Commons Sitting of 24 June 1884

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Third Reading—Smith's Trust Estate, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders* [259].
Second Reading — Medical Act Amendment [207], debate adjourned.
Considered as amended—Representation of the People [249–260].
Considered as amended—Third Reading— Summary Jurisdiction (Repeal, &c.)* [254], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  SMITH'S TRUST ESTATE BILL. [Lords.] (By Order.)

    THIRD READING.
    The Prince of Wales's Consent, as Duke of Cornwall, signified.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he suspected that very few Gentlemen in that House knew what this Bill was about. It was called "Smith's Trust Estate Bill," and its object was to enable a lease to be granted to Mr. Smith, or rather the extension of an existing lease to be granted to Mr. Smith, of the entire Scilly Islands. Those Islands comprised between 3,000 and 4,000 acres, and there were rather more than 2,000 inhabitants upon them. Some of these inhabitants were employed in raising-vegetables for the London Market; others were employed in matters connected with shipping, and there was not a single stipulation in the whole of the Bill as to how these people were to be treated. The whole of the Islands were to be handed over to Mr. Smith, who was to be called what was known as "the Lord Farmer." This system had been followed in the case of the Smith family since the year 1831. From the year 1570 down to 1831, the Islands were held by members of the Godolphin family under successive leases for varying periods granted by the Dukes of Cornwall, or by the Sovereign. The Grodolphin family appeared to have gained their living by wrecking. The last lease expired in the year 1831, and the then lessee, in whom it was vested, being unable to arrange for a new lease on satisfactory terms, the possession of the Islands reverted to the Duchy of Cornwall. Shortly after the termination of the lease, Mr. Augustus John Smith, an ancestor of the present Mr. Smith, negotiated with the Duchy for a lease of the Islands, which was agreed to on the 20th of November, 1834. He believed that the despotism of the late Mr. Smith was a benevolent despotism; but still it was an absolute despotism, as it was at the present moment. Indeed, there was a clause contained in the Bill

    1225
    —one of the "whereases" of the Bill —which assigned as a reason why the Bill should be passed, that Mr. Smith had reduced the population, and had succeeded in keeping it within the reduced limit. When Mr. Smith took possession of the Scilly Islands, the resident inhabitants were about 2,800 in number; but he reduced them to 2,200, and during the remainder of his life kept it within that limit. Whether Mr. Smith acted upon some Malthusian scheme, whether he prevented marriage altogether, or whether he drove any man who wanted to marry out of the Islands, he (Mr. Labouchere) did not know; but the House was simply asked to put over the Islands, as a sort of hereditary "Lord Farmer," a descendant of this gentleman, and one of the grounds for doing so was that the family rule had succeeded in reducing the population. He had been told that when anybody did not act in accordance with the wishes of Mr. Smith he was banished from his native Island; that Mr. Smith was the absolute master of these Islands; and no sort of condition or stipulation was contained in this Bill as to the manner in which he was to treat his tenants. There was no fixity of tenure; nothing paid for improvements; nothing they had been agitating for in that House; and he was sure that such a Bill, handed to them as "Smith's Trust Estate Bill," and containing such stipulations, would not receive the support of any Radical Member of the House. It was true that the Bill had passed the House of Lords. He was not surprised at that, because the House of Lords was a landlords' Assembly. It had also passed two stages in the House of Commons, simply because nobody knew anything about it; and he thought that no better exemplification could be put forward of the necessity of the plan intended to be proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) to-morrow, for insuring that the House should be placed in possession of some facts concerning Bills of this kind when they came down from the House of Lords than the present measure. Upon the present occasion he should not put the House to the trouble of a Division, for the simple reason that he knew he should not get a majority. If, however, hon. Members desired to divide, he was perfectly ready to divide with them; but
    1226
    he did not think it was likely they would have a majority on a Private Bill which had already passed the House of Lords and been confirmed in two stages by the House of Commons. It was scarcely probable that such a measure would be thrown out on the third reading. He had only brought the matter under the notice of the House as an exemplification of the way in which Bills that were termed Private Bills were passed in that House. He wished, however, to express his opinion that a more monstrous, a more mischievous, a more scandalous, or a more iniquitous Bill, had never passed through that House.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he very much agreed in principle with the views which had been enunciated by his hon. Friend; but it really seemed to him that the matter the House now had to deal with was a simple and practical one. Before Mr. Augustus Smith, the late proprietor, obtained a lease of these Islands, the Scillonians were destitute and starving wreckers and smugglers, and every year it was found necessary to raise a subscription in order to relieve these discarded people. The late Mr. Augustus Smith, whom many hon. Members knew as a Member of that House went there on a benevolent mission; indeed, it was a most benevolent one. They had heard that he had reduced the population. The real fact was that he found the Islands containing nearly 4,000 acres, upon which a population of nearly 3,000 persons were endeavouring to obtain a livelihood. He reduced the number of acres available for this purpose, first to 8,000, and ultimately to 2,000—he (Mr. Dillwyn) did not think there were more. Mr. Smith found that the Islands were not large enough to support the population, and he induced some of the people to emigrate to the mainland, so that they might find employment and be in a condition to support themselves. In that way Mr. Smith brought about a very useful reform, and succeeded in effecting a vast improvement in the condition of the Islanders. He (Mr. Dillwyn) had himself stayed in these Islands, and he could say that he had never seen a better conducted or a more prosperous set of people. There was now no wrecking or smuggling, and pauperism was unknown in the Islands. When he had seen what benefits had been conferred upon the Islands by a lease like this, he felt that

    1227
    it was desirable to continue it. It was most desirable that in a group of Islands like the Scilly Islands, isolated from the mainland, being more than 40 miles from Penzance, which was the nearest port, there should be some wealthy capitalist to look after their interests. Therefore, although he agreed with the general principle laid down by his hon. Friend, he thought this was altogether an exceptional case, and he could not oppose the Bill.
    SIR JOHN ST. AUBYNwished to say, in a few words, why he concurred with the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). He had known the Scilly Islands for many years. He had paid many visits to them, and it was a matter of notoriety that the condition of the inhabitants had been materially benefited by the action of the present proprietor and of his predecessor, the late Mr. Augustus Smith. It was perfectly true that when Mr. Smith first took over the lease from the Godolphin family that the inhabitants were in a most wretched condition, whereas now they were a prosperous and thriving community. When the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) described the present Bill as a monstrous, scandalous, and iniquitous measure, he (Sir John St. Aubyn) had felt surprise, because he had the honour of representing this community, and he had not had a single complaint from any one of them as to the way in which they were treated. As far as his own personal knowledge went, he believed that the hon. Member for Northampton must have been misinformed, and he thought the House would do well to pass the Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would be convinced by the testimony of two hon. Members of the House, who were best acquainted with the condition of affairs, that theories were not always consistent with facts. Those who knew anything of the condition of the Western Islands of Scotland could not help wishing that there had been some such care taken of those Islands as had been evinced in the case of the Scilly Islands. The contrast in the condition of the population of the Western Islands of Scotland and in that of the Scilly Islands was extremely striking. The hon. Member for Northampton
    1228
    spoke of tyranny and despotism; but what was this Bill? It was only under peculiar circumstances of tenure that an Act of Parliament was necessary in regard to the making of a lease. Under ordinary circumstances, a lease could be made by the landlord of his own motion. Everybody who knew the Scilly Islands knew that the influence of the proprietor had been used for nothing but good; and it was only the peculiar circumstances of the tenure which required the sanction of Parliament to the lease. No doubt the sanction of Parliament would not be given to a lease, or to anything else, if it were considered to be inexpedient and likely to be detrimental to the population. The present system of leases, as the hon. Member acknowledged, had existed since the year 1570; and therefore what the hon. Member asked the House to do was to reject a system of tenure which had the prescription of three centuries, without any allegation that the slightest evil had resulted from that tenure, and upon grounds which had been controverted by those who knew most about the matter. He hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, having heard what had been stated by the hon. Member for West Cornwall (Sir John St. Aubyn) and the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who could not be accused of being adverse to necessary land reforms, would not divide the House.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had denounced this Bill with more than his usual vigour, and had said that a more mischievous, scandalous, and iniquitous Bill had never been brought into the House. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Hear, hear!] Now, as he (Sir Arthur Otway) was responsible for the measure, he would take the liberty of showing what the real facts of the case were, and how contrary they were to the allegations of his hon. Friend. The Bill had already passed through the House of Lords, where it had received a careful investigation at the hands of Lord Redesdale, the Chairman of Committees in that House. It then came down before him (Sir Arthur Otway), when it again received careful consideration. The hon. Member had talked of tyranny over the population of the Islands; but everyone who was an authority upon the question agreed that Mr. Smith had

    1229
    conducted his estate in the best manner for the good of the population upon it. His hon. Friend stated that the population had been reduced by Mr. Smith from 4,000 to 2,000. The fact was that it had been reduced from under 3,000 to 2,200; but it had not been reduced by any means that were objectionable. Mr. Smith did that which every landowner ought to do; he conducted his estate to the best of his ability, and for the advantage of the people who lived upon it. "When there were no means of subsistence, and the population were in excess of the means of livelihood, he found employment for those who were inclined to emigrate to the mainland. The history of these Islands might be told in a few words. He proposed to make the House acquainted with the real character of the measure, which was very different from the version which had been given by his hon. Friend. Previous to the year 1831 the Islands had been leased by the Godolphin family; but as the lessees were unable to arrange for a new lease on satisfactory terms, the possession of the Islands reverted to the Duchy, and a lease was granted to the late Mr. Augustus Smith in 1834 for a term of 99 years. There was, however, one condition—namely, that he and two others should live for so long a period. For this lease Mr. Smith paid a sum of £20,000, and a yearly rent of £40, in addition to certain stipends for the clergy, school houses, and other things. In 1837, and again in 1864, the original leases were surrendered, and a new one was made. The population, which was 2,800 in 1832, and not 4,000 as stated by his hon. Friend, was then a little over 2,000. The Islands contained about 3,600 acres, of which, however, only 2,000 were suitable for grazing and cultivation. Under the Duchy of Cornwall Act a lease could not be granted for more than 31 years, and the lease had now been surrendered. Upon what terms had it been surrendered? It was upon terms that were highly advantageous to the people inhabiting the Islands. Mr. Augustus Smith spent £80,000 in improving the estate, and the Bill which the House was now asked to sanction had been granted, on the surrender of the original lease, for a term of 31 years dating from March, 1883, not on a rental of £40 a-year, but upon a yearly rental of £740. After the
    1230
    testimony which had been given as to the condition of the Islands, and now that his hon. Friend knew the terms of the lease, he hoped his hon. Friend would not retain the opinion he had expressed that this was the most wicked, mischievous, and scandalous measure ever presented to Parliament. On the contrary, he trusted that his hon. Friend would abstain from carrying his opposition further; but that he would allow the measure, the terms of which were exceedingly reasonable, to pass.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he was of opinion, after the two speeches they had heard from the Treasury Bench, that his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was bound to go to a Division, in order to show that the obsolete principles laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary did not prevail. His hon. Friend did not object to what was done, but to the method of doing it. His objection was entirely one of principle—namely, that at this time of day it should be possible to lease an Island to a single man without any condition whatsoever to secure the rights of the people dwelling upon it. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) said it was not the question what the result of the arrangement might be—whether it would be for the benefit of the people who inhabited these Islands, or not. To hand over these persons without any condition whatever might be a reason for letting the Bill go through the House quietly; but after the defence of the measure they had heard from the Treasury Bench, it became absolutely necessary for some hon. Member to enter a protest against the principle, even although the adoption of the principle, in certain cases, might have had the result of doing good to those who were operated upon. For these reasons he thought his hon. Friend ought to divide the House. As for the defence which had been set up by the hon. Member who represented West Cornwall (Sir John St. Aubyn), there was a tone of innocence about it which was quite charming. The hon. Member said that these men, who were handed over without any condition for the preservation of their rights and liberties, and who were, as a matter of fact, deprived of their liberties by the Bill, had made no complaint. Of course they had made no complaint, and they were not likely to

