Commons Sitting of 19 June 1884

MINUTES.
— PRIVATE BILLS (by Order) — Third Reading — Milford Docks (Junction Railway) *; North Metropolitan Tramways *; South Eastern Metropolitan, (Lewisham, Greenwich, and District Tramways),* and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS— Ordered —First Reading —Trustees of Settlements * [255]; Criminal Lunatics * [256].
Report of Select Committee —Summary Jurisdiction (Repeal, &c.)* [No. 224].
Committee —Report —Representation of the People [l19–249] (NewClauses) — [EleventhNight]; Customs and Inland Revenue [206]; Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Amendment [245]; Settled Land [247].
Report — Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Labourers Act) (No. 4) (Nenagh Union)* [202].
Considered as amended —Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings (Scotland) Provisional Orders * [222]; National Debt (Conversion of Stock) * [186].
Considered as amended —Third Reading —Fisheries (Oyster, Crab, and Lobster) Act (1877) Amendment* [208], and passed.
Third Reading —Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) * [232]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (New Streets in the City of Dublin, &c.)* [200]; Local Government(Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 2) (Unions of Clonmel and others)* [198]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 5) (Unions of Cashel and others) * [205]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 6) (Unions of Delvin, and others) * [210]; Local Government Provisional Order (Highways) *[226]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 12) (Parishes of Barnwood, and others) * [214]; Local Government ^Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 13) (City of Oxford, and others)* [215];
Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) (Clogher Valley Tramway) * [234], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COM MISSIONERS) — CASE OF ANDREW M'CALE (CO. CAVAN).
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, in the land case of Andrew M'Cale, of Gallon, Killinkere, Virginia, county Cavan, the solicitors for landlord and tenant agreed, by compromise of a disputed measurement, that 18 3 4 should be the basis for valuation, and that, in spite of said agreement, the Sub-Commissioners settled the measurement at 19 acres; and, whether he can explain the ground of the decision?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have seen the Chairman of the Sub-Commission before which this case was heard. It was heard several months ago, and he has no recollection, nor any note, of the particular circumstances referred to. I asked him to communicate with the other Sub-Commissioners, and ascertain whether they could give any information on the subject, and this he undertook to do. I may mention that the records in the Land Commission Office show that the difference in the measurement was not what is stated in the Question, but only 16 perches.
  MR. BERESFORD: Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Cavan, you will allow me to explain, as this is a matter which concerns me. I have the honour to be the landlord concerned in the case about which the hon. Member for Cavan has asked, and I remember the case perfectly well. There was a survey made on behalf of the tenant, which made the area of the holding 18 acres 3 roods 18 perches, and the landlord's surveyor made the area 19 acres 1 rood 14 perches. We threw off the 1 rood 14 perches, and by mutual agreement made the area 19 acres. So that the hon. Member for Cavan will see that he has been wrongly informed.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. ALBERT HUTTON (CO. CAVAN).
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  791
  Whether Mr. Albert Hutton, of Rockfield Swanlinton, is about to be appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the county of Cavan; and, whether that gentleman was bankrupt or insolvent in England?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that this gentleman was appointed to the Commission of the Peace by the late Lord Chancellor more than two years ago. He did not then take out his Commission; but he has recently applied for it. There is no information whatever before the Lord Chancellor to show that this gentleman was either bankrupt or insolvent in England at any time.
  MR. HEALY: It is a very easy thing to find out whether this gentleman was insolvent or not, if the Lord Chancellor would be willing to make the inquiry.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, there was no objection to do so.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—TRIM QUARTER SESSIONS.
  MR. SHEILasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that at last Quarter Sessions held at Trim, county Meath, the cases for hearing (or some of them) were postponed owing to non-attendance of Sessional Crown Prosecutor, Mr. George Keogh, and if, when he subsequently attended, the Chairman severely rebuked him, Mr. Keogh explained, by stating he was unavoidably delayed by unusual train arrangements; whether, when questioned by the Chairman as to his reason for not being at Trim over night, he pleaded pressure of business and a wish to save expense; is it a fact that a case in which Mr. Keogh was interested was also postponed; will the Government sanction such a miscarriage of justice, and permit such hardship to all interested; what is the amount of Mr. Keogh's salary, and what the amount meant to cover expenses; do the Government consider Mr. Keogh can properly and efficiently discharge public duty as Sessional Crown Prosecutor, holding, as he does, at the same time, a multitude of official positions, amongst which may be enumerated Solicitor to Dublin and Wicklow Railway Company, Solicitor to Bray Commissioners (Town), Solicitor to Cemeteries Committee (Glas-nevin), with very constant attendance in London, and also private practice; what is the nature and quality of his
  792
  staff to transact this crowd of work; and, if the Government will appoint a Solicitor as Meath Sessional Crown Prosecutor who will be better able to discharge the duties belonging to such office?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to repeat this Question on a later day, as I have not yet received information on the subject from Ireland.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BELFAST WORKHOUSE SCHOOL —ASSAULT ON A PUPIL.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a newspaper report of the proceedings of the Belfast Police Court, of the 10th instant, in which Constable Walsh summoned Mr. John Spratt, a schoolmaster in the Belfast Workhouse, for seriously assaulting a pauper pupil of his school, named Corr, who is only eleven years of age; if it be true that the constable who made the complaint, the boy Corr, Dr. Aicken, and Dr. Corry, were all examined, and testified to the brutal nature of the assaults; the medical evidence particularly setting forth that twelve wounds were still visible on the lad's body, from some of which the blood had flowed freely; if it be true that the presiding magistrate, Mr. Gaffikin (who is also a guardian, and originally ordered Corr to be flogged), dismissed the complaint; is it true that there are twelve other boys in the Workhouse schools who were similarly treated at the same time, and whose cases have not undergone investigation; and, will the Local Government Board retain Mr. Spratt in his situation?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that the prosecution in this case was undertaken by order of the District Inspector; and the magistrates, after hearing the evidence, dismissed it. The presiding magistrate was not Mr. Gaffikin, but Dr. Browne; and he announced the decision. Mr. Gaffikin, who sat with him, is an elected Guardian, and is one of a number of Guardians who recently ordered corporal punishment to be inflicted on several boys for insubordination; but he did not, as alleged, order the boy Corr to be flogged individually. From the Reports submitted to me by the Local Government Board, it appears

  793
  that the matter has been specially investigated by the School Committee of Belfast Union. There has been a great deal of insubordination in the school, which rendered corporal punishment necessary. Corr was punished for disorderly conduct, and using very violent language. The punishment was carried out in accordance with the Workhouse Rules. The Committee examined Corr and other boys, and state that none of them present the appearance of having been severely punished. As the Guardians are giving the necessary attention to the state of the school, the Local Government Board do not consider their intervention necessary at present.
  MR. BIGGAR: Does the right hen. Gentleman think that boating a boy until the blood flows from his back is within the Rules laid down by the Local Government Board?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Committee state that the boy was not severely injured.
  MR. BIGGAR: The sworn evidence in the Court was that he was actually beaten until 12 bleeding wounds were visible.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SPELD HURST NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If his attention has been called to the following statements, made at a meeting of the Tonbridge Board of Guardians, with reference to the Speldhurst National School: — A labourer named Miles, an industrious man earning 15s. per week, with seven children to keep, had a son, nine years of age, at school, who had passed from the third to the fourth standard, and was sent home to procure 1s. 1d. for the books which he required. He was sent back with the message that his father was too poor to send the money. He was sent home a second time, but returned with the same message. Since then he had been to school regularly, but had simply to set on a stool all day without learning anything at all. The same man had taken three girls from the Speldhurst School because they were put to menial work, such as scrubbing floors, instead of being taught. The Chairman of the Board drew attention to the following Letter, addressed by the Schoolmaster to Mr. Miles, as follows:—
  794
  "Speldhurst, 18th May, 1884.
  "The Master begs to inform Mr. Miles he does not refuse to take your boy at school, only that he cannot work any more than other boys or yourself without proper tools;"
  and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the circumstances of the case, and will state if this is the same school which was some time ago brought under the notice of the Department with respect to the flogging of boys for attending a Mission Chapel?
  MR. MUNDELLA: My attention has been called to the case referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and the managers of the Speldhurst School state the labourer Miles is in receipt of a much larger income than 15 s. per week. In fact, that with his boy's earnings he is in receipt of 26 s. 6d. and a garden allowance. They further state that they offered to accept payment for the books by an instalment of 1d. per week, which the parents refused to pay. They deny that the boy was neglected, and state that he was continually kept at work. The Department is of opinion that, having regard to the offer of the managers, there is no reasonable ground of complaint.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ACTION OF POLICE CONSTABLES AT ROSSLEA.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the result of the inquiry into the charges made, four months ago, as to the conduct of two police officers at Rosslea on the 13th of February; and, what is the explanation of the delay?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have not been able to identify with certainty the charges to which the hon. Member refers. If he will mention particulars, I shall have further inquiry made.
  MR. HEALY: I must give the right hon. Gentleman credit for the promptitude with which he generally answers Questions; but I must say, at the same time, that when anything is asked as to the conduct of the police in Ireland— [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE—EXCLUSION OF TENANTS OF ARTI ZANS DWELLINGS.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General, If he is aware of any decision

  795
  whereby persons living in Artizans' Dwellings are excluded from the franchise, either as occupiers or lodgers; and, if so, will the Law in this respect be remedied?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENBY JAMES),in reply, said, he was not aware of any cases where it had been so decided in reference to artizans' dwellings as such, or in relation to any particular dwellings; but there was a case decided some three years ago which he thought did cover circumstances similar to those attached to artizans' dwellings. He thought there could be no doubt that such occupiers would be occupying tenants so as to be entitled to vote.
  MR. HEALYsaid, it had boon decided in Ireland that persons occupying artizans' dwellings were neither occupiers nor lodgers; and he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman if he would have any objection, to make the matter clear by inserting a clause in the Representation of the People Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)replied, that, of course, he had not searched the Irish Reports, and he was not aware of their decisions. He should speak to his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF MRS. COLGAN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the result of the Government inquiries into the charges brought by Mrs. Eliza Colgan against Mr. Thomas Gerrard, Crown Solicitor, Queen's County, in the matter of the trust property of a deceased convict; how many years has the inquiry been proceeding; and, what steps do the Executive intend to take in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, so long as over 13 years ago Mrs. Colgan, who certainly is much to be pitied, was informed that the Government could not interfere in it. Mrs. Colgan has repeatedly renewed her appeals to the Government; but it is impossible to give her any other reply. She has been advised that if she considers that she has any claim upon Mr. Gerrard, she should place her case in the hands of her legal adviser.
  MR. HEALY: This was a trust property of a deceased person to which she succeeded to the title. Is it possible
  796
  that there is no way of obtaining redress from the Government for the poor woman?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Unfortunately, the Government officer, the former Crown Solicitor, had also been acting in the capacity of her private solicitor when he took the action, which I think quite as strongly upon as the hon. Member. I am afraid there is no means of redress open.

  THE MINT—ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DEPUTY MASTER.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Master of the Mint, Whether there is any objection to the Fourteenth Annual Report of the Deputy Master of the Mint being circulated amongst Members in the same manner as the Annual Reports of the Commissioners of Excise and Customs; and, if not, whether he will give instructions for the said Report to be delivered to Members as a Parliamentary Paper?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUEE (Mr. CHILDEES),in reply, said, that any Member who desired it could obtain a copy of the Report at the office for the sale of Parliamentary papers; but he was very unwilling to add to the quantity of papers circulated.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)— BREECH-LOADING GUNS.
  MR. M'COANasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether Lieutenant Colonel Hope, V.C. has offered to supply the War Office with 200 armour-piercing breech-loading "Hope" guns of the following descriptions: —
  "100 of No. 1; a Gun of 7 tons in weight, and 18 feet in length, guaranteed to develop an energy per inch of circumference of projectile in excess of that developed by the 3 8-ton 'Woolwich' Gun, when fired with the maximum charge laid down in the Artillery Manual, namely, 160 lbs. of powder and a projectile of 818 lbs.:
  "50 of No. 2; a Gun of about 17 tons in weight, and 23 feet 6 inches in length, to develop an energy per inch of circumference per projectile in excess of that developed by the 80-ton 'Woolwich' Gun, tired with its maximum charge of 425 lbs. of powder and a projectile of 1,700 lbs.:
  "And, 50 of No. 3; a Gun of about 30 tons in weight, and 29 feet in length, to develop an energy of upwards of 1,000 foot tons per inch of circumference of projectile, which is in excess of the energy of any gun yet made, or known to be making, in any country in the world, or

  797
  about equal to that of an imaginary Armstrong of 150 tons:
  "The prices to be, in round numbers, 60 per cent, less than the cost of the Guns they replace, or £1,550 for No. 1, £3,800 for No. 2, and £7,900 for No. 3:
  "The proof to be 10 rounds per Gun, composed of a solid projectile 5 calibres in length, taking the rifling so as to prevent any escape of gas, and a cartridge of powder, of not less than 15 calibres in length, all completely converted into gas within the Gun. The ammunition not to be paid for unless the Gun passes the proof; and no Gun to be paid for unless and until certified as passed;
  whether Colonel Hope has also offered to accept any further conditions of trial which the War Office may desire to impose; and, in the event of any objections being; raiser] to his Guns by either the Artillery or Naval authorities, to submit to the absolute and final arbitration of either General Lord Wolseley or the Under Secretary of State for War, with Professor Tyndall, F.R.S. as scientific assessor; and, whether these offers have been accepted by the War Office; and, if not, whether he will lay the Correspondence on the subject upon the Table of the House?
  MR. BRAND: The statements that Colonel Hope, V.C., has offered to supply the War Office with 200 armour-piercing breech-loaders of various descriptions are quite correct; but I have to say that these offers have not been accepted by the War Office. Colonel Hope has been told that if he will construct a gun on his principle and submit it with ammunition to the Ordnance Committee, it will be tried and duly reported upon. The correspondence is in Colonel Hope's possession, and he is at full liberty to make such use of it as he may deem proper.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)— EMIGRATION OF PAUPER CHILDREN.
  MR. CAINEasked the President of the Local Government Board, What number of children were emigrated to the Dominion of Canada in consequence of the Local Government Board's circular on the subject to the Metropolitan Boards of Guardians last summer; what reports have been received of such children, and whether the Local Government Board are satisfied with the official inspection of cases so emigrated; and, whether it is proposed to continue the emigration of pauper children; and, if so, will any limit of age be fixed?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The number of pauper children sent to Canada by Boards of Guardians during the season from May to August last year was 130, of whom 37 were from Metropolitan, and 93 from County Unions. No official Reports of the inspection of the children by the officers of the Dominion Government have as yet been received by the Board. The Board last month communicated with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with the view of being furnished with such Reports. It is proposed for the present to continue the emigration of pauper children to Canada within certain limits. With regard to the age of the children, the Board have stated that, as a general rule, girls should not be sent out above the age of 10 years, and in no case, except under very exceptional circumstances, above the age of 12 years.

  POISONOUS PATENT MEDICINES —LEGISLATION.
  MR. WARTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, When the Bill for the prevention of the Sale of Poisonous Patent Medicines will be introduced in the other House, as promised on the 26th of March last?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Sale of Poisons Bill has been drawn, and the Lord President is in communication with the Lord Lieutenant as to its extension to Ireland. As soon as this point is decided the Bill will be introduced.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—ADMIRALTY CAUSES.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON (for Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS)asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is in contemplation to make any further provision for the trial of Admiralty causes in the county of Lancaster; and, if so, what are the proposed provisions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, that however desirable it might be to make an arrangement of the kind, no power for such a purpose existed at present.

  INLAND REVENUE ACCOUNTS—BANKING FACILITIES.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, What amount of Revenue money the Provincial Bank of Ireland generally holds; whether any other Bank

  799
  in England or Scotland holds a similar monopoly; and, whether the Provincial Bank of Ireland facilitates the Revenue business by giving attendance of their clerks at the Revenue Offices in Ireland, similar to that given by the Bank of England and its agents, and by the Bank of Ireland at Dublin; and, if not, could he state the reason?
  MR. COURTNEY: The Provincial Bank of Ireland holds, on an average, £35,000 of Inland Revenue money. In England the Inland Revenue accounts are kept with various banks; in Scotland by certain banks in rotation. The Provincial Bank gives every necessary facility for the receipt of Revenue money, the arrangements for paying in being the same in the Three Kingdoms.

  ARMY—SANITARY CONDITION OF NAAS BARRACKS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Medical Officer of Naas Union with, reference to the drainage of Nass Barracks; whether, in reality, there is no other outlet than the Rathasker stream for the present drainage of the barracks; and, whether, in view of the very serious risk to the public health of the neighbourhood from the continued pollution of a water course which affords the only drinking supply to a considerable number of persons, and which is proportionately greater in the hot weather, when the volume of the stream is less, he will give directions for an immediate abatement of the nuisance by the Military authorities, without waiting for the elaboration of any scheme common to the barracks and the whole town?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, the Report of the medical officer of the Naas Union had been brought under his notice. The drainage of Naas Barracks discharged into tanks, from one of which there was an overflow pipe leading into the surrounding soil, and from it the overflow water might possibly at times percolate into the stream. Orders had been given that the overflow should be at once stopped.

  IRELAND—INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE—BARROW DRAINAGE.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Report of the Engineer of
  800
  the Board of Works in Ireland, with reference to the Barrow Drainage, has been delayed pending the completion of valuation to be furnished by Mr. Fitzgerald; and, whether, as that valuation is now complete, he will cause the Report of the Engineer to be laid upon the Table; and, if he can state the total expense of the preliminary inquiry?
  MR. COURTNEY: The Engineer's Report cannot be completed except upon consideration of that of the valuator. When received it will be presented to Parliament. The preliminary inquiries are expected to cost about £1,700, half of which will be paid by the public.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND THE AFGHAN FRONTIER.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for India. If Her Majesty's Government have received any official Report from India, giving an estimate of the numbers of the Russian forces now within striking distance of the Afghan frontier; and, if so, whether it is consistent with the public interest to communicate it to Parliament?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I need scarcely assure the hon. Member that the attention of the Government of India is directed to everything which affects the Afghan Frontier; and information has, of course, been received from time to time as to the Russian troops in that neighbourhood. But no such special Report as the hon. Member describes has been received from the Government of India; nor would it be consistent with the public interest to communicate information of this nature to Parliament.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS — CORMEEN DIVISION, CORTEHILL UNION.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the reason of the difficulty interposed by the Local Government Board to granting a sworn inquiry into the late election in the Cormeen Division of the Cortehill Union, respecting which so much correspondence has taken place; and, if it is the fact that in a matter of much smaller public interest the Local Government Board granted a sworn inquiry, on the application of a County Court Judge (Mr. O'Connor Morris), as to the non-collection of rates on a particular holding'? I understand now that an

  801
  inquiry has been granted; but it is very extraordinary that although the correspondence lasted over two months the inquiry was not granted until a Question was put in Parliament.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Local Government Board deferred ordering an inquiry into the Cormeen election, because they had not the necessary documents and information before them to enable them to decide whether such an inquiry was necessary. It was only a day or two ago that they received sufficient primâ facie evidence in support of the demand for an inquiry; and instructions will now be issued. With regard to the other matter referred to in the Question, the Board ordered the inquiry into the charge made by Mr. O'Connor Morris against a rate collector, because there appeared to be grounds for the complaint made. They have the Inspector's Report on the inquiry now under consideration.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—MOUNTMELLICK UNION.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, at the meeting of the Board of Guardians of Mountmellick Union on the 17th May last, the following Resolution was proposed and seconded, and that the Chairman, Colonel H. D. Garden, refused to receive it, or put it to the Board, viz.:—
  "That the attention of the Local Government Board he called to the following facts:—
  "That Mr. Mathew S. Cassan, prior to the last election of Guardians in Mountmelliek Union, lodged a claim to vote out of property situated in Kylecolmanbane electoral division as owner of said property, and voting papers were issued to him on the strength of said claim. At the scrutiny of votes, Documents lodged in the Court of Lunacy were produced and submitted to the returning officer, in which Documents Mathew S. Cassan declared that he had no right, title, or interest in said property, that he was virtually and in reality a pauper;
  "The returning officer, on perusal of said Documents, disallowed the votes of the said M. S. Cassan;
  "That the Statement of Claim made by Mathew S. Cassan appears to be knowingly and wilfully untrue, and in direct contravention of the law;
  "We call on the Local Government Board to hold a full inquiry into same, so that proceedings may be taken against Mathew S. Cassan. under Section 12 of General Order dated 26th January 1852, in order that he and others may
  802
  be deterred from making false claims in future, and so interfering with the purity of elections;"
  whether the Chairman was acting within his right in refusing to put the Resolution; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be held by the Local Government Board into the conduct of this exofficio Guardian?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that at the meeting of the Mountmellick Board of Guardians, a Resolution as quoted was proposed and seconded, and that the Chairman (Colonel Garden) refused to put it. He did so because he thought it was the duty of the Returning Officer, and not of the Board of Guardians, to deal with the matter referred to in the Resolution. The Local Government Board think that Colonel Garden would have been right in putting the Resolution; but there is no reason to suppose that he did not act bonâ fide, and according to his judgment in declining to do so, and I see no ground upon which I could cause an inquiry to be instituted by the Local Government Board as suggested.

  ARMY (ARMY RESERVE)—CASE OF JAMES CUSHLEY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOEasked the Secretary of State for War, If the following complaint is well founded:— That James Cushley enlisted, in August 1850, in the Artillery, and served the regulation period of twelve years; that on the 3rd January 1863, he was enrolled in the Army Reserve, under War Office Circular 514A, of 9th December 1859; that, after serving in the latter force for sixteen years, and having only one year more of service to make up for the full pension, he was, on the 8th January 1879, informed by the Staff Officer at Magherafelt that he was dismissed; that he had never undergone any medical examination previous and with a view to such discharge; that, on application to the War Office for a pension, he received a reply to the effect that he was
  "Discharged for physical unfitness before having completed the equivalent of twenty-one years' service, and therefore not eligible for any pension under the gratuities;"
  whether he will inquire whether, as a fact, the man was perfectly fit for the service at the time; and, whether he will quote the authority under which a Staff Officer of Pensioners can, of his own discretion, discharge an Army

  803
  Reserve man (not an enrolled pensioner), so as to deprive him of a claim to pension twenty-nine years after his original enlistment?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In 1878 a Regulation was made for removing from the strength, of the Reserve men who were physically unfit for duty. At the time it was not observed that such a Rule could not be made applicable legally to men enrolled under the Reserve Act of 1859, and when this was found out the discharges of such men were cancelled in all cases which were brought to notice. The case of James Cushley was not brought to notice; but as it clearly comes within the same Rule steps have now been taken to cancel his discharge in 1879, and to re-discharge him at the time when his service will count as 21 years. He will thus become entitled to pension.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—EXTRA POLICE—ARDAGH, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the district of Ardagh, in the county of Limerick, is quite free from crime or outrage; and, if so, why extra police were sent there; and, to what account has the cost of those police been charged?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The district named is free from actual outrage; but it has been considered necessary to strengthen the police-station by two constables for special patrolling for the protection of a gentleman whose life is believed to be in danger. The extra men are a part of the county force and are chargeable as such, and not to the district of Ardagh.

  ARMY (AUXARY FORCES) — YEO MANRY RIOTS AT LICHFIELD.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the riotous and disorderly conduct of the Queen's Own Royal Staffordshire Yeomanry at Lich-field on Friday and Saturday last; and, whether he has ordered an investigation?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have received a Report from the Inspector of Auxiliary Cavalry, who was ordered by the General Officer Commanding the District to investigate the
  804
  statements which had appeared in some of the newspapers with reference to these occurrences. Lord Ralph Kerr states that as regards the rioting in the streets, and the insubordinate conduct on the part of the Yeomanry, the statements were greatly exaggerated. The Mayor of Lichfield has forwarded to the various newspapers a Resolution, passed at a large meeting of citizens, to the effect—
  "That this meeting desires to express in the strongest possible manner its opinion that the reports which have appeared in the newspapers of to-day and last night of serious riots and disturbances in this city are grossly exaggerated, and ought to be contradicted without delay."
  The Inspecting Officer reports that on his arrival he ordered a Board of Officers to examine and report on the alleged rioting between the citizens and the Yeomanry. The finding of the Court is that they
  "Are of opinion that there was no riot, as alleged, and that the whole disturbance was confined to what occurred between trooper Smith and the man Ginns, and the attempted arrest of the former."
  I am not, however, satisfied that the extraordinary charges made in the newspapers have been fully and sufficiently investigated, especially as to the alleged conduct of some of the officers of the regiment, and I have directed a further inquiry to be made into the matter.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Will the noble Marquess also inquire whether, during the Yeomanry week, the magistrates contributed to the peace of the town by allowing the public-houses to be open longer than usual?

  ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  SIR HENRY HUSSEY VIVIANasked the First Commissioner of Works, When the remaining maps of the county of Glamorgan on the 6-inch scale will be issued to the public?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Glamorgan sheets will be all published during the next 12 months, excepting about six, which contain portions of Monmouthshire.

  THE WEST INDIES—ISLAND OF PATOS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, when the Foreign Office proposed to Venezuela the cession of the Island of Patos, they had been informed

  805
  by the Colonial Office that that Island was the property of the Crown; whether recent Despatches have shown that it belongs to the Borough Council of Port of Spain; and, whether, irrespective of that question, Her Majesty's Government will now drop their negotiations for the cession of the Island, and inform the Government of Venezuela that it must either fulfil its Treaty obligations and grant redress for all wrongs already inflicted on British subjects, or it must submit all the questions in dispute to the arbitration of a neutral Power?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I do not understand my hon. Friend to raise any doubt as to the territorial Sovereignty of the Island of Patos being vested in Her Majesty. The recent despatches contain no new information as to the ownership. There never was any doubt at the Colonial Office as to the ownership of the Island being vested in the Council of Port of Spain, the capital of Trinidad, and not in the Crown. The Island is known to have been granted by the former Rulers of Trinidad to the Borough Council; but this cannot affect the question of territoriality. In regard to the negotiations, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on April 29 last; and I then stated that in regard to the Island of Patos, Her Majesty's Government had confined themselves to informing the Venezuelan Government that, should the other questions in dispute be satisfactorily settled, the wishes of the Venezuelan Government in regard to the Island would receive a favourable consideration.

  UNITED STATES—MR. SHELDON, A BRITISH SUBJECT.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has called the attention of Her Majesty's Minister at Washington to the circumstances under which Mr. Alfred Sheldon, a British subject and a native of the borough of Salford, was carried off from his home in Kansas six weeks ago, and for whose release a sum of 14,000 dollars is, together with other conditions, demanded by persons to whom, in letters to his friends containing no indication of the place of his detention, Mr. Sheldon refers as "the Committee," and by whom he states he
  806
  is threatened with death if these terms be not complied with?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; in consequence of a communication from Mr. Sheldon's family, instructions were sent by telegraph to Mr. West, on the 4th instant, to inquire into this case. Mr. West has replied that he has acted in the matter; but that some time must elapse before a Report can be received.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)— FARNHAM WORKHOUSE.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether Canon Hoste, the Chaplain of Farnham Workhouse, has objected to visitors to the workhouse conversing on religious subjects with inmates belonging to the Church of England, and also to some of the aged paupers meeting for Bible reading and prayers without his consent; whether the Guardians have issued prohibitory orders in compliance with the chaplain's request; whether complaints on the subject have proceeded from any other quarter, and whether the practices complained of have in any way interfered with the necessary discipline of the workhouse, or led to any other objectionable result; and, what steps have been taken by the Local Government Board to prevent such an infringement of religious liberty?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Chaplain of the Farnham Workhouse brought under the attention of the Guardians the fact that young lady visitors visited the wards and conversed upon religious subjects with inmates belonging to the Church of England, and that tracts had been left for the inmates, which he regarded as an interference with his duties, and that some of the men met in an unused ward for the purpose of praying and reading the Bible, the meetings being led by an aged inmate. The Board understand that the Guardians decided that visitors to the workhouse should not be allowed to go about the wards for the purpose of religious conversation, but should confine their visits to the particular inmates whom they came to see. They also negatived a proposal that an arrangement as to the inmates meeting together for Bible reading, &c. should be permitted. But they ordered a supply of large-type Bibles, and directed that every

  807
  inmate who wished it should have one for his own use. The Board are not aware that complaints have proceeded from any other quarter, or that the practices complained of have in any way interfered with the necessary discipline of the workhouse. The Board, when their attention was drawn to the matter, suggested, for the consideration of the Guardians, whether it was desirable to prohibit the meetings for Bible reading provided that they were held at times which did not interfere with the arrangements and discipline of the workhouse; that due regard was paid to the proper classification of the inmates; and that precautions were taken that undue pressure was not brought to bear upon inmates who did not desire to be present to secure their attendance. The Guardians, however, declined to alter their decision; and the Board, on the 14th instant, addressed to them a further communication, in which they expressed their regret, and pointed out the inexpediency of prohibiting these meetings if the conditions they suggested were complied with. They, at the same time, urged the Guardians to reconsider the matter.

