Derby last year. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) remembered him sitting on that Bench opposite like a martyr. He remembered the expression of his face. He looked as if he said—? "Here am I, a patriot, attending to my duties;" but he did not say where the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) had gone. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was sure that from that day to this the hon. Member had felt a better man for attending to his duty instead of his pleasure. There was also another reason why they should not adjourn on this occasion. They could not use the old argument about legislative lassitude, because they only came back last night, and they were sure to have a "Count out" to-night. Therefore it was absolutely impossible for hon. Members, with any face, to get up and say they were worn out, and really wanted a holiday. Another argument for adjournment was absent this year. It was usually said there was no Business. But this year there were 21 Orders en the Paper. Most of them were of great importance, although not, perhaps, extremely interesting. One of them was an Ecclesiastical Bill. He saw the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) present. He was
  710
  sure that right hon. Gentleman would rather come down to the House and attend to an Ecclesiastical Bill than pass the day sitting on the Grand Stand. He was told the right hon. Gentleman had signed the "Whip" in favour of the Adjournment. That was utterly incredible, and he could not believe it until the right hon. Gentleman got up in his place and stated that it was so. There was another reason why they should not adjourn. He supposed that they were all, except the Irish Members, interested in the usefulness and dignity of the House, and wished the House to be respected in the country. Did they think they could be said to be taking a step which would increase the respect of the country for the House, if they spent their time in passing Gambling Acts for the purpose of putting down suburban races, and punishing boys for playing pitch-and-toss on the streets, and then, by a large majority, adjourn for the purpose of taking part in the greatest gambling celebration in the whole world? He thought it would be more dignified to discourage all the gambling and rowdyism that went on at Epsom, and that they would show the greater moral courage in breaking through rather than in following a custom which in the course of a few years they were bound to regard as "more honoured in the breach than in the observance."
  MR. ST. AUBYNappealed to both sides of the House whether they were not wasting the time of the House by continuing that discussion, because he did not suppose that any Member's vote would be influenced one way or the other, if they talked on that subject till midnight. The hon. Baronet had alluded to the Derby as a great gambling transaction; but if he were to go to the Stock Exchange he would find more gambling there every day than on the racecourse. He thought it would be much better that the House should at once proceed to a division.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he should not have risen to take part in the discussion, had it not been that the opposition to the Adjournment came from the side of the House in which "Radicals most do congregate." It seemed to him most undesirable that the idea should go forth that a supercilious disregard for the red letter days of the people's almanack should be a cardinal

  711
  matter in the Radical creed. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) seemed to have an extraordinary opinion respecting the Derby. He really was under the impression that people did not drink down there; but that they engaged in gambling. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: I did not say that they did not drink.] He confessed he was surprised that the hon. Baronet should have made a speech on the subject without saying that they did drink. The hon. Baronet seemed to have evolved out of his moral consciousness the notion that the Derby, Drink, and the Devil were convertible terms. Now, some persons, no doubt, might go to the Derby to gamble; but everybody knew that, as a matter of fact, the occasion was regarded as a species of national picnic in the fresh air. And the hon. Baronet should support it because it was essentially a democratic picnic; because, for that one day at least, and in that one place in the Island, equality ruled supremo—high and low, rich and poor, going out to enjoy the fresh air; and if there was any boisterous hilarity among thorn, it was owing rather to natural good spirits than to alcoholic spirits. The hon. Baronet said that in adjourning over to-morrow they would be preferring pleasure to duty. No doubt there was a Cato-like air of rugged virtue in voting against the Adjournment; but the constituencies were not quite such fools as some people in that—the Radical—part of the House took them to be. The constituencies wore sure to take a pretty accurate measure of the fussy and spasmodic zeal of the Catos in that quarter of the House, who came down and voted on parade occasions like that, and thus attempted to assume a virtue though they knew they had it not. He asked hon. Gentlemen to look into the past. How many "Counts out" had there been? There had been at least a dozen this year. ["No, no!"] Well, then, say half-a-dozen. Where were his hon. Friends then? Where was their zeal for the public cause then? He supposed they were dining, or engaged in some equally futile occupation—those eminent patriots! On the last Wednesday when the House met the Speaker sat in Jus Chair more than an hour before a sufficient number of Members came down to make a House, and when he himself dropped in about 2