    1231
    do so. They rarely heard an articulate complaint from any district in England in which such a system obtained. They might hear plenty in private, but not in public. He had had experience of what it was to live under territorial power, and he certainly declined to give to any man power over his fellow-men to this extent. It was all very well to talk of benevolence; but he did not recognize any benevolence in the matter. A man born upon the land had the strongest right to remain upon it if he chose; and it was not for Parliament to say that any one man should have the right of determining whether a district should maintain 2,000, 3,000, or how many persons. That was a decision which ought to be arrived at by some other process more in accordance with modern ideas; and he certainly trusted that as the Bill had been defended on such grounds as it had been, his hon. Friend would go to a Division against it.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was quite refreshing to hear that, in considering the provisions of the present Bill, the care and consideration which Mr. Smith had paid to the estate and the people upon it, during his occupation of the Scilly Islands as "Lord Farmer," was not to be regarded. It was perfectly certain that the effect of this lease had been greatly to raise the character of the population, as well as their intelligence and comfort, and to put an end to practices which were certainly a disgrace to the Islands and to those who lived in them. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had, of his own knowledge, borne testimony to the good effect of the system which now prevailed in these Islands. Was it an obsolete practice and an obsolete principle that a landlord should do his best to improve the condition of the people who lived on the land which he owned? It appeared to him that it would be a grave misfortune to the Islands and to the inhabitants if Parliament were to refuse the sanction that was necessary to complete this arrangement — an arrangement which had hitherto worked well and beneficially to the people themselves, and the refusal of which would remove from these Islands a gentleman who had devoted his life to studying the interests of the inhabitants, and without whose presence among them great loss must ensue. What was the difference be-
    1232
    tween a landlord who devoted himself to the benefit of the people among whom he lived and a gentleman who had a large manufactory, and having erected a number of cottages for the accommodation of his workpeople, insisted that good order should prevail in them. It appeared to him that there was no difference in the exercise of the duties of life in the one case or in the other.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE—LICENCES TO TELE- PHONE COMPANIES.
  MR. ARTHUR ARENOLD (for Mr. SLAGG)asked the Postmaster General, Whether, in all licences granted by him to Telephone Companies, he has restricted their operations to a radius varying from two to five miles from the centre of the respective towns; whether he is aware that, in the case of Manchester and Liverpool, this restriction excludes large numbers of suburban inhabitants who reside outside the licensed radius; whether he will consent, in the towns of Lancashire and Cheshire, to an extension of the radius to cover the residential area of each respective town, so as to include the suburban districts whose residents desire to be afforded facilities for immediate connection with their business houses; whether, when the licensed areas intersect each other, he will allow intercommunication between such areas; whether he is aware that the difficulty of the restricted radius is not met by permission in certain cases to extend wires outside the district under the ultra-radial agreement, inasmuch as not only do the Department insist upon an extra royalty of two and a half per cent, on the gross receipts from such wires, but, further, insist upon a separate wire being run from the residence of each individual subscriber the whole distance to the central exchange, instead of permitting local subscribers to be connected together, and afterwards connected with the central exchange by a single wire; whether he is aware that, although the latter condition adds nothing- to the revenue of the Post Office, it imposes heavy and unnecessary expen-

  1233
  diture on the Companies, and compels them to charge increased, and in many cases prohibitive, rates to the inhabitants of the outlying suburban districts, who otherwise would avail themselves of the advantages of the telephone system; and, whether he can see his way to such a reasonable extension of the radius, or other modification of the conditions, as will obviate the apparently vexatious impediments which are placed in the way of the use of the telephone in the suburban districts?
  MR. FAWCETT: To reply to the series of seven Questions addressed to me by my hon. Friend would involve so many complicated details that I could not properly answer them without unduly encroaching on the time of the House. I am about to make a proposal which I hope will be thought fair and reasonable. I am frequently asked by the various Telephone Companies to modify in different respects the existing terms on which they carry on business. I am, therefore, about to propose that the Telephone Companies should meet and endeavour to come to an agreement as to the modifications of these terms, which, in their opinion, would meet the public requirements. Should they act on this suggestion and communicate the result to me in writing, their proposals shall at once be carefully considered with every desire to allow the greatest freedom possible to telephonic communication which is compatible with due protection of the interests of the Revenue.
  MR. GRAY: If the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is adopted, and some propositions from the Telephone Companies should be laid before him, can he now give any undertaking that he will give a reply with sufficient promptitude to permit of the subject being discussed in the House in the event of 110 arrangement being arrived at? Otherwise, if a discussion should be raised, the right hon. Gentleman might say that the matter was under consideration, and that discussion was therefore premature.
  MR. FAWCETT: I cannot state the exact time within which I shall be able to announce the result of my proposition, as it is a very difficult and complicated subject; but I will give this assurance —I will do my utmost to come to a decision as soon after receiving the reply of the Telephone Companies as possible.
  1234
  It would be wrong of me to go further than that.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT — FOOT - AND - MOUTH DISEASE (LINCOLNSHIRE).
  MR. PELLasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, What steps have been taken by the local authority in Lincolnshire to meet the alarming outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in that county, of which he informed the House on the 19th; whether measures now adopted by the local authority are sufficient to "meet the exigencies of the case, and prevent the disease spreading; if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will exercise the powers they possess for stamping out the disorder, and thus protecting farming stock in other parts of England; and, whether he can give the House an approximate estimate of the cost which would be incurred in this instance by killing the diseased animals and selling the car cases?
  MR. DODSON: The outbreak in question took place among sheep within the limits of a large infected area which had been declared on May 22 upon the recommendation of our Chief Inspector, who had visited the locality and held an interview with the Local Authority in the last part of May, in consequence of a previous outbreak. The Local Authority made Regulations to restrict the entrance and exit of persons into and out of the infected places, for the disinfection of persons, for the isolation of the disease and infected animals, and they employed the police to carry the Regulations into effect. It appeared to the Privy Council that the measures taken by the Local Authority were sufficient. We have since been informed by the Inspector of the district that the 338 diseased sheep have all recovered. The estimated value of the sheep was from £1,100 to £1,200, and the estimated cost that would have been incurred by slaughtering them, allowing for what might be realized by sale of carcases, from £500 to £600. The number of animals in Great Britain known to the Privy Council as affected with foot-and-mouth disease was, for the week ending June 21, 10 in five different counties. The Local Authorities of these several counties have power to slaughter and compensate, and the

  1235
  Privy Council have written to each urging them to use those powers. I have just heard that one of these Local Authorities has slaughtered the two animals in its district, thus reducing the total number in the country, assuming that there are no concealed cases, and no fresh outbreaks beyond those reported on June 21, to eight.
  MR. CHAPLINasked whether, in the circumstances, the Government would not consider the propriety of going a little bit further, and not merely urging on the Local Authorities the compulsory slaughter of these animals, but insisting on it under the powers vested in them under the Act?
  MR. DODSONsaid, they hoped that would not be necessary; but that Local Authorities would use their powers with that discretion which Local Authorities could possess in a greater degree than a Central Authority.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CASE OF —BENNETT, DUBLIN.
  MR. HEALY (for Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. J. A. Byrne, a Divisional Police Magistrate in Dublin, recently committed a young man named Bennett, the son of a magistrate in the South of Ireland, to stand his trial before the Commission Court; whether, after the committal had been pronounced, and the Press had left the court, Mr. Byrne again took up the case, re-opened it, cancelled the committal, and dealt with the case by summary judgment; and, what is the explanation of this proceeding, and whether any notice will be taken of it?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that a young man named Bennett was charged before Mr. Byrne in Dublin Police Court, and committed for trial, bail being refused. Subsequently his counsel put in a plea of guilty. The magistrate in his discretion accepted the plea, and sentenced the prisoner to two months' imprisonment, which he considered ample. The magistrate is not aware whether reporters were present or not. Nothing occurred, at all events on his part, to prevent publicity; and, as a matter of fact, the conviction on the plea of guilty appeared at least in one of the Dublin papers. There did not appear to be anything in the transaction calling for further notice.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE EDUCATION ACT, 1870, SEC. 9.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether it is a fact that, in cases where ratepayers feel aggrieved by a decision of the Educational Department, and demand a public inquiry, that the Educational Department, previous to authorising such inquiry, require a bond of indemnity against the expenses of such inquiry to the amount of £300; and, if so, whether, since the imposition of so stringent an obligation is calculated to discourage local inquiry, he could take steps to prevent persons interested being deterred from obtaining a full and fair investigation of their grievances?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Under Section 9 of the Act of 1870 ratepayers who are not satisfied to provide the accommodation required by the Education Department may demand a public inquiry. In such cases Section 73 of the Act authorizes the Education Department to make an order directing the costs of the proceedings to be paid by the district, or by the applicants for the inquiry, and may, if the Department think fit, require the applicants to give security for the costs of the inquiry. This security has been always required when the Department are not satisfied that the costs should be thrown upon the district. Of course, the hon. Member understands that the £300 mentioned is a more nominal sum.

  UNITED STATES—MR. ALFRED SHELDON.
  MR. ARTHUR ARENOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has yet received from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington information of the safety of Mr. Alfred Sheldon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: From a despatch received yesterday at the Foreign Office, dated the 13th instant, it appears that up to that date the inquiries that were being made by the authorities to discover the whereabouts of Mr. Alfred Sheldon has been unsuccessful; but my hon. Friend may feel certain that no effort will be spared to secure the release of this gentleman, whose position is, I am aware, the cause of great anxiety to a numerous circle of friends and relatives.

  MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. JUSTIN HTINTLY M'CARTHYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, after the Second Heading of the Medical Act Amendment Bill, the Government will see their way to inserting a Clause in favour of the claim of the Apothecaries' Hall of Ireland to be duly represented in the Bill?
  MR. MUNDELLA: When we reach the Committee stage of the Bill we shall be prepared to consider in a fair and conciliatory spirit any Amendments that may be placed upon the Paper; but I could not state till after the second reading what Amendments the Government will be prepared to accept.

  INDIA—THE CHOLERA.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If complaints have been made by European Governments of the laxity of the supervision of cholera by the Indian Authorities; whether cholera of a severe type has been raging recently at Bombay and Calcutta; whether 578 deaths from cholera took place in Calcutta during the four weeks ending the 10th of May last; and, whether a Military transport vessel was allowed lately to leave Bombay for Europe via the Suez Canal, although three cases of cholera had declared themselves on board the ship while still in Bombay Harbour, one of the patients dying of the disease and being buried at Bombay?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I am not aware that any complaints have been made by European Governments as to the laxity of supervision of cholera by the Indian authorities. There has been a good deal of cholera, both at Calcutta and Bombay, since the beginning of the year. The Calcutta deaths are correctly stated by the hon. Member. During March they, were 435; during April they rose to 811; but during May and the first week of June they fell to 382. From the official Report of the proceedings of Her Majesty's ship Crocodile communicated to the India Office by the Admiralty it is clear that there was no outbreak of cholera on board the troopship while still in Bombay Harbour, and that there was no case among the crew or troops for some days after she had sailed.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true that Asiatic cholera has broken out at Toulon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No information has been received with respect to this alleged outbreak of cholera; but a Report has been called for by telegraph, and intelligence is expected in the course of the day.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, If he has asked for any information as to the outbreak of cholera on board the troopship Crocodile, while still in Bombay Harbour, and the landing of three cholera patients from the vessel while at Bombay, one, a sergeant, dying of the disease; if he can state what quarantine, if any, was imposed upon the troopship Crocodile subsequent to the discovery of cholera on board, and previous to her being allowed to proceed to Europe viâ the Suez Canal; and, whether any subsequent cases occurred during the voyage to Europe?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: A sergeant-major of the 2nd Norfolk Regiment died in Bombay Harbour of violent diarrhæa. The man had neglected to seek medical aid, and his case was much aggravated by the fact that he had been drinking freely. The medical officer in charge reported the case to the Surgeon General at Bombay, who agreed that the case was one of diarrhæa, and not of cholera. Nevertheless, the same precautions had been taken as if the case had been cholera; the bedding, &c., being destroyed, and the hospital ward fumigated and disinfected. No quarantine, therefore, was imposed, and the ship left Bombay on the 3rd of April. Between the 6th of April and the ship's arrival at Malta eight cases of cholera occurred, and six of them terminated fatally. The third case having occurred after the Crocodile entered the Suez Canal, she coaled in quarantine at Port Said. The Governor of Malta refused to allow the women and children to land in quarantine at Malta, as recommended by the medical officer in charge of the troops. No case occurred after leaving Malta.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether it was not the case that two men of the family of the man who had died in Bombay Harbour were attacked with choleraic symptoms, and were removed from

  1239
  the Crocodile to the shore at Bombay, but recovered?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have not heard of that. We have received voluminous Reports on this subject, and I do not believe that any case of that kind occurred.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would ask the Question again, and would supply the noble Marquess with the newspaper reports to the effect which he had stated.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—SMALL-POX IN LONDON.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has received information that small-pox was imported into the east end of London by vessels trading with Madras and Calcutta; and, if he is aware that a severe epidemic of small-pox has been raging for several months past in both these towns?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: This matter has nothing to do with the Home Department. The only small-pox cases in the present epidemic that I know of as having relations with such vessels are the cases of five Lascars who were removed from the steamship Eldorado into Homerton Hospital. The Eldorado, however, happened to be outward bound. She had been lying in Port 20 days previously, and her infection clearly originated in London. This was in last November, when Homerton Hospital already contained 37 small-pox patients. As to any more recent introductions of small-pox into the Port, I have no information—none since Christmas, 1883. But at that time the disease was already epidemic, to a moderate extent, in London; and any subsequent importation that may have taken place is, probably, of no particular concern. A severe epidemic of small-pox has been prevailing since last autumn in Madras; it reached its highest mortality in March, when it was fatal to nearly one per 1,000 weekly. There is some small-pox, but no epidemic small-pox, in Calcutta, beginning in the early months of this year, but little above the mean.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN).
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that British Infantry are being advanced to Assouan; and, if so,
  1240
  whether this be intended to check the armed movement of the Mahdi and his followers; and, what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Ministers to save General Gordon and those dependent upon him at Khartoum from the fate of the garrisons of Sinkat and Berber?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, Sir; a battalion of British Infantry is leaving Assiout for Assouan. The reason given by Sir Frederick Stephen-son is, that the tribes in front are becoming troublesome, and that it is desirable to support Egyptian troops, and to give confidence to the Natives. As to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, we have at present no certain information of the fate of the garrison at Berber. It is believed, though it is not absolutely certain, that the place has been taken, or has surrendered; but the report of the massacre of the garrison is in no way confirmed. With reference to General Gordon and the garrison of Khartoum, the Government have received no information which leads them to modify the statements which they have previously made of their views and intentions. The latest information received is contained in a telegram dated yesterday, in which it is stated—
  "Chermside telegraphs to-day— 'Pilgrims have arrived at Suakin; 40 days from Khartoum, and 24 from Berber; report Khartoum in hands of Government; steamers going and arriving; a few Arabs only on the road between Khartoum and Berber; latter was in hands of Government; there were soldiers there; road clear, except near Suakin.'"
  Under these circumstances, I am unable to add anything to the statements already made respecting General Gordon and Khartoum.
  MR. BERESFORD: Is it intended to replace the Sussex Regiment by any other from Cairo?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: General Stephonson, I think, reported that he was prepared to send another, or two battalions if necessary; but orders have not been given for the removal of any further troops from Cairo.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Are we to understand that the Government are taking no steps, or have made no preparations up to the present time, to save Khartoum?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I stated the other day, in answer to

  1241
  the right hon. Member for King's Lynn. (Mr. Bourke), all the information we had, and I mentioned that the Government were making some preparations, the nature of which I did not give. No decision has been come to in respect to an expedition, or with regard to the construction of a railway between Suakin and Berber.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: With reference to the noble Lord's answer to the first part of my Question, may I ask whether these Arab Tribes, whom the British troops are being advanced to Assouan to hold in check or control, are people struggling to be free?
  [No reply.]

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that a regiment is to be sent to reinforce the troops in Zululand; and, whether he can give any information as to the strength of Her Majesty's forces in that country and Natal?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The 2nd South Lancashire Regiment, 620 strong, will embark for Natal on the 26th instant, but not necessarily, as the Question implies, for Zululand, and drafts of 337 men are also under orders for Natal at the same time. By the last official Returns the forces in Natal were, in round numbers, 1,300, and in Zululand—that is in the Reserve Territory—500, principally Cavalry; but since the date of that Return a battery of Royal Artillery, of 81 men, and a company of Royal Engineers, of 60 men, had proceeded from Cape Colony to Natal, and it is understood that the General Officer in command has also ordered 300 men of the Northampton Regiment to Natal. As to the distribution at the present moment of the troops between Natal and the Zulu Reserve, we have no accurate information beyond what was contained in a telegram from the Governor of Natal, in which he informed us that the General had been into the Reserve, and had determined to increase the force there to 800 men, of whom 200 are to be with Mr. Osborne, the Resident.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether instructions had been given to the Commanders of British troops in the Reserve to oppose by force of arms the in-
  1242
  vasions by which the Boer contingent were now operating in Zululand?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: A General Commanding British Forces is in the habit of resisting all invaders, whether Boers or others.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—OUTBREAK OF CHOLERA IN FRANCE.
  MR. GRAYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has any information as to the reported outbreak of Asiatic cholera at Toulon; and, in the event of its having appeared in France, whether he intends to take any steps to enforce early precautions against its importation and spread in this Country?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Regulations which were issued by the Board last year with reference to ships suspected to be infected with cholera are still in force. The Board in July last issued Circular Letters to the several Sanitary Authorities with reference to the precautions to be taken against the infection of cholera. The Act of last year is still in force.
  DR. CAMERONasked the right hon. Baronet whether he would send out a Medical Commissioner to ascertain the nature of the disease which is said to have broken out, and to report directly to the Local Government Board?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could not answer the Question for a few days, as the only information the Department had at present was that contained in the newspaper reports.

  EGYPT (THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE).
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury. If the House are to understand that the Great Powers, in consenting to enter into the Conference, have assented to the principle that the International decisions arrived at in the Conference are to be inoperative unless sanctioned by the Parliament of Great Britain?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Powers have not given, nor have they been asked to give, any assent to any proposition, except those which have been mentioned to the House by Her Majesty's Government, and which have for the most part been printed in the Papers in possession of the House. I may, however, say that we are acquainted