  ARMY (INDIA)—RETIRING PENSIONS.
  GENERAL FEILDENasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Is it the fact that the leave restrictions with reference to retiring pensions retained by the late Secretary of State for India in his Despatch No. 407 to the Viceroy of India, dated 8th December, 1881, are found to impede the retirement of Officers of the Indian Army, and to induce them to serve on for the highest rate of pension, thus burdening the Service with superfluous Field Officers, and throwing a heavy prospective charge on the people of India; and, is it in contemplation to take steps to facilitate the acceptance by Officers of the Indian Army of the pensions fixed in the above-named Despatch?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: There is no information to show that a relaxation of the conditions of service for pension would induce officers to retire on the lower rates of pension. The general effect of such a relaxation would probably only be to give a few officers who have obtained an excessive amount of leave their pensions earlier than they should receive them. It is not proposed to make any change in the existing Regulations.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—COLONEL DIGBT, J.P., WESTMEATH.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What decision have the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland come to as to the prosecution of Colonel Digby, J.P., Westmeath, for attempting to defraud the Land Commissioners by making false declarations in connection with the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Law Officers have advised that the case is one in which a bill should be sent up to the Grand Jury at the next Assizes.

  ARMY—BANTRY BAY — FORTIFICA TIONS OF BERE ISLAND.
  SIR. MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government have decided to give up the fortifications on Bere Island, commanding the entrance to Bantry Bay; what is the reason for this decision; why, if these fortifications are given up, those on Whiddy Island, at the head of the Bay, eighteen miles from the entrance, are to be retained; and, whether he can lay upon the Table any Reports or Correspondence on the subject?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Bere Island and the obsolete works upon it are to be abandoned, because the site is not considered to be one suitable for modern works of defence. Whiddy Island, being suitable as a site for such works, will be retained. The communications on the subject are regarded as confidential, and I cannot lay them on the Table.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— RUMOURED FALL OF BERBER.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that Berber was stormed by the Mahdi's troops, and the garrison and male population put to the sword, owing to the failure of ammunition for which the Governor urgently asked on April 23rd?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There is no information received at the Foreign Office which would enable me to give an answer to the Question asked by the hon. Member. The latter part of

  809
  the hon. Member's Question seems to me rather a matter of debate.

  EGYPT—DRINK SHOPS IN ALEX ANDRIA.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a Report that has been sent from Alexandria by Mr. Tuffnell, manager for Miss Sarah Robinson; whether it is not the case, as stated by Mr. Tuffnell, that several soldiers at Alexandria are undergoing terms of imprisonment ranging up to two, and in some instances three, years for no real crime, but only for drunkenness; whether many of the drinking establishments at Alexandria are kept by low-class Maltese, who sell to the soldiers stuffs of a horrible nature purporting to be English drinks, and whether the men are not thus drugged rather than intoxicated; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will cause some inquiries to be made as to the cases of those men, who are undergoing such severe punishment?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There is no information on the subject at the War Office; but inquiries will be addressed to the General Officer Commanding in Egypt.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—THE BROTHERS DELAHUNTY.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the dying declaration of Patrick Slattery has been submitted to the Judge who tried the case of the "Queen v. Delahunty and brother;" and, if so, whether the learned Judge has expressed any opinion upon its bearing on the case?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the declaration has been submitted to the Judge, and it is at present before him.

  FRANCE—GAMBLING AT MONTE CARLO.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement in The Times of 18th June that, after the stay of Her Majesty at Mentone, Lord Lyons was directed to make representations to the French Government as to the gambling at Monte Carlo, and accordingly did so, is correct; and, whether, if
  810
  so, he will lay upon the Table of the House all Correspondence upon the matter; whether Her Majesty's Government is aware that at Nice, Vichy, Aix-les-Bains, and other places in France resorted to by those in search of health or amusement, establishments where gambling is permitted are a source of public revenue, and whether it is contemplated to make representations to the French Government, or to any other Government, in regard to this matter; and, whether any representations have been received, either from the Government of the Prince of Monaco or from any other Government, in regard to the facts that race meetings take place in some part of the United Kingdom, almost every week in the year, which are attended by men called "bookmakers," who are professional betters, and where public gambling is carried on with the full knowledge and assent of the Police?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; the statement quoted in the 1st paragraph of my hon. Friend's Question is entirely incorrect. The Foreign Office would be going beyond its proper province if it was to make representations about gambling tables in France; and the same observation would apply to the Foreign Office of the Prince of Monaco if it was to make representations about race meetings in England.
  MR. COLERIDGE KENNARD: Is it beyond the province of the Government to make inquiries with respect to the gambling establishment now in existence at Port Said?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That is not a matter arising out of this Question.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—CYCLISTS IN THE PARKS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there are any reasons why, in the concessions which he contemplates making to cyclists with respect to Regent's Park, Batter-sea Park, and Victoria Park, the use of those parks should be allowed to those only for purposes of traffic, and not for purposes of exercise; whether, if so, he will inform the House what these reasons are, and what is a purpose of traffic in contradistinction to a purpose of exercise as applied to cycle riders; whether he will put himself into communication.

  811
  with the ranger or rangers of the Royal Parks of the Metropolis, and with the ranger of the Royal Park of Richmond, in order to see whether it is either impossible or inexpedient to allow cyclists to use them at such hours and under such conditions as would not interfere with the use of them by those taxpayers whose means enable them to drive in carriages; and, whether he will especially consider whether it will be possible and expedient to permit cyclists to use the carriage road along Constitution Hill, which is maintained at the cost of the taxpayers, but from which all public vehicles, and the private carriages of almost all taxpayers, are excluded?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The deputation which I received on this subject a few days ago represented the great body of cyclists all over England. They informed me that a majority of their body saw grave objections to the opening to cyclists of Hyde Park and the other Parks not specified by them. They also stated distinctly that what they desired was the right of passing through Victoria, Battersea, and a certain part of the Regent's Park; and that until a general Act was passed regulating the use of velocipedes they did not desire to seek any further extension of the privilege which, in the absence of such regulations, they foresaw might be attended with inconvenience to the general public. After careful consideration, I conceded all that they asked, and this, I think, is as much as can be expected, or is desirable at the present time.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether the deputation represented the cyclists of the United Kingdom, and not those of the Metropolis?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, they represented the whole body throughout the United Kingdom.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-SCOTCH BILLS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any reason to hope that the Bill to establish a Secretary for Scotland, of which nothing has been heard for some weeks, will reach this House before the Session is very far gone; and, whether, seeing that both the Grand Committees are now without work, Her Majesty's Government will propose to refer the Scotch
  812
  Bills pending in the House either to these Committees, with additional Members, or to a Scotch Committee substituted for one of them, or will otherwise devise some mode of dealing with them?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The first part of this Question is one which I have some difficulty in answering. When that particular Bill will reach this House from the House of Lords I cannot undertake to say. I am. sorry that the Bill has not been gone on with in the House of Lords. I suppose the press of Business there interferes with its progress. As to the second Question, I do not think that if the hon. Member had made himself acquainted with the position of Scotch Bills he would have put the Question on the Paper. There are three Scotch Bills before the House—the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, which has been referred to a Select Committee; the Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Amendment Bill, which is down for Committee to-day, unopposed; and the Universities (Scotland) Bill, which is awaiting a second reading. It is obvious that it is quite impossible to refer any of these Bills to a Grand Committee. They are in a favourable condition for passing, and I only wish the English Bills were in an equally favourable position.

  REVISION OF JURORS AND VOTERS LISTS (DUBLIN COUNTY) BILL.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the cause of the delay in proceeding with the Revision of Jurors and Voters Lists (Dublin County) Bill?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The want of a suitable opportunity prevents me from, pressing the Bill forward. On the last occasion when progress was made with the Bill the House was counted out.
  MR. HEALY: The Bill has now escaped the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule, and can be taken up at any hour, if the Government so desire.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — OVER PRESSURE IN BOARD SCHOOLS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether the following statement appears in the tabulated records of the Registrar General, relating to the

  813
  death of the daughter of a glass packer on 1st June, at 82, Southam Street, Kensal Town, W.:—
  "This is the second death in my practice within a week, the cause of which was produced from pressure at a Board School.
  "(Signed) W. H. BORHAM, M.D.;"
  and, whether he has any reasons to believe Dr. Borham's statement to be without foundation?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have had no Notice of this Question, which appeared for the first time on the Paper this morning. I should not venture to express any opinion on Dr. Borham's statement until the cases have been fully investigated and reported upon by the London School Board, to whom they have been referred.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Has it not been already inquired into by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Some inquiry has been made; but the whole case has gone to the School Board for their investigation.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—HOME LESSONS IN BOARD SCHOOLS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether in consequence of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, that a master of an Elementary School has ''no authority to impose upon children the duty of studying at home," he will revise the revised instructions to Inspectors by withdrawing from them that portion of Clause 51 in which it is declared a school marked "excellent" ought to provide "a regular system of home exercises?"
  MR. MUNDELLA: I see no reason to modify the instructions. All the Judges decided was, that a child could not be detained against the will of the parent in schools because it had not prepared its home lessons. But this does not prevent managers and teachers from providing a regular course of home lessons for children in the higher Standards.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: If a parent refuses permission to a child to learn home lessons, does the right hon. Gentleman still think that the authorities are justified in punishing the child?
  MR. MUNDELLA: As I understand home lessons are not obligatory upon a
  814
  child; and, therefore, the child ought not to be punished for not learning them. At the same time, I do not think that one parent in 1,000,000 will object to home lessons.
  MR. RAIKES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to indicate what he has just stated to the School Boards throughout the country?
  MR. MUNDELLA: It is not necessary to do so. The School Boards are very well aware of the fact already.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, with reference to the presentation of the Education (New Code) Instructions issued to Her Majesty's Inspectors, and applicable to the Code of 1884, by Command, the said Paper was presented in the form of a blank sheet of paper?
  MR. MUNDELLA: In order to save time and to secure an early distribution, I presented to the House the printed title page only of the "Instructions;" but they were actually in type at the time. The printing rests with the Stationery Office, and the circulation with the Vote Office, and I understand they will be delivered to Members to-morrow morning.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  MR. W. LOWTHERasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If it is a fact that there were only forty-three diseased animals in England on the thirteenth instant; and, whether measures could not be taken for destroying these forty-three animals, and thus stamping out the cattle disease?
  MR. CHAPLINasked, Whether, having regard to the extremely limited number of animals which still remain affected with foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to exercise the powers vested in the Privy Council for their compulsory slaughter, and to give full compensation for the same?
  MR. DODSON: It is a fact that according to the [Returns on the 7th of June, not on the 13th of June, there were only 43 diseased animals in England—that is, animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease. On the 9th of June there was the Return of an outbreak among a flock of sheep in Lincolnshire, and on the 12th of June an

  815
  outbreak amongst cattle in Kent. Up to the present time 369 animals have been reported affected with foot-and-mouth disease; 338 are sheep, and the remainder cattle. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire will see that the number is not so very limited. Most of the Local Authorities in the various districts already possess powers of slaughtering if they choose to exercise them; the others can obtain them. The Privy Council have power to direct the authorities to slaughter the animals, and to grant compensation out of the rates. The Privy Council are watching these Returus very closely.
  MR. JAMES HOWARD: Would it not be possible to estimate the cost of slaughtering these animals?
  MR. DODSON: It would be easy to put an estimate on them, though if the disease got among a herd of pedigree cattle the case might be different.
  Afterwards,
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, seeing there are only by the last Returns forty-three animals in the Country suffering from foot and mouth disease, the Privy Council will not take measures to have those animals slaughtered, and thus have the United Kingdom free of this disease?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, that a Circular had been issued some time ago to Local Authorities calling attention to the matter.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: Three months ago, or recently?
  MR. DODSON: Less than three months ago.

  THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—THE RAJAH OF TENOM—CREW OF THE "NISERO."
  MR. STOREYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any certain information as to the condition of the crew of the Nisero later than up to the 31 st of March; whether it is not possible to arrange for news from the men of the Nisero at reasonable intervals, so as to relieve the dreadful suspense into which the families are now plunged; and, whether the Dutch Government have taked any practical steps to secure the release of the men of the Nisero since the failure of their ex-
  816
  pedition in January; and, if so, what steps?
  MR. BROGDENinquired whether there was not reason to believe that the repeated inquiries for information in this House as to the safety of the crew of the Nisero were not in a very short time communicated through Penang to the Rajah of Tenom, increasing the difficulties both of the Dutch and English Governments, and being calculated to enhance the dangers of the captive crew?
  MR. STOREY: In regard to the Question just put, would the noble Lord state, if it is so very easy for the Rajah of Tenom to receive news of what passes in this House, why was it so difficult to obtain news from the Rajah?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In answer to the first Question of the hon. Member, I will say that there is no information later than that contained in the telegram from the Commander of the Pegasus of May 20, which will be found at page 8 of the recent Blue Book. A letter was received by Her Majesty's Consul at Olehleh, from Mr. Crichton, late chief officer of the Nisero, dated April 26, complaining of the bad quality of the food supplied to the crew by the Rajah; but this was anterior in date to the delivery of the further supplies of food to them through the Pegasus. There are difficulties in the way of communicating with the coast of Tonom, owing to the difficulty of landing during the southwest monsoon; but every endeavour will be made to do so as frequently as possible, and arrangements are being made with the Colonial Office and the Admiralty for that purpose. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Brogden), I say that it is no doubt true that it is probable that the Rajah of Tenom has means of knowing what passes hero in regard to this subject; and as to the danger to the men, no doubt premature threats would increase their risk. I may point out to the hon. Member for Sunderland that information is conveyed to the Rajah by his friends across the Strait; but we have no similar means of obtaining information from him. In answer to the third Question of the hon. Member, I understand that an extra credit of £125,000 has been proposed in the Netherlands Chamber for the purpose of strengthening the Dutch Naval Forces in Acheen, and enabling the authorities

  817
  in Acheen to undertake further military operations, should all other means of effecting the release of the crew fail.
  MR. STOREY: I wish to know whether it is not correct that the Dutch Government have been attempting to get these people out by employing Acheenese who are unfriendly to the Rajah; also, whether Mr. Maxwell has not informed the Government that the Dutch are going to do so, and that he had little faith in the success of such efforts, which he thought were calculated to endanger the lives of the captives? I wish to know whether Her Majesty's Government have made any protest against this action?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The course adopted by Her Majesty's Government is set out in the despatches contained in the Blue Books. I may, perhaps, point out that as Her Majesty's Government throws the whole responsibility, as it is entitled to do, upon the Dutch Government in regard to the position of these persons, who are upon Dutch territory, it would be exceedingly difficult for Her Majesty's Government to object too strongly in regard to those measures which the Dutch Government, on full consideration, think to be the only means of extricating the captives. Nevertheless, communications have passed in regard to these steps; and, so far as I understand the information which has reached Her Majesty's Government, the £125,000 is not intended to be used with regard to the measures alluded to by the hon. Member in regard to pressure on the neighbouring Chiefs.
  MR. STOREYasked how it was proposed to spend this money? In other words, was it proposed that the Dutch should send another expedition?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Dutch Government has not actually settled the details of the measures to be taken; but Her Majesty's Minister at The Hague has been informed that details will be left very much to the advisers, civil and military, of the Dutch Government on the spot; and I think that, on the whole, is wiser and simpler.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVATE ESTATE BILLS.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in pursance of his statement On August 7th 1883, that with regard to Private Estates Bills—
  818
  "We ought to look to the aid of the House of Lords, for these Bills are made the subject in the House of Lords of a regular reference to Judges. From that source we may possibly obtain some assistance which will be a guide to the House of Commons, and which, at any rate, will secure our giving due attention to these important measures. Probably the attention of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has been called to the subject, and I am sure he will be ready to consider whether anything can be done in that direction,"
  Her Majesty's Government will propose, by a new Standing Order, that a report shall be made to the House in the case of Private Estate Bills containing provision for extending the term, or the area of any settlement of land?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have had an opportunity of considering this matter, and I think it desirable that a Standing Order should be adopted, and that a Report should be made to the House in the case of Private Estate Bills containing provision for extending the term or the area of any settlement of land.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—THE SHIP "EGMONT."
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the case of the ship Egmont, recently sold in a Salvage Court in Wexford under the provisions of the existing Merchant Shipping Acts; whether the following facts in connection with this case have been brought under his notice:—
  "On the arrival of the Egmont in Wexford South Bay the crew refused to work the pumps, a slight leak having been discovered, and practically mutinied;
  "The captain, who was also the owner, was consequently obliged to hoist signals of distress;
  "The Rosslare Coastguards took possession of the ship, and compelled the captain to leave her;
  "Finally, the ship and cargo having been secured, two magistrates, viz., Mr. E. S. Flood, J.P. and Mr. Kennedy, R.M. wore appointed nautical assessors to adjudicate upon the various salvage claims. Their assessments were so high that, on the ship and cargo being sold, the proceeds barely satisfied the claims and expenses of the Court, and the owner, Captain Lynch, for no fault of his, but owing to the misconduct of his crew, finds himself now stript of the whole of his property, and east adrift on the world;"
  whether there are frequent cases of the appointment as nautical assessors of magistrates unacquainted with nautical pursuits; and, whether this is a case in which the Board of Trade can take any

  819
  action with the view of mitigating the apparent injustice done to Captain Lynch, and securing more suitable assessors in future cases of a like character?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The information which has reached the Board of Trade officially with regard to the Egmont is as follows:—On February 15 the Egmont was handed over to the receiver of wreck at Wexford by the salvors, nine fishermen, the vessel having been deserted. The crew obtained a decree against the master for £20 on account of wages due, and seized and sold some of the sails to meet the amount. The salvage case was brought before the local magistrates, who awarded the salvors the sum of £65 5s 9d. against the ship. The owner was unable to pay, and his vessel was consequently sold, realizing £101, the balance, after payment of the award and expenses, being claimed by the mortgagees of the vessel. I have no information which would tend to confirm the allegation of the hon. Member that the Coastguard at Rosslare took possession of the ship and compelled the captain to leave her. The question of salvage was heard by the local magistrates under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, which enacts that disputes with respect to salvage where the claim is under £200 shall be referred to two Justices. It is erroneous to say that the magistrates were appointed nautical assessors. They acted under statutory authority; and the Board of Trade have no power either to review their decisions or to express any opinion as to their efficiency.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT — CLERKS IN THE ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBEESasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has had under consideration the increased charge on the Pension List that will arise from the compulsory retirement of efficient clerks, at the age of 60, in the Admiralty and War Office?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GUILDERS): My right hon. Friend has requested me to answer this Question. The retirement of clerks at the age of 60 is within the contemplation of the Superannuation Act; and if all retirements took place at that age, there is no reason to think that the increase of the aggregate charge
  820
  for pensions would, under ordinary circumstances, call for the special attention of the Board of Treasury.

  EGYPT (THE ARMY OF OCCUPA TION).
  MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What measures the Government are adopting for the protection of Upper Egypt?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: My right hon. Friend has requested me to answer the Question. Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the British Forces now in Egypt, with those of the Egyptian Government, are sufficient for the protection of Upper Egypt against any danger which is at present likely to menace it. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman desires to receive information as to the details of military measures which may be under consideration; but I may state that some time since—in fact, immediately after the defeat of General Hicks's force—projects for the defence of Upper Egypt against external attack were drawn up and carefully considered by the military authorities in Egypt. Up to a recent time the command and disposition of the Khedive's Army has been entirely separate and distinct from that of the British Force in Egypt. We have not, therefore, full and complete information, either as to the composition of the Khedive's Army, or as to its disposition in various points in Egypt; even if it were considered desirable, which it probably would not be, to give full particulars on those subjects. Recently, however, in order to avoid any risk of confusion, and to concentrate responsibility, instructions have been given for arrangements being made with the Khedive's Government to place the supreme command over, and general disposition of, all the military forces in Egypt directly in the hands of the General commanding the British troops, who is, of course, an officer senior in the British Army to Sir Evelyn Wood, who commands the Egyptian troops. We shall, therefore, henceforward be in possession of fuller and more complete information with respect to the arrangements that may be made, or that it may be considered necessary to make, for the defence of Egypt, and for the disposition of all the military forces in the country; but it is not probable that it

  821
  will be considered desirable to state in detail what those arrangements may be.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Do I understand the noble Marquess to say that the military authorities in Egypt are of opinion that the forces in Egypt are sufficient to guard against any attack, or is that the opinion only of Her Majesty's Government?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: We have received no representation from any of the military authorities in Egypt that the forces there are insufficient for the protection of Egypt.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Has the noble Marquess made any inquiry on the subject?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know whether the question was directly asked whether General Stephenson thinks the forces at present at his command sufficient for the defence of Egypt, I do not think it has been put to him in that form; but we were in communication with him, and he would express his opinion if necessary.
  MR. GORST: Will the British General Officer who is in command be entirely independent of the Egyptian Civil Government?
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Will this new arrangement involve the right of the English Commander to take the Egyptian troops into the Soudan, contrary to the terms of their enlistment?
  THE MARQUESS OP HARTINGTON: In reply to the last Question, I do not understand that the General Officer commanding the troops would have any authority to remove the troops to the Soudan without the authority of Her Majesty's Government. As to the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), I conceive that the responsibility for the military defence of Egypt will rest henceforward upon the General Officer commanding the troops. As to whether he will be entirely independent of the Egyptian civil authorities, I have no doubt he will consider it right to act in concert and communication with them, and that in any matter of difficulty he will refer home for instructions.

  THE SUEZ CANAL—NEUTRALIZATION.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the fact, as stated by the French
  822
  papers, that a Conference is to be held on the subject of the neutralization of the Suez Canal; and, if so, whether any preliminary arrangements that may be made with France on this subject will be submitted to the House before such Conference is held?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With the permission of the House, I will postpone answering this Question, which has essential relation to the statement I am to make on Monday, until that day arrives.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OF STOCK) BILL—THE SAVINGS BANKS FUND.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the recent exchange of £4,000,000 in Three per Cent. Consols, belonging to the Savings Banks, for £4,000,000 in Two and a-Half per Cent. Stock, coupled with a twenty years' terminable annuity, equivalent to the difference of £11 7s. 6d. per £100 between the prices of the stocks, with an addition of £2 per £100 to secure the Commissioners from loss, Whether, seeing that the receipt of £100,000 interest on the Two and a-Half per Cent. Stock, and of £16,050 as interest at three per cent, on £535,000, the amount of difference for which the terminable annuity is issued, leaves a loss of £3,950, he will take any, and what, steps to compensate the Savings Banks Funds administered by the National Debt Commissioners for this loss of income?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I am sorry that when my right hon. Friend asked me a Question on this subject without Notice in Committee on the National Debt Bill, I failed to explain to his satisfaction the nature and effect of the transaction; but I hope to have better success now. The conversion of Three per Cent Consols held by the Post Office Savings Banks Fund into Two-and-a-Half per Cent Stock was commenced by the Prime Minister in 1863; its object was not to leave the Two - and - a - Half per Cent Stock in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, but to broaden the basis of that Stock in the hands of the public in anticipation of some future larger conversion. All I did in the Acts of 1883 and 1884 was to carry out this policy, the Stock available for conver

  823
  sion in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners having been exhausted. I may repeat that the Act of this year was only introduced to make clear an expression (about which doubts had been raised) in the former Acts. The financial result, so far from being unfavourable to the Post Office Savings Banks, has been highly beneficial to them. Of the £4,000,000 of Two-and-a-Half per Cent Stock recently taken with the annuity in exchange for Three per Cent Stock, £1,160,000 have been sold, and the gain of capital to the fund has been £20,156. If the balance, £2,840,000, be sold at the price of this day, the additional profit would be £80,053; or the total profit in the shape of increased capital to the Post Office Savings Banks Fund will be £100,209. If my right hon. Friend still fails to understand these details, I shall be happy to explain them to him personally.

  ARMY QUARTERMASTERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Army Quarter Masters would be allowed, as a body, to petition the Government for the redress of their grievances, as all other attempts to get them redressed seem to have failed?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, it would be contrary to the custom and Regulations of the Service, and would be strongly disapproved of as inconsistent with the spirit of discipline which ought to prevail in the Army, if quartermasters as a body petitioned Government for redress of their grievances. On the other hand, any officer or soldier who may consider himself aggrieved can appeal individually, through his military superiors, to the Secretary of State for War with the certainty that his case will be fully inquired into. The position of quartermasters has, during the last few years, been fully considered, and much has been done to improve their emoluments and rank both while serving and on retirement. I cannot admit that as a body they have any reasonable cause of complaint.

  EGYPT—THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the statement he has made as to the communication which he intends to make to the House on Monday, will
  824
  it be made in such form as to enable observations to be made upon it if necessary?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly, Sir. It is my intention to make a short explanation in laying Papers on the Table on Monday; and I shall take care that it shall be made in such a way as to enable observations to be made, in so far as occasion shall arise.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Papers to which he alludes, and which he intends to present on Monday, will be in our hands?
  MR. GLADSTONE: They will be in the hands of Members, I have not the least doubt, on Tuesday morning.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I was in hopes that we should have closed the Committee on the Representation of the People Bill on Tuesday, so as to be able to take the Report stage to-day. I understand it is not unlikely that it may not require the whole of this evening's Sitting. In that case we shall proceed with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. If the whole of this evening's Sitting should be occupied with the Committee on the Representation of the People Bill, the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would stand as first Order for to-morrow; but supposing the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill to be disposed of to-night, we should then propose to place the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill, which has been waiting for some time, as the first Order for to-morrow, and we should put down the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill as the second Order, and the Elections (Hours of Poll) Bill as the third.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: When is it proposed to take the Report of the Representation of the People Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I may say at once that I feel we could not fairly ask the House to take it to-morrow; and we shall, therefore, put down the Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill for Monday.