  712
  o'clock things were not much better. Only about a dozen Members were present, and there was not a single zealous Cato among them; they were composed of Whigs, Conservatives, and such like triflers; and the discussion was upon something relating to theatres. Even the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold)—perhaps one of the most diligent Members—would admit that they could hardly waste their time more if they all went to the Derby tomorrow than if a few of them sat, as they did on the occasion to which he had referred, when they carried on an idle discussion about places of amusement, though he himself took part in it. He was told that they had passed two Bills; but even then he did not think the day had been very usefully spent. He did not think, therefore, that they would gain much by not adjourning for the Derby. He would vote for the Motion, not that he himself contemplated going to Epsom; but many others might wish to go there, and might prefer that the House should not sit. There ought to be a sufficient amount of good-fellowship among them to induce them to adjourn if there was a feeling in its favour, even on the part of a minority, and if there was no particular Business likely to be done, as nobody supposed would be the case to-morrow. The hon. Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) proposed to ask them to-morrow to look after the discipline of the Church; but that was hardly Business of a character to conflict with the desire to adjourn over to-morrow. Sometimes they adjourned because some Members wished to go to church; others wished to adjourn to go to the Derby; and surely those wore matters in which they should give and take a little. He supported the Adjournment on its own merits, because it recognized the sound principle that life was not to consist entirely of toiling and moiling. All work and no play was a fallacious and pernicious doctrine, and one which, if preached by Radicals, would alienate from them support throughout the country. He viewed the Motion in the light of a graceful recognition of the people. It was not a question of rich men, but of all men going to the Derby; and it was a recognition, also, of the equally sound principle that life had its pleasures as well as its duties.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he would not detain the House. He merely wished to throw out a suggestion which might be worthy of consideration in another year. When he first entered Parliament there was no Adjournment over the Derby Day, because the House always met in the evening. It did not always follow that the House met in the evening; but he remembered that on one occasion Sir Robert Peel passed, on the evening of a Derby Day, many of the clauses of one of his Commercial Bills. He suggested that in another year the Government might arrange for the House to meet in the same way, to expedite one of the measures on which they, or some private Members, had set their hearts. He thought this practice of Adjournment was discreditable to the House. It ought to be remembered that important Business had to be done in Private Bill Committees. There was no other Court in London which adjourned on the Derby Day; and why should the House of Commons not sit also? If they did not wish to sit at 12 o'clock they could meet at 4. He thought it might be considered whether there should not be such an alteration of the Standing Orders as would allow Committees to sit even if the House adjourned.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, he simply rose to point out that the argument of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) rested upon an unsound basis, for he had assumed that the majority of the people of this country indulged in the pastime of horse-racing; but neither he, nor any other speaker, had proved, or had attempted to prove, this position. He (Mr. James Howard) utterly denied its existence. He had, for 30 years, lived near to a racecourse, and could say that not one-tenth of the people of the neighbourhood ever attended the races; nor did a fiftieth, and, perhaps, not one in a hundred of the people of the Metropolis, had ever attended the Derby. Nor were the supporters of the Adjournment the sole lovers of sport or amusements, as they imagined. Like hundreds of other men fond of horses and genuine sport, he had a great contempt for racing, and for the specimens of men it produced. He saw no reason for the Adjournment of the House, more especially upon a false assumption. He should certainly
  714
  vote against the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 85: Majority 100.—(Div. List, No. 97.)