  1243
  with the Constitutional practice of this country; and we know that for four weeks or more it has been matter of public notoriety that the proceedings of the Government in relation to Egypt would be subject to the decision of Parliament.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: There is nothing in the Papers laid before Parliament to show that the Great Powers have in any way assented to this principle. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will just remind him of a Question which was put yesterday, and which was identical with mine, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who said—
  "I suppose we should be perfectly in the right in assuming that the Government have been perfectly candid with the Great Powers, and have informed them that the final assent of England must depend on the action of Parliament; and also in assuming that the course taken by the Government to-day will preclude them from afterwards telling the House that they must assent to the proposals that have been assented to by the Great Powers."
  Well, the Prime Minister assented to that. Now, I want to know if the Prime Minister has any kind or sort of documentary evidence whatever that he can lay on the Table in support of that?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I thought I had conveyed that in my answer. The noble Lord is perfectly right in saying that the answers of the Great Powers do not contain anything bearing on that question, and no formal communications have taken place on the subject; but we are as certain as we are that we are going to hold a Conference that the Powers are aware of the fact, which has been notorious for four weeks past —namely, that the proceedings are contingent upon the consent of Parliament being obtained.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: In order to be sure whether we shall not fall into error on this point, I wish to know whether the Prime Minister will not pledge the Government to communicate to the House the result of the exchange of views between England and France after consultation with the other Powers. If I recollect aright, the Prime Minister used, more than once, the words—"We will consult the Powers, and then communicate with the House;" and I, therefore, wish to know,
  1244
  if the Powers have been consulted, how it arises that they have not expressed any opinion?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is perfectly true and accurate, and the noble Lord is quite right in his citation. We have consulted the Powers; but that consultation has been a very recent one. As the noble Lord will see from the dates, the communications with France have only been brought to a conclusion within a very recent period. The full answers of the Powers have not yet been received.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: In reference to the statement of the right lion. Gentleman—
  "That he will undertake to engage that, in the event of a common understanding with France, and after consultation with the Powers, any plan resulting therefrom, those results and the whole conclusion arrived at shall be presented to Parliament before the Conference meets "—
  I wish to ask, Whether there is any foundation in fact for the statement which has appeared in the Press, that it is the intention of the Government in Conference to propose or to assent to any arrangement under which this Country may be committed to make any advance in money by way of gift, grant, loan, or guarantee on behalf of Egypt; and, if any such arrangement is to be made, to what extent this country is to be committed?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In reference to the preamble of the right hon. Gentleman's Question, that is exactly the pledge which we have fulfilled, and the entire result of our communication appears in the Papers which have been laid before Parliament. The whole conclusion at which, in common with France, we have arrived is before the House in the Papers which have been published.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: After consultation with the Powers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord seems to reproach me with having, as he implies, made our communications to Parliament too soon. We have stated that we have consulted with the Powers; but it does not follow that we should necessarily have received all the answers from them.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question with regard to whether any arrangement has resulted from the communications, and will be submitted?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; the plan resulting from these communications is exactly what we have made known in the Papers presented to Parliament. With regard to the Question of which the right hon. Gentleman has given Notice, I am not sorry he has given me the opportunity of repeating what I stated yesterday. We have had to consider, in the first place, the precedents applicable to it; in the second place, the deference due to the Powers; in the third place, the relations of the Legislative and Executive Governments of this country; in the fourth place, the practical conduct of the business before the Conference; and, in the fifth place, the welfare of Egypt. Each of these considerations involves objections, some of them absolutely conclusive, to our mating known to Parliament, at this moment, the financial proposals which we intend to lay before the Conference. The Question of the right hon. Gentleman refers to something which, if it were true, would, of course, necessarily constitute a part of those financial proposals?
  MR. CHAPLIN: What I think the House wants to know of the right hon. Gentleman is, whether it is, or is not, the case that the Government undertook, after the agreement between France and England had concluded, and the Powers had been consulted, that the result of that consultation should be submitted to Parliament before the Conference met?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The result of the consultation, so far as the answers of the Powers are concerned, cannot be made known, because the answers have not yet all been received. Only one Power —or, I should say, in the main, the answers have not been received; and, indeed, there has not been time. We were anxious to fulfil our engagements with Parliament at the very earliest moment; and when we had placed ourselves in full communication with the Powers on these matters, we at once proceeded to make the communication known to Parliament.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Will the Conference be postponed until the answers to the communications have been received, in accordance with the reply of the Prime Minister?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; certainly not. The meeting of the Powers has no relation to the matter of the
  1246
  agreement between this country and Prance, but to the financial necessities of Egypt, which require immediate attention.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I would now ask, is this communication connected with a Question which I had intended to put on Thursday in reference to the financial proposals? It is obvious that there are financial proposals of two kinds—those with which this House has nothing whatever to do, and those requiring the assent of the House; and I wish to ask whether any of these proposals could be put into execution without the assent of the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have already declined, in terms most explicit, founded on a conviction based on an important principle, to give any information as to the nature of our financial proposals. At the same time, I have said that the whole matter will be submitted to the judgment of Parliament, and will be dependent upon that judgment.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he did not in 1855 make a strong attack on Lord Palmerston for guaranteeing the Turkish Loan without the consent of Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord gives me credit for a better memory than I possess; and he asks me whether in the year 1855–29 years ago—I objected to a measure for guaranteeing the Turkish Loan? I am not able to follow the terms of my speech on that occasion. I am very glad, however, to see that the noble Lord thinks my speeches worthy of the honour of reading them. If he likes to give Notice of the Question I shall be happy to answer it.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I shall put the Question on Thursday, and I may say that I read the speech with great pleasure.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYasked the Prime Minister whether he could not so far state to Parliament the nature of the financial proposals to be submitted to Parliament as to say whether any advance of money would be proposed or not?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Question is simply varied in its terms from others which have been put and answered. If a question of so great importance were brought before the Conference, it would form part of the financial proposals. I

  1247
  have already stated that we cannot give any information. It would be contrary to our public duty; while we reiterate the full assurance that the House is not bound to be committed in any way by what we do.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The right hon. Gentleman has guaranteed this House perfect freedom of action in dealing with certain proposals. Now, I wish to ask how he can guarantee this House freedom of action if these proposals be of a financial character, and he has not yet taken the opinion of the Powers as to their consent to an international decision? To put the Question in another way, how can he guarantee that when that proposal has come before this House it will come before it, not as the proposal of the Government, but as the proposal of the Powers of Europe?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There are two Questions involved. One is, whether, in point of fact, we have undertaken to guarantee the freedom of Parliament; the other is, in what way that guarantee could take effect? We have undertaken to guarantee the freedom of Parliament; but I cannot as yet on principle explain the mode, because it would be treading upon ground on which, as I have said, we cannot on principle enter. I have promised, not only that freedom of action shall be maintained, but that we shall do everything in our power to expedite the time when we can make the fullest explanation and communication.
  MR. GIBSON: Would the Prime Minister say if the communications made to the French Government on the financial proposals intended to be made by the Government to the Conference will be laid before the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rather think that the Question has already been put and answered; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman gives Notice of the Question, I will take care that he receives an answer.
  MR. HENEAGE: I should like to ask the Prime Minister, whether each of the Powers enter into the Conference with the same reservation as England—namely, that the proceedings are not to be final until they have been referred to their own existing Parliaments?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: As a Question supplementary to that of the hon. Member, I should wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what Parliament exists in Russia to which the proceeding of the Executive of that country could be ratified?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware that any reservation of the character indicated by the hon. Member's Question has been made.

  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONobserved, that this Bill was the second Order for this Sitting; but as the Representation of the People Bill was likely to occupy some hours, there would not be much time left before 7 o'clock for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill. He therefore suggested to the Prime Minister whether it would not be better to name another day for the Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Baronet that it was not worth while to keep a large number of Members in expectation of the Bill coming on at the fag-end of the Sitting; and, therefore, he would say at once that it should be deferred. The Medical Act Amendment Bill would, therefore, be taken after the Representation of the People Bill. Assuming that the Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill finished that morning, he should propose to take the third reading on Thursday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 249.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate.)
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 249.]

    CONSIDERATION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [SECOND NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to the Bill [23rd June], on Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended.
    And which Amendment was,
    In page 1, line 19, to leave out the word "himself," in order to insert the words "by

    1249
    himself, or by himself and his family wholly." —(Mr. Warton.)
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'himself' stand part of the Bill."
    Debate resumed.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, to leave out the word "an," in order to insert the word "the."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That the word 'an' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 24, to leave out the words "as a ten ant."— (Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That the words ' as a tenant' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Restriction on fagot votes).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENBY JAMES)moved, in page 1, line 27, to leave out "after the passing of this Act." The Amendment was consequential on the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) fixing the commencement of the Act as January 1, 1885.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. HEALYmoved an Amendment for the purpose of enabling Roman Catholics to exercise the voting powers which they had hitherto possessed in respect of residing in, or carrying on any trade or business in, premises that came up to the requisite qualification.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, after the word "and," to insert the words "reside or."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'reside or' be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that this clause dealt only with ownership, and had nothing whatever to do with occupation. The Amendment was, therefore, quite unnecessary. Under the Occupation Clause Roman Catholics would retain all their former privileges. If mere residence were permitted as a qualification for voting, all the members of a family would be enfranchised, which obviously could not be allowed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 21 to leave out the words "otherwise legally," in order to insert the words "legally or otherwise."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That the words 'otherwise legally' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Assimilation of occupation qualification).
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 31, after the word "respectively," to insert the words "including the conditions as regards joint and successive occupancy."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 6 (Voter not to vote in respect of occupation of property in borough).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 39, after the word "borough," to insert the words "Provided, That nothing herein contained shall apply to any land or tenement situate partly in a borough, and the occupation of which does not qualify to vote at an election for such borough."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES)said, in the case suggested by the hon. Gentleman the owner would probably be the dweller in either the county or borough. There would be great practical difficulty in accepting these words.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 7 (Definition of household and lodger qualification and other franchises, and application of enactments relating thereto).
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)moved, in page 3, line 19, after "twenty-two, "insert" and twenty-three."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. HEALYmoved, in page 3, line 19, after "twenty-two," insert "and twenty-three."
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)moved, in page 3, line 24, after "1868," to insert—
    "And in the said section twenty-two of 'The Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878,' the reference to section thirteen of 'The

    1251
    Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843,' shall be construed to refer to the enactments of the Registration Acts in Ireland relating to the making out, signing, publishing, and otherwise dealing with the lists of voters, and the reference to the Parliamentary Registration Acts, shall he construed to refer to the Registration Acts in Ireland, and the following dates shall be substituted in Ireland for the dates in that section mentioned, that is to say, the twentieth day of July for the last day of July, and the fourteenth day of July for the twenty-fifth day of July, and the word 'overseers' shall be construed to refer in a county to the clerk of the peace, and in a borough to the town clerk."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. HEALYmoved, in page 3, line 24, after "1868," to insert—
    "And the reference in the said section twenty-two to section thirteen of 'The Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843,' shall be deemed to be made, as regards boroughs to section thirty-three, and as regards counties to section twenty-one of the Act of the Session of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter sixty-nine; and the reference in the said section twenty-two to the Parliamentary Registration Acts, shall be deemed to be made to the Registration Acts as defined by this Act; and in the construction of the said section, the word 'overseers' shall be construed to mean, in a borough the town clerk for such borough, and in a county the clerk of the peace for such county; and the following dates shall be substituted for the dates therein mentioned, that is to say, the fourteenth day of July, for the twenty-fifth day of July, and the twentieth day of July, for the last day of July."
    MR. HEALYmoved, in page 4, line 17, after "1868," to insert—
    "In the case of any franchise arising out of the occupation of any dwelling-house, lands, or tenements, or of any lodgings, where, in the Representation of the People Acts, as defined by this Act, the qualifying period of occupation is fixed as twelve months prior to any date, the occupation of such premises for six months prior to such date shall, after the passing of this Act, be held to qualify for such franchise."
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the Government could not accept the Amendment; but they were in favour of its principle, and hoped to deal with the question at a future day.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the House ought to be on its guard against allowing the whole effect of the Bill to be altered in a democratic direction by proposals to lessen the period of residence required to qualify a voter. The sympathies of the Prime Minister were
    1252
    with the worst class of householders; and he must protest against any pledge being given that the Government contemplated a reduction of the term of residence, which would practically enfranchise vagrants.
    MR. LEWISsaid, that under that Amendment the occupier of a room let for Is. a-week in a large town would in six months be entitled to the franchise.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. HEALYmoved, in page 4, line 17, after "1868," to insert the following:—
    "In the case of any franchise arising out of the occupation of any dwelling-house, lands, or tenements, where it shall appear that any person claiming to occupy, or to have occupied, any such premises as tenant, was evicted from such premises at any time during the qualifying period of occupation, but was subsequently reinstated in the possession of same, such person shall, so far as regards qualification for any such franchise as aforesaid, be deemed, notwithstanding such eviction, to have been in occupation of said promises during the whole of the qualifying period."
    The hon. Gentleman said, that in many counties in Ireland hundreds of persons were deprived of the franchise by a subterfuge which this Amendment was intended to abolish. In the North, and especially in the county which he represented (Monaghan), it was a common thing to serve tenants with an ejectment for non-payment before the 20th of July, in order to break the qualifying occupation, and after the 20th of July was past they were put in again as caretakers. In the County Monaghan, at the last Sessions, no less than 80 persons were served under these circumstances; and he believed that no less than 300 or 400 persons had received notices recently with the same object. His contention was borne out by a statement made a few days ago by County Court Judge Barron with regard to certain cases upon the estate of an ex-Member for the county; and Mr. Barren was not a gentleman likely to express opinions of that kind without reason, for it would be remembered that on one occasion he boasted that if he had a match he would set fire to a Land League hut. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 17, after "1868," to insert the words—" In the case of any franchise arising