  ORDER—RULES OF DEBATE—PER SONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish, with the indulgence of the House,

  825
  to make a personal explanation. On Tuesday the Prime Minister made this serious charge against me. He said—
  "The hon. Gentleman incesssantly making grossly inaccurate statements, which he coolly ascribes to me."
  I immediately rose and asked the Prime Minister to give an instance in which I had quoted him inaccurately. I then quoted the precise words he used on April 24, and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he really considered he was justified in stating that I had grossly misquoted him? The Prime Minister then repeated his charge in these words— "Yes, Sir, I do say so, both to-day and yesterday." [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] Now, I felt I could not allow so serious a charge to pass unnoticed. I therefore asked the Prime Minister, by letter, whether he would be so good as to state what was the substantial difference which, in his opinion, existed between the expressions I attributed to him on Monday and Tuesday, and the words which he actually used? I have received to-day a reply from the Prime Minister, in which he neither proves nor explains the charge he has made; but he makes this additional statement. ["Read!"] I am going to read. This is what the Prime Minister says with regard, to use his own words, "to what it was that required notice in my method of proceeding." His statement is classified under four heads—
  "First, citation so inaccurate as to materially vary the sense; second, this erroneous citation delivered positively as if notorious and beyond question; third, and introduced into a Question put to another person, who could not have proper means of correcting it; fourth, and this in two cases on two successive days."
  And the Prime Minister adds—
  "As you justly observe, you did, after exception was taken, read an actual report of the words."
  Well, Sir, I feel no one can really compare the words in which I first summarized the Prime Minister's statements with his precise words subsequently quoted, and say that they were "erroneous" and "inaccurate," and that they "vary the sense," or in any way substantially differ from the words he actually made use of. I venture to think that the reports of the Prime Minister's utterances in the public Press and in Hansard are "notorious and beyond question." The
  826
  two Questions put to him on Monday and Tuesday arose out of replies by another Minister on the same subject. The first was addressed directly to the Prime Minister himself, and the second to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his presence. Had the Prime Minister deemed it necessary to ask Notice of these consequential Questions, they would, of course, have been postponed. I will read to the House the original words in which I summarised the statements, and the precise words in each case which I subsequently quoted when my summary was challenged. On the 17th I said—
  "The Prime Minister gave information to the House on a previous occasion that the fall of Berber would not seriously affect the safety of Khartoum."
  The precise words used by the Prime Minister on April 24—and I have carefully verified these words by examining the reports in the newspapers and in Hansard —were—
  "We believe, according to all the information we possess, that there would be no essential change in the position of Khartoum in consequence of that change in the position of Berber."
  On the 16th I asked—
  "If the Prime Minister withdraws his statement that there is not the slightest risk of the garrison of Berber meeting with the same fate as that of Sinkat?"
  The right hon. Gentleman having been asked, on April 24—
  "Whether there is any danger that the garrison of Berber may he subjected to the fate of the garrison of Sinkat?"
  said—
  "We have no reason to believe that there is any risk to Berber of any such thing."
  I think it right to say that one report phrases it "of any such catastrophe." I now leave it to the judgment of the House to say whether there is any practical difference in the language in which I first summarized the statements of the Prime Minister and his actual words, which, in both instances, I immediately quoted to the House; and whether there is any justification for the Prime Minister's charge that I had made a "grossly inaccurate statement" of his expressions. I beg to thank the House for the indulgence with which they have listened to me. I felt bound to notice so grave an accusation, coming from one of the high position and power

  827
  of the Prime Minister. I repudiate most emphatically the charge he has brought against me, and I protest against it as baseless and unjust.
  MR. GLADSTONE (after receiving from the hon. Member the documents from which he had quoted)said: If the hon. Gentleman had been kind enough to give mo Notice that he was going to make this statement, I should have taken care not to have troubled the hon. Member for his Papers.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I did give Notice. I wrote to the Prime Minister.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I received the Notice as I came into the House. Did the hon. Member send his Notice to Downing Street?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: No; I left the letter here.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member left it here, and it was put into my hands as I entered the House to transact my business; and that is what the hon. Gentleman calls giving me Notice. I must notice an expression used by the hon. Gentleman two or three times. He speaks of what he chooses to call "summarizing" my statements in a certain manner. There was no question of summary or summing up my statements. They were citations—supposed citations of the few words I used, and were supposed to correspond with them.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: From memory.
  MR. GLADSTONE: From memory says the hon. Member; but if this thing is done from memory it should be done in such a way as should raise fairly the question between us. These citations of the hon. Member are made, not with reference to elicit information, but they are made as parts of argumentative Questions, and sometimes made in parts of argumentative Questions, not addressed to me, but addressed to other persons, Members of the Government. That I think to be a most inconvenient practice, and is one that ought to be discouraged. The declarations of Ministers in this House are always held to carry a great responsibility with them. That being so, when they are cited by hon. Members they should be cited with corresponding accuracy. The hon. Gentleman is of opinion that he has made his citations with substantial accuracy. I am of opinion that
  828
  he has not, and that he greatly varied the sense of what I said. I will take one of the cases that he has mentioned. [Laughter.] This is not a thing to be laughed at; but that is another matter. I am reported to have stated to the House —and I have no doubt that the report is substantially accurate—that we had no reason to believe that there was any risk of a massacre of the garrison at Berber. This statement the hon. Member in his Question the next day converted into a positive statement on my part that there was not the slightest risk of such a massacre occurring. My statement was as to what was our opinion and belief, founded upon an examination of the facts that had come to our knowledge, and that statement the hon. Gentleman converted into a categorical assertion; and, having so perverted the meaning of my words, he says that there is no difference between my stating that to be our opinion, and my stating it as a fact beyond all question. I leave this matter, therefore, to the judgment of the House. In my opinion, his version and my statement most seriously varied one from the other, and this indicates a carelessness of habit on the part of the hon. Member which I hope he will not cultivate in future.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I wish, Sir, to put a Question.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman rise to a point of Order?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Yes, Sir. I wish to ask a Question of the right hon. Gentleman arising out of the answer which he has just given.
  MR. SPEAKER: Then I am bound to say that there is no point of Order involved. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) has offered a personal explanation; and as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has answered the statement made by the hon. Member for Eye, I do not think that the matter ought to go further. There is no Question before the House.
  MR. BROADHURSTrose, and was called upon by Mr. Speaker.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I have no wish to continue the discussion; but I merely wish to ask a Question. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already settled the point of Order. No question of debate can arise out of the explanation of the hon. Member for Eye and the

  829
  reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish, Sir, to ask you a Question upon a point of Order. When you were standing in your place, and called upon the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) the hon. Member rose, and the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire still remained standing in his place; and I wish to know whether it is not the fact that Mr. John Dillon, a former Member of the House, was named and supended by your Predecessor in that Chair for committing the same offence? I venture to submit that the breach of Order committed by the right hon. Gentleman came clearly under your observation.
  MR. SPEAKER: It was clearly an inadvertence on the part both of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member. I regarded it purely as an act of inadvertence.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. BROADHURST: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, Whether he can give the House any assurance that the final stages of the Representation of the People Bill shall be completed before the Government offers any facilities for the discussion of any special question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is our intention to proceed with all the despatch we can in disposing of the final stages of the Representation of the People Bill; but I think that the time for answering the Question of the hon. Member has not arrived.
  MR. FIRTH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, when the Government propose to resume the consideration of the London Government Bill?
  MR. EDWARD CLARKE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I should like to ask him when the second reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill will be taken?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the last Question, I have to state that I have not had any communication with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade leading me to think that the time has come for naming a day for the purpose indicated. With regard to the London Government Bill, our anxiety with regard to that measure has not in the least degree diminished; but it would be idle for me at the present moment to enter upon the question until we can
  830
  form some judgment as to what will happen on the closing stages of the Representation of the People Bill.

ORDERS OF TEE DAY.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 119.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate.)
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 119.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 17th June.] [ELEVENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    New Clauses.
    New Clause: —
    (Commencement of Act.)
    "This Act shall commence and come into operation on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five,"—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. LEWISmoved to amend the clause by substituting "1886" for "1885." He wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the way in which the matter stood in reference to the coming into operation of the Act. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that the question had assumed a different aspect from that which it had in the earlier proceedings in Committee. Originally the proposal contained in the Bill was, that the Act should come into operation immediately after it was passed. The Amendment was proposed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley) to the effect that it should not come into operation until after the passing of a Redistribution Bill; but that Amendment was resisted by the Prime Minister, and rejected by the Committee. A further Amendment was then proposed by the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey), when the Prime Minister intimated that he acceded to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), which was now before the Committee. The result of adopting that clause would be that an

    831
    election in January, 1886, might take place on the new franchise. He thought that that would be altogether unsatisfactory, especially to that side of the House, who were desirous of securing, as far as they could, that the Bill should not come into operation until a Redistribution Bill was an actual fact, and registration was possible and complete under its provisions. It was only for that reason that he proposed to amend the clause of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton by inserting "1886" instead of "1885." He would not say that that would be altogether satisfactory to those who entertained the same opinions, that he did; but it would mitigate the evil, and he thought they ought to have, at all events, some further explanation from the Government as to the practical course they intended to take, in order to make what they desired to effect by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton actually appropriate. He had twice challenged the Attorney General, and he now did it for the third time, to supply this information. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be perfectly well aware that in the month of June next year, unless a Redistribution Bill had previously become law, the Government would be in a position of some difficulty in reference to registration. Unless they were to suppose that there would be under the Redistribution Bill next year no constituencies enfranchised or disfranchised, and no alterations made in the present county divisions, it would certainly be found that the same difficulty would exist as to registration that year with reference to the new constituencies. He had given the Committee his reasons for that on Tuesday, and it was not necessary that he should repeat them. It would be necessary to have some discussion upon the subject, especially after the extraordinary statement of the Prime Minister on Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, succumbed to the blandishments of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), who made a suggestion for clearing the way in regard to the settlement of boundaries. The right hon. Gentleman at first said that the Government had not decided or made up their minds that a Boundary Commission should be issued this year in order to
    832
    make the work of redistribution the more easy next year; but when the suggestion was followed up the Prime Minister made use of an expression which he imagined was rather a slip on the part of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that he intended to issue a Royal Commission this year.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Not for the purpose of settling boundaries.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he understood it was still an open question whether a Royal Commission should be issued between this Session and next for the purpose of ascertaining and settling the boundaries. If the Committee would follow him for a moment, he thought he should be able to show that it was impossible to issue a Royal Commission, or any other Commission, for the purpose of settling boundaries between this and next Session.
    MR. GLADSTONEexplained that the object of appointing a Commission would not be to settle boundaries, but simply to supply the Government with information.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he might be extremely dull; but he thought that such an explanation only made confusion worse confounded. What information was a Royal Commission to set to work upon with reference to narrowing or extending the county and borough constituencies, or with reference to the disfranchisoment of the existing constituencies, and the enfranchisement of new ones? If that was the object of their appointment, upon what principle would they proceed? Would it be in reference to populations, or to particular localities, or what? He thought the Committee were entitled to ask the Government for information, because this had been put forward as a practical argument; and he thought he was not asking too much when he desired to get at the real policy of the Government in reference to this so-called Commission. If it was merely to be the employment of Government officials for the purpose of obtaining information on which the Government were to make up their minds as to what sort of Redistribution Bill was to be brought in, it would save no time at all, because that information would not be of such an official and public character that it could be laid before the House. He would call the atten-

    833
    tion of the Committee to the course which was pursued in 1867 in reference to the Boundaries Bill. The House took the question of boundaries into its own hands; and in order to secure that the persons nominated should have judicial weight, and the confidence of the House, they were selected from both political Parties. He did not understand what was to be the result of all these deliberations in reference to boundaries, and the appointment of so-called Commissions; but, at all events, what passed on Tuesday made it the more necessary to delay the operation of the Act until another year, in order that they might not incur the difficulties which had been so often pointed out. He now ventured to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, that ''1886" be substituted for "1885," in order that they might not find themselves in a position of difficulty with regard to registration under the greatly altered circumstances when a Redistribution Bill had been actually passed.
    Amendment proposed to proposed new Clause, to leave out the words "one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five," and insert the words "one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six."—(Mr. Lewis.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'one thousand eight hundred find eighty-five ' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman into a discussion about the boundaries. I will only say that the object of collecting information would simply be to put ourselves in the best possible position as to our own judgment, and in order to afford information to the House before next Session arrives. In the proposal which the hon. Gentleman makes, he virtually revives the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey), to postpone the operation of the Act for 12 months longer. Of course, it is scarcely necessary for me to say that the Government cannot accept that Amendment; but I would venture to make this observation—that the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland was fully discussed, and, as a matter of courtesy, was allowed to be withdrawn. The Committee will be well aware that if
    834
    that proposition had been negatived, instead of being allowed to be withdrawn, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lewis) could not have brought the subject forward again. When a proposition is negatived, it is disposed of; and, although the Amendment of my hon. Friend was permitted to be withdrawn instead of being negatived, we certainly believed that, as it had been largely discussed and substantially disposed of, it would not be revived again.
    MR. LEWIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman pardon me? This is not the proposition of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey); but it is a proposal to substitute "1886" for "1885."
    MR. GLADSTONE: It is precisely the same thing, and is only a different form of expressing the proposal, that the voter should be entitled to be registered on the 1st of January, 1886, because the same thing would happen in either case, and the Act could not come into force until 1887. Under the circumstances the Government cannot accept the present Amendment.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman apprehended what was the real purpose of his hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman was distinctly understood, the other day, to indicate that the mind of the Government was open to consideration in regard to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the boundary question. The right hon. Gentleman subsequently rose and explained that if he had made use of the term "Royal Commission" he had been misunderstood, and that was a mistake, because the Government did not intend to appoint a Royal Commission; but they might appoint a Commission to inquire into the matter. That was the distinct statement made to Parliament—namely, that the Government had under consideration the question of the appointment of some sort of Commission, Royal or otherwise, for considering the boundary question. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] The hon. Member opposite contradicted him, but the Prime Minister did not; and after what had recently passed he should be careful how he attempted to summarize the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, for fear that he might be guilty of establishing that very serious difference

    835
    which, they all knew—to exist between "tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee." He should be most cautious how he did that; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that he was understood to say the Government had tinder consideration the question of the appointment of a Commission, not necessarily a Royal Commission, to consider he question of boundaries. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] As the Prime Minister did not contradict him, he assumed that he had the assent of the right hon. Gentleman to that statement; and, that being so, he would proceed to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman as to what would be the duties of that Commission, Royal or otherwise? Would it be the duty of the Commission to investigate the question of boundaries in regard to non-existent constituencies? The right hon. Gentleman had explained his position with regard to that matter; and, as he understood the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman during the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), the Prime Minister now qualified what was understood to be his statement on a former day, and now stated that the Government simply intended to appoint a Commission for the purpose of acquiring information. But the right hon. Gentleman did not say, however, what that information was to be. He wished, therefore, to understand whether the right hon. Gentleman withdrew altogether from the cognizance of this hypothetical Commission the question of boundaries, which he was specially understood the other day to designate as the work of the Commission? This was a matter in regard to which the Committee would not unnaturally call upon the Government for some information. What were the labours of the Commission to be, and what was to be the scope and the nature of the duties assigned to them? Was it to inquire into the question of the boundaries of constituencies or not?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the appointment of a Boundary Commission is not the Amendment before the Committee; but the Question is simply one in regard to the date at which, the Act shall come into operation—namely, whether 1886 shall be substituted for 1885?
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped he might be allowed to explain the way in which he proposed to connect the two. He had presumed the right hon. Gentle man the Prime Minister to be in Order when he made the statement he had just referred to. If both of them were out of Order—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The remarks of the Prime Minister were made on the Question of reporting Progress.
    MR. J. LOWTHERbegged the pardon of the Chairman. It was, no doubt, true that a further statement—a qualifying and explanatory statement was made by the Prime Minister on the Motion to report Progress; but the original statement, that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into the question of boundaries, was made by the right hon. Gentleman in the responsible position he occupied as First Minister of the Crown, in reply to the remarks of his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and the subject then under the consideration of the Committee was the proposal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), that a date should be fixed in the Bill, and that it should come into operation in January, 1885. It was not necessary, however, that he should follow up that matter further, so far as the point to which he wished to draw attention was concerned. He would proceed to say that the Prime Minister had indicated that the Committee should not throw upon the Government or upon Parliament the responsibility of wasting any time in connection with the subject of registration, and the preparation of the electoral lists; but he added that the time which must necessarily elapse before a newly-prepared list could come into operation would be utilized by Her Majesty's Government in the prosecution of an inquiry of the kind indicated. That was clearly the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and in that way it came regularly within the purview of his hon. Friend (Mr. Lewis). Of course, if the investigation which the Government proposed to make were likely to be somewhat prolonged, and they were to have the further period accorded to them by the proposal of his hon. Friend, it would not be necessary that he should go at any length into that point. He would, therefore, content himself with

    837
    asking the right hon. Gentleman to explain what really was the position he assumed on the part of the Government; and whether he had correctly understood him to indicate that the Government intended to appoint a Commission —he would not say Royal, or otherwise, but a Commission of any kind; and, if so, what he proposed should be the scope and objects of that Commission?
    MR. GLADSTONE: It is the intention of the Government to consider by some form of Commission how to enlarge their information in the course of the Recess, for the purpose of bringing into effect a Redistribution Bill. Beyond that it is not in my power to go, because it would be anticipating the consideration of a matter upon which we have not yet entered.
    MR. RITCHIEwished to point out to the Committee an argument which, he thought, was fatal to the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Lewis). If the Amendment were carried, such a state of things as this might arise—that having passed a Franchise Bill enfranchising a large number of new voters, and having also passed a Redistribution Bill, an election might take place which would not come under the new arrangement, but under the old. Therefore, they might be in this position. They might have enfranchised a large number of new voters, and made all the arrangements necessary for the formation of new districts, and yet an appeal to the country might be made upon the existing condition of things. He thought it was only necessary to point out the anomalous position in which the country would be placed if such a state of things were to arise, in order to show the inadvisability of agreeing to the Amendment.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was sensible of the difficulty which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie); but what had never yet been explained to the Committee was the condition of things which might arise if a Reform Bill were passed, and an election were to take place under it without a Redistribution Bill. It was quite evident that when the Government elected to bring in their Reform Bill in two years, they had not sufficiently considered the provision that would be necessary in order to get the new franchise properly into operation. The Government had stated that their
    838
    object was to take steps by which the county representation should continue to partake, more or less, of its present character. How was that to be done in the course of next year, providing the Redistribution Bill did not receive the Royal Assent before the time for the ordinary conclusion of Business in the course of next year? His impression was that that measure would not receive the Royal Assent before the usual time—namely, the end of August. What, then, must be the position of the important business which must follow in the Revising Barrister's Courts? Provision must be made for it by some special Act of Parliament, for no Government would contend that it would come within the ordinary work of the registration of the year. Then, if the Government proposed a Registration Bill this difficulty would arise — that they would have to compress within two or three months a work which ought to require over five months to complete satisfactorily. He, therefore, thought it would be better to adopt the proposal of his hon. Friend. He did not think they had had anything like a full and clear explanation of the views and policy of the Government as to how they proposed to bring the new voters upon the Register in the new constituencies, forming parts of counties, extended boroughs, and so forth within two years, in conformity with the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). He did not think the Amendment of the hon. Member was sufficiently large and wide to apply to all these cases. At all events, unless the Government had some secret intention, which they had not yet disclosed to the House, and which, if they had, they had better disclose at once, he thought they could not do better than adopt the proposal of his hon. Friend, in order that they might see their way to the completion of a fair registration under a fairly drawn Redistribution Act as early as 1886.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that, as he understood the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lewis), it was this. The work to be done next Session would not be done in sufficient time to receive the Royal Assent, and to enable the first steps of registration to take place in the summer of next year, so that the

    839
    voter should be in possession of his vote on the 1st of January, 1886. His answer to that was to be found in the precedent which was set in 1868. In that year Parliament had practically to settle a Redistribution Bill, and had to confirm the Report of the Boundary Commissioners by stating the conditions both of the new boroughs and of the county constituencies. In the spring of 1868 Registration Act was introduced, it did not receive the Royal Assent until the 16th of July, 1868, a month later than they now were; and the registration was completed, not by the 1st of January, 1869, but by the 1st of November, 1868, and a Dissolution took place in 1868, the new election following upon it. Therefore, following strictly the precedent of 1868, and assuming that a redistribution, as wide as they liked, were passed next year— assuming any amount of disfranchisement and enfranchisement, there was not, in his opinion, the slightest practical difficulty; and, speaking as a practical man, he was satisfied that all the arrangements could be completed in sufficient time to allow the new Register to be made in 1885, and the new constituencies to vote in 1886. But he would go a step further, and would mention a point which he had not brought before the House at the time he moved his Amendment, but which was germane to the discussion—namely, that if they were to discuss a Redistribution Bill next year, it ought to come into operation not so late as 1886, but after November, 1885. Undoubtedly, if Parliament were dissolved in 1885, it would be a great calamity for the country to have a six months' election; and therefore it would be desirable, if possible, to make provision for a new election to take place in the Autumn of 1885. Whether that was so or not, there could not be the slightest practical difficulty in completing the registration next year, no matter what arrangement was arrived at.
    MR. GORSTasked the Government to inform the Committee what the nature of the measure they proposed to take next year for the purpose of completing the labours of the House in regard to the Franchise Bill would be. It was said that if the Government were to give them that information now it would facilitate matters; but he was afraid that if they did give it some of them
    840
    might quarrel with the Government for the information itself. He had risen to call attention to the very precedent which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had just referred to, and he had intended to accompany it by the reflection that, after all, it was possible for the Committee to consider that what was done in 1868 might be done next year; but, in addition to the passing of a Boundary Bill in 1868, a Scotch Reform Bill was also passed on the 13th of July. Thus the House passed the very Act to which the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had referred, and yet in that year the boundaries of no less than 80 English boroughs were altered and greatly extended, and the Divisions of several important counties were reconstructed, including West Somersetshire, and two of the Divisions of Yorkshire. Besides that, under the Scotch Bill, certain boroughs were thrown into the counties, and the voters were brought upon the county register; so that, in the first place, they had, in the boroughs, to add a considerable number of new voters, to construct several Divisions of important counties, to pass an Act framed in accordance with the Boundary Bill, and also to provide for a dozen English boroughs that were extinguished by the Scotch Reform Act. The whole of that work was completed by the 1st of November, and the election took place early in that month. He mentioned this fact for the information of the Committee. What was done then they could do now, provided they all assisted the Government in passing a good measure of redistribution next year. In that event, they would probably find no insuperable difficulty in getting out the new list, so that an appeal might be made to the new constituencies as early as November, 1885.
    MR. THOMAS COLLINStrusted that his hon. Friend (Mr. Lewis) would not insist upon pressing the Motion to a Division. On a former occasion he had ventured to say, in reference to the Motions of the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), that they were not worthy of occupying the time of the House, except that those hon. Members might have felt themselves called upon to obey instructions. The Bill would

    841
    have been got through last Friday if it had not been for pettifogging clauses of this kind, which were of no use to the Bill, and could be proposed for no other purpose than to occasion delay. Dilatory Motions were at times desirable; but as everybody wished to complete the Bill that night, and there was no other mischievous legislation, as far as he could see, on the Paper, the sooner hon. Members would proceed to withdraw these clauses, none of which were worth the attention of the House, the better it would be. Hon. Members opposite, by the Motions they had introduced, had thrown the Report over until to-day; and if they persisted in making similar Motions, they would throw it over again until Monday. Three Motions, coming from the other side of the House, had already added three days to the discussion of the Bill, and he thought that was quite enough.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, the impression on the minds of hon. Members on that side of the House was that the Government had had no intention of following the precedent of 1867 and 1868 in regard to the immediate appointment of a Boundary Commission if it had not been for the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). But the circumstances of 1867 and 1868 were very different from those of the present year. There was at present far greater work in store for the House than there was before them in 1868, and there was no question as to the completion of the Business of Parliament in 1867, although it was very doubtful whether the work they had now before them could be satisfactorily disposed of in 1884. What was done in 1868 was simply the carrying out and completing of what had been done in the year before. It would be most unsatisfactory if a Franchise Bill were to come into operation without a Redistribution Bill having been previously passed. That was admitted to be the great difficulty, and it did seem strange that all this time should be occupied—he would not say wasted—in fighting the question whether a particular date should be put in the Bill, instead of the words suggested on that side of the House—that the Act should not come into force until a scheme for the redistribution of seats had been passed. It was not merely a question
    842
    of the population of boroughs, but how they were going to arrange for the counties so that the voters, to be introduced by the new Franchise Bill, would be able to vote. Under these circumstances, although they quite admitted the difficulty of fixing on any year, he thought it would be much better to fix on 1886 than 1885.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Coleraine Sir Hervey Bruce), will now be out of Order, as it was virtually decided by the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley). The Question no w is that the clause be added to the Bill.
    Clause read a second time, and added
    MR. HOULDSWORTHrose to move the insertion of the following Clause:—
    (Extension of the seven mile limit in cities and boroughs.)
    "So much of the twenty-seventh and thirty-second sections of the Act of the Second year of the reign of King William the Fourth, chapter forty-five, as relates to the residence of electors within seven miles of any city or borough, shall be repealed, in respect to electors otherwise qualified to be registered and to vote for Members in Parliament for such city or borough: Provided always, That no person shall be registered as an elector for the said city or borough, unless he shall have resided for twelve calendar months next previous to the fifteenth day of July, in any year, within the said city or borough, or within twenty-five miles thereof, or any part thereof."
    The hon. Gentleman said that, notwithstanding the advice which had been given by the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Thomas Collins), he would venture to move the clause of which he had given Notice; and, although it was not one of so exciting a character as some of those which had preceded it, yet he thought, especially to those concerned, it was of as great importance as many which had received the attention of the Government and of the Committee. The Committee would be aware that, as the law at present stood, the occupiers in boroughs who had an occupation franchise were not obliged to reside within the area of the borough in order to make good their claim to be put upon the Register, and to exercise the Parliamentary franchise. It was quite suffi-

    843
    cient, in order to secure those privileges for them, that they should reside within seven miles of the boundary of the borough. That was a provision which was inserted in the Att of 1832, when the borough occupation franchise was introduced, and its intention seemed to have been perfectly clear. While, on the one hand, it asserted the principle that residence was to be a condition upon which the occupation franchise in the borough was to be exercised, on the other hand it gave a reasonable amount of elasticity to the definition of what residence really was in connection with the franchise, for the purpose of including among those persons in boroughs who were to exercise the privilege all those who were practically resident in the borough, although technically they might not sleep within the borough area. In the year 1832, and for many years succeeding, he had no doubt that this evident intention on the part of the Legislature had been fully and fairly carried out; and that there had been probably no boroughs in which genuine occupiers would not have had a good occupation franchise, and would not have been able to exercise the franchise when an election occurred. But matters in that respect had changed very considerably since the year 1832, and the consequence was that the condition of these boroughs was very different from what it was then. He was there to assert that at the present moment there was a very considerable number of occupiers who had a perfectly legitimate qualification for the franchise who wore practically disfranchised by the seven mile limit, which was now in operation. Of course, the Committee knew quite well the circumstances which had arisen to produce that result; and he ventured to point out to the Committee what they were, and why they should not be held to be any reason for disqualifying these occupiers. It had arisen principally from the fact that the boroughs had increased very considerably, and owing to that increase, and owing to the industries taking possession very naturally of the centre of the towns, the residences of the occupiers had been gradually driven further and further away from the centre. On the other hand, co-incident with that change there had been a great extension of the railway system, which enabled occupiers who had business
    844
    premises in boroughs to live further away from the centre of those boroughs; although, at the same time—and he asked the Committee to remember it— they were not dissevered in interest from the boroughs, and were practically as resident within the areas of the boroughs during the daytime as they ever wore when they slept within them. Pie was not in a position to give, with any degree of fulness or accuracy, the number that the seven mile limit at present affected, or the number that would be enfranchised if his proposal were adopted by the Committee, and the seven mile limit were extended to 25 miles. There was one source, however, from which he was able to get some statistics, which perhaps would assist the Committee in forming an estimate. In most of the boroughs a list was prepared annually—perhaps not in all of them, but in most of them—of those occupiers in the boroughs who lived within seven and 15 miles from the borough boundaries. The object of preparing that list was this—that, as the law at present stood, the qualification for municipal honours and municipal offices had been extended to 15 miles; and, therefore, there was a list supplied of occupiers within seven and 15 miles which gave some information with regard to those who resided within those limits. He found within all the boroughs that he had had access to that there were a certain number who lived between those limits; but he would only venture to give, as the basis of his calculations, those who were on the lists for Manchester and Liverpool. In Manchester the number living within the limit was 380, and in Liverpool it was 246. He might point out to the Committee, however, that these lists were not thoroughly full, although accurate as far as they went, because he found that there were several boroughs in which no such lists were kept; and he was informed that even in those boroughs in which a list was made out annually, no great trouble was taken on the part of those who were entitled to be on the list, to put their names upon it, simply because it did not entitle them to the Parliamentary franchise, and they had no particular object in placing themselves upon the list. But he had ventured, from these statistics, and taking into consideration that the position of