EAST INDIA (FINANCIAL STATEMENT).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. R. N. FOWLER,in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the statement of the financial affairs of India should he made at a period of the Session when it can he fully discussed,"
  said, he wished to point out that it had been the habit of successive Governments, for a long course of years, except upon the occurrence of some particularly urgent circumstances, to put off the introduction of the Indian Budget until the Appropriation Bill was brought forward just before the close of the Session, when it was impossible to afford any adequate opportunity for its discussion. He had made the same Motion in 1878, when he was supported by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett). At that time he stated to the House that the Budget had been constantly brought forward in the Dog Days. He quoted from Hansard the dates between 1858, when the Company was abolished, and 1873, when he addressed the House. Since then there had been no improvement. In 1873 the Budget was brought in on July 31, the Prorogation being on August 5; in 1874, August 8, the Prorogation being August 7; in 1875, August 9, the Prorogation being the 13th; in 1876, August 10, the Prorogation being the 15th; 1877 was an improvement, as it was brought in on June 21; but in 1878 it was August 13, the Prorogation being on the 16th; 1879 was, again, an improvement, as it came on on May 22, and was twice adjourned; 1880 was the Dissolution, and it was brought in on August 17, three weeks before the end of the Session; but in 1881 it was August 21, the Prorogation being on the 27th; and in 1882, August 14, the Prorogation being the 18th. Against that system protests had been made over and over again, without effect, by the right hon. Gentleman the present Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett), and by other eminent authorities

  715
  in that House, who were deeply interested in the affairs of India; and he would, therefore, appeal most earnestly to Her Majesty's Government to seriously consider whether something could not be done to remedy what appeared to him to be a scandal. The existing system not only prevented the House from taking that interest which it ought to take in the affairs of India, but it was a direct violation of the pledges given by many eminent men, when the Government of India was transferred from the East India Company to the Crown. Great as was the importance of the Business pressed upon that House, he could not help feeling that it owed almost as great a duty to the people of India; and it was for that reason he ventured most humbly to submit the Resolution, of which lie had given Notice, to the judgment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the statement of the financial affairs of India should be made at a period of the Session when it can be fully discussed."—(Mr. R. N. Fowler.)
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL,in rising to move, as an Amendment, that the Indian Budget should be "referred to a Select Committee, and after examination properly discussed by the House," said, he very much sympathized with the views of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler), and heartily wished it were possible to attain the end desired by him; but, in the pro-sent state of the Business of the House, he did not think there was any prospect of inducing the House at large to apply itself to the difficult question of Indian finance. Most certainly there was no hope of such an eventuality occurring during the present Session; and, therefore, his (Sir George Campbell's) Amendment was moved with a view to reducing the hon. Member's Motion to a more practical form. It was very desirable that there should be, in this country, some authority charged with the duty of reviewing, to a certain extent, the Indian Budget. There was one authority to whom that function might be considered to appertain, and that was the Council of the Secretary of State; but that body worked in the dark, and under an extremely dubious Act, and he did not think they exercised any sufficient control over the finances
  716
  of India. But there were also other reasons why it was impossible for the House at large to deal satisfactorily with the finances of India. He was of opinion that Parliament had too much centralized the affairs of that great Empire in one Legislative Chamber; the House was consequently overburdened with work, and if it was to undertake the duty now proposed, that work could not possibly be adequately performed. That House, moreover, was not competent to deal with many of the questions involved in Indian finance. It was not desirable, in his opinion, that a very minute and active control should be exercised over the finances of India by that House; but, on the other hand, he did think it was desirable that, as Parliament had the duty of controlling the finances of the Empire, the review of the Indian finances should not be reduced to an utter farce, as it usually was. It should be real and useful in some shape; and the only way to make it so would be to refer it to a Select Committee of capable men, to whom those accounts could be submitted, and thoroughly reviewed, so that there might be an effective and useful debate upon a Report to be presented to the House. It was necessary that something of that kind should be done in justice to the Government of India, who, carrying on their functions a long way off, were subject to misrepresentation; and it was desirable that there should be an impartial tribunal which would deal with the accounts, and would shield the Government of India from the injury and injustice occasioned by unintelligent debates in the House and comments in the Press. The recent Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) was, in his opinion, of the nature of an attack upon Lord Ripon, although it was not framed with that view. [Cries of "Order!"] It was a Motion which spoke of Lord Ripon as the most extravagant Governor General we ever had; and, in a speech the other night, the hon. Member again charged Lord Ripon with extravagance. It seemed to him (Sir George Campbell) that charges of extravagance in regard to India were the burden of all the speeches in that House upon India; but such charges were founded not upon details, but upon generalities, and totals in matters of finance were exceedingly

  717
  misleading. If the Indian Budget were considered by a Select Committee, it seemed to him that it would be shown that in Lord Ripon's Government there had been no extravagance whatever, and that the charge was totally unfounded; and that not only in finance, but in other matters, Lord Ripon had been a most careful man, and that he had been supported by a most careful Financial Minister, Major Baring.
  MR. E. STANHOPErose to Order, and said, he understood that the debate on his Motion had been adjourned. He asked whether the hon. Member was in Order in discussing that Motion?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell) was clearly out of Order in referring to a former debate in the present Session. He could not do that. The administration of Lord Ripon was not now the Question before the House.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he must apologize for trespassing against the Rules of the House. He believed, if the Motion before the House was amended as he suggested, the House would be in a position to judge more fairly of the conduct of the Government of India.
  MR. R. T. REIDseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "fully," and insert the words "referred to a Select Committee, and after examination properly."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'fully' stand part of the Question."
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he thought both proposals to bring on an Indian debate at an earlier period of the Session, and to refer the Budget of India to a Select Committee, were well deserving the attention of the House, and that they were simply required in fairness to India. They had too long allowed the Indian Budget to be taken at the end of the Session; and he thought the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler) ought to be carried. The materials needed for considering the financial state of India had been in this country ever since the beginning of April, so that ample time existed long before the end of the Session to discuss the affairs of India in connection with finance.
  718
  He also thought, before the House was asked to consider the complicated and often-changed systems of Indian accounts, that it would be a wise measure to appoint a Standing Committee to examine the Indian accounts every year, and report to the House. At present, in consequence of the changes which had been effected in the accounts of India, it was impossible to compare the present figures with those of former years. He hoped the House would adopt both Motions.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he doubted whether that House could be said, in any sense, to be a proper tribunal to consider the finances of India, for the officials in India were the proper persons to do that; but if it were to be resolved that it should do so at all, the Indian Budget ought to be laid before it early in the Session, in order that the discussion upon them might be a real and a practical one. He was afraid, however, that the Expenditure of India would never receive critical revision at the hands of that House, because any change in it must, of necessity, increase the charges borne by this country. There were very few hon. Members who were acquainted with India; and if they took to cutting down the expenditure they would cut down in the wrong place. It was the expenditure in England, on account of India, that required to be looked into. He believed that a great deal too much was charged for the support of depots of the Army, which should be an Imperial charge. The Indian people were not represented in that House; and what he would like to see would be a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the relative portions borne by India and this country of the charges made at home for India. If competent financial officials were brought from India and put on the Commission, who would carefully scrutinize the charges upon the Army, India Office, and the contracts for stores sent out to India, a very substantial reduction would, he believed, be made, especially in regard to stores, and the India Office, a Department in which the people of India did not believe.
  MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, he was afraid that, judging from the appearance of the House at that moment, when the House began to discuss Indian questions on the eve of the Derby, India stood a bad

  719
  chance against the Derby. They talked about India being a matter of great interest to the House of Commons; but no one who looked round the House an hour ago, and would look round it now, would consider that the 600 English Members who adorned the House had any connection with the great Dependency 7,000 or 8,000 miles away. He was very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R.N. Fowler), however, for bringing forward the Motion, as it gave them the opportunity of being able to say how much some of the Members of Her Majesty's Government, at any rate, wished the ^Resolution could be put in force practically, and at once. He was not at all sure that it would not have been the best plan, and that they would have made some practical progress, if they had taken up that Tuesday evening with a preliminary discussion on two or three questions relating to the Indian Budget. They could thus, at any rate, have got through some of the work which would come before them at a later period of the Session; but if the Indian Budget had been proposed that night, he was afraid there would not have been more hon. Members present than there now were. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) had advocated the appointment of a Royal Commission for the purpose of examining, amongst other things, into the stores, and had recommended the appointment of Indian officials on the Commission. But the Indian Council was composed of the most eminent members of the Indian Civil Service; and they, and the authorities at the India Office, were the purchasers of the stores. If they were to do away with the India Office, the total saving would be only £218,000 a-year, which would not make any material difference to the finances of India. With regard to stores, he very much doubted, if they were bought otherwise than by the India Office, they could be got at anything like the same price, for the loss on the metallic exchange would have to be added to the price. The date of the Indian Budget being brought forward in the House depended on three things—first, on the time the Statement was made in India, and, consequently, when it reached this country; secondly, on the progress of Public Business in the House; and, thirdly, on the financial necessities of
  720