    1253
    out of the occupation of any dwelling-house, lands, or tenements, where it shall appear that any person claiming to occupy, or to have occupied, any such premises as tenant, was evicted from such premises at any time during the qualifying period of occupation, but was subsequently reinstated in the possession of the same, such person shall, so far as regards qualification for any such franchise as aforesaid, be deemed, notwithstanding such eviction, to have been in occupation of said premises during the whole of the qualifying period."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENEY JAMES), said, that this case must be treated as a whole. If the Government were to make any exception in this particular case of evicted tenants, other matters of detail would be brought forward, and there would be great difficulty in dealing with them. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member would not press the Amendment.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he thought that this Amendment was an absolute reduotio ad absurdunt of the principle involved in the Bill. He thought that the House was to be congratulated on the fact that the assurances of future consideration given in respect to it on the part of the Government were a little less strong than those which had been given with reference to some other proposals of a similar nature. At all events, they could only protest against the plan of giving away of little bits of the Constitution and the rights of property.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he thought the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) was a proof of the small hold which the Irish Tory Party felt that they had upon the constituencies they represented in Ireland. When they had recourse to artifices of this kind in order to retain their seats in that House, he did not see how they could stand up there and say that they represented the feelings of the majority of the people of the North of Ireland. If they represented the majority of the people of Ulster, why did they seek to curtail their franchise by miserable tricks of this kind? The Amendment was one which deserved the serious consideration of the Government. By the process described by his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) the tenant's continuity in his holding was broken, and the franchise was taken away from him. He had to discharge all the obligations of a
    1254
    tenant in occupation—he had to pay his rent and his rates, which gave him the qualification for a vote. Yet, because he was put outside his door, and immediately readmitted, he was placed without the bounds of the Constitution. This was a grievous injustice, and it was not alone practised largely in the county of Monaghan, but in the counties of Tyrone, Donegal, and Antrim. He, thought, therefore, the Government was bound to accept the Amendment.
    MR. P. MARTINstated he was in favour of the principle asserted by the Amendment. In Ireland the evicted tenant was entitled to redeem his holding at any time during six months from, the date of the enactment of the habere. That equity of redemption, as it was called, was a statutory right. When he thus re-entered, he was deemed to be restored to his previous tenancy, with all its rights, and subject to all liabilities. Why, then, should he be deprived of the franchise? The Amendment could do no injustice; but it more properly belonged to a Registration than to a Franchise Bill.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought that the Government should redress the grievance now, instead of merely holding out an expectation of its being remedied at some future time, which might never arrive.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, bethought the statement in which the Amendment was introduced disclosed a substantial grievance, and he thought it would be a discreditable thing if it were not remedied.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he thought the Amendment struck at the whole principle of occupancy in the Three Kingdoms. He urged the Government to avow pure Democracy at once, and abandon all disguise.
    MR. WARTONwanted to know when the Government would stop throwing sops to the Parnellite Members? He considered the proposal a most dishonest one.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEpointed out that the tenant had an easy remedy against this injustice—namely, by paying his rent. He condoled with the Government on the opposition being raised against this Bill in its later stages, and thought that after the volte-face of the previous night on the Criminal Clause, they would be extra careful of

    1255
    the concessions they might make. He should leave the Government and their Irish Friends to fight the question out among themselves.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAcordially supported the Amendment, but hoped the House would not be put to the trouble of a Division.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that, as the Tory Party evidently intended to make this Amendment an occasion for talking out the Bill, he should not press it.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he was not aware that any Members of the persuasion referred to had taken any part in the discussion.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause 8 (Definition of "Representation of the People Acts" and "Registration Acts").
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)moved, in page 5, line 8, at end, insert as a separate paragraph—
    "In Scotland all enactments of the Registration Acts which relate to the registration of persons entitled to vote in burghs, including the provisions relating to dates, shall, with the necessary variations, and with, the necessary alterations of notices and other forms, extend and apply to counties as well as to burghs; and the enactments of the said Acts which relate to the registration of persons entitled to vote in counties shall, so far as inconsistent with the enactments so applied, be repealed: Provided, That in counties the valuation rolls, registers, and lists shall continue to be arranged in parishes as heretofore."
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in explaining the effect of the Amendment, said, it was known to hon. Members from Scotland that there were different rules applicable to the making up of the voters' lists in counties and burghs. He need not enumerate these in detail, and would only mention two. In the case of counties, it was not necessary in each year to publish a full list of the voters. It was only necessary, according to the existing law, to publish a list of those who had become disqualified, or who had died, during the year, and of those who had become qualified; whereas, in the case of burghs, a full list of voters in each year was published. Then there was another material difference in regard to dates. The date for completing the voters' lists in counties was the 25th of August, while in burghs it was the 15th of September. It was necessary to consider,
    1256
    when similar rules were to be applied to the two, what method should be followed—whether the old county method should be followed, or whether it might not be more convenient to extend to counties the rules at present applying to burghs. It was represented with great force that, in consequence of the largo change in the character of the rural constituencies, when all householders were enfranchised, there would be many more alterations if the old county method were adhered to, and there would consequently be a much longer list than was customary in former days. That being so, it had been thought better to have a full list in counties as in burghs; and as there would be more labour in making it up, it had also been thought better to give an additional three weeks in counties, as in the case of burghs. But while it was convenient that these changes should be made, it would not have been convenient to take away the rule that in counties the parish should be the unit, with reference to which the lists should be made out, and so in the Proviso that rule was adhered to. He believed the propositions in the Amendment would be generally acceptable.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Definition and application of Rating Acts).
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)moved, in page 5, line 18, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 31, and insert—
    "In every part of the United Kingdom it shall he the duty of the overseers annually, in the months of April and May, or one of them, to inquire or ascertain with respect to every hereditament which comprises any dwelling-house or dwelling-houses, within the meaning of the Representation of the People Acts, whether any man, other than the owner or other person rated or liable to be rated in respect of such hereditament, is entitled to he registered as a voter in respect of his being an inhabitant occupier of any such dwelling-house, and to enter in the rate-book the name of every man so entitled, and the situation or description of the dwelling-house in respect of which he is entitled, and for the purposes of such entry a separate column shall be added to the rate-book.
    "For the purpose of the execution of such duty, the overseers may serve on the person who is the occupier or rated or liable to be rated in respect of such hereditament or on some agent of such person concerned in the management of such hereditament, the requisition specified in the Third Schedule to this Act requiring that the form in that notice be accu-

    1257
    rately filled up and returned to the overseers within twenty-one days after such service; and if any such person or agent on whom such requisition is served fails to comply therewith, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings, and any overseer who fails to perform his duty under this section shall be deemed guilty of a breach of duty in the execution of the Registration Acts, and shall be liable to be fined accordingly a sum not exceeding forty shillings for each default.
    "The notice under this section may be served in manner provided by the Representation of the People Acts with respect to the service on occupiers of notice of non-payment of rates, and, where a body of persons, corporate or unincorporate, is rated, shall be served on the secretary or agent of such body of persons; and where the hereditament by reason of belonging to the Crown or otherwise is not rated, shall be served on the chief local officer having the superintendence or control of such hereditament.
    "In the application of this section to Scotland the expression rate-book means the valuation roll, and where a man entered on the valuation roll by virtue of this section inhabits a dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment there shall not be entered in the valuation roll any rent or value against the name of such man as applicable to such dwelling-house, nor shall any such man by reason of such entry become liable to be rated in respect of such dwelling-house.
    "The proviso in section two of the Act for the valuation of lands and heritages in Scotland, passed in the Session of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-one, and section fifteen of 'The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868,' shall be repealed: Provided, That in any county in Scotland the commissioners of supply, or the parochial board of any parish, or any other rating authority entitled to impose assessments according to the valuation roll, may, if they think fit, levy such assessments in respect of lands and heritages separately let for a shorter period than for one year or at a rent not amounting to four pounds per annum in the same manner and from the same persons as if the names of the tenants and occupiers of such lands and heritages were not inserted in the valuation roll."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Construction of Act).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 21, after the word "heritages," to insert the words "the expressions 'joint tenants' and 'tenants in common' shall include 'pro indiviso proprietors.'"—(The Lord Advocate.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "shall," to insert the words "in Scotland."— (Mr. Warton.)
    Question, "That the words 'in Scotland,' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words ' the expressions "joint tenants" and "tenants in common "shall include" pro indiviso proprietors" be there inserted," ' put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 28, after the word "same," to insert the words "Provided, That where in Ireland any land or tenement in the occupation of any person is not separately valued under the said Acts, the occupier may show what the clear yearly value of such land or tenement in fact is."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, line 28, after the word "same," to insert the words "unless the occupier shall show that the clear yearly value is in fact greater than such net annual value."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    Clause 13 (Commencement of Act).
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)moved, in page 7, line 43, at end, add—
    "Provided, That the register of voters in any county or borough in Scotland, made in the last mentioned year, shall not come into force until the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, and until that day the previous register of voters shall continue in force."
    He said, this Amendment was the proper corollary of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), which was accepted the other day. In England the new Register for each year did not come into operation until the 1st of January of the following year. In Scotland, however, the new Register for each year came into operation on the 1st of November; and if they did not make some provision like that now proposed, the anomaly would arise that if there was a General Election during the months of November and December, 1885, it would be on the new constituency in Scotland, while in England it would be on the old constituency. The object of his Amendment, therefore, was to provide that the new constituencies in both countries should begin to vote together.
    SIR JOHN HAY: I hope this change will only apply to that particular year?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Yes.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday; and to be printed. [Bill 260.]

  MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL
  [Lords].—[BILL 207.]
  (Mr. Mundella.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second READING read.
  MR. MUNDELLA, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a great measure of reform, earnestly desired by the Medical Profession, and one of great public interest. The Bill had been so long before the House and the country, however, that it was not necessary he should dwell at great length upon it. The proposed reform came from the Medical Profession, and was not forced upon them by Parliament or the public from without. It was a case of the Medical Profession demanding, in the interests of the public, better government and a higher status as regarded education. This demand on the part of the Profession was not a new one, inasmuch as an agitation in favour of such a reform had been going on for many years. In 1853 a deputation, headed by Lord Maucaulay, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Bright, and others, waited upon Lord Palmerston, and urged upon him the necessity for legislation to secure— first, uniformity of custom; secondly, reciprocity in regard to practice; thirdly, direct representation on the Medical Council; fourthly, a National Pharma-copcoia; and, fifthly, the registration of legally-qualified medical practitioners. The Act of 1858 had dealt only partially with certain portions of the subject, leaving others altogether untouched. The consequence of this failure to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the Profession had been that the agitation, which had been commenced in 1831, had been continued to the present day, and had increased in force and in intensity as time went on, with the result that during the 16 years in which he (Mr. Mundella) had had the honour to occupy a seat in that House scarcely a Session had passed without a Bill at-
  1260
  tempting to legislate for the Profession being introduced into Parliament. In 1870 Lord Ripon, and in 1878, 1879, and 1880, the Duke of Richmond and Gordon had brought in Medical Bills, the last of which was referred to a Select Committee, but was ultimately dropped. In view of these facts, the present Government had felt it to be their duty to make an effort to secure a satisfactory settlement of this vexed question, and they were supported in that attempt by the almost unanimous opinion of medical men, and by the Medical Press of the country. In 1881 the question was referred to a Royal Commission, presided over by the Earl of Camperdown, the Members of which had in their Report unanimously approved certain leading principles which had been embodied in the present Bill. The measure, which had received the assent of 19–20ths of the Profession, was a consolidating, as well as an amending, Bill to a largo extent, for it absolutely repealed eight Acts of Parliament, and portions of nine other Acts, so that the whole of the rules for the government of the Medical Profession would be found in the Bill. There were at present in existence in this country 20 Medical Licensing Bodies, who had the power of conferring 60 registerable medical diplomas. The evidence showed that one of the great evils of the present system was the inequality of the examinations for the licence. This inequality in the test of efficiency was the more unfortunate, as every licence equally conferred the right to practise everywhere. Men of the highest eminence in the Profession had shown that an easy examination by one Examining Body had a general tendency to lower the standard of education. Sir James Paget said that candidates who failed to pass the examination of the Royal College of Surgeons had no difficulty in getting their diplomas elsewhere. It was obviously desirable, therefore, that there should be something like uniformity of examination providing for the minimum of qualification. The importance of this object had been recognized, for on the 26th of February, 1870, the Medical Council passed, with only one dissentient, a resolution to the effect that a Joint Examination Board ought to be formed in each of the three divisions of the United Kingdom, and that every

  1261
  person who was desirous to be registered on any of the qualifications set forth in Schedule A of the Medical Act should be required to appear before one of those Boards, and be examined in all the subjects specified. There was much more evidence of the same kind as this to be adduced in favour of the Bill. The main principles of the present Bill were contained in a very few clauses. The first had reference to the reform of the Medical Council; and, in saying that, he did not mean to imply that the present Medical Council had not done its work as well as it was possible to do, but it had hitherto only been able to recommend, but not to enforce, its views. This reform was sought to be obtained by diminishing the number of the members of the Council, strengthening its powers, and giving to the Medical Profession what they had so long demanded and what they had been so long denied— direct representation. He believed it was the absence of direct representation which had wrecked most of the measures hitherto introduced. The next point was an approximation, as he had said, to uniformity of examination; and this was accomplished by the establishment, in each division of the United Kingdom, of Medical Boards, which should regulate the examination under the control of the Medical Council. The third point—and he thought that in the interest of the public this was, perhaps, the most important—was that, in future, a three-fold qualification should be required from everyone who required to be admitted to practise, before he could be placed on the Register. Clause 3 contained what was really the pith of the question, as far as this three-fold qualification was concerned. It provided that no person should be entitled to be placed on the Medical Register unless he or she had proved, at the final examination, his or her competency in medicine, surgery, and midwifery. Nothing could be more important to the public generally than this clause; and it redounded to the honour of the Medical Profession that, for 50 years, they had been advocating the change. This was a most important and long-desired reform; and it was due to the Medical Profession that he should state that it was not that Profession that had retarded it, but rather certain interested bodies, and he hoped
  1262
  they were now within measurable distance of a reform which everybody desired. The multiplicity of the Examining Bodies had been long tolerated by the State, but its effect on the Profession was unfavourable. Its effect had resulted in what had been aptly called the "downward competition," and he hoped they were now about to get rid of that sort of competition. He believed this country was almost the only State in Europe that had tolerated this downward competition. The Government had no desire to imitate the strict State examinations of Germany and other countries; but they desired that the Medical Profession in Great Britain and Ireland should rank, as it would rank immediately this Bill was passed, among the very first in Europe. They did not, however, aim by this Bill at an ideal uniformity, or an unnecessarily high standard; but what they asked for in the public interest was a minimum qualification. They were now agreed that there should be one Board for this purpose, and that no person should be entitled to registration unless he had the threefold qualification he had described. They wished, however, to deal justly by the Examining Bodies; and they would continue to have the power of conferring the present diplomas and degrees. He had stated the main principles of the Bill; and he might add that while adhering to them, they were not pledged pedantically to all the details of the measure by which they should arrive at that result. He asked hon. Members to consider the Bill fairly, and to allow it to go into Committee as soon as possible, in order that the details might be discussed. There were a number of minor questions —questions of Colonial and Foreign titles, penalties for misuser of titles, medical education, and other questions of interest and importance to the Profession, upon which, doubtless, there might be some difference of opinion; but all of them could be dealt with in Committee. The title of registration was the one question, after passing the final examination, about which they were most anxious. They had in this country about 23,000 licensed medical practitioners, of whom about 12,000 were members of the British Medical Association, which Association was almost unanimously in favour of this measure; while of the many deputations from the Profession

  1263
  which had come before him not one had expressed a desire to escape from the legislation proposed by it. He approached the question with feelings of the deepest respect and gratitude to the Profession, and he hoped that the Bill would settle all those questions in a manner which would give satisfaction to the medical authorities, and would set at rest a vexed question respecting the dignity and honour of a noble Profession. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Mundella.)
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I think it has been a surprise to most of us that this Bill has been reached to-day; and if I do not discuss it fully, it is because I really did not expect that I would be called on to speak on it until a later date. The reason I intervene so early in the debate is that out of 6,500 constituents, 3,000 of them are medical men, and therefore they are deeply interested in a Bill which will add much to the dignity of the Profession and to its importance in the future. My right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council has clearly explained the leading features of the Bill. Since 1870 more than 20 Bills for medical reform have been before the House, and have been referred to Select Committees, and ultimately to a Royal Commission. This Bill is certainly the best which has been framed; and it is desirable that it should pass, so as to give peace to a long-agitated Profession. The main object of the Bill is to secure efficient medical education, and to ensure the possession of adequate knowledge on the part of all persons who receive licence to practise. The present Authority, which supervises medical education, is a General Council, created in 1858, partly nominated by the Crown, and partly representative of the Universities and Corporations. This Central Authority, strengthened by direct representation from the medical practitioners of the United Kingdom, is continued by this Bill. In addition to it, three Divisional Boards, one for each section of the Kingdom, are now created. They are in future to be the sole licensing authorities recognized by the State. Their examinations are to be made equally sufficient by the General Coun-
  1264
  oil, and they are to require from every candidate a knowledge of the three fundamental subjects of the Medical Profession—medicine, surgery, and midwifery. This is an essential condition of medical reform. At present, the public have no security that the general practitioner possesses such knowledge. A College of Surgeons may pass into the Profession, a man entitled to attend medical cases, such as measles or scarlet fever, although he has not been examined in the practice of physic. A College of Physicians may license a man legally entitled to amputate a leg, although he may not have passed in surgery; while both may send out licentiates without having passed in midwifery. There are now 19 Licensing Boards, furnished among them with 50 to 60 titles of all sizes and shapes, out of which an embarrassed public has to judge of efficiency. It is true that the Licensing Bodies have been lately reforming themselves, and have, in some cases, coalesced, in order to pass licentiates with a knowledge of the three fundamental subjects; but these arrangements are private, and nut statutory. The general purpose of this Bill is therefore unassailable; for it provides that every licentiate shall have adequate knowledge of medicine, surgery, and midwifery. Opinions differ as to whether the General Council and the Divisional Examining Boards are properly constituted. I do not propose to discuss this question till we roach the Committee stage of the Bill. At present, I confine my remarks to the educational effect of the Bill on the public interests of a great and noble Profession. I have said that the General Medical Council is charged with seeing that the three Divisional Examining Boards in England, Scotland, and Ireland shall have a common standard of sufficiency in their examinations. The standard of sufficiency must not be placed higher than average candidates can pass, for the waste of the Medical Profession must be supplied. This waste is about 1,600 men yearly. The three doors of admission to a licence must be wide enough to let 1,600 men at least pass through them. Suppose that the door was made as narrow as that of the University of London, only 40 or 50 licentiates could pass through annually. Suppose it was merely widened to the size of the Scottish University, only 300