    845
    Manchester and Liverpool would probably be the same as that of Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, and possibly of Dublin in this matter, and of similar boroughs, such as Bradford, Sheffield, and others, to make a calculation which he thought was a reasonable one. From these statistics he was led to believe that if his proposal were adopted some 4,000 or 5,000 occupiers, who were at present disfranchised by the simple force of circumstances, and not by the intentional will of the Legislature, would receive a vote. Now, this was not entirely a novel proposition. In 1867 the Government of that day did not find any difficulty in dealing, in a large measure of justice, with a number of similar and subsidiary matters, and the consequence was that they acquiesced in and adopted a proposal made in that House to extend the seven mile limit, in the case of the City of London, to 25 miles. He had taken the wording of that clause, and it was the wording which he had put down for the clause which he now ventured to propose. He hoped the Government would sanction his proposal. It was not at all a question of Party. It would not affect one Party more than another, but it would affect both Parties in an equal degree; and he believed he should have the support of his hon. Colleagues who sat on the other side of the House. He certainly could not see that it would have any effect upon Party proportion either in that House or in the various constituencies, and it seemed to him to be in thorough harmony with the principle of the Bill the Government had introduced. They had introduced a Bill for the purpose of dealing justice, with an even hand, towards certain persons who were outside a particular arbitrary line which was drawn in 1867, and they said, very properly, that as there was a similar class of persons placed in precisely the same circumstances outside the area of the boroughs, who were in every respect the same, or, at any rate, similar in class to those within the boroughs, that as one had the franchise the other ought to have it also. He was quite willing to admit that he had never entertained any doubt whatever as to the justice and wisdom of that proposal. He had always heartily supported the assimilation of the household, borough, and county franchise on the broad principle that he could not see
    846
    any difference between the class of householders in the various counties and the borough householders in the various boroughs. The proposition he made was in thorough harmony with the principle of the Bill. At present there was an arbitrary line up to a certain limit. Outside that limit there were bonâ fide residents of the boroughs, men who were following their avocations and daily transacting business, not only performing their own business, but transacting civil and municipal duties in connection with the boroughs, and yet by the action of this hard-and-fast line they were practically disfranchised, while those who remained and slept within the seven mile limit, but who were in no other way practically more resident in the boroughs, had the privilege of the franchise. Now, he contended that that was an injustice which the Government ought to remove. His proposal did not seem to him to introduce any new principle. It did not raise any question of residence. He adopted the question of residence with regard to the boroughs, although he was free to confess that he did not see any reason, especially now an assimilation was to take place between the borough and county franchises, why the condition of residence should still remain. But, as far as his proposal was concerned, he accepted the principle of residence fully as it was adopted in 1867. It did not affect those who owned property, and it did not seem to him to introduce any principle which, the Government might not fairly accept. It simply did this—on the ground that there were those who were bonâ fide residents within a borough, following their avocations within it by day, and connected with it closely by interest, by property, and by personal attendance day by day, and who yet, by the mere circumstance that they did not happen to sleep within a certain limit, were deprived of a vote, was an injustice which ought to be swept away by the Legislature, on an occasion when they were engaged in extending the franchise. He would further urge that the class of occupiers on whose behalf he was speaking were the very best class of citizens they had in the boroughs. They were, as a rule, the most educated class—a class who were calculated and able to lead public opinion, and who, probably, did most for the welfare and good of the

    847
    borough in which they practically resided. He had no doubt what the objection would be against his proposal, and it was the only objection he could conceive that could be brought forward against it—namely, that it would give to those who would be enfranchised under his clause two votes, whereas at present they had only one. His answer to that was simply this—that at present those who lived outside the borough area and within the seven mile limit had two votes, and that the class which he wished to see enfranchised, and who were at present disfranchised by the force of circumstances, would only be placed in the same position as those who resided within the seven mile limit. He thought that, if the question of having two votes was a serious objection to the proposition he made, it ought to be carried a great deal further, and the question, of the possession of two votes should be considered in its entirety as to how it affected the various classes of the community. If two votes were not to be allowed, and the new principle was to be one man one vote, then let thorn adopt it after a regular and thorough discussion of the question; but do not let them, in the meanwhile, do injustice to a certain class of individuals, and the very best class of citizens in the boroughs, who devoted their daily leisure and their money to the benefit of the borough—do not place them in the position of being disfranchised, and, as far as the Parliamentary lists were concerned, keep them out of the exercise of rights that belonged to householders of very inferior position. Further, he maintained that if this objection against having two votes had any weight, it would be infinitely better that the occupier, connected as he was with the borough should lose his county vote and retain his borough vote. Another reason, which he would bring forward, was that the severance now taking place between the better class of occupiers in the borough and the lower class who still resided within the borough was becoming more and more a social question of very great importance; and it behoved the Legislature, whenever it could, to do all in its power to encourage the connection between the boroughs and the great mass of the people rather than to introduce and perpetuate any system which would make a greater disseverance between them.
    848
    There was one other argument which he would urge upon Her Majesty's Government in considering the question; and it was that, as far as he could see, his proposition would not introduce any new peril to the Bill, which he, for one, was anxious to see passed through both Houses of Parliament. He did not see that this proposal of his infringed any principle of legislation which could in any way imperil the Bill; but it would do substantial justice to a number of persons, amounting to at least 4,000 or 5,000, who would value the privilege conferred on them just as they felt a grievance in losing the franchise in these very boroughs. He would only add that if the Government would not accept the proposal, it would go very far to make him feel that they were not entitled to the credit of endeavouring to do justice to every part of the community in respect of the franchise! — a credit which he, for one, had been hitherto glad to accord to them. He begged to move the clause which stood in his name upon the Paper.
    New Clause (Extension of the seven mile limit in cities and boroughs,) —(Mr. Houldsworth,) —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be road a second time."
    MR. GLADSTONE: I hardly think the hon. Member himself can have considered the consequences of the Motion which he has made. In my opinion, it is one of the most objectionable that has been offered to us during the discussion of the present Bill. First of all, he proceeds to extend the number of persons residing beyond the limit outside the borough, who shall have the power of voting within it. Now, what is the history of this seven mile rule? The history of it is this—When it was proposed by the Government of Earl Grey, it was a question whether persons doing business in the borough, but sleeping outside its limits, should have a vote in returning Members to Parliament or not. In those days the county franchise was a freehold franchise, together with certain other qualifications; but I am now speaking of the way in which the seven mile rule came in. The seven mile rule came in because it was intended to prevent the evil of keeping without any

    849
    Parliamentary vote a great number of persons having offices and large pecuniary interests in a borough, but residing beyond its limits, and who would not, but for this provision, in consequence of residing beyond its limits, have had a vote either for the borough or for the county. That state of things has been done away with almost entirely, and almost all these gentlemen have votes already. Probably nearly all of them have a vote in the county, although it is possible that a portion of them have not. Our Bill, however, will give to every one of them a vote in the comity. Secondly, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman is simply a proposal for the purpose of extending the principle of double voting. Now, what does the hon. Member say? He says that the principle of double voting is either good or bad; that it ought to be either universal, or it ought not to exist at all. I hope the hon. Member will not drive us to that alternative. If he does, he will certainly place us in a position of great difficulty. We have proceeded with the utmost tenderness towards the principle of double voting. We have done nothing to impair it; but I hope we shall do nothing to extend it. Has the hon. Gentleman considered what sort of change he proposes to make in what I may call the residential areas of the boroughs? Has he taken the pains to go even through a rule of three sum? Has he considered how much larger the residential area of boroughs will be under this clause than it is now? If his proposal is accepted the effect would be to multiply the areas 10 times over. If he will take pains to compare the superficial extent of a circle having a radius of 14 miles with the superficial extent of a circle having a radius of 50 miles, he will find that it would be increased by 10 times as nearly as possible, and for certain purposes all this great territory would form a portion of one great borough. How is this to operate? How is it to operate in Lancashire, where large towns are to be found at no great distances, probably not more than eight or 10 miles apart, all over the county? Gentlemen in a large way of business would have warehouses and establishments of more than £ 10 annual value in a number of towns, and for every one of them they would be enfranchised and entitled to vote under the clause of the hon. Gentleman. But
    850
    they are not resident in these towns, and the clause of the hon. Gentleman goes distinctly to weaken, and weaken very greatly, the residential character of the borough franchise. It is impossible for the Government to accede to such a clause. We conceive that the true basis of the whole representation is the household franchise. Now, the householder does not receive the slightest benefit from the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. His object is to increase the weight of that element which is completely different from that of the householder. First of all, there is the element of the £ 10 householder, who, after all, will represent in the main, after the passing of this Bill, the principle of property; then there is the principle of the householder and the head of the family, and, perhaps, another class of voters—the freemen. The hon. Gentleman proposes nothing in regard to the freemen, although with respect to them the Government have carried their Conservative tenderness in this Bill to the point of leaving them in full possession of their privileges. But I am not prepared to say that the voting power of the freemen should be extended by giving them permission to live within 25 miles of a borough and still to retain a vote. I do not think it necessary to follow the hon. Gentleman into all the details of his proposal. It would increase the residential areas of boroughs ten-fold. It would increase the weight of the property franchise directly in boroughs— it would weaken the residential character of the constituency, and it would double many votes. The hon. Gentleman says that the persons he proposes to enfranchise are quite as much residents as those who sleep within the borough. I question that. The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about the city with which he is connected; but all of us know something about this question. And every man who has a connection with a borough, but who lives in the country, does not pursue business in the borough. There are a large proportion of individuals who have a great deal of leisure, some of whom go twice, or, perhaps, only once a-week into the borough. These gentlemen cannot be regarded as residents, and the proposal would undoubtedly weaken the residential character of the franchise, which is the essential basis of our measure. Upon

    851
    that ground alone I am not prepared to extend the principle of double voting by new enactments introduced for that purpose, and I must object to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. It cannot be permitted that any man should be at liberty to split up his property into 50 fragments, and have a vote in respect of every one of them. When the hon. Gentleman says it is a question of justice, my answer is that it is not a question of justice at all. The question of justice is to allow a man who is a competent citizen to have a vote for a Representative in Parliament; but he is not to be allowed to multiply his property by pieces and fragments as much as he likes. Our system is liberal towards property as it stands. We do not propose to. interfere with the liberty which already exists; but we strongly object to this principle of multiplication.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was so decidedly disinclined to entertain in any form the proposal of his hon. Friend, He thought the right hon. Gentleman could not have recognized the change which had taken place in the circumstances of the case in regard to the residential qualification for the enjoyment of the borough franchise. As far as the borough was concerned, it was the place where a man lived during the day, the place in which he carried on his business, where he exercised his influence, the place in which he was known, and was charged with all the duties of citizenship; but the effect of the present system was to disfranchise and exclude that man in the borough with which he was so thoroughly identified. They would have this curious anomaly, that under this Bill a man's servants—the people living in his offices and employed in his warehouses—would be enfranchised in the boroughs, while he himself would not have a vote for those boroughs. What was the practical value of the 25 miles sought to be attained by his hon. Friend as compared with the seven miles which had been the law of the land for many years? It was practically a really shorter distance in point of time from the borough than the seven miles were when the principle was first established. Nowadays a man who had business in a town and lived in the country passed to and fro—not once or twice a week, as the right hon. Gentleman supposed, but
    852
    every day. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] He was speaking from his own knowledge when he said that the great majority of traders in London, in Westminster, and in the large constituencies —the great majority of the most influential, and the most worthy, and the most respectable of those traders, had of necessity to pass from their offices in the evening to their homes at a much greater distance than seven miles in the country, returning the next day; and they did this, not twice a week, but, as a rule, five, and even six days a week. They were citizens to all intents and purposes. They slept in the county, but they were not identified with the county, and the county franchise to thorn was of comparatively small value. Their avocations wore such that they could not record their votes in the county. In most cases men of business came into London, Liverpool, and Manchester on the morning of the election, and they did not record their votes for the county in which they resided. The greater the respectability and the responsibility of the trader connected with London, Manchester, Liverpool, Hull, Bristol, and other large towns, the more certain he was to be disfranchised as far as his place of business was concerned, notwithstanding the fact that his interests and his influence were linked together with those of the place in which he transacted his business. It certainly was a great anomaly and even a grievance that persons placed in this position should be denied the privilege of the borough franchise.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he never questioned the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith); but he must express astonishment that the right hon. Gentleman should have manifested such earnestness, and refrained from proposing to extend the limit to 50 miles, in order that a large number of persons who lived in Brighton, and whose places of business were in London, might enjoy a Metropolitan vote. If the proposal of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Houldsworth) was to be entertained, he did not see why it should be limited to 25 miles. It ought to be 50 miles, so as to enable the persons to whom he referred to enjoy borough votes. The hon. Member said that he expected to receive the support of his Colleagues on that

    853
    side of the House. He had not the honour of being a Colleague of the hon. Gentleman, although he had a very sincere respect for him; but he was a next-door neighbour, and he would promise the hon. Member that he would not have his (Mr. Arnold's) support in reference to the clause he had submitted to the Committee. The Prime Minister, throughout the discussion of the Bill, had been absolutely consistent in declining to entertain any proposal for conferring a property vote. He (Mr. Arnold) entertained great objections to the further extension of that mode of voting; and, but for the desire not to occupy the time of the Committee unnecessarily, he should have desired to give expression to them. So far as this proposal went, he entertained the strongest objection to it, on the ground that it involved the extension of the property vote in the direction of nonresident voters in boroughs.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he had listened to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in reply to the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Houldsworth) with some surprise. He quite agreed that the proposal to increase the boundaries of the boroughs to the extent of a 25 mile limit would have been highly objectionable; but the Motion of the hon. Member was nothing of the kind, and only referred to those who were occupiers, but resided outside, and it involved no extension of the area of the borough whatever. He differed entirely from the right hon. Gentleman in regarding the borough vote as a household vote. It was an occupation vote. It was introduced because it was thought desirable that the occupier in a borough should have a vote; and at the time it was introduced, with the exception of the City of London, seven miles would cover the practical limit within which people who carried on business in a town were able to live outside the area of the town. But in consequence of the alteration in the principles of locomotion, by which a number of people were able to go away by train into the country, that limit of seven miles was altogether altered, and the seven mile limit might be said to be done away with altogether. As had been pointed out, a large number of persons who transacted their business in London resided in Brighton; but there was no other town in England
    854
    where the same relations existed as between Brighton and London. It was not only the class who desired to seek pleasure, or the mere wealthy class, who now lived outside the large towns. He had the honour of representing, in his constituency, a far larger number of the middle and lower classes who were employed in London and occupied daily in business in London than of the wealthy classes. Most of the merchants of the City lived outside the limits of the Division of the county which he represented (East Surrey); but so far as the clerks were concerned, a very large number of them formed a portion of his constituency, and if anyone would stand upon London Bridge from half-past 6 o'clock in the morning until 10 he would see thousands upon thousands coming in by train, the whole of whom would be excluded from the franchise in reference to their occupation if there were not a 25 mile limit in regard to London. That being the law for London, he thought it was hard that the suggestion of his hon. Friend should be treated as it had been by the Prime Minister in regard to Manchester, Liverpool, and some other large towns of that description. The 25 mile limit might be too great, and the majority of the occupiers in the large towns might be included within a less limit; but he certainly thought that some alteration of the existing system ought to be made if they were to maintain the principle that every occupier in a borough was entitled to vote. As to these persons enjoying the county vote, it was not so. He would take the case of Brighton, where certainly a great number of people lived outside the town; but very few lived just outside, and it was not until they got to Burgess Hill, Hossacks, and two or three places of that kind that they found any of the residents of Brighton living outside. The persons included by the adoption of this proposal would not be very large, and certainly the seven mile limit was of very little value in these days. Probably if they took a limit of 10 miles they would include most of the persons who, as a general rule, transacted business within the area of a borough and lived outside. It was absurd to say that if they extended the limit they would increase the residential boundary of the borough to the enormous extent suggested by the Prime Minister.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the proposition which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Houldsworth) was a very important one. He had, however, some diffidence in offering any observations upon it, after the warning hon. Members had received from his hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins), who had deprecated further discussion at that stage of the Bill. But while he could not agree with that suggestion, he could guess what was in the mind of his hon. Friend. No doubt he thought it was useless to discuss in detail a Bill which practical people felt had no chance of ever forming a portion of the law of the land. The Prime Minister said the Amendment was most objectionable. Why? Because the right hon. Gentleman said it would simply enfranchise what he called the leisure class of persons. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say it would enfranchise those who attended a place of business once or twice a-week, and he considered that to be most objectionable. He would not pursue that point further than by asking the right hon. Gentleman if he did not consider that, upon sanitary grounds as well as upon the grounds of more justice, it was desirable to offer every inducement against the aggregation of large masses of persons within small areas, and to enfranchise persons who were virtually occupiers, but who resided beyond the limits of the borough. The right hon. Gentleman had not made any reference to the important precedent which had been quoted by his hon. Friend—namely, that Parliament had deliberately, with its eyes open, extended the provision, now suggested, to the City of London. He imagined that the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that fact, or it would have been almost disingenuous not to have referred to it. An hon. Friend near him suggested that it must have been a point which had received the support of the right hon. Gentleman himself, seeing that it was passed with the unanimous approval of Parliament, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, who at that time—1867—took so prominent a part in the debates. His right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had reminded the Committee that the circumstances under
    856
    which the franchise was now exercised with regard to residence had very considerably changed in the boroughs. His right hon. Friend pointed out that the development of the railway system enabled persons now to live at a considerable distance from their place of business, and here it was that the sanitary considerations he had referred to came in. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was as anxious as the rest of them to diminish the evils of over-crowding in the large centres of population, and he ought to be disposed to assist to the utmost of his power in inducing persons as far as possible to extend the areas within which they resided. Then on this ground—what he might call the sanitary point of view—as well as the ground of expediency, it was most desirable not to place any obstacle in the way of the legitimate extension of the borough areas. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the fact that freemen would be included in any possible extension of the boundaries as suggested by his hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman had reminded them on more than one occasion, certainly on one within his (Mr. J. Lowther's) recollection, that he was determinedly hostile to the very existence of the freeman. Well, the right hon. Gentleman recalled to their recollection that the freemen were for the present exempted from the general disfranchisement to which he was subjecting the wealthier classes. He thought that was a matter of which they ought to take note. For his own part, he had no desire to endorse the principle in any sense, and he should, therefore, give a cordial support to the clause.
    MR. WARTONsaid, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that several Amendments which had been brought forward at the earlier stage of their proceedings had invariably been met with the same observation by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister—namely, "This is an Amendment which cannot be accepted." The proposal of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Houldsworth) was undoubtedly a proposal of enfranchisement; and if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was sincere in desiring to enfranchise capable citizens he could not understand why he refused to accept the clause, because certainly the

    857
    citizens proposed to be enfranchised under it were as capable as any in the country. People who carried on business in towns, and were able to live in the country, appeared to be very obnoxious to the Prime Minister, who evidently wished to bring the country as fast as he could to a dead level of democracy. He could not forget the 4th section of the Bill, by which a large class of persons had already been disfranchised—namely, those who were in the position of rent-chargers and tenants in common. Probably under that clause something like 10,000 capable citizens would be disfranchised. He really thought that the object of the Prime Minister was to give the franchise to as many incapable citizens as possible, and to disqualify as many really capable citizens as he could. Certainly, it would be impossible to find any class of more capable citizens than those which the proposal of the hon. Member for Manchester would enfranchise. And, again, it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was not quite happy in his calculation with regard to area. But it was not a question of area at all, because they would not find that the class of persons in question were equally distributed. They must remember the facilities offered by the railway; a gentleman who lived 25 miles from town could get up and down quicker than he could a shorter distance in his own carriage. But it seemed to him that the Prime Minister had chosen to ignore the changed conditions of life in this respect.
    MR. ECROYDsaid, this was a question of great importance to large and populous cities, and he was much disappointed that the Government had not seen their way to accept in its integrity, or in part, the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He confessed his inability to follow the argument of the Prime Minister, who spoke of his hon. Friend's proposal as one to extend the property vote. It was not a question of property at all; it was a question of occupation voting only; and seeing that the Government made occupation, and not residence, the test of the capacity to vote for boroughs, he did not see that it was open to the Prime Minister to base his argument on the question of residential occupancy as opposed to occupancy alone. If it was
    858
    a question of residence, the Bill ought to have rested on other grounds. It must be familiar to every Member of the Committee that in consequence of the demand for space in large cities, it had happened in London, Liverpool, Manchester, and other great towns, that the population formerly resident there had been driven, not of their own will, to live outside the city or borough limits, and the effect of suburban railways had been to extend the operation of this influence far beyond the wealthy class and the heads of large businesses of whom the Prime Minister spoke. It was well known that in all great mercantile cities there was a considerable body of shopkeepers, clerks, warehousemen, and others, by no means in a position of financial ease, but either carrying on small businesses or possessing a very limited interest in the large concerns they served, who, for the health of their families, had been driven to live beyond the limit of seven miles; and, in his opinion, it was a great grievance that they should be excluded from the franchise in the boroughs in which their interests lay. He considered it a great mistake on the part of the Government to refuse this very moderate proposal; and he should certainly vote with his hon. Friend if he went to a Division.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he represented a constituency (Liverpool) largely concerned in the application of the principle contained in the clause. That was not the first time that the subject had been brought under their notice. For a long time past there had been a large number of citizens of every class who lived outside the town of Liverpool, to deprive whom of the vote for the borough would be to inflict a very great hardship. For his part, he entirely agreed with the argument of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Eoroyd) that, the main principle of the Bill being occupation, and not residential franchise, the clause should be accepted; and he could not help thinking that the Government took a very unfortunate view of the question. They seemed to look at every Amendment as affecting the rights of property; as if every proposal that came from that side of the House must necessarily lead in that direction; whereas the effect of their not accepting the Amendment would be, that a great number of clerks and others

    859
    employed in City business would be disfranchised. He was obliged to his hon. Friend for having brought this question forward, and that, too, in a way which ought to commend itself to the Committee. Therefore, in the interest of a large body of men, who, as the Bill stood, would be disfranchised, he should vote for the clause.
    MR. HOULDSWORTHsaid, in view of the support which had been accorded to the clause, he should be compelled to ask the Committee to divide on the Motion for its second reading. The two main misrepresentations of the clause which had been laid before the Committee had been made by the Prime Minister, who said that it was in the interest of property. But it had no connection with property; it was a proposal to enfranchise, or, rather, not to disqualify, persons who were exercising the functions of householders—capable citizens, who, as the Bill stood, were disqualified. The other argument against the clause certainly did not coincide with his experience. He believed the Prime Minister was thinking of the Metropolis when he spoke of the labouring population; and he seemed to have forgotten that the Metropolis was specially privileged. But, as far as he knew the boroughs in question, and he was acquainted with every one of them, he believed that the number of the labouring class who would be disfranchised would be insignificant. The class for whom he claimed qualification wore in every way entitled to the consideration of the Committee, and he found that in Manchester they contributed 60 per cont of the rates. He had always understood that representation and taxation went together; and on that ground he asked the Committee to divide on his proposal.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 137: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 125.)
    DR. COMMINSsaid, the clause standing on the Paper in his name was one which he trusted the Government would see their way to accept, for it proposed nothing more than to carry out the principle of the Bill. There was a clause in the Act of 1832 which disfranchised everyone who received parochial relief, and which, at the time the Act was passed, was not an improper clause, be-
    860
    cause the number of persons who came within its purview was small as compared with what it was now. The laws of public health, which rendered hospitals of great importance, were imperfectly understood, and very few persons had recourse to them except paupers. Very few persons also had then recourse to dispensaries for relief. Since that time, however, an immense impulse had been given to the establishment of institutions in which relief was not only given, but pressed upon the people; and unless some provision were introduced into the Bill to prevent the clause of the Act of 1832 having effect, there would be a very large disfranchisement of persons otherwise entitled to vote. Again, under the Public Health Act of 1875 a large number of persons were obliged to have recourse to public hospitals whether they would or not, and those persons were simply pauperized for the benefit of the community at large. In a section of the Act of 1875, a magistrate might remove any person sick of a contagious disease to a public hospital under certain conditions; and that had been done in London, Manchester, Liverpool, and elsewhere. Whenever there was anything like epidemic disease, as there was at the present time in London and Liverpool, large numbers of people were sent to the parish hospitals by the magistrates' orders. There were 200 or 300 small-pox cases in the Liverpool hospitals at the present time; what the number was in London he knew not, but it must be very considerable. The object of the clause he was about to ask the Committee to read a second time was to prevent the clause of the Act of 1832 operating under conditions which were never contemplated when the Act was passed. They were all proud of the development of sanitary science; but the application of sanitary science and the gratuitous distribution of medical aid to those who stood in need of it under the circumstances he had described ought not, in his opinion, to carry with it disfranchisement. It was no longer ago than last Sunday that a collection of money was made in all the churches throughout the country which was distributed amongst the hospitals; and it would appear, from a statement published, that no less than 75,000 persons received medical relief within the non-endowed hospitals in London,

    861
    and that there were 900,000 persons who received outdoor relief. Now, according to the provision of the Act of 1832, every one of those persons would be disfranchised; and not only was a man disfranchised who himself received medical relief, but he was disfranchised if that relief were obtained for his wife or child. Again, in addition to this form of hospital relief, there was a very large system of parochial relief which was in operation in London, Liverpool, and the large towns. The parish authorities paid the doctors to attend at certain centres, and anyone applying there could get a bottle of medicine for 3d. This was not looked upon as alms, but the doctor who gave the 3d. worth of medicine was paid by the parish for his services, and by the law of 1832 every one of the recipients would be disfranchised; they had to go to the relieving officer who made out the relief tickets, and they were disfranchised ipso facto. That would apply to all who went to the hospitals subscribed to last Sunday, and, under the circumstances, would constitute a very great cruelty. Again, in all large towns, as was well known, there were large bodies of men, who sought employment in docks, manufactories, and similar places, constantly exposed to accident, and there was no place where their cases could be so properly attended to as the ward of a hospital. The consequence was they were sent to the nearest hospital, and it was quite right they should be, because, if they were not sent there, the injured persons would most probably die. Yet every one of these people would be disfranchised unless the clause which he proposed was introduced into the Bill. He said it would be a cruel state of things that a great army of operatives, who were liable at any moment to accident in our dockyards and factories, and who went to a public hospital for relief when an accident occurred to them, should be disfranchised; and, in his opinion, the persons so situated would have great reason to complain of the hardship. There were always a number of persons belonging to an unwholesome and mischievous class who went about seeking grounds on which they might disfranchise their neighbours, and these would make the fact of a man having received 3d. worth of medicine at a public dispensary either for himself,
    862
    his wife, or his child, a reason for objecting to him at the annual revision of the list of voters. The dissatisfaction which would result would, therefore, be another mischievous consequence of allowing the Act of 1832 to remain unaltered in the sense indicated by his clause. He knew it for a fact that in Liverpool, for instance, hundreds and thousands of men had been disfranchised in consequence of busybodies going about and discovering that voters had themselves been treated at public hospitals, or that their wives or children had received medical aid. Something ought to be done to check this mischievous and unwholesome activity, and to put a stop to this system of disfranchising men. There was just one reason more why the clause he proposed should be accepted by Her Majesty's Government. Under the Public Health Act of 1875, power was given to magistrates, upon a doctor's certificate, to send to hospital anybody who was suffering from an infectious disease. In every case the compulsory removal was for the benefit, not so much of the individual removed, but of the inhabitants of the court or alley in which the outbreak of disease occurred. Public officers could be sent to disinfect the house in which the disease had broken out, and this alone would be sufficient to cause the disfranchisement of the occupier of the dwelling. He asked the Government whether, in the interest of the public health, seeing that the Public Health Act imposed on people the necessity of accepting public treatment, it was not reasonable to prevent the disfranchisement of people who, through no fault of their own, were obliged to receive treatment at a public dispensary? He begged to move the clause which stood in his name.
    New Clause (Medical aid not to disqualify voter,)—(Dr. Commins,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—(Dr. Commins.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member had made his statement very clearly, and put his case very well before the Committee. He agreed with some portion of the hon. Member's remarks; but, at the same time, he was unable, on behalf of the Government, to

    863
    accept this clause, and he hoped the Committee would refuse to read it a second time. The hon. Member had almost confined his argument to the case of hospitals; and with regard to the town of Liverpool, he had, no doubt, made out a strong case in favour of the acceptance of his clause. But the clause was a very wide one; it covered every form of medical relief, and would prevent disfranchisement from medical relief of any kind. By so doing, he believed they would take away the greatest of all inducements which existed in this country to lead people to join Friendly and Provident Societies. Having said thus much against the clause, he could assure the hon. Member that he should be disposed, on behalf of the Government, to support it if he were to propose a Bill separately for removing- some of the existing disabilities in reference to certain kinds of medical relief. Some action had been taken in this direction in the past. In the winter of 1878–9 a Bill was brought in by the present Member for Carnarvonshire, then Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), intituled "A Bill to remove disqualification by medical relief for infectious or contagions diseases." That measure, which, passed the third reading in the House of Commons, proposed that no person should be deemed to be disqualified to be registered as a voter, or to vote at any election of a Member, or Members, to serve in Parliament for any county or borough by reason only that he, or any member of his family, or any person whom he was liable to maintain, had received medical treatment or relief for any infectious or contagious disease as an in-patient or out-patient of any hospital, infirmary, or dispensary established or maintained by any sanitary authority or Poor Law authority, or at which he had been so treated or relieved by the order or with the sanction of any such authority, or the medical officer thereof. The Bill was greatly altered in the House of Lords, and it was limited to cases where patients afterwards repaid the cost of their maintenance in hospitals. The promoters of the measure did not think that in that limited form it would meet the object in view; they refused to accept the Lords' Amendments, and the Bill fell to the ground. He thought the provisions of that Bill would meet the object the hon. Member
    864
    had in view; and if he thought proper to introduce a similar measure, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would be very glad, on behalf of the Government, to support it. There was a recognition of the principle, as far as infectious diseases was concerned, in the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882. Section 33 of that statute provided that—
    "A person shall not be disentitled to be enrolled as burgess by reason only that he has received medical or surgical assistance from the trustees of the municipal charities, or has been removed by order of a justice, to a hospital or place for reception of the sick at the cost of any local authority."
    That dealt with the cases of compulsory removal for infectious diseases. To show that the Government agreed with the principle, he might point out that on the Diseases Prevention (Metropolis) Act, which was passed last year in view of a possible cholera epidemic, a clause of that kind was inserted and passed by Parliament. Clause 7 of that Act provided—
    "That the admission of a person suffering from an infectious disease into any hospital or hospital ship provided by the managers, or the maintenance of any such person therein, should not be considered to be parochial relief, alms, or charitable allowance to any person, or to the parent of any person, and no such person or his parent should by reason thereof be deprived of any right or privilege, or be subject to any disability or disqualification."
    He might point out to the hon. Member that if he intended to deal with this subject in any future Bill from a medical or public protection point of view, there was one other matter which was not included in the present clause, and which might very well be included—he referred to the case of lunatics. If a man had a lunatic child admitted into an asylum, was the father made a pauper, and, therefore, disfranchised? The matter was doubtful; but the late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn seemed to say that a man would be disfranchised in such a case. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke), on behalf of the Government, would not object to an exemption being made in such a case. As the clause now stood, however, he could not consent to its insertion in this Bill.
    MR. LYULPH STANLEYagreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that this clause would very detrimentally affect Friendly and Provident Societies. If

    865
    the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North-cote) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had been in the House, he felt sure they, as Members of the Friendly Societies' Commission, would have testified to the great importance of upholding the principle of self-reliance amongst the people. As he (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) worked as an Assistant Commissioner under those Gentlemen, he noticed in a most marked manner the evil influences of the Poor Law upon the poorer people. In the more rural districts of Leicestershire and Derbyshire it was seen that the Poor Law stepped in to help people who really ought to have helped themselves. Friendly Societies ought to be encouraged; but he felt that if the Committee adopted the clause of the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Commins), a great blow would be struck at such Societies.
    MR. PELLsaid, he hoped the hon. Member (Dr. Commins) would accept the suggestions which had been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. They were very moderate suggestions, and they led him to hope that at some future time he would be able to give effect to his desire, at all events as regarded those persons who, in consequence of some infectious disease, had to be removed out of the position in which they would have remained had they not been attacked by such disease. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), he might state that the Friendly Societies in the Principality of Wales had made remonstrances, ineffectually, he was sorry to say, against the lavish way in which the Boards of Guardians of several of the Welsh Unions administered outdoor relief, especially in the medical department. The extension of Friendly Societies in Wales was seriously interrupted by this weak and injudicious action of the Boards of Guardians. He felt that one of the first steps many a poor man took in the direction of pauperism was the acceptance of medical relief of some insignificant nature. The Statutes were in accordance with the feelings of the people; and though he divided the House upon the third reading of the Bill of 1878, he felt that
    866
    a strong case had been made out for certain exceptions to be made to the present law. The hon. Gentleman (Dr. Commins) had gone a long way towards securing the acceptance of the principle he advocated; but he (Mr. Pell) did not think he would improve his case if he were to divide the Committee upon his clause.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, his object had been to call attention to what he believed was a matter requiring a remedy. He had no doubt, particularly after the very handsome offer made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that he would achieve his object without dividing the Committee on the present occasion. There were many cases in which it was necessary to protect people from being pauperized. In the case of explosions in mines, accidents on the railway, on board ship, in warehouses, and the like, it was often imperative to take the injured person to the nearest hospital; and he submitted that such a person was quite as much entitled to immunity from being pauperized as those who were compelled to accept relief under the provisions of the Public Health Act. He would not repeat what he had said; but he should be very glad to co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in aiding the passing of any Bill which might be brought in to carry out the object he had in view. He would ask leave to withdraw his clause.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsuggested that the hon. Member should allow the clause to be negatived, lest it might be re-introduced.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. WARTON, in moving the following new Clause: —
    (Contract requisite for service franchise.)
    "No man shall be entitled to vote by virtue of any office, service, or employment, under the third section of this Act, unless at the time of his entering into such office, service, or employment, a contract was entered into and made between him and his master or employer, to the effect that he was to have the use and occupation of such house by way of payment or part payment for his services,"
    said, that it was in perfect sympathy with the Bill. However much an hon. Member might disapprove of a Bill, there was always the possibility of its passing, and therefore it was his duty

    867
    to endeavour to amend it. With this view he had put this clause upon the Paper, and it seemed to him that the Prime Minister would be able to see his way to accept it. He proposed it with no Party motive, but simply to prevent any mistake being made as to the real meaning of the new service franchise, and to guard against all possibilities of fraud. He thought it was very important that, in introducing a new franchise of this sort, it should be clearly understood that there was a certain time when the franchise should be created. Now that the Act could not come into force before the 1st of January, 1885, and no registration could possibly be held in respect of this Bill until the autumn of 1885, there was plenty of time for masters or employers to consider whether or not they intended their servants to have the franchise. In his opinion, it ought to be clearly understood that before a man could become possessed of the service franchise he should have entered into some contract or agreement with his master or employer. He did not mean to say that the contract or agreement ought necessarily to be in writing, but he was of opinion that the 3rd section of the Act would have a very mischievous effect unless both parties know what their duty was. It was well there should be no uncertainty as to whether a man could become possessed of the service franchise or not, and, indeed, it would be positively wrong to let people come into possession of this new franchise without they understood their exact positions. He thought the Committee would come to the conclusion that his clause would prevent fraud under the Service Clause of the Act, and he therefore submitted it with confidence to the consideration of the Committee.
    New Clause (Contract requisite for service franchise,) — (Mr. Warton,)— brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not question the good faith in which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport proposed this clause. He had, however, given the best consideration in his power to it, and he found himself unable to agree altogether
    868
    with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He submitted, in the first place, that with regard to the service franchise, the facts would be of such a patent character as to the employment and the residence of the persons that there was no risk at all of their being misrepresented or misunderstood. A man who applied for a franchise in this case differed from most of those who would apply for a franchise, insomuch as there was one other person at least interested in the matter. He had felt it his duty sometimes to oppose Motions made for additions to this Bill in what he might call the Liberal sense. At the present moment he considered himself acting in quite a different interest, for according to his belief—he did not disguise it and he had never disguised it—this Service Clause was a clause which would go to strengthen the Conservative interest in the country. Let him take a considerable class of persons, a very proper, competent, and I capable class of voters under this Bill, I who would come in by means of the service franchise, but who would be liable, not to coercion or intimidation, but friendly influence—legitimate influence—which, he held, would tell very much in favour of the Conservatives. Coachmen living in the houses attached to the stables, gardeners, and gamekeepers—three important classes of persons existing to the extent of many thousands, and quite capable of voting—would come in as a rule under the Service Clause, and no other clause. As far as his experience went, it was totally contrary to the custom of the country to make any contract with these people. It might be held, perhaps, that written contracts would be wise; but still the whole thing was so generally worked upon the principle of confidence—upon simple verbal contracts—that he did not think the Committee ought to force people to adopt the practice of written contracts. It might, perhaps, be well to recollect what was the consequence of the provision in the Irish Land Act of I860 requiring written contracts. The consequence of that provision was that the Act was an absolute failure, and that not a single person got the benefit of the Act. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would, after what he had stated, agree with him that, on the whole, there was no real danger to be apprehended in this case.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he thought there were some parts of the country where questions had been frequently raised in the Revision Courts as to whether contracts of service were such as gave a residential qualification apart from the service. He could not help thinking that the clause, as it stood in the Bill, was open, to some extent, to the objections that had been advanced against the present law, and that the time of Revising Barristers would be frequently occupied with a class of questions relating to the qualification of persons claiming under this clause. If his hon. Friend went into the Lobby, he should go with him.
    MR. WARTONreminded the Committee that some time ago they had got into considerable trouble, which was not yet disposed of, as to what was the meaning of "dwelling-house." It was possible that this Bill might not extend to more than two persons; but there might be a question as to several persons being qualified, and he wished to draw a distinction between different persons dwelling in the same house.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the next clause he wished to move had been stigmatized a "fancy franchise;" but it seemed to him that a man who held £100 of Government Stock, or other Stock, was a respectable and capable person who was entitled to the franchise. If the Government were sincere in their desire to enfranchise all capable citizens, he could no see how they could object to his proposition. The possession of the franchise through the possession of money would show that these persons were as fit as other persons to exercise the franchise under this Bill. In order to give permanence to the qualification, he had provided that the voter must show that he possessed the Stock at the time of registration and at the time of voting.
    New Clause (Money franchises,)—(Mr. Warton,)—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 assent to the clause, objections to which were very apparent. In the first place,
    870
    it had already been decided that rent-chargers should not have the franchise on that account, although their income was, in a sense, derived from real property; and, in the next place, if a man possessed £1,000 of Stock, and he had 10 sons, he would be able under this clause to divide that £1,000 among the 10 sons before an election, and so create 10 votes, even though when the election was over he took the money back. This would greatly facilitate the making of fagot votes; and, further, if the vote were refused to holders of Railway Stock, and yet given to these owners of personal property, a very objectionable anomaly would be created. For these, as well as other reasons, the Government could not accept the clause.
    MR. TOMLINSONpointed out that, under this clause, residence would be required, and he should support it, feeling that the possession of personal property ought not to be altogether disregarded in conferring the franchise.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he should be willing to make the possession of Railway Stock a franchise qualification, and he held it to be right to enfranchise those who owned property obtained by industry and frugality. There was an increasing amount of personal property as compared with real property, and on that ground he urged the adoption of this proposition.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSagreed in the view that the Committee ought to have regard to personal property as well as to freehold property; but he did not think there had been any evidence to show that injustice had been done, for, as a rule, those who owned £100 of Stock would be already on the Register as householders or lodgers. On the whole, he thought the hon. and learned Member might be content with having raised the question, and would not press the clause.
    MR. WARTONsaid, there might be a case in which a family of grown-up young men lived in the same house with their father, but had acquired this amount of Stock from their own earnings, although they were not on the Register as lodgers or householders. He would withdraw the clause.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to move the next clause standing on the

    871
    Paper in his name, relating to soldiers, sailors, marines, and merchant seamen.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HNNRY JAMES)said, he wished to take the opinion of the Chairman as to whether this clause was a matter that could be dealt with on a Franchise Bill. His hon. and learned Friend would, he thought, agree with him that the effect of the clause would be, not to give any qualification, but to provide that if a soldier or sailor was ordered abroad, instead of appearing personally and recording his vote, as compelled to do under the Ballot Act, he should leave his voting paper with the Returning Officer to be used by that person on the day of the election. He (the Attorney General) would not wish to shut out the hon. and learned Member from any legitimate right; but he submitted that this Amendment did not deal with a mode of voting with which this Bill had anything whatever to do, affecting, as it did, merely enfranchisement. As a matter of fact, the clause was only an alteration in the mode of voting in favour of one person as against others. It seemed to him, further, that the clause was put out of court by the rejection of the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) on the previous Friday.
    MR. WARTONwished to say a word upon the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. His impression was that the Bill was for the purpose of enfranchising, and here were persons who, from the accidents of their profession, were sometimes unable to vote when they ought to do so. It was not a question as to the mode of voting, but the Amendment was merely to prevent the disfranchisement of soldiers, sailors, marines, and merchant seamen. These men were bound to leave home at the call of duty, and he did not think that by so doing they should forfeit their right to vote. The question was one of avoiding disfranchisement.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The view expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General also struck me, and induced me to consider this point. I think, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at it carefully, he will observe that the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) is quite of a different character
    872
    to that proposed by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston), which was as follows:—
    (Votes of officers and men in the Navy and Army.)
    "Every officer and man enrolled in Her Majesty's Navy or Army who shall he registered as a voter in any constituency of the United Kingdom shall, when stationed or engaged on Her Majesty's service more than twenty miles away from the constituency in which he shall he so registered, but in some part of the United Kingdom, be entitled to give his vote for such, constituency at the place at which he shall be so engaged or stationed, under such, conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed by Her Majesty in Council."
    That clause was in Order; and as Her Majesty in Council might prescribe some form of voting similar to that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, I cannot rule the hon. and learned Member's Amendment out of Order.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he was glad he had got over that difficulty; and perhaps now, having done so, it might not be altogether too much to expect that he might bring the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to agree to his proposal. Soldiers, sailors, marines, and merchant seamen were very deserving and respectable men—he used the word "respectable" because he thought a man who was a "capable citizen" was worthy of great respect. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had agreed with the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) as to the necessities of the case; and it was very curious, therefore, that he should now have turned round, as against those whose enfranchisement he had been in favour of, and try to exclude them from the franchise. When Amendments for the extension of the franchise came from the other side of the House they were accepted, or, at any rate, favourably considered; but when proposals came from the Oppposition Benches they were at once rejected. He would urge hon. Gentlemen calling themselves Liberals to exercise an independent judgment upon this matter, Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite must remember that they would have to face their constituents, and perhaps sooner than they thought likely. When they did so, and when they were asked what position they had taken up in this matter, they would have to say

    873
    that instead of maintaining the principle that those who ought to have a vote should be able to exercise it, they had opposed the extension of the franchise to soldiers, sailors, marines, and merchant seamen who were ordered away on service. If he understood the spirit of the Bill, it was to enfranchise; and he should think that those who were in the honourable discharge of duties, particularly when that duty was the defence of their country, were certainly entitled to their share of the franchise. These persons were treated by the Government as men who were not to have a vote. Who knew that, if this Amendment were not accepted, the Government would not, when the occasion offered, perpetrate some piece of sharp practice by sending away on some foreign service large numbers of men whom they had reason to believe were dissatisfied with the administration of the Service to which they belonged, and were likely to vote in favour of the opponents of the Party in power? It was difficult for the soldier or sailor to get a qualification at all; but when they had obtained it, and when the moment came when they were about to exercise the franchise, if they were obliged to go away from home for the short time during which an election occurred, it would be a very hard thing. He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister really wished, in their hearts and consciences, to deprive these people of the power of voting? As for the paltry question of machinery to which the Attorney General, in his few observations just now, seemed to give prominence, that was altogether beside the mark. If the hon. and learned Gentleman could devise a better machinery than that proposed in the clause, he (Mr. Warton) should be very glad to adopt it. He himself had not been able to think of a better; but if such were brought before him, he should be very glad to accept it. It seemed to him that the Returning Officer, who was, as a rule, very respectable, was a person eminently fitted to discharge a trust such as that he would confer upon him. They must, in this world, depend upon the honour of many persons under many circumstances, and surely a Returning Officer, who was at present entrusted with onerous duties, would be a fit person to hold these
    874
    voting papers. The position the Government took up upon this question showed the sincerity of their professions with regard to the enfranchisement of "capable citizens." He begged to propose the clause standing in his name.
    New Clause (Votes of soldiers, sailors, marines, and merchant seamen,)—(Mr. Warton,)—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, it would be quite impossible to accept this clause. It would only assist a very few persons to the exercise of the franchise. It would not assist those men ordered away before the issue of the Writ, but only those ordered away from the place in which they were qualified to vote to another station after the issue of the Writ. It would only, therefore, assist those men ordered away within a period of three days in the case of boroughs—as that was the time which elapsed between the issue of the Writ and the election—and in the counties some seven or eight days. The Government were opposed to it as a matter of principle. Why should they give this advantage to the soldier and sailor, or anyone else, away on duty? If they gave this privilege to the soldier and sailor, why not extend it to others? The commercial traveller was frequently away from home, and, no doubt, was often away from the district in which he was qualified to vote during an election. Builders' assistants, again, and many artizans, were frequently away in the employ of their masters at election time. Furthermore, persons who were ill, and were not able to go to the poll, could not exercise their vote, for it was not said that the Returning Officer should go to them. In all the eloquence of the hon. and learned Member, delivered as it was, by the way, in a low voice, so far as he (the Attorney General) could gather it, the argument seemed to be that accident might prevent these people from coming to the poll; but accidents might prevent a great many people from coming to the poll. The whole effect of the clause would be to alter the Ballot Act and do away with the secrecy of election, as it would enable a man to put his vote in the hands of another person, or to vote

    875
    with the knowledge of that person. That being so, the Government felt it necessary to oppose the clause.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, that, speaking as an old soldier, he should like to point out to the Attorney General that there was a great difference between the circumstances of the soldier or sailor and the carpenter, joiner, or artizan whom the hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to. The soldier or sailor was ordered off on public service, and could not get permission to remain in his district in which he was qualified to vote, whereas in all probability the carpenter, joiner, or artizan might obtain the consent of his employer to come home and vote. Then, again, whereas the ordinary workman would in most cases only be sent away a few miles, the soldier or sailor might be ordered away to India, or some part of the Colonies, whence it would be impossible for him to return. With all due respect, therefore, to the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General), he wished to point out there was a great difference between the several classes referred to. He (Sir Henry Fletcher) had taken no part in this discussion hitherto, although it had been proposed by the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) to enfranchise any man serving in Her Majesty's Sea or Land Forces and occupying separate quarters. There was a distinction to be drawn between the cottager or day labourer and the coachman, because the officer of a regiment had a greater right to go into the married soldier's quarters than a master of a labourer or coachman had to go into his house.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Baronet is not in Order in going into that question. He can only discuss the clause before the Committee.
    SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he, of course, bowed to the decision of the Chairman; but he did hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, upon this question now before them, would take into consideration the differences of the soldier and sailor and the ordinary artizan.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General did not appear to perceive the meaning of the clause, but seemed to confound the time of the issue of the Writ with the nomination. If he (Mr. Tomlinson)
    876
    was right, he believed that six days elapsed between the issue of the Writ and the nomination day.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the nomination day took place the day after the issue of the Writ, and the polling two days after that in boroughs. He had stated three days in order to be safe; but it might not be more than two.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he believed six days might elapse between the nomination day and the polling day. Even if the Government could not see their way to accepting this clause, they ought not to dismiss it without some expression of sympathy for the soldiers and sailors who, through being ordered on foreign service, might be unable to exercise the privilege of voting.
    Clause negatived.
    LORD ALGERNON PERCYsaid, he wished to move the clause standing in his name, the object of which was to extend the franchise to every man, not otherwise qualified, who should pay the Income Tax. The object he had in moving the clause was to enfranchise a very numerous class of persons who, while possessing a large stake in the country—a far larger stake than those whom the Bill would enfranchise—would yet, as the Bill stood, be excluded from the suffrage. There were many men, clerks and others, resident in London, who only occupied their lodgings for short periods, who went into the country for part of the year and travelled up daily to perform their work, and who, therefore, did not oven obtain the lodger qualification. There were also many people who preferred to live in hotels, and to move about from place to place, and who, of course, had a greater stake in the country—having a sufficient income to pay Income Tax—than the majority of lodgers. Moreover, it was not impossible that this class would considerably increase. In America, for instance, a large portion of the well-to-do people had now taken to living in hotels much more than they formerly did. These people, it must be remembered, paid a much higher rent—probably treble the amount—than the ordinary lodger paid, and that they also possessed intellectual power, and were better educated than the majority of lodgers. The clause he proposed would cover officers in the

    877
    Army who did not reside in separate quarters, and it would remove the disability under which they laboured in consequence of their being marched from one place to another, and, therefore, not having a sufficient residence to qualify them for the lodger franchise. Then, he thought, the clause was sound in principle, because it made representation and taxation go together, whereas there were many who were enfranchised under this Bill—notably those under the service franchise—who paid no taxes whatever. The Attorney General, a short time ago, in the discussion of a previous clause, had drawn the distinction between real and personal property, and said it was necessary to retain the present provision that real property was really to give a qualification for a vote; but he (Lord Algernon Percy) would point out that the occupier of a mud-cabin in Ireland, and the lodgers who would be enfranchised under this Bill, could not be said really to possess real property. This clause might be objected to on the ground that it would create a sort of floating constituency; but that objection might also be taken to the lodger franchise, particularly if it were proposed, as it was suggested a short time ago, to reduce the period of occupancy. Under the clause he was now moving, payers of Income Tax, if not otherwise qualified, would, on production of a certificate that they had paid Income Tax, be allowed to vote; and he did not think there would be any difficulty as to registration, because they would vote either in the district in which they paid the tax, or in that in which they resided. This was necessary, because in the case of Railway Stock the tax would be taken from the sum the taxpayer received, and, therefore, he would vote where he was residing. He (Lord Algernon Percy) hoped the Government would accept the clause, or some other Amendment having a similar object, because he thought it was a proposal in the spirit of the Bill. The Government and the Liberal Party had taken great praise to themselves as to this Bill, from the simple fact that it enfranchised 2,000,000 of people; but if they did not accept some proposal of this description, they would find themselves in this position, that whereas occupiers of mud-cabins in Ireland, and the criminal classes whom the Government were so anxious to in-
    878
    clude— [Sir ASSHETON CROSS: Hear, hear!]—would under the Bill enjoy the franchise, a large class of respectable, intelligent, highly educated, and, to use the Prime Minister's words, "highly capable citizens," would be excluded from any voice in the government of the country. He begged to move the clause standing in his name.
    New Clause (Income Tax payer to have the franchise,)—(Lord Algernon Percy,)—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 right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had cheered the remark that the Government desired to have the criminal classes on the Register of Voters; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the Reform Act of 1867 the Conservative Government took exactly the same course as that adopted by the present Government. They put the criminal classes on the Register, and the right hon. Gentleman neither cheered, nor raised his voice against it. He (the Attorney General) was afraid to be too brief in his reply, otherwise the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) would accuse him of having treated the Committee with disrespect in not following his example and making long speeches; but the Government had already stated their objection to the principle contained in the clause. The reason for giving a vote to those who were householders was because that class were usually the heads of households, and bore the responsibility of heads of families; whereas if they gave the franchise to every person who might pay a few shillings of Income Tax—for no particular amount was specified in the clause, and they must assume that that Income Tax might be varied from time to time by the action of Parliament—they would have persons entitled to vote who might not have been a week in any particular place, and might not be at all identified with the interests of the locality in which they voted. There was no qualification in the clause as to the length of residence. Payment of the tax for one year would suffice to

    879
    qualify a man, and he would have a right to vote if he had lived less than a week in one particular place. The Government had considered the right of property in regard to the franchise to the extent which the Prime Minister had mentioned that evening; and to give the vote to that very light description of property was not a course to which the Government could assent.
    MR. WARTONsaid, no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious to increase the Revenue by every legitimate means, and he would put it to him, therefore, whether this would not be a valuable clause, inasmuch as it would induce persons who now escaped payment of the Income Tax to declare their liability in order to obtain the franchise? He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carefully examine the proposal, and that he would give a very different answer to that which they had received from the Attorney General. The right hon. Gentleman could not be bound by what had been stated by the Attorney General in his absence; he was at liberty to take his own view of this matter. It had always seemed too great an anomaly to him (Mr. Warton) that working men who received good wages should not pay Income Tax. This would be the means of inducing them to do so, and he could not see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer could refuse his support to the proposal. Many working men would gladly pay Income Tax, if by so doing they made themselves "capable citizens." If there was any principle which had ever been put before them with great force, and repeated again and again on both sides of the House, it was the principle that taxation and representation should go together. That was the principle that they all in their sober moments asserted; but when they came to consider the matter as a Party question, they either asserted the principle or denied it as their interests at the moment dictated. They remembered that the United States had broken away from this country for the reason that taxation was not associated with representation. The principle was a most sound one, and should be recognized by the House of Commons, that he submitted—that the man who voluntarily taxed himself was the man above all others who should have the right to vote.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GUILDERS)said, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had addressed a special appeal to him (Mr. Childers), requesting him to look at the clause, and to give his support to the principle contained in it. So far as he understood the clause, anyone, not otherwise qualified, who paid Income Tax, would ipso facto be entitled to a vote, for the clause said—
    "Every man, not otherwise qualified, but paying Income Tax, shall by such payment be qualified to vote in the polling district in which such Income Tax is paid, or in which he is residing, as the case may be."
    He must say that there could be no better contrivance than this for the manufacture of fictitious votes. If he were anxious to secure a constituency, and did not care what means he adopted to secure his end—that was to say, if his sense of honesty would allow him to resort to bribery—he should take care that 200 or 300 persons should pay a small amount of Income Tax, who otherwise would not do so, so that they might ipso facto have the power of voting. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had tempted him by his proposal to add to the Revenue, but it was one he did not feel at all willing to accept.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he hoped the Government would give a little more consideration to this proposal, believing, as he did, that it was one of great weight. It deserved the very fullest consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General based his remarks just now upon the statement that in 1867 the Government of the day did not propose to disfranchise criminals; but he would point out that the House of Commons was older to-day than it was then. No doubt, they had benefited by experience, and the question of enfranchising or not enfranchising criminals was one which deserved full consideration at the hands of the Committee and of the Government. For this reason, he should in all probability, at a later stage of the Bill, bring the question of the enfranchisement of criminals before the notice of the House again, and he trusted that by that time the House would have became so thoroughly educated on the question as to be able to come to a right decision, and not to the determination at which they arrived

    881
    the last time they discussed the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said that the whole principle that underlay the giving of a vote under this Bill was the enfranchisement of the householder—of giving the vote to a man occupying a house, and being as it were the head of a family. Well, if that were the reason the Government had extended the borough franchise to the counties, well and good; but that was no reason why they should have extended the lodger franchise to the counties also, because a lodger did not occupy the whole of a house, and was not, as a rule, the head of a family. In most cases the lodger lived in one room. It seemed to him (Viscount Folkestone), therefore, that the clause now moved by his noble Friend was one which, with the example of the lodger franchise before them, deserved a certain amount of discussion, and he trusted that it would be considered therefore by the Committee. It appeared to him there were other classes of persons who would be enfranchised by this proposal of his noble Friend besides those who had been referred to. Tutors, for in stance, would not be enfranchised by this Bill—tutors who lived in houses occupied and owned by their employers. People who occupied this position must necessarily be of great attainments and thoroughly educated, and they certainly would be much more capable citizens, and much more capable of exercising the franchise, than the majority of those it was now proposed to include by the Government. Besides tutors there were many other persons, well educated and thoroughly capable of exercising the franchise in the right and proper way, who would not get it unless such a clause as this were passed. There were curates, for instance. A great many of these gentlemen resided in the houses of their rectors or their vicars, such residences being bestowed upon them in part payment of their service. These gentlemen, capable as they were, and well educated as it was necessary for them to be, were all debarred from exercising the franchise by the provisions of this Bill. If they got the franchise under this clause, he did not think there could be any doubt as to their exercising it with as much intelligence as the occupiers of the mud-cabins in Ireland, to whom reference had been made by his noble Friend.
    882
    There were many places where several curates were employed in one district, and they were in the habit of occupying what were called clergy houses. He did not understand that these gentlemen would be enfranchised by the Bill, and hon. Members, if they would refer to the part of the Bill to which he was alluding, would find that that was so. The Committee, he thought, would agree with him that these curates, and gentlemen in their position who might not come under the lodger franchise, would be much more capable of exercising the vote than, as he had already stated, a great many who were to be enfranchised by this measure. At any rate, the matter was one which should have full discussion, and should not be dismissed by the mere observation that the Bill was for the purpose of conferring an occupation franchise, and that it did not contemplate a property qualification. He had much pleasure in supporting the clause of his noble Friend.
    MR. GREGORYcould not but think that it was a fair proposition, that the payment of Income Tax should qualify a man to exercise the franchise, where it arose from and represented in that case the possession of property. The payment of Income Tax was a real qualification, as it was an indication of realized property; and he, for, one could not see why a man possessing such a substantial stake in the country as property upon which Income Tax was paid to the State should not be allowed a voice in the management of the affairs of the country. No doubt, care should be taken that the payment of Income Tax to qualify for a vote was a boná fide payment, incident to the possession of realized property. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had suggested that the clause would lead to the manufacture of fictitious votes—that was to say, to the paying of the Income Tax in order to give men a qualification; but precautions could be easily taken against a fraud of that kind. For this reason, he rather preferred the clause standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), which said—
    "Every man who has resided within a county or borough for a period of twelve months, but has not by reason of such residence a qualification to he registered as a voter in such county or borough, may he registered as a voter and

    883
    may vote, upon proving that he has, in the year for which he claims to be so registered, paid or had deducted from the income of any real or personal property accruing to him during such year income or property tax to the amount of not less than ten shillings."
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that as he understood this clause it was one for the purpose of enfranchising anyone who liked to pay Income Tax. If this clause was carried, he wished to give Notice that he should move an addition to it to the effect that any person who chose not to pay Income Tax could be excused on giving up the franchise. That seemed to him a very natural corollary, because if they said to a man—"If you pay the Income Tax you shall have a vote," he did not see why they should not say to him—"If you do not claim a vote you shall not pay Income Tax.
    MR. GLADSTONEwished to point out that in a great number of cases of payment of Income Tax, particularly in regard to the public Funds, and he believed in all cases of foreign securities, the tax was deducted by the agents authorized to pay the money, and the registration authorities, therefore, would have no cognizance whatever of the fact that Income Tax was paid. A very infinitesimal amount of Income Tax might be charged in this way. For instance, if a mail had 20 s. in any of these securities, the interest he received, however small might be the amount, would have deducted from it a certain sum for Income Tax, if a coin sufficiently small to cover it could be found.
    LORD ALGERNON PERCYsaid, after the discussion which had taken place, he would ask leave to withdraw the clause.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid we must contradict it.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he was not quite certain that, in the event of the clause of the noble Lord being negatived, he should be in a position to move the clause following it which stood in his name, and therefore, with the permission of the Committee, he would make a few remarks with regard to it on the present clause. His noble Friend and he had had some conversation as to the mode of introducing into the Bill a clause with reference to giving a qualification by the payment of Income Tax, and the result had been the two clauses which appeared on the Paper in their several names. Now, the clause
    884
    which he had intended to propose certainly got rid of the objection urged by the Attorney General to the clause of the noble Lord.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member would not be in Order in discussing his clause upon the Question before the Committee.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSrose to Order. He had understood the Prime Minister to wish the clause of the noble Lord to be negatived; and he asked whether, if that event took place, it would be competent to his hon. Friend to move the clause which he had placed on the Paper?
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the clause of the hon. Member was substantially the same as that of the noble Lord, and could not, therefore, be put if the latter were negatived.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the hon. Member had pointed out that his clause differed from that of the noble Lord. He trusted the Committee would allow it to be discussed.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they were entirely opposed to the principle of the clauses, and must object to the proposal to discuss it should the Amendment of the noble Lord be negatived.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, in that case he would say a few words on the principle. In the first place, it would be very easy by the addition of words to remove the effect which it was objected the clause would have on account of the payer of Income Tax not being in a fixed position, or being connected with a residence or local habitation. He and his noble Friend, assuming that the Bill was to pass that House, desired to make it as good a Bill as possible; but they were under some difficulty in carrying out their views owing to the way in which the Government put forward, without rhyme, reason, or sequence, that Amendments were not to be discussed on their merits, but were to be rejected simply because the proposal was not in the mind of the Prime Minister, because they did not accord with the arbitrary views which he assumed to be proper with regard to the basis on which the franchise ought to rest. He (Mr. Tomlinson) had asserted on several occasions that, in his opinion, it would be a great misfortune if hon. Members did not insist upon the right of property as distinct from occupation to be repre-

    885
    sented in that House. He thought the main objection to the clause might be met by Amendment; and therefore he trusted the Committee would allow it to be read the second time, with the view of amending it, if desirable, in the direction indicated.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was perfectly right in supposing that the principle of the clause was raised in a form which many people did not approve; but he would point out that if the clause were read the second time, it would not be in his power to amend it. This proposal, as he said, was a mode of creating a new property qualification. The Government were against that in all forms in which it might come before them; and on the last occasion he might observe that the Government views were supported by a majority of 137 to 38. Therefore, the hon. Member could not be surprised at the position taken up on the present occasion with reference to his Amendment. Although the clause had evidently been carefully framed, he did not think that any clause could raise the property qualification satisfactorily at all; because, if the Committee assented to a qualification on an Income Tax basis, the forms in which the principle might be embodied would be of endless variety. Under the circumstances, he was sure the hon. Gentleman would not be surprised that the Government should challenge the principle, and that they should not be disposed to agree to the second reading of the clause.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the argument of the Prime Minister was not the same as he had before urged against the clause. The present objection was upon a matter of detail; but he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) wished to have the principle and not the details of the clause discussed. The hon. Member for Preston, it had been ruled, could not move his clause on that occasion; but he understood that the hon. Member would hereafter raise the question of property qualification on a scale which would not confine it to the basis of Income Tax — that it would be raised on Report in such a form that the Prime Minister would not be able to take objection to the proposal on either of the grounds put forward by him on the present occasion. He should therefore
    886
    reserve the further observations he had to make on the proposal of the hon. Member until its principle was discussed, as it certainly would be on Report.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that the question on which the Division alluded to by the Prime Minister had been taken had nothing to do with property qualification as he had described it to be. It was a question of the kind of residence required for the exercise of the occupation franchise.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 21; Noes 99: Majority 78.—(Div. List, No. 126.)
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the clause in the name of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) relating to the appointment of a Boundary Commission could not be moved, inasmuch as it was not within the scope of the Bill, a circumstance which he thought the hon. Member must be aware of, because he had moved words of the same import, as an Instruction to the Committee, at a former stage of the Bill.
    Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 249.]

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 206.]
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Courtney.)
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 206.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

  PART II.

    INCOME TAX.
    Clause 5 (Grant of duties of income tax).
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, when the Motion for the second reading of the Bill was before the House, he gave Notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that at this point of the Bill he should draw attention to a Motion which was derided against him when the Bill of last year was in Committee. He claimed exemption from the payment of Income Tax for all moneys accruing to persons in the United Kingdom, but which

    887
    moneys never came into the United Kingdom. He claimed that the Income Tax should only be paid on that money which came into the United Kingdom. But he had put down the Amendment, which he was about to move, for the purpose of affording the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of offering an explanation about a case which the right hon. Gentleman, had cited in support of the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to this question. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman last year if the law had been settled upon this question; if a decision had ever been come to upon the question as to whether a person in the United Kingdom was liable for the tax upon his whole income, if received in the United Kingdom or not? The right hon. Gentleman stated in reply that the case was settled in 1808, and he quoted an Exchequer case which led him to take for granted that the law had been settled at that time. He went to his solicitor, and got him to look up the Law Reports; but he could not find the case, and for a very good reason —it had never been tried. He (Mr. Macfarlane) wrote to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer requesting him to give a reference, and the right hon. Gentleman was good enough not only to give him a reference, but a copy of the case. When he read the case, however, he found that the precedent did not at all support the view of the right hon. Gentleman, while it did support the Amendment he (Mr. Macfarlane) moved. As the case was very short, he would road it to the Committee. It was a case raised at Hemel Hempsted, Hertfordshire, in the year 1805, and at that period the Income Tax did not extend to Ireland. The gentleman concerned, Mr. William Hilton, lived at Hemel Hempsted, and was a trader in Ireland. He had been in the habit of returning an Income Tax of £1,000 a-year. It was pointed out to him he was injuring his own case, because he was only required to return in England as much as he received from Ireland. That being so, he tried the experiment; and on the next occasion when he made a return he returned £500, being the sum that he received in England from his trade in Ireland. The Income Tax Commissioners charged him with the full £1,000, on the ground that
    888
    he had returned it before, and Mr. Hilton appealed. He appealed to the Local Income Tax Commissioners, and they upheld the appeal, and charged him on £500 only. The case was sent up to the Board of Inland Revenue, and from the copy of an official document, which he held in his hand—a document dated the 29th of February, 1808, and prepared by Mr. Harry Grover, clerk to the Commissioners of the Hundred of Daconum, Hertfordshire—he found that this gentleman—
    "Claims relief of the Commissioners against the advance on him of the £500 in 1805, when from the foregoing circumstances he had lost the opportunity of applying on the appeal day, and to have remitted him the sum of £31 5s. charged on him—"
    He (Mr. Macfarlane) had made the case rather weaker than it really was, because it appeared that, during the absence of Mr. Hilton, Mrs. Hilton had paid the full amount, and what Mr. Hilton claimed was the actual repayment of the sum paid. He claimed to be repaid—
    "£31 5s. charged on him above the return he so made in that year; but the Commissioners did not feel themselves empowered to afford him any relief, as the duplicates were perfected and delivered to the Tax Office and to the Receiver General. The foregoing matters were stated by the said William Hilton on oath before the Commissioners on the last appeal day, on the 8th of April instant, and at his instance the Commissioners have directed me to transmit thereof to the Commissioners for the affairs of Taxes, in order that he may obtain the relief prayed, if there were any means of affording it him. The Board are not aware that the Commissioners have any authority to remit the duty, nor do they see upon what ground the Commissioners assessed him the last year in £500 only as on the sum received from Ireland. Every trader living in Great Britain is answerable for the whole profits of trade arising in another country."
    That was the opinion of the Inland Revenue Commissioners; but was it what was conveyed to him last year? It was conveyed to him that the law had been definitely decided, not that the Inland Revenue Commissioners had decided in their own favour that such and such was the law. Here was a case, and the Exchequer never appealed against it; they never brought the case into Court. He did not make these remarks in order to raise the question just now, because he did not think the time was opportune, but in order to give the right hon. Gentleman the Chan-

    889
    cellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of explaining how it came about that the precedent that was quoted against him (Mr. Macfarlane) last year turned out to be a precedent entirely in his favour. He awaited the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman with some curiosity.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 29, after the word "profits," to insert the words "received in the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. COURTNEYunderstood that the hon. Member did not propose to amend the law—[Mr. MACFARLANE: The law is not settled]—but he desired to get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a declaration as to what the law was. The hon. Gentleman himself had allowed that the Inland Revenue authorities were the supreme authorities in these matters, and that they had decided that a person living in England was taxable for an income obtained in a foreign country. If the law was laid down by the supreme authority, and acquiesced in by every taxpayer, it was no objection to say it had not been decided by the Court of Exchequer. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the case of Hilton in 1806, and also to the case of Cankrien in 1808, and he said the contention was that the profits did not come into England, and were not and should not be subject to Income Tax. In both cases the decision of the authorities was to the effect that the profits were subject to Income Tax; and that had been the invariable decision of the authorities ever since. Oil the 5th of June of last year, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the case of Hilton, and made the quotation the hon. Member (Mr. Macfarlane) had made tonight. He acknowledged the act of the Local Commissioners, and then said—
    "In the case of Hilton the particulars as to the year 1805 were transmitted to the Board in London, with a view to his being allowed a repayment;"
    and he added the words—
    "Every trader living in Great Britain is answerable for the whole profits of trade arising in another country."—(3 Hansard, [279] 1741.)
    That was what was laid down by the supreme authorities—the Inland Re-
    890
    venue—at the time; it had been acquiesced in by every taxpayer, and it was what constituted the law. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly justified in declaring that to be the law, for it had been acted upon and observed, and never questioned since. That being the only point raised by the hon. Member, it was not necessary to go into the question as to whether the demand was a just one. Justice required every person who lived in the Kingdom, and who had an income, wherever obtained, to pay Income Tax upon that income; it did not make any difference whether or not the person brought the income home, or left it where it was made to be reinvested. There could be no question whatever as to the justice of the law, or as to the accuracy of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he did not charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer with having stated that which he did not believe to be accurate; but he considered that the right hon. Gentleman had been misled by the permanent officials of the Inland Revenue. Those officials considered that an opinion of theirs given in 1805 was the ruling of English law. He did not think that the majority of people would agree with, them in that matter. What he understood when the subject was discussed last year was, that the decision had been given according to law, and not merely according to the opinion of the officials of Somerset House. He took it for granted that law was administered by Judges, and not by the officials of the Inland Revenue. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had said that whatever was acquiesced in was law. A great many people acquiesced in what was called law, but which was not law. No one knew better than the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer what an odious thing it was to appeal against the Income Tax assessment. No one knew better than they did what an odious power was possessed by the Inland Revenue authorities for the purpose of squeezing Income Tax out of people. They knew that, as a rule, people would pay almost anything rather than be dragged into a Court and have nil their private affairs exposed, and they had played upon that

    891
    fact for their own advantage. He would not enter into a controversy with, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, though he thought the hon. Gentleman's dogmas on the question of the law relating to the Income Tax might be very easily refuted. The hon. Gentleman said there was no doubt as to the justice of the principle on which Income Tax was assessed. He (Mr. Macfarlane) had very great doubt on the point. A lawyer discussing the question would probably say that the present system of assessment was an anomaly, which was much worse than an injustice, because an anomaly was a thing for which nothing at all was to be said. At the present time he only wished to put on record that, in his opinion, in the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made last year he was misled by the Inland Revenue officials, and that he quoted a case which was virtually one in his (Mr. Macfarlane's) favour.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that the hon. Gentleman did not wish to discuss the general question; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was only anxious to maintain his consistency. The words he used last year were quite correct. He referred to two cases, and he said—
    "The case of Cankrien, which occurred in 1808, is perfectly clear. He claimed not to be assessed on certain profits made abroad; "but his claim was disallowed, and the tax was paid. The case of Hilton, 'in 1806, was as follows:—He had paid the full tax in 1804 and in 1805; but I find that in 1800 the Local Commissioners relieved him from the tax on certain profits made abroad, and desired the particulars as to the year 1805 to be transmitted to the Board in London, with a view to his being allowed a repayment. The Board declined to do so, replying that they were 'not aware that the Commissioners have any authority to remit the duty,' and adding—'Every trader living in Great Britain is answerable for the whole profits of trade arising in another country.'"—(3 Hansard, [279] 1741.)
    He merely said that that was the decision of the authorities, and he adhered to that statement.
    MR. MACFARLANEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CLARE READmoved the omission of the words "twopence halfpenny," in page 2, line 34, and the substitution of the words "one penny three farthings." He understood there
    892
    were to be equal laws for England, Ireland, and Scotland, and, therefore, he thought the time had come that the Committee should know the reoson why the tenant farmers of England were taxed at a higher rate than their brethren in the two more favoured countries. He asked the question in the late Parliament, and he received the very Conservative reply—it was so in the beginning, and it must be so to the end. He trusted the law would be altered, because it appeared to him to be totally unsatisfactory and entirely unjust. In the first place, agricultural depression had been much more severely felt throughout all the corn-growing districts of England than it had ever been in Scotland or in Ireland; and he undertook to say that if, during the last five years, the farmers of England could have produced correct accounts before the Commissioners, not one farmer in 10 would have been called upon to pay any Income Tax at all. In consequence of farmers, as a rule, not keeping their accounts properly, there was extreme difficulty in. appealing against the tax. In good years, he cheerfully admitted that the rough-and-ready way of taking half the rent was a fair criterion of a farmer's profits. He understood that one argument in favour of the distinction in the amount of Income Tax paid by English, and Scotch, and Irish farmers, was that the rents in Scotland and Ireland were higher than they were in England. Ireland, of course, stood in an exceptional position; but he believed it would be found that the reduction of rents had been much greater in England than in Scotland. In England there had been a return of a great number of percentages which did not appear in the shape of reduction of rent, yet in a vast number of instances both landlord and tenant had had to pay on the full rent. He should be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be good enough to take, this matter into his serious consideration, and that, at least, he would inform the Committee how it came to pass that the distinction was ever made, and whether there was anything to justify it.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 34, to leave out the words "twopence halfpenny," and insert the words "one penny three farthings."—(Mr. Clare Read.)

    893
    Question proposed, "That the words 'twopence halfpenny' stand part of the Clause."
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, that if the hon. Member, who always spoke authoritatively on English agricultural questions, would only propose to take throe farthings off the Income Tax paid by the farmers of Ireland and Scotland, he (Colonel Nolan) would very cheerfully give him his support. He had no objection to the Amendment in itself, because he knew that for some years past agriculturists in this country had suffered very severely from the agricultural depression. He could not help, however, finding fault with the arguments by which the hon. Gentleman had supported his Amendment. It was a little surprising that the hon. Member had not seen fit to show the differences which existed between England and Ireland in regard to agricultural matters. The Irish fanners suffered very greatly from the want of sufficient market accommodation. He noticed that the farmers of England could get £5 a-ton for their hay; indeed, it had been given in evidence before a Committee now sitting up-stairs, that recently a large contract for hay at £9 per ton was made at Liverpool. The farmers of Ireland never got such prices; they sometimes got £2 10 s. and £3 per ton. Occasionally they got a little more; but £2 10 s. might be taken as the average price. The case of potatoes was just the same. He found that here potatoes were now selling at 7d. and 8d. a-stone; last year they were sold at 9d. and 10 d. a-stone. This year they were selling at 5d. and 6d. a-stone; but usually it was hard to get more than 3d. a-stone. English farmers were able to prevent Irish cattle being moved through England, and this Irish farmers resented very greatly, because it seriously interfered with their profits. These were some of the reasons why it might very easily be supposed that Irish farmers did not make as much profit as an English farmer. The Income Tax, during the last two years at least, might very properly have been remitted in the case of a large number of farmers. Many farmers had made no money at all; certainly many in his own part of the country (Galway) had bought a large number of cattle, but they had
    894
    not even made their rent. It was hard upon these people that they should be called upon to pay even l¾d. Income Tax. He did not strongly oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member who so ably represented agriculture in the House; but he thought it was right to present the Irish side of the question, and not let the Committee run away with the idea that people in Ireland were making money. As a matter of fact, the Irish farmers were losing money upon almost everything in which they dealt.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he was not aware that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clare Read) intended to raise this question. If he had given Notice of his intention, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would have been prepared to speak more positively and authoritatively on the subject. What, however, he had to say was that this had been the Income Tax rule with respect to Schedule B for many years, and he was not aware it had been disputed. The reason was that the proportion which farmers' profits in England bore to the valuation of the land had always been held to be considerably higher than in Ireland and Scotland. The proportion of farmers' profits in England had generally been taken to be one-half; whereas it had been taken at one-third in Scotland and Ireland. There were also reasons as to rating, to which he need not now refer in detail. That rule had been observed in Acts of Parliament for many years past. There was another reason why he thought it would be quite unnecessary to make this change, and that was that the law provided the method under which, if the assessment was too high, the farmer was able to obtain a reduction of the assessment. The 3rd section of the Act of 1851—the 14 & 15 Vict. c. xii—related expressly to Schedule B, and it provided that if any person occupying land, and assessed under Schedule B, should find and prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners by whom the assessment was made, that his profits and gain from the occupation of his land fell short of the sum on which the assessment was made, it should be lawful for the Commissioners to cause an abatement to be made from the amount charged against him. There-

    895
    fore, what a farmer had to do was to look sharply after his rights under that clause. He would undertake, between now and next year, to look carefully into the question, and if he could do anything to strengthen the provision of the Act of 1851, he would do it. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he listened attentively to the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he failed to find that the right hon. Gentleman had grasped the situation, the situation being that during the last 10 years farmers in England had scarcely made any profit. There might be a few who had made a little profit; but he was fully persuaded that particularly since the year 1879 a large number of farmers in the great corn-growing counties had made no profit at all. If they looked at the price of wheat at the present time, they must come to the conclusion that, even with a good crop, it barely covered the cost of cultivating the land and so wing the wheat. Such being the case, it was but right that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give some attention to the matter, with the view, if possible, of making an abatement in the Income Tax paid by agriculturists in England. In. spite of what his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) said, he asserted that during the last few years two-thirds of the farmers of Ireland had been doing better than the farmers of England. All the Irish farmers who had been able to grow cattle had received very high prices indeed for their stock. He admitted the truth of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's (Colonel Nolan's) statement, that since foot-and-mouth disease had been rampant in this country, cattle farmers had experienced some difficulty in carrying on their trade; but, looking at the whole circumstances of the case, he was confident Irish farmers, particularly those in certain parts of Ireland, had done a great deal better than English farmers had done. In Scotland, too, although higher rents were to be paid, the farmers made greater profits than the agriculturists of England made. What English agriculturists complained of was that in respect of the Income Tax there should be any distinction made between them and their Irish and Scotch brethren. They had a right to ask that
    896
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, if possible, reduce the tax this year, or, at any rate, that he should most carefully consider the subject, with the view of making a reduction in the immediate future. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the law, and he had shown what could be done under the law as it at present stood. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well, as he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) knew perfectly well, that there were very few farmers who could produce such accounts as would enable them to obtain the proper reduction. They could not pay their rents, and in many instances it had been necessary to give them a bonus—they had not been able to show by their accounts that they had made sufficient money to necessitate their paying tins 2½ per cent Income Tax. He would not go into the question further, except to say that he should like to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer give them a little more encouragement, because, looking at the manner in which the farmers had borne their distress, and looking at the outcry which was raised against everything proposed which had a semblance to Protection, even when it was protection against the introduction of cattle disease, he thought they did deserve everything that could be done to relieve them from charges upon the land. Local taxation, as well as Income Tax, all bore very heavily upon the farmer; therefore, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) cordially agreed with the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), and ventured to hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, at any rate, give the matter his most serious consideration.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he had promised to give the matter careful consideration.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the very liberal offer he had made to consider the claims of farmers for exemption from the Income Tax when the profits fell below the fixed proportion of the rental. An hon. Member had very justly said that there was one mode of remedying the evil complained of—namely, by farmers keeping accounts, and thereby being able to substantiate their claim for the deductions

    897
    to which they were entitled; he was very sorry that the farmers generally did not avail themselves of this mode. He himself was acquainted with only a few Scotch fanners who had obtained relief from taxation in this way. The Inland Revenue officer had, on proof by production of accounts, granted relief; and he should cordially agree with any proposition which contemplated getting them to adopt this general system. The Inland Revenue Department attended very carefully to all representations on the part of the farmers. He wished to point out that in Scotland farmers paid on their full incomes, while in England a very large reduction was made.
    MR. BIRKBECKsaid, he wished to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it would not be well for him to take into consideration the desirability of coming to some more satisfactory settlement on this question, between now and the Report stage, without waiting till next year. They ought not to be put off for another year. The agricultural distress had now been going on for eight years, and the farmers of the country ought not to be put to the necessity of waiting any longer. If the right hon. Gentleman did not give the promise asked of him, it was to be hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a Division, so that the country might see who were the real friends of the farmers on this question.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be slow to hold out expectations to hon. Gentlemen on this question which were not likely to be realized. It seemed to him that this was not so much a question between the farmers of England and those of Ireland and Scotland as it was a question between the farmers of England and the other taxpayers. They were told that the farmers had had a series of bad years; but if the case of other traders was fully stated, it would be found that they had quite as strong a claim, to consideration as had the agriculturalists of the country. The farmers had had their rents very largely reduced all round; and he did not hesitate to say that, in the average of years, this class had got on very well—much better than those concerned in other trades. It was said that the farmers should not be charged upon the basis
    898
    upon which the tax was at present levied, on account of the succession of bad years they had suffered; but it seemed to him that the answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given to that contention was complete. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the farmer had redress. They had the same relief given as any other trader under the Income Tax system; and he was, therefore, at a loss to imagine why this special boon should be given to the farmers, and refused to the other taxpayers. For his own part, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should wish to see a much stronger case put before him before he agreed to any such change as that proposed. Surely farmers were not to come to that House and claim an exemption at the expense of all the other taxpayers of the country. If they did, it would be absolutely necessary that those who represented large constituencies carrying on the great industries of the country, and who had been suffering for quite as many years as the agriculturalists, should come forward, and each declare that the special conditions of his constituents had a right to be considered. He maintained that there had been, unfortunately, more Income Tax paid on money which had not been earned by the manufacturing classes than by the farmers.
    MR. D. DAVIESsaid, if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clare Read) went to a Division on his Amendment, he should support him. Thirty years ago he was a farmer himself, and he did keep accounts for one year—and, as he thought, pretty correct accounts. He was very busy at the time, and these accounts bothered him. so much that at last he had to give them up. That was his experience, and he believed, also, that it was the experience of the generality of farmers. Taking the agricultural class as a whole since 1879—he did not say that there were not exceptions in cases where farmers had good grass land, and a large amount of healthy stock—they had lost money that could not pay Income Tax. He himself was willing to pay Income Tax; in fact, if it would relieve the farmers, he should be very glad, so far as he was concerned, to pay a little more. He did not wish to vote against the Government; and, he supposed, if he did he should be called to Order. If, however, the Amendment were pressed

    899
    to a Division, he should feel bound to vote for it.
    MR. GREGORYwas understood to say that this subject had been unexpectedly raised, and it was new to him that there was a difference of assessment between the farmers of the three countries, nor could he understand the principle upon which the tax was so levied; but he felt that the burden, was most unfair to the English farmer, falling more heavily on him than on the Irish or Scotch farmer.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had declared that this was a new subject to him, and the hon. Member's speech had proved that to be the case; because, for the first time in his (Mr. Courtney's) experience of the hon. Member, he had that evening spoken upon a subject with which he was not acquainted. Such a proceeding was of the rarest occurrence on the part of the hon. Member. When the Income Tax was revived by Sir Robert Peel, it was a great question how the tax was to be assessed on farmers, because farmers, as a rule, were unable to make out accounts, as the hon. Member for Cardigan Boroughs (Mr. D. Davies) had declared to have been his own experience. It was said that there was no trustworthy test as to the property of a farmer; but, taking good years with the bad, it was thought that in England the farmer's profits might fairly be taken at half his rental. That was to say, supposing he paid £500 a-year rent, his profit would be £250. It was assumed, at the same time, that the Scotch and Irish farmers' profits would be, as a rule, a third of their rental—that was to say where they paid a rental of £600 a-year their profit would be some £200. That was the rule adopted by Sir Robert Peel, and it was in accordance with that rule that the Schedule had been prepared. The landowner, under Schedule A, paid 5d. in the pound on his rental; and the English farmer paid 2½d., that being supposed to be 5d. on his profits. The Scotch and Irish farmers had to pay l¾d on their rental, that being supposed to be at the same rate—namely, 5d. on their profits. The scheme of taxation of profits was the same in the Three Kingdoms—that was to say, all paid the same rate. There was no idea of taxing the English farmer to the extent of 2½d. on his rental, and the
    900
    Scotch and Irish farmers a smaller amount. He was not going to argue the rule under which the charge was made; he had explained the principle which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) could not understand. But the law had done something more for the farmer. There was an Act of 1851, giving farmers the privilege to pay on the actual profits they made in bad years—that was to say, they had the privilege of saying—"I will take the average in good years; but whenever bad years come, I will pay on the actual profits I have made." That was an extraordinary exemption, only embodied in the law in favour of the English farmer. It came to this—that the farmer had the privilege of paying as if his profits were half his rental, although the amount realized might be more than half his rental; and, furthermore, the privilege, whenever a bad year turned up, of saying—"My profits will not reach a half of my rental; therefore I must have a reduction." English farmers had largely availed themselves of this privilege in recent times. The English farmers had the advantage, therefore, both ways, and the Exchequer could never make a gain by him. He (Mr. Courtney) thought, after this explanation, hon. Gentlemen must see that the charge which had been brought against the Government fell entirely to the ground.
    MR. BIDDELL, after remarking that the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney), in correcting the previous speaker, was not right himself, stated that the fact was the English farmer was assessed on more than half his rent. The tithe was added to his rent, and from the amount thus obtained one-eighth was deducted, and the remainder was the sum on which he was assessed. [Mr. GLADSTONE and Mr. CHILDERS: No, no!] Thus, assuming his rent was £500 and tithe £120, his tax would be calculated on £620, less one-eighth, or £542 10 s. 2½d. in the pound on that would be £5 12 s. 10 d., which was 15 or 20 per cent more than the Scotch farmer had to pay. He had stated these facts in the form of a Question to the right hon. Gentleman [Mr. Gladstone) some three years ago, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman had deputed the answer to the gentleman (Lord Frederick Cavendish) who was, unfortunately, murdered in Ireland.

    901
    The answer given on that occasion was that his (Mr. Biddell's) calculations were right. He would stand on his calculations, and would still maintain that where the rent, tithes, and rates were the same the English farmer paid from 15 to 20 per cent more than the Scotch or Irish farmer. He would take a further opportunity of publishing his figures, in order that he might convince the right hon. Gentlemen he was right and they were in error.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that when he heard the hon. Member (Mr. Biddell) fall into what appeared to him to be a most manifest error just now he shook his head, because it was impossible for him to hear such a statement without taking exception to it. He would not go back into figures of which the hon. Member had spoken, but would address himself to the point the hon. Member had put before the Committee. He understood the hon. Member to state that the tithe paid by the farmer entered into the computation of his rent. [Mr. BIDDELL: That is so.] He was not sure whether the hon. Member also said that the rates were added, and that one-eighth was deducted either from the rent plus the tithe, or the tithe plus the rate, or from the rent plus the tithe and rates. Certainly, if the experience of the hon. Member had been such as he had described, his position had been most unfortunate. If he, or any of his friends, had been assessed on the basis of adding to the rent the tithe, or the tithe and rates, they had, unquestionably, been imposed upon by those who levied the tax. There could be no doubt in the world that, according to law, there was no connection whatever between the rent and tithe in the computation of the tax. The charge on the rent was made without the slightest reference to what was paid for tithe or for taxes. No such addition as the hon. Member had alluded to ought to have been made, the Act of Parliament being perfectly clear on the subject; and that fact ought to have been known throughout the country by this time, after the experience it had had of the Income Tax. As to the question whether, when the tax was levied on the rent, the hon. Gentleman paid a larger proportion than was paid in Scotland, it was an important subject, which ought to be discussed on its merits; but, without doubt, it
    902
    appeared to him that the question was much more whether the Scotch farmer should have his tax raised than whether the English farmer should have his reduced. The English farmer could not possibly be damnified, as the rule of taxation in proportion to his rent was a rule entirely in his favour, and entirely against the Exchequer, because if he made profits beyond his rent he had the benefit of being charged on only a portion of those profits; whereas, if he made profits short of half of his rent, he could decline altogether to pay on the ordinary assessment. The Income Tax, no doubt, was a tax full of anomalies and inequalities; but in this case it certainly seemed to him that those anomalies were on behalf of the farmer, and not of the State.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, he rose to correct an observation which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour). He had understood the hon. and gallant Member to say that the farmer ought to be rated higher for Imperial taxes, for the reason that 30 per cent was taken off his rent in the assessment of the local taxes.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwas understood to say that he had only pointed out the difference between England and Scotland in this matter. In England the local rates were not paid on the gross rental. In Bedfordshire, for instance, he believed about 30 per cent was deducted from the gross rental before the taxes were rated and paid.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, if that were so, Bedford must be very exceptionally situated, because it was not the case in the county he represented (South Shropshire). The deductions from rental were 5 per cent for land and building, and 2½ per cent for land without building, and this for repairs, not for rates or tithe. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to give the matter his best consideration; and, under the circumstances, he would appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Clare Read) not to press his Amendment to a Division. With regard to the statement of the Prime Minister, that the tithe was not reckoned with the rent, he thought that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inquire into the matter he would find that the Prime Minister was mistaken, and that if a man paid £500

    903
    a-year rent and £100 a-year tithe, the Commissioners charged his Income Tax upon the one half—namely, £300 a-year, I upon which he was obliged to pay. There was evidently a very important question at issue here. His hon. Friend (Mr. Clare Read) had stated that it was the rent and the tithe together that the tax was assessed upon; and he (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) was almost sure that he was right in his contention. Of course, rates were not reckoned; but certainly the tithe was. At any rate, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look into the matter to see whether the case was as represented by the hon. Member (Mr. Biddell) he would be doing a great justice to a large number of people. The concession which had been announced by the Prime Minister depended very much upon how it worked, and the facilities afforded for its use.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, the whole question of rating for Income Tax and other purposes depended on the annual value; but the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Courtney) had said that rates did not enter into the question. In his (Mr. Magniac's) opinion they did; and they really lay at the whole root of the question. The farmers had a certain percentage deducted from their rents for rates and taxes, for rates could not be profit to the farmer. In many counties the deduction was large according to the valuation. In his county (Bedford) they had a very careful valuation of the lands and houses. It was made some years ago, and was a very high valuation indeed; and the consequence was that a much larger amount was assessed upon there than in counties in which there had been no such valuation. It was very well to say that farmers ought to keep accounts; but there was nothing more difficult than to make out the accounts of a farm. Profits must depend on circumstances occurring over a term of years; and it was impossible to lay down a general rule applicable to every locality and every description of land by which to ascertain the value of a farm. Farmers would have to pay Income Tax upon profits which they never made; unless they were able to take a long series of years it would be impossible to show their average profits or losses. This state of things ought to be remedied; but he did not know how that was to be done.
    904
    An hon. Member had said that farmers were in a better position than other traders in the country; but he believed they were worse off: and he thought the plan of requiring them to show the profits of each year separately as a trader could do would be altogether inapplicable to them, unworkable, and unjust. This was a matter which certainly demanded examination, for it was one of very serious importance; but he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Clare Read) would not go to a Division, because it was a ease in which it would be utterly impossible for a responsible Minister to give an answer off-hand. At the same time, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would fulfil the promise he had made to have the question properly looked into in justice to the farmers.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought it would be most unwise for his hon. Friend to press this matter to a Division. The question was one of very great importance, and he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider it during the Recess. He was not prepared to recommend the right hon. Gentleman to make an alteration at once, because the alteration of an Act which had been in existence for a great many years was a very serious matter indeed; but there could be no doubt that the views expressed by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac), and by other hon. Members on both sides of the House, were unfortunately too true. The farmers of England had for many years sustained losses under circumstances which had been most disastrous to them, and to a great many other persons also. It would be difficult for them to convey to the Commissioners before whom they would have to prove their case facts and evidence which would justify their claim for an entire remission of taxation. Farmer after farmer, tenant after tenant, had failed and disappeared, and the land had fallen back into the landlords' hands, and been re-let at a great reduction of rent; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the country would have to face a serious condition of things, in regard to which there appeared to be no prospect of improvement at the present time. The farming industry was now of a character of which few persons in London had the slightest idea; and if that was the case in the greater part of

    905
    England, it was not borne out to the same extent in Ireland or Scotland, where the proportion of the Income Tax was much smaller in relation to the rent paid. He was not aware that there was any reduction in respect of rates referred to by the hon. Member for Bedford, and he had always understood that the rent paid to the landlord was the basis upon which the Income Tax was paid; and some authoritative statement upon that subject should be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to remove misapprehension in the minds of persons interested in the matter. He believed the Income Tax was paid in reference to the rent in many cases, plus the tithe. In many cases the rent paid included the tithe; in others they were separate payments. The whole matter was a very important one, and required to be considered during the Recess.
    MR. RAMSAYwished to draw attention to the discrepancy between England and Scotland in respect to Income Tax charged upon farmers. In England the practice was for the tenant to pay, in addition to his rent, the rates and taxes due in respect of the land he occupied; but in Scotland those would be charged on the owner of the land. That was the sole ground why, in 1842, a distinction was made between England and Scotland. In Scotland the tenant was charged in respect of rack rent; and he thought no better reason could be assigned for the distinction between England and Scotland as to the rate at which the Income Tax should be assessed than the fact that in Scotland the principal rates were divided equally between the landlord and the tenant, while in England the tenant, as a rule, undertook to pay the rates for the landlord. In these circumstances, it was obvious that it would not be fair or reasonable to charge farmers in Scotland with respect to Income Tax at the same rate as in England, where the tenants, in addition to the rent, also paid the whole of the rates.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) has asked me to make some authoritative statement on this subject; but I have nothing to add to my previous remarks, except that I should like to see the machinery of the assessment for taxes and rates in force throughout the
    906
    country. Beyond this, I can only repeat that what I will undertake to do is, not to examine the basis of the principle upon which the farmer should pay the same Income Tax as other people upon his profits, but to see whether the particular machinery under which he is assessed is good or bad.
    MR. CLARE READsaid, he thought the tenant farmers had already gained considerably from this discussion, for the Committee had heard from the highest authority in the House that they had been taxed for years and years on the tithe they paid, and that that had been an illegal tax upon them. He had paid Income Tax upon his tithes for 30 years, and he should certainly now make a demand for a repayment, and should advise every tenant farmer to do the same. He was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong in saying that that was not the universal custom of the Inland Revenue authorities. His hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) had put the case so plainly that he would not repeat the arguments of his hon. Friend; but the case was this. The farmer's rent and tithes were added together; then a certain amount was deducted, and that was supposed to represent the rates; but that balance of rent and tithes was what the tenant farmers of England had been paying for years and years. Now, however, they were told by the Prime Minister that that had been illegal, and henceforth they would not have to pay that. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his assurance that he would consider this question. He did not care about the facilities given for appeal, because he was sure that the majority of the farmers in this country did not keep accounts well enough to furnish the necessary information for an appeal; but even with the best arrangement of farm accounts, he considered the case put by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) unanswerable. Farmers had to go through their accounts, not for a single year, but for a series of years, to ascertain whether they had made a profit or not. The Secretary to the Treasury had rightly put before the Committee the origin of the difficulty. That was in 1840, when Sir Robert Peel revived the Property Tax; but the case was now entirely altered. Ireland and Scotland might be considered pastoral

    907
    countries, and England had been, until recently, more or less arable land. It was quite true that in 1840 the farmers' profits in pastoral districts were different from the profits in arable districts; but now, whereas pastoral districts in this country had suffered hardly at all under the operations of Free Trade, and in some eases had benefited, the whole of the losses had been sustained by the tillers of the arable parts of the country; and therefore, although one-half of the rent might have been a fair criterion of the farmer's profits in the days of Sir Robert Peel, he contended that that ought now to be altered, and that the calculation ought to be one-third in England, as it was in Scotland and Ireland. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a distinct gain to the farmers, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not forget his promise. Under these circumstances, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he thought the tenant farmers of England owed a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member (Mr. Clare Read) for bringing forward this matter, and extracting a declaration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he hoped some instruction would be given to the officers of the Inland Revenue that they were not in future to charge tenants Income Tax on the tithes they paid. His experience went to corroborate the statement of the hon. Member, for he had paid Income Tax under Schedule B on tithes as well as on rent, and had always supposed that he was liable as an occupier to that charge. As, however, that was not legal, he thought some instruction should be given to the Inland Revenue officers that such a charge should not be made; or, at any rate, that there should be no trouble in assenting to appeals by tenant farmers.
    MR. MAGNIACwished to say further that if there was one thing more erroneous than another it was that rent represented real value as a basis for Income Tax. There might be cases in which the farmer paid rent according to the real value; but there were others who paid beyond the value, or less than the value, the difference being settled in other ways.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHurged that trade and manufactures should be considered in reference to this matter. Some
    908
    tenants would be taxed on the full rent; while in other cases, according to the Prime Minister, tenants would be assessed at a lower rate. He saw no injustice in the rent being divided between two or more landlords.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he would undertake to look into the question as affecting tithes as well as other matters of assessment. The whole subject should be considered.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Provisions of Income Tax Acts to apply to duties to be granted for succeeding year).
    MR. WARTONmoved the insertion of the following words at the end of the clause:—
    "Provided, That nothing in this section shall be deemed to render necessary or authorize the appointment of assessors for such of the said Duties as may he grunted and payable under Schedules (A) and (B) of 'The Income Tax Act, 1853."
    The hon. and learned Gentleman said, he had been somewhat struck by the rapidity with which the Bill was carried through its second reading; and, when he came to look at the text, he found a vast difference between the Bill of last year and the present Bill. The Bill of last year contained provisions very similar to those in the last clauses of the present Bill—in fact, two or three of the last clauses wore identical with the clauses of last year's Bill, with this exception—that the last clauses in last year's Bill contained at the end the words which he was now proposing to add to this clause. Knowing what was done last year when an attempt was made by the Government to increase their patronage to a considerable extent by appointing a new means of collecting the Income Tax, and remembering the effort that was made in that House, and successfully made, to defeat that attempt—an effort which was successful by a majority of eight—it had struck him, on reading the 9th clause of the present Bill, that this was the same attempt being made under another form; and that impression was confirmed when he remembered the suspicious rapidity with which the Bill had been passed through its stages. He was under the impression that that was

    909
    the meaning of it. He might or might not be right; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be angry with him for putting down this Amendment, which he now begged to move.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, at end, add—"Provided, That nothing in this section shall be deemed to render necessary or authorize the appointment of assessors for such of the said Duties as may be granted and payable under Schedules (A) and (B) of 'The Income Tax Act, 1853.'"—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not wish in the least degree to interfere with the freedom of the hon. and learned Gentleman. There was a little discussion on this point last year. The proposed words formed a provision which it was very necessary and desirable to insert in the Bill in two years out of every three; but in the third year it was not necessary, and should not be inserted, for this reason—that there was a fresh assessment every third year, and, when that was made, it was necessary that assessors should be appointed. In the other two years the assessors were not appointed. As a fresh assessment would be made next year, it was necessary that these words should not be in the Bill.
    MR. WARTONexpressed his readiness to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    MR. MACFARLANEmoved, in page 1, after Clause 2, to insert the following Clause: —
    (Reduction of Tobacco Duties.)
    "The Duty of Customs chargeable upon unmanufactured tobacco shall be three shillings per pound, and upon manufactured Cavendish, Negrohead, and other cake tobacco, two shillings."
    The hon. Gentleman said, he had put down this Amendment in consequence of the unsatisfactory result, in his opinion, which attended a recent discussion in that House on the Tobacco Duties. He was not able on that occasion to answer the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, therefore, he was not able to argue the question; but it would be in the recollection of the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman admitted the essential accuracy of the
    910
    figures which he (Mr. Macfarlane) then quoted. Those figures were never disputed in any way. He (Mr. Macfarlane) showed that the principle upon which the duty was levied upon tobacco in this country was not an equitable principle; but he did not, upon the occasion he was referring to, raise the whole question of the Tobacco Duties in general, for he did not then wish to wander into the whole subject. He must, however, now say that the refusal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion to grant a Select Committee to inquire into the question left him and others no option but to go into the whole question in order to create a public opinion upon the point; for that was the only thing that would have any influence upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or upon any other Minister. He had, therefore, put down this Amendment raising the question in a specific manner. The figures which he had put into the Amendment were, he dared say, quite inaccurate, and did not properly represent the relative duties that ought to be charged on one kind of tobacco as distinguished from another; but he had simply put them down so as to raise the question, and to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether he would now grant a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question. He (Mr. Macfarlane) explained, when he brought the matter forward before on the Order for going into Committee of Ways and Means, that he did not do it for the purpose of making a raid upon the Exchequer. All he asked for was an equitable adjustment of duties to enable manufacturers outside the United Kingdom to compete on fair and equitable terms with manufacturers inside the United Kingdom. He had shown the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the previous discussion to which he referred, that 1 1b. of tobacco, brought into this country in a dry condition, contained, when sold to the working classes after manufacture, something like only 2s. 4d. or 2s. 5d. worth of duty-paid article, the rest being made up of water and other matter. He showed, also, at the same time, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only charged for the water and matter contained in foreign-manufactured tobacco at the rate of 3s. 6d. per 1b. duty, but he actually penalized the foreign manufac-

    911
    turer by charging 4s. 10 d., or 1s. per 1b. more; and the result was that the tobacco—the actual leaf—contained in tobacco manufactured outside the United Kingdom, and brought in here to be sold, had duty levied upon it actually at the rate of about 7s. 6d. per 1b. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that he could not deny that foreign-manufactured tobacco could not compete in this country with English-manufactured tobacco; but the right hon. Gentleman declared that that was due to circumstances, and not to the amount of the duty. The circumstances were that in the one case the right hon. Gentleman charged 2s. 5d. per 1b. in duty, while in the other he charged 7s. 6d. per 1b. That was a very tangible circumstance, no doubt, and quite accounted for the whole thing. But there was another statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made, and which he (Mr. Macfarlane) desired to controvert. It was this—that the importation of manufactured tobacco into this country showed that the duty was not prohibitory, and did not keep such tobacco out. But what were the figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer relied upon? He (Mr. Macfarlane) would quote two or three of them. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H Drummond Wolff) recently obtained a Return for 40 years, showing the importation of manufactured tobacco into this country. The Return commenced with the year 1841, when the total quantity of manufactured tobacco imported into the United Kingdom in that one year was 1,896,000 1bs. But that did not go into consumption. It was imported and exported again, with the exception of 213,000 1bs., which was entered for home consumption. That was the total in that year, 1841; and in 1861, 20 years afterwards, the quantity entered for home consumption was 517,000 1bs. Now, the last year given in the Returns from which he was quoting was the year 1880, and in that year the total quantity of foreign-manufactured tobacco imported for home consumption was 153,000 1bs., or 50,000 1bs. less than it had been 40 years before. Now, he did not quite understand how it was that the right hon. Gentleman was able to argue that the duty was not a prohibitive duty because the importation was
    912
    increasing under it, when, as a matter of fact, these figures showed that, though the consumption of tobacco in general had largely increased, the importation of manufactured tobacco had fallen off by 50,000 1bs. in 40 years. Now, what he (Mr. Macfarlane) wanted to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer was this. He did not propose to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon the Amendment; because, if the right hon. Gentleman had not arguments enough in his head, he had sufficient arguments, at all events, in the Smoking Room, and in other places about the House, to come in when the bell rang, and gave notice that he required them. There was no occasion for argument when a Minister had big battalions at his back. But he (Mr. Macfarlane) was satisfied that the public, having their eyes opened, would not rest under this injustice, and would not be content until the whole question had been dealt with, and a proper and equitable plan devised for charging the duty on tobacco. Such a proper and equitable plan was to charge the duty in bond, no matter where the tobacco came from. He had pointed out before that they owed nothing to America in this matter. America had her own Protectional duties, which formed only an indirect way of taxing her own people; and the least that the British Chancellor of the Exchequer could do was to try and tax the British people on some equitable principle, and in such a way as would not force them into the consumption of an atrociously bad article when they could get a good one at the same price. If the right hon. Gentleman were to place a duty on corn, and so were to force the people not only to use English corn, but to use bad English corn instead of good foreign corn, what would the country say? Yet, that was just what went on in the case of tobacco, and the people of England did not know what good tobacco was—the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not let them have the opportunity of tasting it. They got rubbish composed of 65 per cent of some sort of tobacco, and the balance made up of water. He (Mr. Macfarlane) asked the Home Secretary a Question on this point the other day, as to the atrocious system of watering and adulteration practised. He understood that the officials of the Government were sent for certain pur-

    913
    poses to every manufactory in the Kingdom. Was it, or was it not, their duty to see that the article sold to the public was not watered and adulterated by anything but fair means? He did not wish to use hard words with regard to the manufacturers; but they themselves admitted that when the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer put 4d. per 1b. extra upon the Tobacco Duty, they simply added so much water to the article they sold. They admitted it themselves. What he wanted to ask was, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would now agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the whole question? The right hon. Gentleman know very well that questions of this kind grew very fast. He (Mr. Macfarlane) had no desire to harass the manufacturers in any way; but they themselves were beginning to see that an inferior trade was a disadvantage to the public and no advantage to the Revenue. Would the Government, then, consent to appoint a Select Committee to consider the whole question of the duties upon cigars and the rest of the present system? It was, no doubt, a great convenience to the Custom House officials to charge precisely the same duty upon a miserable cigar which came from Burmah and was worth 1d., and upon the finer one which was worth 1s. He did not wish to trouble the Custom House officials to go into every petty little detail; but, surely, analogous duties could be imposed upon cigars of different qualities to those which were imposed upon wines of different strengths; and one duty could be imposed on cigars worth less than 40 s. per 1b., while another duty was imposed on those which were worth more than 40 s. per 1b. He did not see how there could be any difficulty in making such a change; and it certainly was not equitable that a 1d. cigar should pay the same duty as a 1s. 6d. Yet that was the practice now, and the person who bought cigars at 100 s. per 100 paid only 5s. 6d. per cent duty on their purchase, while the tobacco consumed by the working classes paid 600 or 700 per cent in duty. He did not think that was a defensible system, and he did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not deal with it. He could assure the Government that the matter would not be allowed to rest where it was, and the agitation aroused
    914
    on the subject would become greater and greater each Session. The working man would not be content to smoke wet rubbish when he could get good dry tobacco for the same price. He (Mr. Macfarlane) would not go any further if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the appointment of a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he was not prepared to submit £8,500,000 of Revenue to a Select Committee. But he (Mr. Macfarlane) did not propose that the right hon. Gentleman should leave it to a Select Committee to remit £8,500,000; all he proposed was that a Committee should consider the question, and see whether a more equitable system of taxation could not be introduced, not to reduce the Revenue—that might be unnecessary—but only to allow the duty to be more fairly and equitably charged. The rich man's cigar should pay as much as the poor man's tobacco—indeed, it ought to pay a good deal more. The right hon. Gentleman knew very well that a Select Committee, if appointed, would have no power to remit taxation; they would only have power to inquire and report to that House, and that House could deal with their Report as they pleased. He thought he had now shown that his request was a reasonable one. If a Select Committee were appointed, the public would wait patiently until they had made their Report, and then the right hon. Gentleman would be in a position to deal with it. This was really a most important question; because he (Mr. Macfarlane) held that tobacco and temperance went together. There was an old-fashioned, absurd theory, that people who smoked drank; but the fact was quite the contrary. People who smoked, as a rule, did not drink. People who drank smoked in addition, but people who smoked did not naturally drink in addition. The fact was, that many of the greatest smokers were among the most temperate of men; and smoking was really the only enjoyable luxury that the poor man possessed. He wanted to see the poor man get as good a tobacco to put in his pips of a morning as circumstances would permit, and as the exigencies of taxation would allow.
    New Clause (Reduction of Tobacco Duties,)—(Mr. Macfarlane,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the hon. Gentleman, under cover of this Motion, had made an appeal to him, asking him to assent to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the Tobacco Duty. The hon. Gentleman, in giving his reasons for the adoption of such a course, had said that he was in favour of a system under which the duty should be levied in proportion to the value of the tobacco on which it was charged, and not in proportion to its weight, whether it was manufactured or unmanufactured. What he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said was that in this country they had abandoned the system of ad valorem duties—their day was passed. As to wines, to which reference had been made, there was no ad valorem duty on them; but the duty was levied according to the amount of alcoholic strength contained in each wine, and had no relation to value, directly or indirectly. This country had had great experience of ad valorem duties—it had had them for something like two centuries, with respect to one article or another. All the arguments that could be used in favour of ad valorem duties were used years ago; but we almost unanimously determined to abolish the system as one open to every possible kind of fraud, and bad from the point of view of the Revenue. Under these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman appealed to the Government to appoint a Select Committee for the purpose of re-introducing the system of ad valorem duties on tobacco.
    MR. MACFARLANE: I did not ask for that. I merely expressed my own opinion. A Committee would consider the whole question, and would not be guided by my opinion.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that when the hon. Gentleman asked for a Committee because he was in favour of a particular system it was fair to assume that the revival of that system was the object which he had in view, and that that was the question which the Committee would primarily have to consider. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not prepared to say that the
    916
    re-introduction of an ad valorem system was practicable; and, therefore, as he had said on a previous occasion, he could not assent to the appointment of such a Committee as was proposed. He came now to the actual Motion of his hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman proposed that whereas the duty now charged on unmanufactured tobacco was either 3s. 6d. or 3s. 10 d. per lb., as the case might be, and the duty charged on manufactured tobacco lay between 4s. and 5s., there should be instead a duty on unmanufactured tobacco of 3s., and on manufactured or other tobacco of 2s. The hon. Gentleman shook his head; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was quoting the hon. Gentleman's own figures.
    MR. MACFARLANE: I only put thorn down to raise discussion.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that if the hon. Gentleman put a Motion down on the Paper, it was his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) duty to show its effect, and he found that the effect of this particular Motion would be to take off about one-seventh of the present amount of duty. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's clause should be carried it would entail a loss of more than £1,000,000 to the Revenue; and, therefore, he could not assent to it. But the hon. Gentleman said he had only put the words of his Motion on the Paper in order to raise discussion, and see whether the Government would persist in their objection to the appointment of a Committee. Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had gone very carefully into the question in the course of a former debate, and he would not now repeat all that he then stated. All he would now say was that if they taxed manufactured tobacco at 2s. and tobacco in its unmanufactured state at 3s., they would invert what was the universal practice in their fiscal system. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the importation of manufactured tobacco had not increased within the last few years, and he had given as an illustration the amount of manufactured tobacco imported in 1841 and 1861, and lately. The hon. Gentleman quoted figures showing some such result as this—that while in 1841 200,000 1bs. were imported, last year the amount imported was 150,000 1bs. But in 1841 and in

    917
    1861 the old duties were in force—that was to say, a duty of 9s. in the 1b. upon manufactured tobacco—and those duties only lasted until the year 1863, when they gave way to the present duties; but the amount of manufactured tobacco imported during last year was over 1,000,000 lbs.
    MR. MACFARLANE: For home consumption?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, yes. He had gone through all he said on the subject the other day, and he must still adhere to the conclusion at which he arrived. He could not accept the clause, nor agree to the appointment of a Select Committee.
    MR. EUSTACE SMITHsaid, there was great disappointment among those who took an interest in the subject at the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt with it. There could be no doubt that though it might seem but a small question it was one that would attract more and more attention. The right hon. Gentleman, in addressing himself to meet the arguments brought forward, had lost sight of the view the hon. Member advocated—not by any particular proposal, though he stated his own opinion—the broad principle that this was a question which ought to be investigated by a Select Committee. The whole point of it was the state of the Tobacco Duties, and the protection these afforded to the English manufacturers. It was a question of nothing else than Protection in the trade against Free Trade. Those who wanted an alteration in the duty did not want to inflict any injury to the Exchequer, or to the financial interests of the country; they wanted the English consumer to get the best supply he could, without regard to the manufacturer in this country or in any other country. He would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's large acquaintance with the Australian Colonies and the working of the tobacco trade there. In the Australian Colonies and in New Zealand there were little sale of English tobacco, simply because English and American tobaccos were subject to the same duty as manufactured tobacco, and the Colonist never thought of buying an ounce of English tobacco. This was a fair test of English opinion of the two articles, if it had a fair chance of judging between them;
    918
    but under the present state of the law it was quite impossible that American tobacco could be sold at a price the working man could approach. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) was a little unfair to the English manufacturer, when he said the whole question of the weight of English tobacco was explained by adulteration. It could not fairly be called adulteration. The fact was, the process of manufacture in the two countries was totally different. In the English manufacture the exigencies of climate required the use of steam in the manufacture, and this left a certain amount of water in the tobacco; whereas, in America, the sun being more available, there was not so much water, and the weight of the tobacco was considerably reduced. It would be quite possible, without much disturbance of duty, to get the article from the country in which it was manufactured under the greatest advantage; and they had a right to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to commit himself to any particular proposal of ad valorem duties, or any great principle of political economy, but to consider the manner in which Tobacco Duties were levied, and whether this could be altered in such a manner that there would be increased advantages to the consumer without detriment to the Revenue.
    MR. PUGHsaid, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would re-consider this question. It was one of great importance, pecuniarily, to the poorer classes; and it was also a question of immense importance to India and the financial condition of that country. Every source of Revenue there should be carefully encouraged. The growth of tobacco in India had increased to a large extent in recent years. During the time he had known it the manufacture had increased and improved to a very large extent. It would be clear to the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer devoted himself entirely in his remarks to criticising the various suggestions made by the hon. Member for Car-low; but the two main questions he did not touch upon. The present duties added much to the expenses of the consumer. If a poor man wished to find the best tobacco, and bought foreign manufactured, he paid a higher rate than for English tobacco. That was clearly Protection, and Protection of the

    919
    worst form. Then, again, in reference to cigars. He was not going to advocate a return to ad valorem duties; but surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see some way, without recurring to that principle of ad valorem duties, to equalize the anomalies that existed in the duty upon Havannah cigars and Trichinopoly cigars. Putting these two points together, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the question, and make some further inquiries into it. Without wishing to have recourse to ad valorem duties—certainly not with, any intention of decreasing the Revenue— with no intention of advocating any less duty than at present, he wished to see a more fair and equitable way of raising the duty, so that the consumer might buy English or foreign manufacture as he wished, and a man who could only afford to smoke a 1d. cigar should pay less duty than a man who paid 1s. 6d.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, it was impossible not to sympathize with the object of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane), and from one point of view he had made out his case. It was indisputable that, although the consumption of tobacco in this country was very great, calculated per head of the population, unquestionably it was much adulterated. Owing to their fiscal arrangements, the manufacture of the tobacco consumed was confined to the United Kingdom; therefore this might be taken as one of the causes of adulteration, and one of the consequences of the fiscal arrangements in force. At all events, it was not an unfair proposal that this question should be thoroughly investigated, and, if necessary, referred to a Select Committee. At the same time, he agreed with one objection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was not always understood if the House assented to the Budget proposals it was hardly consistent to make such an alteration in the Inland Revenue Bill. Unquestionably, if the Amendment were carried, it would place the Chancellor of the Exchequer, according to his figures, in such a position that he would have a deficiency to meet. It was a very complicated question, with which he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted to deal fairly; but he very naturally objected to refer to a Select Committee such a large question as the
    920
    Tobacco Duties, which might, perhaps, make a Report which, if adopted, would largely decrease the Revenue at the exact time when the Revenue could least afford it. But would it not be possible to refer to a Committee the incidence of the tax, leaving the amount of Revenue, as far as possible, where it now was? The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very adroit in the drafting of Resolutions; and the hon. Member for Carlow would be satisfied if that assisted him to secure what he wished — as good an article as possible for consumption by the poorer classes. The hon. Member for Carlow wished to improve the tobacco, and he, moreover, contended that there was less duty imposed on the rich man's cigar than on the poor man's tobacco. If that were so—and he believed it was not disputed—he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the proposition he (Lord George Hamilton) had ventured to make; and between now and when he introduced his next Budget make such a proposal as would tend to equalize the inequalities to which the hon. Member for Carlow had called attention, not objecting to some inquiry into the subject.
    MR. WILLSsaid, he should not have intervened in the discussion but for a remark from the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton), who had spoken of the adulteration of tobacco. In no country with which he was acquainted were the laws against adulteration more stringent or more strictly enforced. There was a Return in the Library, moved for by himself a year or two ago, and that would show the convictions for adulteration in process of manufacture. A very heavy duty was imposed by the State for Revenue purposes, and the only thing allowed by the Excise to be used in the manufacture was pure water. The addition of water to the tobacco consumed by the working classes was made to bring it to the price at which the British working man wished to have his tobacco. If a man, instead of giving 3d. an ounce, would give 4d an ounce, he would get as good tobacco as could be produced in India, in America, or any part of the world. The higher classes of tobacco manufactured and consumed in this country were probably the finest in the world. The increasing export trade in tobacco from this country to all parts of the world,

    921
    and the price that British manufactured tobacco commanded in the market, showed there were consumers in other countries who appreciated the high quality that the British manufacturers had secured.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken claimed that adulteration was practised for the benefit of the working man, that the latter would only pay 3d. per ounce; therefore, if he only got 25 per cent of water he should be satisfied. He was careful to point out that there was no adulteration except with pure water. Now, if the Aylesbury Dairy Company offered such a plea, what would be the result? If a dealer put 5 per cent of water in his milk, he was summoned and fined. To be sure the fine was so small, perhaps he made more out of the water than would cover the fine. But that was not the question. Pure water though it might be, the man was fined; but in the tobacco trade it was alleged it was merely to satisfy the demand of the working classes for wet stuff. The hon. Member said if the working man would pay 4d. per ounce the manufacturer would leave the water out! Such an argument he had never heard advanced before. He was afraid all the arguments he had put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer had totally failed; but he thought this last argument ought to settle the question. Let the tobacco manufacturer be dealt with as the milk dealer was dealt with. He did not care whether the water used was pure or impure; he wanted to have the thing he paid for, and that which it was called, not a spongy stuff, which took half-an-hour to light in a pipe. A considerable part of a working man's leisure time must be taken up in efforts to light his wet tobacco, but he should be satisfied! But he would leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the conviction that the brief statement of the hon. Member ought to carry.
    Clause negatived.
    MR. WILLSsaid, the Clause he had to move was simply one of interpretation, and was intended to remove a practical inconvenience that had arisen in working under the Manufactured Tobacco Act of 1863. The term "Cavendish," which was employed all through that Act, was one that it was very difficult to
    922
    define with strict accuracy, because it was only employed in this country, and was neither used nor understood abroad. To the description used in the Act of 1863 he thought it desirable to add a few words of explanation, which would clear up a doubt that had existed for some time past whether certain sorts of tobacco were completely covered by the words of the Statute as originally framed. The Committee would see the clause was simply one of definition and explanation; it did not touch the principle of the Act of 1863 in any way, or in the slightest degree interfere with the Revenue. It would remove some difficulty and trouble with the Customs, from which the trade would be glad to be relieved, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept it.
    New Clause (Amendment of the "Manufactured Tobacco Act, 1863,")—(Mr. Wills,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, since this Clause was placed upon the Paper, the subject had occupied their attention a good deal; but he was sorry to say they had not been able to come to a definite conclusion on the matter, and he must ask the hon. Member to defer consideration of it to a later stage of the Bill at all events. He could not accept the statement that the clause would merely remove difficulties that arose out of the Act of 1863. There was no reason to doubt that that Act referred to tobacco in cakes; but this was a proposal to allow tobacco not pressed into cakes—to allow in bond—
    MR. WILLSsaid, the tobacco would be manufactured precisely in the same way as Cut Cavendish.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, but it was different from that contemplated in the Act of 1863. It might be possible to accept the clause; but they had to consider the effect it might have on other branches of the trade, especially on tobacco made out of bond in the United Kingdom. He preferred to have it further considered in consultation with the Board of Inland Revenue. Without prejudging the decision, he thought if the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion it might be possible to come to

    923
    some decision on Report; but, in any event, he could promise the matter should have fair consideration.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, the clause he had to propose, reducing the Carriage Duty to 15 s., he put off on a former occasion. The question raised was not new to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The House could depend on the right hon. Gentleman when he turned his attention to the figures; but he (Mr. Whitley) wished to impress on the right hon. Gentleman, and on the Committee, the fact that the tax to which he was referring was sui generis. He was not aware that there was any tax pressing so directly on an industry of the country. The duty on plate might occur to some; but that duty was paid once for all, whereas this tax recurred every year, pressing directly on an industry of the country. No doubt, when it was instituted it was a tax on luxury; and if it were so now he would not be proposing this clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to reduce the duty on two-wheeled carriages to 15 s., and also made another reduction on all carriages from October 1 to 21 s; but there was no provision respecting carriages for hire at makers, or at livery stables, or for the very common case of carriages being let out without charge while private carriages were under repair. These were the two cases he had endeavoured to meet by his Amendment. He would point out that in consequence of the heavy taxation upon carriage licences there had been a great reduction in the use of carriages; and with the reduction in the Railway Passenger Duty competition was greater, and the pressure had been very severe indeed over the carriage industry all over the country. In Scotland and in the North of England there had been great loss to the trade through taxation. He hoped, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in a position to say that if not this year, at least in the future it would be taken off. As the one remaining duty on an industry of the country, he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be anxious to remove it. He believed the present reduction would amount to £25,000, and a total reduction would be considerable; but, still, seeing that it was a tax on an industry,
    924
    and the great competition those engaged in that industry had to meet, he really hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to looking into the subject carefully in the future, with the object of a total reduction of the duty. In doing so, he would give a great relief to a most industrious class of the community. Many Members had had this view strongly urged upon them by their constituents; and the tax could not be defended upon any ground but the necessities of the Exchequer.
    New Clause (Duty on carriages to be reduced to fifteen shillings,)—(Mr. Whitley,) — brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read the second time."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the hon. Gentleman, in moving this clause, had referred to the general question of the Carriage Duty; but his clause did not touch the general question, but a very minute matter. As to the Carriage Duty itself, the amount of that duty was £500,000 or £600,000, a sum not to be lightly dealt with. But he did not think the hon. Gentleman had seen Clauses 3 and 4, which the Committee had passed. Clause 3 was almost identical with that of the hon. Gentleman, though it differed in one important particular. Under that clause it had been provided that hackney carriages, which were plying for hire either in the Metropolis or in any town or any borough in Scotland, under the Towns Police Act or the General Police Improvement Act, if of four wheels, should pay the same duty as those of two wheels. The hon. Gentleman's proposal was the same; he proposed that carriages plying for hire where fares were fixed by law should pay 15 s.; but the difference between the two clauses was that the hon. Gentleman had used the words "plying for hire or to be let;" whereas in the clause in the Bill the carriages must be licensed under either the Metropolitan Act, the Towns Police Act, or the corresponding Act for Scotland. The fact was that, unless the distinction was drawn in this way, anyone might let his carriage for a day, and claim the reduced payment. As to the other part of the proposed clause, he, with his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney),

    925
    was, at first, rather prepossessed in favour of the proposal; but, on looking into the subject with the Revenue Board, it appeared that to adopt it would so open the door to fraud that they could not accept it.
    LORD ALGERNON PERCYcalled attention to the fact that there were in certain towns in the North of England carriages which plied for hire at the Railway Stations, and which belonged to private firms of jobmasters. The carriages were kept simply for that purpose; and the jobmasters felt it very unfair that as the carriages in question did not come under the Police Acts, or the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, they were shut out from the advantages under this Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman said it was impossible, from the point of view of the Revenue, to deal with the matter then, he trusted he would give it his merciful consideration hereafter.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)suggested that in the case of Durham, which did not appear on his list, the municipality of the City should be applied to for the purpose of their passing a bye-law, which would obviate this difficulty.
    MR. WARTONsuggested that the clause should be read a second time, and then amended, to meet the case of the jobmasters, by the addition of the words "kept for the purpose."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he was afraid that would not do. There would be no means of registering the names of persons having carriages for hire except under the Police Acts. He was not prepared to go beyond the words of the clause.
    MR. BIDDELLsaid, the Bill, as it at present stood, would not remove the great hardship on coachmakers who did not let, but lent carriages to their customers, and who would still have to pay the tax.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he must press his point upon the right hon. Gentleman, who seemed to be under the impression that it was not possible to ascertain the number of carriages under hire except by means of a register. No difficulty was experienced when the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill was passing through the House in defining and settling the
    926
    question with reference to persons who let and persons who lent carriages.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SLAGGsaid, he wished to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer another opportunity of removing the very objectionable tax on silver and gold plate. He might remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee of the very serious nature of the burden that it entailed upon an important industry. There was no doubt that the silver trade in the country was languishing seriously under the influence of the duty and the system of Hall Marking. Not only was their own trade being stifled, but in America, their rival in artistic work, the trade was advancing in such a degree as to put us to shame in consequence of the merit of their productions. It seemed to him, then, that they could not afford to lose any industry—not even small industries. Surely, every obstacle should be removed from the path of trade and manufacture in a country which admitted the principle of Free Trade. It was known that in India was produced a very large quantity of artistic silver work. And how did they deal with it? They imposed upon it a tax of 1s. 6d. per ounce, or the equivalent of one-third of its cost, and not only that, but they subjected those artistic productions to a process to which they were entirely unadapted; they sent them to be stamped, a process which often destroyed them, because they were generally of such a nature that they could not undergo the operation without injury. He believed it was necessary, at the earliest possible moment, to remove this tax, as they had removed the taxes upon Indian imports. The origin of the practice of Hall Marking dated from those times when nominally articles of all sorts were subjected to State supervision and control, not only as to quality but as to price, and this practice was the sole remnant of those barbarous enactments. He would also point out that one of the principal objects of the custom of Hall Marking was not secured by the process to which the goods were submitted; and it would be easy for him to prove, were it necessary for him to do so, that counterfeit marks were made with perfect impunity. The small Revenue of £80,000 was not, in his opinion, anything like compensation for

    927
    the effect that the duty had upon the silver trade, which was falling off year by year. As far as he could understand with regard to the abolition of this very objectionable tax and undesirable custom of Hall Marking, the authorities were all upon his side. The Committee would remember that a (select Committee sat in 1879 to consider the question of Hall Marking, and that exports gave evidence before it who were largely engaged in the trade, as well as gentlemen from the Board of Trade, and others well versed in finance, who were unanimously in favour of the abolition of Hall Marking at the earliest possible date. But nothing had boon done. He believed that every Member of the Government entertained the same opinion as to the unjust nature of these practices. There was another aspect of the case to which he desired to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The trade felt that the end of these duties must be approaching; and the consequence was that although not lacking in enterprize manufacturers were afraid to increase their stocks; while, on the other hand, they were anxious to get rid of the present stocks as soon as they possibly could. No doubt the question of drawback was an important consideration; but he had already pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the question was not so serious as it appeared to some; and he believed that for the sum of £100,000 the trade would be perfectly willing to compound for the drawback on all stock in first hands. For the reasons he had advanced he made a strong appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to adopt his proposal, which would enable the Treasury to effect the reform which was so strongly desired.
    New Clause (Silver and Gold Plate,) —(Mr. Slagg,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURpleaded on behalf of India that the silver wares of that country should be admitted free into this country, on the broad ground that India had done what had been done in no other part of the world—made the extensive coasts free to all merchandize of the
    928
    whole world by having, in 1882, taken the import duties oil' £40,000,000 of imports, so that all goods, excepting spirits and wines, were now entirely free from duty. He appealed, therefore, to those Members who had any regard for the principle of fair dealing to say that justice should be done to the people of India by removing the tax upon their silver manufactures imported into this country. He knew well that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Colleagues were quite willing to do away with the tax on all silver wares, the product of India as well as at Home; but that they felt the difficulty with regard to drawback to be repaid, which the Prime Minister, in his Budget Speeches of 1881 and 1882, had, in some degree, recognized, as also had the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech of 1883. Now, his hon. Friend (Mr. Slagg) said that £100,000 would be sufficient to compound for the duties which had been paid on plate in the hands of first holders; but he believed that a much smaller sum would be necessary for the drawback on silver plate. The question was what precedents existed for repaying duties; and here it was shown that only five precedents could be found, and the amounts refunded were only fractions of the duty paid in a year. Again, his hon. Friend had stated that the Revenue on plate amounted to £80,000; but it appeared, from the account furnished to him by the Inland Revenue Department, which was always willing to give information, that the net year's income from the duty on silver plate was £48,000, besides which there was the sum of £5,000 derived through the Customs which need not be considered. In this view a refund of a year's Excise Duty ought to suffice for first holders of stock, and the Goldsmith's Company ought to undertake to appropriate this sum, so as to satisfy all equitable claims. Of course, articles which had been in stock for years ago might have been used, and those pieces ought not to be entitled to drawback. The present time was favourable for a settlement. For four years the silversmiths had had warnings of the change, and he might mention that at no time had the manufacture of plate been so small and so few persons employed. His hon. Friend had said the amount of duty

    929
    was small, having regard to the large trade in silver ornaments; but he would point out that the articles were likewise few that were subject to the Excise Duty, these being but a mere fraction of the whole work produced. The silver plate, as exempted from Stamping and Excise Duty, might be stated at thousands of tons, and the manufacture was in a flourishing condition, while the dutiable protected articles were in a decaying state. He thought his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury was especially bound to support this proposal, because he had taken a very active part in the inquiry which took place with reference to the question of Duties and Hall Marking in 1878 and 1879. He thought the time had come when they should make a stand against the Government in this matter, and he should be glad to go to a Division on the clause.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he did not think that Parliament was at all likely to introduce all the important provisions contained in the proposal of the hon. Member for Manchester into one clause of a Bill, particularly under the circumstances which he would now describe. For instance, the question of Hall Marking was one which, required to be dealt with as a separate matter. Nor did he think that the powers asked were such as the Committee would agree to give to the Crown. Whatever might be his own opinion, a Committee of that House had deliberately approved compulsory Hall Mai king; and, therefore, bethought the Committee would be unwilling to deal with it in the summary way now proposed. In the same clause, the hon. Member proposed to abolish the duties on gold and silver plate, producing, with the licences, nearly £150,000 a-year, and to settle, in a particular way, the claims for drawback. These claims were very much larger than his hon. Friend thought, and it would be unwise to assume that they would be covered by the sum of £100,000. Anyhow, they would have to deal with something like £250,000 if the clause were accepted, a sum which he was not in a position to take away from the Revenue of the year. It was, therefore, quite impossible to admit the clause into the present Bill. His own views on this subject remained the same as he had expressed in the year 1881–2 and last year—that was to
    930
    say, he was in favour of abolishing both the gold and silver plate duty, and of amending the system of Hall Marking. Therefore, so far as his opinion and that of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury were concerned, they were in favour of the proposal of the hon. Member for Manchester. The Government, however, could not assent at that time to the clause, which, for the reasons given, would require much consideration. But he thought that, when the state of the Revenue admitted, they might well repeal these duties, and make Hall Marking no longer compulsory. He was anxious, however, not to be understood to assent to the opinion which had been expressed that the diminution of the trade in silver plate had much to do with the duty. As a matter of fact, silver was being superseded in common use by such articles as electro-plate and nickel goods; and his impression was that, although the abolition of the duty might do something, yet, just as the fall in the price of silver had not increased the demand for silver goods, the repeal of the duty would do no more. He did not think, therefore, that the trade ought to be sanguine as to the effect of the repeal of the duty, though the Government would be glad to repeal the duty when the financial position of the country would permit of their doing so. His hon. Friend (Mr. Slagg) had referred to the impediments placed in the way of the importation of silver work from abroad, and particularly from India. Clauses with respect to filigree work had already been considered by the Treasury, and he hoped might be introduced later. He could only repeat that he entirely sympathized with the object of the hon. Member (Mr. Slagg), who had stated his case frankly and fully. On one point he would say a word. Reference had been made to the United States. It was perfectly true that two large houses of silversmiths in the United States turned out excellent silver work; but he thought the silversmiths of this country did their work equally as well. It must be remembered that the American silver trade was protected by high duties. He hoped the Committee would accept the undertaking he had given, and that the clause would not be pressed.
    MR. SLAGGsaid, he did not wish to press a clause which the right hon. Gen-

    931
    tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered to be in any way impracticable, although he was perfectly sure of this—that such was the public conviction on this matter, and such was the mind of the Committee in regard to it, that if he were to go to a Division he should carry the clause by a considerable majority. He very gladly accepted the right hon. Gentleman's declaration that he would avail himself of the first opportunity to get rid of these objectionable duties. If it was his (Mr. Slagg's) good fortune to be a Member of the House next year, he should consider it his duty to remind the right hon. Gentleman of his specific promise that the remission of those duties should take first rank in any remission of taxation which might then take place. He had not ventured on mere surmise as to the amount which was necessary to deal with this matter, and he should take an opportunity of showing the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that £100,000 would be quite sufficient to effect the purpose in view. In regard to the silver trade in America, he had only to say that, although Protection might be an element in the matter, America was drawing the whole of our skilled silversmiths into their silver trade. It was alleged that the use of silver was falling off in this country, owing to the competition of electroplate. That, however, was not the case in America, where, concurrently with the enormous development of the electroplate trade, there was a great business done in the most beautiful objects of silver. He begged leave to withdraw the clause.
    GENERAL SIR, GEORGE BALFOURagreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Slagg) in the propriety of accepting the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was satisfied if the Treasury recognized the repayment of drawback on duty-paid silver articles that £100,000 would be more than sufficient to meet the drawback on one year's stock of silver or gold plate, calculating the net excise on both classes of plate at £72,000; and he begged the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seemed to have formed an exaggerated estimate as to the sum, which would be required, to look carefully into the matter, with a view of testing the accuracy of the statement.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."
    MR. CLARE READasked leave to reiterate the request he made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer some little time ago, with regard to the brewing licences paid by cottagers. The licences expired about the 1st of October, and if the right hon. Gentleman did not insert some such clause as he (Mr. Clare Read) desired, but was prepared to do it next year, it would be unfair to those persons who had taken a licence for 12 months. The Revenue would lose nothing by the change; but a great gain would accrue to the agricultural labourers, who, in this cottage or kettle brewing, did not want a licence for more than three months in the year.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)promised the hon. Gentleman that during the course of the year he would give his attention to the subject.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 109.]
  (Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 109.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow, at Two of the clock."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    MR. WARTONappealed to the Government not to take the second reading of the Bill to-morrow, on the ground that very little Notice had been given and no one was prepared to take the Bill except the Government. By a curious concatenation of circumstances a great number of the hon. Members who took a great interest in the question would not be able to be in their places to-morrow. Both of the hon. Members for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons and Mr. Brooks), one of the five excepted cities, entertained very strong feelings in regard to the Bill, and it was

    933
    proper they should be present when its second reading was taken. They, however, were away in Dublin, and neither of them had the slightest idea that the Bill would be taken to-morrow. Two other Gentlemen who were also opposed to the Bill would not be able to be present, as they had met with a domestic affliction—he referred to the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) and the hon. Member for Water-ford (Mr. Leamy). Under the circumstances, he put it to the Government whether they really ought to take the measure to-morrow? Personally, he thought they would do well to devote themselves to far more useful legislation.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that at that time of the Session it was impossible to say when particular Bills would be brought on; certainly, at that hour of the night (1.30) the Government could not take it upon themselves to disturb an arrangement which had been arrived at at the commencement of the Sitting.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was sure it was nothing but pure benevolence that had induced the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) to raise this question. This was the third occasion that the hon. and learned Gentleman, deserted by the hon. Members concerned in the Bill, had endeavoured to prevent the progress of the measure. It was evident that the Irish Tory Members in the House attended very badly to their business. This measure had passed every previous stage—first reading, second reading, and Committee—without one of those Members saying a single word in respect of it. It was an extremely small Bill, for it was a Bill to grant relief to an officer in Dublin who was now over-pressed with work.
    MR. COURTNEY, interposing, said, he thought the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) was labouring under a misapprehension. The Bill now under consideration was the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. HEALYbegged the pardon of the House.
    Motion agreed to.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SHERIFF COURT HOUSES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 245.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)
  SHERIFF COURT HOUSES (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 245.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Liability in case of destruction by fire).
    MR. D. CAMERONsaid, it appeared to him that the previous clauses formed part of what was in the nature of a bargain or compromise between the counties in Scotland and the Treasury. He did not know what the opinion of Scotch county Members might be; but it seemed to him that the Treasury had got the best of the bargain. In respect of this clause, he ventured to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to make a small concession. This clause provided that if a Court House erected or improved under the Sheriffs Court Act was destroyed or injured by fire it should be replaced at the cost of the county and not of the Treasury. The Court Houses ought to be insured, and he suggested to the Lord Advocate that, proceeding on the principle which pervaded the rest of the Bill, he should make the concession that one-half of the premium should be paid by the Treasury and the other half by the county.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he would consider the matter on Report. His hon. Friend (Mr. D. Cameron) had rightly apprehended the general scope of the Bill. It was the opinion of the Law Officers of successive Governments that the provisions of the Act of 1860 would be exhausted by a single application. That was found to be a great hardship on many counties, and this Bill had been introduced in consequence of the complaints on that head which had come from several counties; but when the Government undertook to bear the burden of successive applications to the extent of one-half it seemed right there should be a rectification of certain other defects in the Act of 1860. The Treasury thought that if there could be a second application with regard to a Court House, they were fairly entitled to say that they
    should not be liable to be called upon for the cost of the restoration of a Court House which had been burnt down. It must be borne in mind that the counties had the appointment of the officers, and that they could protect themselves by insurance. At the same time, he would consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. D. Cameron) by Report, and he would delay the Report stage for a week to admit all the question being fully entertained.
    Clause agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday next.

    COMMITTEE.
      SETTLED LAND BILL [Lords].— [BILL 247.]
      (Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
      SETTLED LAND BILL [Lords].— [BILL 247.]

        COMMITTEE.
        Bill considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)
        Clause 1 (Short title).
        MR. HEALYsaid, this was the third Settled Land Bill which had been brought in in three years. This system of tinkering with the question led to great complication with lawyers. It would be well that the Committee should receive some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.
        SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that a Settled Land Bill was passed last year; but it had been found that it contained one or two points which were difficult to work. This Bill was simply brought in to remove a little friction which was found in the Act of last year, and it had been approved of by all lawyers on both sides of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and also by the Incorporated Law Society. It was not quite clear, under the Act of last year, whether a fine received for granting a lease was to go to the tenant for life, or to be considered as part of the capital of the estate. The point was made clear in this Bill. He did not know whether the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) wished him to go through all the other points of the measure.
        MR. HEALYsaid, it was not for him to raise any further objection to the Bill. He had only lo remark that it was strange that lawyers on the opposite Benches — Members of the Radical Party—who were supposed to take an interest in the question of settled lands,
        936
        should permit these attempts to tinker with the matter.
        Clause agreed to.
        Remaining clauses agreed to.
        Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

      MOTIONS.

        TRUSTEES OF SETTLEMENTS BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. TOMLINSON, Bill for the better protection of Trustees of Settlements, ordered to be brought in by Mr. TOMLINSON, Mr. HENRY ALLEN, Mr. WHITLEY, Mr. INGE, and Mr. ELTON.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 255.]

        CRIMINAL LUNATICS BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Criminal Lunatics, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
        Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 256.]
        House adjourned at Two o'clock.