  India. They might, so far as regarded the time the Budget was presented in India, have the Statement laid before the House by the 20th or 25th of May, for he had already revised it; and he hoped that such portions of it as had reached this country would be in the hands of Members within the next three days, as it was in the hands of the printer. With regard to the progress of Business in the House, if hon. Members would devote themselves to getting through the Business as fast as they could, and if the hon. Gentleman opposite would use his utmost influence with his Friends to persuade them to assist the Government in expediting the Business, and not to delay, more than they could possibly help, any of the questions which were immediately pressing for settlement, there was no doubt that the Government would be able to fix a day not later than the middle of July for the discussion of the Indian Budget; and no one would be more rejoiced to have it discussed at that time than he should himself. But, unless that were done, he was afraid the Indian Budget would naturally go the way it had gone before. He was in hopes, however, that the Standing Committees would enable them to get through with the work more quickly than hitherto, and, if they kept in the temper in which they appeared to be to-night, that the Indian Budget would come on at an earlier period than had been the case for some considerable time. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) wished a Select Committee appointed, which should examine into the accounts as they were presented to the House of Commons. The question naturally arose—What could that Committee do? What would be the use of appointing such a Committee? It would really be a Committee of Examination and Record, without effective or practical powers, and, therefore, not of much service. It would examine the accounts; but it could not, as the Public Accounts Committee did now, send for those who framed the Estimates. It would be obliged to take the accounts as they were presented, and give a sort of record of them—a sanction, as it were, to the accounts; and if, by that means, they were to arrive at a much better state of feeling in that House with regard to Indian matters, there was no doubt it would

  721
  be a very considerable advantage. But it did not seem to him that that would be the result. With regard to the Amendment, if the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was not satisfied with the accounts as they would shortly be presented, he (Mr. J. K. Cross) should then, on the part of the Government, have no objection to consider whether it would not be desirable to appoint a Select Committee, as was proposed, in the hope that it might make some suggestions with regard to the framing of the accounts; although he did not believe that such a Committee would result in good to India, or in advantage to the House of Commons generally. The accounts this year certainly showed a very great change in form, but little change in matter; and the Expenditure did not appear to have grown very materially. There was only one point he should like to mention to the House. There was a great deal of misapprehension in the way hon. Members looked at the question of Indian Expenditure. It was said—"Look at your Indian Expenditure; it is going up at an enormous rate. The Statistical Abstract of 10 years ago shows that it was £46,000,000, and now it is£76,000,000." Hon. Members might just as well point to the increased expenditure of the great Railway Companies. From the way they spoke of Indian Expenditure they left people to understand that the taxation had gone up in the same ratio; but he maintained that there was no ground for such an inference. It was a mistake to divorce expenditure and taxation, as was frequently done. He would just put before the House the principal heads of Revenue in India during the last few years—Land, Salt, Assessed Taxes, Provincial Rates, Customs, Stamps, and Registration. Instead of being £76,000,000, the total amount raised yearly by taxation from these sources in the three years ending 1874 was £37,000,000 sterling; in the three years ending 1882 it was £41,000,000; the revised Estimate of 1882–3 gave a taxation of £39,600,000; and the Budget Estimate for 1883–4 was £39,700,000. These figures showed a distinct reduction, as compared with 1881–2, of about £2,000,000 a-year. When hon. Members came to look a little further into these figures, and to examine them fully and impartially, they would find that
  722
  Indian finance was not in the miserable condition in which it was supposed to be. When these accounts were put before them in the way in which they would be put before them in the future, he did not think they should need any Committee to explain them. He was very happy to be able to accept, in a practical sense, so far as he could, the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler); but he did not think it was necessary to accept that of his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, because, as he had indicated, he believed the accounts, when presented, would be found perfectly intelligible and satisfactory. He was sure that when these accounts found their way into the hands of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy he would be ready to compliment the Indian authorities, and thank those who wore present at the India Office for the change which had been effected.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had heard, with very great regret, the observation of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross), that the House was not interested in Indian affairs. He (Mr. E. Stanhope) had always entertained the belief that this country felt deeply interested in Indian affairs, and that it desired its Representatives in that House to show a much greater interest in them than had been the case hitherto; and one reason why the House did not evince more interest in them was, because the Government itself gave the House so little encouragement. He would remind hon. Members that when, a day or two since, an hon. Member endeavoured to bring forward a subject of great importance to India, two attempts were made on the opposite side to count out the House. He thought the House was deeply indebted to his hon. Friend who had moved the Resolution (Mr. R. N. Fowler) for bringing this matter before it, because the way in which the House dealt with the affairs of India was nothing short of a scandal. Although he was ready to admit that blame attached to both Parties of the House in this matter, yet it was of great importance that both should co-operate in the future in an endeavour to get the Indian Budget discussed at an earlier period of the Session; and on this point he was glad to hear what had fallen from the Under Secretary of State,

  723
  for India; but it was idle for him to say that anything which hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House could do would secure this object; because, if all the Government measures now under consideration were disposed of, others would be brought forward; and he feared that unless the Government showed a determination to act differently than they had done hitherto, the Indian Budget would again be postponed to the end of the Session. As to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), he confessed, he did not like the idea of a Committee, because it would take the responsibility off the House. The only way to reduce Indian Expenditure was for the House resolutely and continually to say that economy should be observed; and then the Governor General, whoever he might be, would undoubtedly turn his attention to the subject and carry it out by a firm and consistent policy. He welcomed, however, with great satisfaction, what the Government had said in regard to the original Motion—that they did accept it in a desire to bring the Indian Budget forward at a time when it could be properly discussed; and he trusted that an effort would be made this year to carry it out.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he deeply regretted that the Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), because there were, he conceived, many points, not only with regard to finance, but to policy, in which a Select Committee on this question could do useful service. It was only in that way that they could arrive at the reasons why certain items had been unduly swelled. A great and growing interest was felt in this matter, both in the House, and in the country; and the Government would doubtless see that it was wise and prudent to encourage discussion upon it. He also thought it important that ample time should be given for the discussion of the Indian Budget, as underlying Indian finance were many questions of policy which required to be dealt with in detail. He trusted the new method of keeping the accounts would prove more satisfactory than those which had preceded it.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he should be sorry if an impression prevailed that no
  724
  hon. Member of the House was entitled to say anything about Indian questions unless he was an expert, because it was the duty of hon. Members to make themselves acquainted with all the Business that came before the House; and the best way in which they could make themselves acquainted with Indian Business was for the Government to bring forward the Indian Budget at an earlier date. Both Parties were to blame, to a certain extent, in this matter. His experience extended no further than the present Parliament; but he knew that in 1881 and 1882 repeated promises were made to bring on the subject earlier, and wore not fulfilled. Although the Government had accepted the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler), yet the manner in which they had done so seemed to convey the fact that there was an impression on their minds that their first duty was to push forward certain measures of legislation, to the neglect of their real duty, the consideration of English and then Indian taxation and finance; and they seemed to throw blame and reproach on hon. Members on that side of the House because, in opposing such measures, they were delaying the bringing forward of the Indian Budget. He protested against that, and contended that the course pursued in regard to those matters should be reversed. He thought the Government should do the real Business of the country before they engaged in those wonderful schemes of legislation which broke down year after year.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he could wish that the House took a greater interest than it did in Indian affairs. The difficulty in the way of the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was that the number of Members of this House having knowledge of Indian affairs was so small, that it would be quite impossible for the Indian Budget to undergo the survey which the hon. Member proposed, without taking evidence on the points that might be raised. An inquiry had been conducted, some time ago, by the right hon. Gentleman who now presided over the Postal Department (Mr. Fawcett). That Committee had laid some valuable information before the House, but no practical result had followed; and if there was

  725
  to be any inquiry again, it ought to be gone into with some definite object. He, for one, was very anxious that some light should be thrown upon the checks that existed upon Indian Expenditure at home. He did not think any adequate check could be imposed by the House of Commons, which was so much occupied with home affairs; and the Indian Council worked in the dark, so that the country really did not know what was the nature of its labours. For that reason, inquiry into Indian taxation and finance was certainly necessary, and the time had arrived when it should be made into the check at home. It was now more than 20 years since a great change was carried out in the Government of India. Before that, there was a very efficient check upon expenditure. The East India Company, from their business habits, and from motives of interest—for their dividend depended upon it—kept a very keen eye upon the expenditure of every rupee in the country, and that with great effect. At the same time, it must be admitted that, in those days, the public works were starved, while the result was now rather the other way. He concurred in the hope that the Indian accounts would yet be presented to the House in a manner that all could understand. Formerly they were intelligible; but they were not so now, partly, perhaps, because the capital and annual accounts were not given together in a clear way. He also thought it was most desirable that, after the interval that had elapsed since the great change to which he referred, the public should be informed as to the manner in which it had worked.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was glad that a promise had been given that this very important subject would be brought on as early as possible. The only way to insure the matter of Indian finance and Estimates being brought forward earlier in the Session was for the Indian people to take up the matter themselves, and, by expressing their opinions upon it, to make it of sufficient importance that the House of Commons would not neglect to do so. He believed that, if that were done, before five years elapsed questions relative to India and, Indian finance would be dominant topics in the House of Commons.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment in con-
  726
  sideration of the promise that had been made by the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the statement of the financial affairs of India should be made at a period of the Session when it can he fully discussed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 140.]
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Courtney.)
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 140.]

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he wished to point out that the Bill provided for a larger expenditure than had ever been known for the Civil Service within recent years. On the second reading notice had been taken of that fact; but no information had been given by any Member of the Government, nor had any indication been afforded of the intention of the Government seriously to consider the very great growth of the public national expenditure as regarded the Civil Service Estimates. He did not know whether the House and country were to understand that the Government admitted that it was not in their power to reduce the expenditure, and that there was no defence to be made for the continuous and steady growth that had taken place within the last three years. If that was the case, he had nothing more to say. He had himself ventured to draw attention to the circumstances under which that increase had occurred. Such an increase was not consistent with the professions with which the Government took Office—professions of economy and retrenchment. The allegations which had been advanced to this effect, and which had met with no response from the Government, were of a grave character, and deserved the serious consideration of the Government and of the country. But no such consideration had been given by the Government. At any rate, he thought it was his duty to enter a

    727
    protest against that continued increase of expenditure, and against what he considered the unusual course of refraining in that House from giving any explanation of the cause of the expenditure, or any assurance that the Government would endeavour to prevent its growth. These Estimates, which found their expression in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, wore not the Estimates of Parliament and the country, but the Estimates of the Government—the Estimates presented to the British Parliament by the Government on their responsibility, and therefore they had a right to hold the Government, wholly and individually, responsible for them; and it was only on that footing that he made an appeal once more to the Government to state whether it was their intention to exercise the control which ought to be exercised over the public finances; and whether it was their intention to resist the demands which had been made upon them from various sources for increased expenditure; or whether they proposed to court popularity by allowing the lavish expenditure of public money which appeared now to be made?
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the Bill had come on at a very unexpected hour; and it was unfortunate that neither his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) nor his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) were in their places to answer the right hon. Gentleman. He (the Marquess of Hartington) was under the impression that, both on the Financial Statement and on the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), the views of the Government, as regarded expenditure, had been very fully stated; and he thought that, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was hardly justified in saying that the House had been left in the dark as regarded the opinion of the Government on the matter. The observations of the right hon. Gentleman Were of so general a character, that he thought he was scarcely able at that time to make any fitting reply to them. As to the increase of expenditure in the country, there was no doubt that, in many Departments of the State, which corresponded with the growth of the nation, a reduction in the expenditure was not possible; and, as regarded an-
    728
    other class of expenditure, no doubt the Government had admitted that it was possible and desirable that economy should be effected, and had taken into consideration the possibility of the House and the Government being assisted in that object. But he must point out that the Government required the support not only from those on his side of the House, but from those on both sides; and he was sorry the Government had not always received the assistance of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, as was shown by the fact that a recent proposal in favour of economy was almost unanimously rejected on the other side of the House. After what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), he had hopes that such a proceeding would not occur again, he did not enter into the merits of the question; but this Bill did go in the direction of economy, and there were proposals which had emanated from the other side of the House which would tend very greatly to increase the Public Expenditure. It would be impossible for him, entirely unprepared as he was, to enter with any advantage into the important subject raised; and he only regretted that this Bill had not come forward at a time when those in charge of it could have answered any observation made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURcontended that the Government, and the Government alone, must be held responsible for the Expenditure of the country, and that the House of Commons should make it a principle that the Government of the day, from whichever side it came, should themselves be responsible for the Expenditure. The Expenditure of the late Government might have been reckless, as had been alleged by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House; but it was far exceeded by their Successors; and he must protest against the Government taking such an opportunity of throwing upon the Opposition some of the responsibility that rested, and must rest, entirely upon themselves.
    MR. WARTONalso repudiated the attempt to fix this responsibility upon Conservative Members.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that, seeing neither of the Members of Her Majesty's Government present who were most concerned in the Bill, in order to give them

    729
    an opportunity of replying to the rein arks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) he would move the Adjournment of the Debate.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. Speaker stated he thought the Noes had it; and, his decision being challenged, lie directed the Ayes to stand up in their places, and nine Members only having stood up, the Speaker declared the Noes had it.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (No. 2) BILL.
  (Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Birley, Sir William M'Arthur, Mr. Charles Wilson, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Charles Ross.)
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (No. 2) BILL.

    [BILL 51.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Stevenson.)
    MR. WARTON, in opposing the Motion, said, he had to complain that it came upon the House by surprise, inasmuch as hon. Members knew not, as yet, how the Government were going to vote on the question; whether they were, as a whole, going to support, or whether one-half of them were going to support, and the other half to vote against it, just to show to the country that there was no strength or backbone whatever in the present Administration. In fact, no one could tell on what principle they acted. They knew not from what Her Majesty's Ministers would abstain, in order to secure the votes of a fanatical section of the House of Commons. They were, as a weak Government, ready to give way to everything that was forced upon them. Although that was the case with the Government, he hoped the House would stand firm, and not let the whole administration of the country get into the hands of the fanatical Party. The Bill itself was a short one, but its object was very large. It meant this—that every place in England for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors should be shut up for the whole ' day upon Sunday, except for the accom-
    730
    modation of the bonâ fide traveller. No proposal could be more monstrous than that. It amounted to this—that the whole population of the country should be prevented from tasting a glass of beer upon Sunday, because a set of men, who know neither their wants nor their habits, were of opinion it was not good for them. Surely that was a question which each man ought to have the right of deciding for himself, without being dictated to by anyone else. However, as he said before, it was unnecessary to go into the merits of the Bill at any length until they saw what course Her Majesty's Government intended to adopt. He firmly believed that, if they gave a proposal so absurd and so monstrous the least countenance or support, their conduct would be received with an indignant spirit by the country, and the consequences might be of a serious character. They had all seen how the Government, on a recent occasion, gave way to mob law. He had no wish to see them subjected a second time to the same degradation; and, therefore, he hoped they would recollect what a mob did some years ago, in Hyde Park, in consequence of the passing of what was called Lord Robert Grosvenor's Act. For his own part, he could not see what right any man, or any set of men, had to prevent their fellow-citizens from taking their refreshments whenever they required them. Take the opposite side, and suppose the advocates of the licensed victuallers' trade brought in a Bill, making it compulsory on every teetotaller to drink a quart of whisky each day, what an outcry would be made about it. It would not be one whit more monstrous or absurd than this proposal. Still, they deserved it, and he, for one, would have no commiseration for them. What he complained of was, that this was class legislation of the bitterest and most cruel kind. Those who proposed it, however, knew neither the rights nor the necessities of hard-working men. There were, in London, thousands of men in the position of clerks, living in lodgings, who had no cellars to which to resort, like the advocates of this measure, for a supply of generous wine, which they drank to keep their own spirits up, while they denied those hardworking men the right of living like ordinary Christians. It should be recollected that these men rented only one or

    731
    two rooms, where it was impossible they could have a supply of beverage in store. If, then, one of these men wanted a glass of beer on Sunday, they drove him to get it on Saturday evening and keep it overnight, and drink it stale upon Sunday.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members wore not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock till Thursday.