  1265
  men could pass through, it. With such higher examinations, four-fifths of the medical men annually required by the country would be rejected. The new Divisional Boards of Licence cannot, therefore, have too pedantic views of their functions, because already the supply of medical men throughout the Kingdom does not increase in proportion to the population. Between 1851 and 1861, it positively decreased; for the medical men in 1851 were 15,241, and fell to 14,684 in 1861. In the following decade, ending in 1871, the medical men increased 2 per cent, while the population did so by 13 per cent. In the Census of 1881 the medical men of England increased 3 per cent, while that of the population was 14 per cent. Scotland showed a better proportion, for the increase of doctors was 7 per cent, and that of the population was 11 per cent. In Ireland the doctors increased in all to the extent of 50 men, although there was a slight decrease in population. None of these figures are satisfactory. They show that the present conditions of medical men are not attractive enough to induce students to enrol in sufficient numbers to supply the population. This Bill may provide a remedy, or it may increase the evil, according as it is wisely framed and wisely administered. The conditions of licence must aim at providing a minimum examination for sufficiency, but dare not try for a maximum of efficiency. As Sir William Gull puts it, the Licensing Divisional Boards must only try to give "a better lowest examination than is now given." Of course, that in the future will embrace the three fundamental subjects of medicine, surgery, and midwifery, which all the 19 Licensing Authorities do not do, and, certainly, are not bound by statute to do. No doubt, however, a low pass examination has its danger. Candidates will certainly look to the State examination as the main end to be achieved. Its natural tendency will, therefore, be to produce and often to reduce to a low level of uniformity. In careers barred by examinations, the latter become the motive power, while a desire to attain a higher standard of excellence is limited to the ambitious few. The minimum standard of the State examination will, in future, govern the teaching of medical schools as surely as the main motive wheel of a factory engine governs
  1266
  the motion of 1,000 bobbins. This has not escaped the attention of the Royal Commission, which was obliged to adapt its recommendations to the varying circumstances of medical education in the three divisions of the Kingdom. In England, medical education is chiefly conducted by hospital schools, the pupils of which are examined by the London Colleges of Surgeons or Physicians. The Universities of England have hitherto contributed only 8 per cent of the licentiates of England; but I am glad to say that both Cambridge and Oxford are rapidly developing their medical schools. In Ireland, the Universities play a more important part, for they graduate one-third of all the licentiates. The Irish Corporations also have their own teaching schools, and differ in this respect from the Corporations both of England and Scotland. In Scotland, the Universities take a very conspicuous part both in medical education and graduation. If we compare double licences in medicine and surgery, the Scotch Universities now licence 61 per cent of all the licentiates in Scotland. The students prosecuting medicine at the Universities are 2,700 in number; while their annual graduates are 300, or exactly six times more than the medical graduates of the English Universities. A system somewhat less organized than the hospital schools of England prevails in Scotland under the name of extra-mural teachers, who have a considerable number of students, partly preparing for the Corporation licences, and partly for University degrees. It will, therefore, be observed that Scottish and Irish medical education is essentially different from that in England. Indeed, it more resembles that in Germany, where, out of 25,000 University students, 6,000 are engaged in the study of medicine. The effect of having medical education within Universities is to associate general culture with technical training. Mere professional schools give length, but they do not give breadth to technical training. In the case of the Universities it is different, for their primary object is to give a cultured education, and then to make professional training its natural and logical development. The Royal Commission, and the Government acting upon their Report, were obliged to adapt any new system of licensing to the varying conditions of medical attendance in

  1267
  the three divisions of the Kingdom. This they have endeavoured to do by making the representation on the Divisional Boards in proportion to the part which the Corporations and Universities respectively take in medical education, giving, however, a preponderance to those bodies which both teach and graduate over those which merely influence medical education by systems of examination without teaching. So the Divisional Boards in the three sections of the Kingdom are differently constituted. In England, where the Universities have in the past only trained 50 graduates yearly, the Corporations and Universities have equal representation on the Divisional Board. In Ireland, where both the Universities and the Corporations have medical schools, the Universities have a majority of two. In the Scottish Divisional Board there are eight University representatives to five from the Corporations. At present, I do not desire to discuss whether these are fair proportions between the Universities and the Corporations. This is a subsidiary question, which had best be considered in Committee. At the same time, I entirely uphold the principle of the Royal Commission — that where teaching Universities do much to promote medical training, they ought to have a preponderating influence over mere Examining Boards. The reason for this is obvious, that we desire to promote methodical education, and not mere cram. Unless you encourage Universities to aim at maximum qualifications, the State Boards will have the effect of inducing candidates to work down to the minimum of sufficiency, instead of working up to the higher qualifications of Universities. Examination is not education; it is only a test of what education has achieved; and it is always attended with uncertainties, and very frequently with evils. The Bill abolishes two Examining Boards; but it adds three, so that 20 will still remain if it were not for the tendency of the Corporations to unite in order to form conjoint examinations. Thus, the three Scottish Corporations have united; and, instead of five means of entering the Profession, they will hereafter have only one entrance, so that all the candidates must pass in the throe subjects—medicine, surgery, and midwifery. The London Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons
  1268
  have a conjoint scheme prepared, which will no doubt be ratified by the Medical Council in October, and they will consolidate their examinations in a like way. According to the present Bill, all the candidates for University honours, or for Corporation licences, must pass a final examination before the State Divisional Board. This was necessary when the Corporations gave licences for single subjects, such as medicine, surgery, or midwifery. But now that some of them have conjoined, and give one final examination for all three subjects, the whole question becomes much simpler. Frequent and repeated examinations on the same subjects are an intolerable oppression on candidates. The Medical Council and the subordinate Divisional Boards have to satisfy the public that the examinations for licence to practise are sufficient. This is the essence of the scheme, and with it I have no intention to interfere. If they can do this without ad ding to the number of examinations, it will be an immense gain, no doubt. the whole security for efficiency must be maintained. But this could be done in two ways—either by the Divisional Board instituting a completely new final examination, entirely by its own examiners, or by sending its examiners to take part in the final examinations of the Universities, and of the conjoint examinations of the Corporations. Both these plans were under the consideration of the Commissioners, who, by a majority, recommended a new and separate examination. The two Commissioners of the highest professional authority— Professor Huxley and Professor Turner— dissented, and gave very strong reasons indeed for the second plan of sending examiners from the Divisional Board to the University examinations and to the conjoint examinations of the Corporations. This is, in fact, the present system adopted in Germany. The State sends examiners to the Universities, and, associating the Professors with them, conduct the final examination. Germany first tried the other system of having a Central Licensing Board, but abandoned it, because it was found to lower very materially the medical qualifications of licentiates. I believe that if the majority of the Commissioners had now before them the schemes of conjoint examination since adopted, they would have reported in

  1269
  favour of a combined, rather than of a new and separate examination. Let me show how grievous a hardship an additional examination would be in the case of the University of Edinburgh. The final examination there in medicine, surgery, and midwifery occupies the examiners five or six hours daily for three or four weeks; and then six weeks more are occupied in clinical examinations at the hospitals. Upon that long and searching examination the University grants; its degree. But according to this Bill, the candidate who has been successful at the University has to take his prolonged and harassing examination twice over—once at the University, and once at the Divisional Board. Of course, the result would be that many men will be content with the minimum examination which will put them on the Register, and never take the maximum examination required for a University degree. But that would defeat the purpose of the Bill, which is to promote, and not to deteriorate, medical education. It is quite possible that the Corporations might accept the final examination of the Divisional Board, although it would not add to their dignity or to the permanence of their existence; but it would be impossible for the Universities to do so unless they lowered their standards for degrees. Another practical difficulty stands in the way, which would not be felt in a large capital like London, but which is fatal to the proposal of the Bill in a city like Edinburgh, which, it must be borne in mind, contains by far the largest medical school in the country. At present, the clinical examinations in its hospitals require all the patients who can be used with safety to themselves. If a second examination in clinical subjects is enforced by the Divisional Board, one of two things must follow:—either that the hospitals will refuse to place themselves at the disposal of the examiners of the Boards or of the Universities. It must be borne in mind that patients are patients, and that it would be wicked to expose them to the exhausting effects of a double use of their bodies. But this double examination is wholly unnecessary, when Universities and conjoint Corporations are willing to allow the examiners of the Divisional Board to take part in their final examinations in as full and complete a way as the Divisional Board and
  1270
  the General Medical Council may desire. I can answer for the University of Edinburgh in this respect—indeed, I know it to be the opinion of all the medical authorities in (Scotland; and if there are any Universities or Corporations in England and Ireland who object to the introduction of public examiners into their final examination, let them remain under the present provision of the Bill, which provides for a separate and additional examination. All that I ask is, that when Universities or Corporations, acting under a conjoint scheme, are willing, this simple method of sending public examiners should be adopted, for thus the most complete security of efficiency will be given to the public, and the evils which must follow from an additional examination will be reduced to a minimum. I know how difficult it is to command the attention of the House to a Bill of this character, which includes so many technical and professional points. It is this feeling which prevents me from discussing them fully on the second reading. But when the Bill passes into Committee, I hope that we may have ample time to discuss the details. The public interests of a Profession which has to deal with the health, and even with the life, of the people ought not to be hastily continued by the House. The long-considered agitation for amended laws relating to it has prevented the natural growth of the Profession. It is essential, therefore, that we should have permanent legislation on a wide basis. This Bill makes an honest attempt to give us it, and I have resisted many efforts to make me an opponent instead of a supporter. But let me warn the House to keep in view that teaching and training, and not examination, make the physician. A distinguished surgeon, Sir James Paget, has lately claimed for the medical man that, within a generation, he has lengthened human life, decreased pain and suffering, while he has increased the working powers of the people. I admit this, with the qualification that we Legislators may claim some part of this result by our sanitary laws. The results, both as regards medicine and law, are primarily due to the advance of science. The miscroscope, which lately has led to such wonderful discoveries in regard to the small organisms which produce disease; chemistry, which has discovered anesthetics,

  1271
  and enabled us to examine diseased secretions; the investigations which, have led to antiseptic treatment in surgery; the stethoscope, which enables us by sound to know the working of the internal organs—these we owe to advancing science. It is, then, of extreme importance for the future advance of Medicine that medical men should be efficiently trained, especially in those practical means of research which modern laboratories offer to students. Mere examinatian may promote cram, but will not advance science. The Bill recognizes this broad truth by encouraging Universities to continue the training of the Medical Profession. Some of these undoubtedly fear that the Bill will be prejudicial to their higher education, and I admit that it would be in it present form. But I have pointed out how easy it will be to remove this danger either to the Universities, or to those Corporations which have joined together to make a complete examination, without altering in the slightest degree the structure of the Bill, or lessening the powers of the General Council to enact the conditions for licence, and without diminishing the powers of the Divisional Boards to admit to the Register on well ascertained qualifications. I have pointed to an Amendment, which might be inserted in three lines, enabling those Boards to send their examiners to Universities or conjoint Corporations, for the purpose of assuring the Medical Council that the examiners were not only sufficient but efficient. If this were done I think much of the alarm which now prevails would subside. I know that the Scottish Corporations are not at present supporters of the Bill. But their objections are on another ground, and can be fairly considered in Committee. I should deplore as much as they do any prejudice to their prosperity by legislation. They have a useful and important function to perform in promoting the welfare of the Medical Profession. I am sure that they are sensible, although they are Examining Boards, that the scientific training of medical students is far more important as a means of education than the mere stimulus of examination. They, therefore, when they understand the proposal, will not object to the limitation, instead of to the multiplication of the examinations. As to the fundamental object of this Bill, which
  1272
  is that all medical men in the future should have a sufficient knowledge of the three chief divisions of Medicine—medicine, surgery, and midwifery—there is a consensus of opinion in its favour.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN, who had a Notice on the Paper to move its rejection, said, his object in placing a block to the Bill was to insure that a measure of such magnitude should not be taken at a late hour, when it would be impossible to have the discussion on it repotted. Had it come at such a time, the House would probably have lost the benefit of the able and instructive speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh. He thought that the House and all branches of the Medical Profession were agreed that the Bill was one which was well worthy of consideration, and would, if passed with proper safeguards, be of great advantage both to the country and to the Medical Profession. Undoubtedly, there were a great many points which deserved to be very carefully considered in Committee; but there was one question of principle in it that he thought was rather lamentable, and that was that there was too much of the principle of centralization in it. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Sir Lyon Playfair) said that the Bill was opposed on some minor points by two Universities in Scotland, and some of the Corporations there. Now, there was the same objection among the Corporations of Ireland, and, in a minor degree, by some of the Universities. The Corporations in Ireland complained that the Bill aimed, to a very great extent, at minimizing the powers which they had exercised, and, no doubt, exercised worthily; that their funds were being confiscated; and that the means which they had also so worthily used were being taken away from them. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, no doubt, did not desire to do any injustice to any Corporation; and he (Colonel King-Harman) hoped, therefore, he would consider the very strong feeling there was that injustice would be done to Irish Corporations under it, and that he would give his best consideration to the Amendments which he intended to place upon the Paper with regard to this question, so that they might be inserted in the Bill. No doubt, it was in the power of the Government to pass the Bill in whatever

  1273
  form they liked; but, as the object of the Bill was to put an end to agitation, lie thought it ought to be passed in a form which would insure that a fresh agitation should not take place.
  MR. BRYCE, as a Member of the Royal Commission upon whose Report it had been founded, said, he did not intend to oppose the Bill; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would give them some fuller opportunity for discussion of it upon going into Committee. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University (Sir Lyon Playfair) that this was the best of the many Bills that had been presented on this subject. He was not, however, quite sure that it might not have been better to have had no Bill at all. If we had been 30 years ago in the position in which we were now, this question would, perhaps, never have been raised; and now he doubted whether the improvements in medical education and examination effected during recent years had not made superfluous the reforms which were then urgently needed. In moving the second reading, the Vice President of the Council had mentioned the three main points of the Bill. As to the three-fold qualification, he thought that there was no difference of opinion. It was clearly necessary. As to the reform in the constitution of the Medical Council, the right hon. Gentleman had dwelt upon the question of the introduction of the representative element. For his own part, he (Mr. Bryce) could not see that much would be gained by this, or that a Medical Council so constituted would be really more representative of the Profession than the present Council, although it might appear so. The third, and, in his opinion, the most important, point in the Bill was the new provisions, not only for examination, but for the supervision of teaching. Sections 10 and 19 were, he considered, the most critical parts of the Bill, and on this point of it he hoped that they would be able to look for some concessions or modifications. He confessed that he did not see quite clearly what was meant by Section 10. He was afraid that, under that section, there might be established a final examination which would supersede the examinations conducted by the present Licensing Bodies.
  1274
  He should like, in Committee, to have it made plain that it was not intended to substitute one final examination for these examinations, but rather to secure that the several examinations held by the Licensing Bodies should be adequate and satisfactory, and should be accepted as sufficient and final. This matter had a special importance for Scotland, because in Scotland it was the Universities that were the chief teaching bodies. He hoped hon. Members were aware what it was this country possessed in the Universities of Scotland, particularly in the University of Edinburgh. They had a Medical School which, both for efficiency and the number of its teachers, and the completeness of its whole scientific apparatus, had never been equalled in any part of the world, and such as was not dreamt of 30 years ago. They ought to be careful to do nothing to diminish the popularity, the elasticity, the independence of such a school as that. The level of efficiency had risen enormously of late years; and he thought it would be more advantageous to endeavour to secure a good minimum under the present examination system, striking off, if necessary, some two or three of the Licensing Bodies, than to create a new final licensing examination irrespective of any of the present Examining Bodies. He submitted to the House that the main thing they had to look to in the Bill, and in any scheme for the reform of medical education, was to secure the variety and freedom of the Teaching and Examining Bodies; and to avoid the danger, always present in the pursuit of uniformity, of interfering with and checking the efficiency of institutions which had been steadily improving, and of which they had now every reason to be proud.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the House was under great obligations to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair), for his extremely interesting and suggestive speech, which he (Mr. Gibson) hoped would not be lost sight of when they reached the next stage of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) had expressed much confidence in the future progress of the Bill. He (Mr. Gibson) remembered, however, that similar confidence had been expressed by his Predecessors with respect to a large number of similar Bills, all of

  1275
  which had been thought the best Bills possible. If the Bill succeeded in raising-medical education where it required to be elevated, without lowering the education of those institutions where it was already elevated, it would accomplish the ideal objects of a Medical Bill. It must be remembered, and he hoped the right lion. Gentleman opposite would note it, that a great many of the Universities and Corporations in all parts of the Empire, at present, supplied splendid medical education; that they had behaved in the most spirited manner, and had acted most generously, not only towards this, but towards all preceding Bills; and he trusted that it would not be found that the working of the Bill would tend to the lowering of the standard of medical education in those Corporations and Universities which had so steadily maintained a high standard; and that, while maintaining a reasonable standard of Medicine, the Medical Councils would not fall into the error of encouraging cram, for that would do much harm. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh, in his most important speech, revived an interesting suggestion with respect to examinatious—namely, that of placing an Assessor at the examinations of the different Corporations and Universities, instead of creating Examining Boards, which he had no doubt would attract much attention. From what had fallen from the Vice President of the Council, it appeared that some opportunity would be afforded of discussing that and other matters on going into Committee. He hoped the Bill would be fairly dealt with by the House, and would in an amended form take its place in the (Statute Book. If it succeeded in improving medical education without lowering the standard of existing educational establishments, it would prove a really useful Medical Bill.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELLsaid, his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Sir Lyon Playfair) had referred to two Universities in Scotland, which were Medical Schools, as not being very friendly to the Bill. Having the honour to represent those two Universities, he (Mr. J. A. Campbell) wished to explain the facts of the case. It was true that those Universities did not look upon the Bill with very great favour in its present form; but he was
  1276
  not sure that even the University of Edinburgh had any great favour for the Bill in its present form. All the Universities of (Scotland which were Medical Schools regretted that the Bill was brought forward in the shape which it had taken, inasmuch as it introduced a greater change than they thought necessary for the excellent object m view. He thought he might say that they would all have preferred if the principle of having coadjutor examiners, which was recommended by the minority of the Medical Acts Commissioners, had been adopted, instead of the views of the majority. But with regard to the general objects of the Bill, he thought there was little difference of opinion. Not only the Universities, but the Medical Corporations of Scotland, were agreed that it was desirable to put an end to the system of licensing men who had not a complete qualification. That would be accomplished by the Bill; but be thought it was very desirable that the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) with regard to the final examination should be adopted by the Government. Both the Universities and the Corporations of Scotland had considerable hesitation about the Bill, inasmuch as they thought it would interfere with their individual independence. The Universities could not very well do without the Medical Corporations, and the Medical Corporations could not do without the Universities; and it was very desirable that both should be supported. He hoped, whatever the shape in which the measure would pass into law, that they would find that neither the individual character nor the individual independence of the different Universities and Corporations had been seriously interfered with. In Committee there would be many Amendments proposed, without which he thought there would be great opposition to the Bill. However, from what he had heard, they might, he thought, assume that all facility would be given for full consideration of Amendments in Committee; and if the right hon. Gentleman the Viet1 President of the Council would accept the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh University, and find some way of getting over the difficulty of final examination, a great impediment would be taken out of the way for the peaceful progress of the Bill.
  MR. GRAYsaid, that while heartily sympathizing to a certain extent with the objects of the Bill, he could not but regard it with a certain amount of apprehension. Its centralizing tendency, which he distrusted, might be extremely applicable to England; but the effect of that centralizing tendency would in Ireland be disastrous. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlet (Mr. Bryce) said he did not oppose the Bill on principle, though he had opposed it in its details; but every argument that the hon. Member used was an argument not against the details of the Bill, but against its principle. The principle of the Bill was to destroy independent Local Corporations. Now, he (Mr. Gray) did not set himself up to speak as a judge of the Medical Profession of England and Scotland, or the manner in which the Corporations in those countries performed their duties; but he maintained that the effect of the Bill would be to extinguish, eventually, the Medical Corporations of Ireland. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Not at all.] He might be permitted to have his opinion, and that opinion, as well as the opinion of men of a leading position in the Medical Profession, was that the eventual effect of the Bill would be to extinguish the Irish Medical Corporations; and he maintained they did not deserve the fate the Bill would bring on them, for they had had a long and an honourable record. They had striven manfully, in spite of great difficulties and great temptations, to elevate the standard of medical qualifications in Ireland; and it was no reason, because one or two Corporations in one part of the United Kingdom appeared to think more of the fees to be received than the maintenance of the standard of education, why they should now endanger all the other great Medical Corporations of the three countries. No doubt, the annals of Parliament were full of abortive Bills dealing with medical education, and he was reluctant to oppose any well-considered scheme on the subject; but he objected to any measure endangering the old established Corporations for the sake of a theoretic change. He viewed, with a considerable amount of distrust, Bills introduced late in an afternoon, the principle of which every person appeared to admit, but the details of which were condemned on all sides.
  1278
  The manner in which such Bills were introduced always pointed to one thing —an agreement by which the opponents of the Bill were squared by the Government. He would like to know why the Government would not apply, in this matter, the arrangement which worked so satisfactorily for many years in connection with it? own Medical Service? The Government were not satisfied with the medical degrees conferred by the existing Corporations, and insisted on a second examination at Netley; but, although they had a separate examination, no candidate was admitted to that examination until he passed through some of the existing Bodies. That was a satisfactory arrangement; but the effect of the present Bill would be to drain away the resources of the existing Medical Corporations and transfer their revenues to the new Government Boards. Now, the very limited experience he had of Government Boards disinclined him very much to believe that any great improvement would be effected by the introduction of another of them into Ireland, more especially when the effect of their introduction would be to destroy the independent institutions already in existence there, of which every Irishman was proud. He also objected to the undue importance given to the Universities under these new Boards. What title had the University of Dublin and the Royal University to the appointment of four members to the Irish Examining Board, while only three members each were given to the College of Physicians and the College of Surgeons? Another serious objection to the Bill was that it would destroy an ancient Corporate Body in Ireland known as the Board of Apothecaries, which was analogous to the Pharmaceutical Society of England. [Mr. MUNDELLA: That is not the proposal of the Bill.] Of course, that was not the proposal of the Bill in so many words; but the Bill did not propose to give the Board of Apothecaries any representation on the new Board; and, not being represented, it need hardly be said the effect of the new system would be to destroy that Corporation. The examinations of that Body might not be as high in their standard as those of the Universities, but it by no means followed that they were inadequate. To suppose that a uniform standard of examination ought to be in-

  1279
  sisted on both, for a skilled specialist and a gentleman supplying the wants of the poorer classes was absurd.
  It being ten minutes before (Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.
  The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes to Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock.