Commons Sitting of 23 July 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered;—First Heading—Metropolitan Police Staff Superannuation*[246].
Second Reading —Revising Barristers [237]; Evidence by Commission *[238]; Police Enfranchisement Extension [219], debate adjourned.
Referred to Select Committee—Crown Lands*[51]:
Committee—Pluralities (re-comm.) [241]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Customs and Inland Revenue (No. 2) [223].
Considered as amended—Committee—Report—Medical Belief Disqualification Removal [232].
Considered as amended—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)*[224].

SOUTH WARK AND VAUXHALL WATER BILL [Lords].
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the case of the Southwark and Vauxhall" Water Bill [Lords'], Standing Order 204 be dispensed with."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that this was the same Bill in regard to which the House had arrived at a decision on the previous Tuesday. On that occasion it was proposed to suspend Standing Order 235; but the House rejected the Motion, and by so doing virtually refused to read the Bill a second time. He had been desirous on that occasion of moving that the Bill be read a second time upon that day three months; but in consequence of the form in which the proposal was placed upon the Paper he was precluded from moving that Amendment, and, consequently, the Bill could not at that stage be finally disposed of, although the House certainly discussed the merits of the scheme at some length before it decided not to suspend the Standing Order on Tuesday. The result, technically, was that the promoters were not at that time able to propose the second reading; but they now proposed to return to the attack, and, as a first step in their further action, they invited the House to suspend Standing Order 204, which related only to the question of Notice as between three and seven days. Of course, that was comparatively a minor matter; but, after the decision of the House the other day, he thought they would be perfectly justified in refusing to assent to any proposal in regard to this Bill at all, which ought justly to be regarded as one which had been rejected as a Bill by the House on the second reading. He understood that he could not move any Amendment to this particular Motion; but he certainly objected to the Motion itself.
MR. PEMBERTONsaid, he desired to explain how the matter stood. He had no interest whatever in the Bill, and he was only acting for the right hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and

1611
Means, who had charge of Private Bills, and who was absent on that occasion from indisposition. He wished simply to point out that this proceeding was solely to enable the Bill to be submitted to the House again and to be tried upon its merits on Monday next. The Standing Order required that it should be brought forward not more than seven days after the first reading; but that was impossible now, owing to what took place the other day. As to the merits of the Bill, he had nothing whatever to do with them; but he thought he might say that, as far as the Private Bill Office was concerned, his right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means saw no objection to this proceeding, and, as he had said, the House would have an opportunity of discussing the Bill upon its merits on Monday. This Motion was only submitted in order to enable the House to entertain the Bill again. So far as the merits were concerned, he would not say that the House would have rejected the Bill if it had been in possession of the full facts. At all events, he believed it was undoubted that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would have assented, on behalf of the Government, to the Bill on Tuesday if a certain clause had been introduced. As that was the case, he thought the House would feel that it was only fair, seeing that a false issue had been presented to it on the former occasion, that no technical Rule should be enforced so as to prevent the House from having the whole question properly and fairly put before it.
COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he believed, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had explained, that the sense of the House was against the Bill on a former occasion, because it did not contain a particular clause which was in it when it was originally introduced into the House of Lords about the purchase of a dust-yard at Battersea Park. There was also another clause objected to in reference to the putting up of the fresh capital to auction. He was informed and believed that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board was now satisfied, and that the Water Company was prepared to re-introduce the Bill with the clause relating to the purchase of the site at Battersea, and also with an amended clause dealing with the capital
1612
powers. So that the only objections which had been urged against the Bill had been removed by the Company voluntarily. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be only fair to give to the Company an opportunity of having the question argued again upon its merits, and to afford them that opportunity he would support the Motion now before the House authorising the Standing Order to be suspended.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he should like, after what had taken place, to say a word upon this Bill. He thought that no objection could now be made to the Motion. On Tuesday he had raised an objection on behalf of the Government to the Bill as it was introduced into that House, because no provision was contained in it for removing the dust-yard, which, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, contaminated one of the filter beds of the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company. But the Company had acceded to the demands of the Local Government Board in reference to that dust-yard, and had gone further and proposed to introduce a certain clause with respect of the debenture capital, on which point some objection was raised on Tuesday. The reason which induced him now to urge the House most strongly not to stop the Bill was that he was informed by the official responsible to the Local Government Board in matters connected with the water supply of London, that it was absolutely and vitally essential to the water supply of the Metropolis that this Bill should pass, or otherwise the water supply of this particular district would run short. The maximum had already been reached, or nearly so. The population of the district supplied by the Water Company was largely increasing, and if the Bill were not carried, this part of London, supplied by the Southwark and Vauxhall Company, would, in all probability, receive an insufficient supply. The responsibility was so great that he was convinced the House would not interpose any obstacle in the way of the passing of the Rill.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, ho could not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. It was perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman was one of the Gentlemen on

1613
the other side of the House who, when the Bill was under discussion on Tuesday, raised the question of the dust-yard; but that was really, so far as he (Mr. Labouchere) conceived, to throw dust in the eyes of the House, for it had absolutely nothing to do with the question, and was altogether a minor point. The real objection to the Bill was taken by the hon. Baronet the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg)—namely)that the Metropolitan Board of Works had not agreed to the provisions of the Bill, but had opposed it, before the House of Lords, as representatives of the ratepayers of London, and had declared that if it wore persisted in, they would oppose it before the Committee of that House. What the Metropolitan Board objected to, and what the House agreed upon on Tuesday, was that the Bill had been introduced without the concurrence of the Metropolitan Board. What was urged was that no Bill of any Water Company ought to be read a second time in that House, or sent to a Committee upstairs, unless it had upon it the imprimatur of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board. That was his (Mr. Labouchere's) idea of local self-government. Hon. Members knew perfectly well that it was always intended, when the Bill for the re-arrangement of the institutions of London was brought on, that London itself should have an opportunity of deciding upon these water questions, and the only reason why that was not the case now was that there had been no time to bring in the large Municipal Bill which had been so long promised. Until that Bill was brought in, he thought they ought to place some permanent authority in these matters in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that if this Bill were not passed, this particular part of London would be put on a short supply. The right hon. Gentleman only heard that from the Company themselves.
THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)begged the hon. Member's pardon. What ho had stated was that he received this information from the official responsible to the Local Government Board in matters connected with the water supply of the Metropolis.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that might be so; but all these gentlemen were very
1614
much under the influence of the Water Companies. Was this part of London put upon a short supply now, or was it likely that it was going to be placed on a short supply, if the House refused to read this Bill a second time? This was just the sort of thing which the Water Company would say—"If you do not give us leave to borrow £200,000 on our own promise, we will put you on short supply." That had been the bullying habit of the Water Companies for a long time. Ho did not believe in a short supply. One of the reasons why the Metropolitan Board opposed the Bill was that, if the money were borrowed without any arrangement as to back dividends, when the public came to buy up this Water Company they would have to pay 100 percent on all the increased capital which Parliament was now asked to authorize. The law, as it at present stood, was most unfair to the consumer, and whenever these Water Companies came for fresh powers to Parliament, protection ought to be given in order to make the Company pay a species of ransom for the right of getting fresh capital. He would not enter into details, as that was not the time for doing so; but he would remind the House that they had already refused to suspend the Standing Orders, and had come to that decision on the merits of the case. Everyone who voted on Tuesday against the suspension of the Standing Orders, did so under the impression that he was voting against the second reading of the Bill; and now, after having practically decided against the second reading, they were asked, for the benefit of this Water Company, to support this wretched Bill. When the House went to a division on Tuesday, there were a great many more Members present than there were now; but he trusted, if they were to divide again, that the same result would be arrived at.
MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, that, individually, he was as much opposed to granting additional powers to the Water Companies as any Member of the House could possibly be; but he thought, in this case, that the appeal which had been made by the President of the Local Government Board was one that ought to be listened to. The proposal was merely to suspend one of the Standing Orders so that the whole question might be discussed. He thought

1615
enough had been thrown out to convince the House that with justice the Standing Order might be suspended, and the whole matter discussed on Monday on its merits.
MR. BIGGARsaid, that as a question of Order he would ask whether or not, as the Motion had been objected to, it ought not, as a matter of course, to stand over until to-morrow?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that that Rule only applied to Orders of the Day. The Motion did not come before the House as an Order of the Day, but its only object was to facilitate a further stage of the Bill at a future time. Therefore, it was not irregular to discuss the Motion now.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 53: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No. 240.)
Ordered, That, in the case of the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Bill [Lords], Standing; Order 204 be dispensed with.

QUESTIONS.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)— STEWARTSTOWN PETTY SESSIONS-PARTY PROCESSIONS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the magistrates in Stewartstown Petty Sessions ordered that no drumming parties should be allowed to parade the roads in their district; whether, in spite of this order by the magistrates, the police allowed the Orange Party to parade the roads on 1st, 13th, and 14th instant, without interference; whether, on the 13th, they stopped a party of Nationalists; and, whether he will take care that the police for time to come carry out impartially the orders of the magistrates?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): It appears that the magistrates made an order forbidding drumming parties in the public streets; but, on the 1st instant, they directed the police not to enforce the order without further instructions. The police consequently did not interfere with the Orangemen on the 1st, 13th, and 14th instant. On the 13th instant, the sergeant turned a drumming party of Nationalists back in order to prevent their coming into collision with a large
  1616
  body of Orangemen who were returning home. The Police authorities are satisfied that if this had not been done a serious riot would have occurred. On a previous occasion they treated a party of Orangemen in Coalisland in a similar manner. From the reports I have received I do not think that any charge of partiality can be sustained against the police in the discharge of a most difficult duty.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—MUSSEL FISHERIES.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secresary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, so long ago as April last, the Rev. James O'Laverty, P.P. of Holy-wood, county Down, wrote to the Conservators of Irish Fisheries, complaining of the great destruction of Mussel Fisheries in Belfast Lough; and, if so, why no action has been taken thereon, and why no reply has, up to the present, been sent to the Rev. gentleman; and, if the inspectors will now take any action thereon or make inquiries into the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): It appears that through some oversight in the Office of the Fishery Inspectors no action was taken on Mr. O'Laverty's letter. The officer responsible has been admonished to be more careful in future, and the Inspectors will proceed to hold an inquiry into the matter complained of. They fear, however, that under the present law they will have no power to apply a remedy.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CAVAN GRAND JURY.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the charges made by the Secretary to the Cavan Grand Jury for contract forms, cheques, &c. are legal charges; and, if not, will he use his influence to have the illegality discontinued?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The Secretary of a Grand Jury is not an officer of Government, and it does not fall within my province to advise as to the legality of the charges he may make. It is open to those who doubt his power to make these charges to contest the matter in such a way as they may be advised.

SEA FISHERIES (IRELAND)—THE BOYLE AND BANN.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, "Whether it is a fact that the steamer employed by the Conservators of Fisheries, Londonderry district, and the lessees under the Irish Society of the Salmon Fisheries of the Boyle and Bann, is still allowed to go among the fishing fleet at night in the open sea off the county of Londonderry, and without lights, notwithstanding the late inquiry held by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, and that a few nights ago she ran through the nets belonging to poor fishermen who were legally fishing in the open sea at the time; if the coastguard made any report on the subject; and, what steps will be taken to prevent this steamer continuing the acts of injury which were sworn to at the inquiry referred to?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): A Report in this matter has been made by the Coastguard, and the Inspectors of Fisheries are at present investigating it. They inform me that in some particulars the allegations are conflicting. I will ask the Inspectors to give me a Report when they have finished the inquiries.

THE LIGHTHOUSE COMMISSION—PROFESSOR TYNDALL.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government have under their consideration, in the interests of science and of the Maritime welfare of the Country, the advisability of requesting Professor Tyndall to resume the position he recently occupied in connection with the Lighthouse Commission?
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In March, 1883, Professor Tyndall resigned the office of Scientific Adviser to the Trinity House, the Commissioners of Irish Lights, and the Board of Trade. He has made no application to the President to be reinstated in that position.

LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—ABSTRACTION OF CATTLE, CO. LEITRIM.
COLONEL O'BELRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that two bullocks, value
1618
respectively £12 each, were driven off a farm in the parish of Kiltoghart, county Leitrim, the property of Francis O'Beirne, a minor, on the night of the 13th inst., and that the cattle have not yet been found, although the country all round the farm for a radius of ten miles has been searched by the police; whether it is also a fact, that in May 1882 fourteen bullocks, worth £16 each, were driven off a farm, the property of a Mr. Ormsby Lawder, and close to Fenagh Police Barracks, county Leitrim, and that up to present date, in each of the above-mentioned instances, no traces of the stolen cattle have been found, nor the person or persons who carried out the robbery; if any reason can be assigned for the complete failure of the authorities in each instance, either to trace the whereabouts of the stolen property or to obtain some information as to who or what were the persons that planned and effected the theft; and, what legal redress is available to the owners of the stolen property?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The facts are as stated in the two first paragraphs of this Question. The Divisional Magistrate assures me that no effort has been spared to trace the animals and the perpetrators of the thefts; and he has himself personally directed the inquiries, and can say that nothing has been neglected, though the exertions of the police have, so far, been unsuccessful. I will see that the vigilance of the police in this matter is not relaxed.

INDIA—NATIVE STATES-EXPULSION OF A FRENCH CITIZEN FROM TRAVANCORE.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the India Office has any information regarding the expulsion from the Native State of Travancore of M. Montelar, a French citizen; and, if so, by what authority he was expelled, and why?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL), in reply, said, that the matter referred to in the Question occurred some years ago. M. Montelar had been discovered by the Regent of Travancore to be engaged in some very questionable business; and having abused his influence, the Regent requested him to leave the territory. This step was concurred in by the Govern-

1619
ment of Madras as being essential to the welfare of Travancore.

THE LUNACY REPORTS (ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND).
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the English and Scotch Lunacy Reports will be presented; and, whether there is any insurmountable difficulty in getting them printed at an earlier date in future?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY), who replied, said, that the Report of the English Commissioners was presented to Parliament yesterday. The Report of the Scotch Commissioners was now in type, and he had reason to hope that it would be presented to the House before the end of the month. The delay in the issue of these Reports was due to the large amount of statistical matter which the Commissioners had considered it desirable to include in the Reports; and he was informed that the Reports could not be presented earlier, unless an increase was either made in the staff of the Commissioners or a considerable amount of the information presented to the public was omitted.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked if an abstract could not be presented at an earlier date?
THE UNDER SECRETARY or STATE (Mr. STUART- WORTLEY): I will make inquiry.

THE UNITED STATES—BOUNTY ON SUGAR EXPORTATION.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the fact that 73,000 tons of refined sugar have been imported from the United States in the first six months of this year, and that, according to statements made in America, a bounty of £2 per ton is paid by the United States Government on its exportation?
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): It is a fact that 73,000 tons of refined sugar have been imported from the United States in the first six months of the present year. In reply to the latter part of the noble Lord's Question, I would say that Her Majesty's Minister at Washington has recently reported
1620
that a Commission has been appointed by the new Administration of the United States to consider the drawbacks, and that in some of the evidence taken before that Commission the present bounty on refined sugar has been estimated at £2 per ton.

HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION—NATIONAL HARBOURS OF REFUGE.
MR. CHARLES ROSSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of the Government to adopt the recommendation of the Select Committee on Harbour Accommodation (1884), and to appoint a Commission for the purpose of visiting and reporting on those portions of the coasts of the United Kingdom which have been indicated in the Report of the Committee as sites suitable for the construction of National Harbours of Refuge, or as localities urgently in need of refuges especially adapted to the requirements of fishermen and of the coasting trade?
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Her Majesty's Government have no intention of departing from the policy of successive Governments during the last 25 years under which they have hitherto declined to make grants of public money for harbour construction, except in cases of Imperial and National necessity. As the recommendation by the Select Committee of the appointment of such a Commission as is suggested in my hon. Friend's Question contemplated grants of public money, and not loans, the Government do not propose to appoint this Commission. With regard to the subject of loans to harbour authorities, the Treasury and the Board of Trade are considering the matter.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—DISTRICT INSPECTOR GIBBONS.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether James S. Gibbons, District Inspector, Irish Constabulary, who, as appears by official returns, was—
"Promoted ten steps on the seniority list, and granted a first-class favourable record (1. 11. Y. S.) for special detective intelligence and capacity, as shown in the successful prosecution of the Maamtrasna murderers,"
still retains the post of District Inspector, and the seniority so granted, al-

1621
though he has been serving for more than two years past as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Egyptian police; and, whether he will be removed from the Irish force?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): In April, 1883, the services of Mr. Gibbons were lent to the Egyptian Government for a period of two years in connection with their Police Force, and, on their application, the time has been extended by a further 12 months. Mr. Gibbons is allowed to retain the rank he held in the Royal Irish Constabulary, but without pay. He will not, of course, be promoted to any higher rank should his turn arise while he is serving in Egypt.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—EXPENSES OF WITNESSES—MRS. MARGARET RAFTERY.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any representation has been made to the Irish Government, or whether they are aware that, out of the sum of £42 5s. Od. allowed by the Crown for the expenses of Margaret Raftery, who attended at Summer and Winter Assizes 1883, and Spring, Summer, and Winter Assizes 1884, as witness for the defence in the case of the Craughwell prisoners, the sum of £13 2s. Od. remains still unpaid; and, what steps will be taken to secure the discharge of the debt?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The Crown Solicitor in this case is on duty at the Assizes, and in his absence from his head-quarters he is unable to give me a Report on the subject. I will, therefore, ask the hon. Member to repeat the Question on Monday next.

EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—THE SUAKIN AND RED SEA FORCE—THE INDIAN CONTINGENT.
MR. M'LARENasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the officers and men of the Indian contingent at Suakin, under orders to return to Bombay at the beginning of June, have yet embarked; and, if so, in what transport; whether the Goa, the Scindia, the Roehampton, or the Persian Monarch transports were successively intended for this service, and whether none of these vessels arrived at Suakin last
1622
month; and, if he can say how many of the Force in question have been invalided during June, what has become of those invalided, and how many horses and camels at Suakin have died in the same period?
THE SECRETARY or STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH), who replied, said: The 9th Bengal Cavalry, to which, I presume, the hon. Member refers, left Suakin on the 10th of June in the Italy and Persian Monarch, and had reached Bombay on the 21st of June. The Goa, Scindia, and five other vessels not only arrived last month at Suakin but subsequently reached Bombay within the month, with followers, labourers, and mules. The Roehampton arrived later, and left Suakin for Bombay on the 12th of July. I am not yet in a position to state the casualties and invaliding for the month of June.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE MILITIA.
MR. RICHARD POWERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take into consideration the advisability of giving the Militia regiments now embodied an assurance of not being disembodied before a definite date, so that the officers and non-commissioned officers may be enabled to make arrangements with regard to the housing of their families, which they cannot do in the present state of uncertainty?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am afraid that I can give no such assurance. The duration of the embodiment of the Militia must depend upon political conditions, which I cannot forecast.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS AT ARKLOW.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Postmaster General, Whether the request of the people of the Johnstown Post Office District, near Arklow, for a different arrangement in regard to the delivery of letters, will be acceded to?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord JOHN MANNERS): The inquiries on the subject to which the hon. Member refers are not yet complete; but I have ascertained that if the rural post of Arklow wore not despatched until after the arrival of the day mail at Arklow, a detention of four hours, and not

1623
two hours only, as suggested in the Memorial, would be necessary; and it seems doubtful whether the majority of the residents would acquiesce in such a change. There is also a question of affording a collection of letters in the evening over the whole line of post; but it is feared that the expense involved in meeting the wishes of the Memorialists would be greater than the correspondence would warrant. On this point, however, further information is being collected.

EDUCATION (IRELAND)—NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' RESIDENCES.
COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will consider the advisability of extending the period of repayment for loans for teachers' residences in Ireland from 35 to 50 years, thus reducing the annual charge from £5 to £3 15s. per cent., as suggested in a Memorial by the Catholic Bishops recently laid upon the Table?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The extension suggested by the Roman Catholic Bishops cannot, I fear, be agreed to, either in the interests of managers and teachers, or of the public. I may add that in any case the change would have required legislation, and therefore could not have been secured this Session. The question whether any less extension would be possible will receive careful consideration.

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND).
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government, in view of the experience obtained from attempts to work the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, will consider the suggestion made by the Grand Jury of Sligo, in their Petition presented to the House on the 17th instant, that certain provisions of the Relief of Distress Act, 1880, should be applied to Tramways and similar undertakings in the West of Ireland; and, whether the Government will endeavour to pass, this Session, a short Bill to deal with the subject, or will introduce Clauses for the purpose into some Bill before Parliament?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The Grand Jury
1624
of Sligo have communicated with me on this subject, but I am unable to hold out any hope of legislation in the direction suggested in their Petition. It is impossible to institute any comparison between the circumstances of the present time and those of 1880, when public money was advanced at very exceptional rates to meet the prevailing distress.

LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.
MR. SMALLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government intend to introduce into the Irish Land Purchase Bill any provision for the relief of the purchasers of church and glebe lands, or any provision to enable such purchasers to obtain a loan of the balance of the purchase-money due to the Irish Land Commissioners at a less rate than that which they have to pay said Commissioners, namely, five and a-half per cent.?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): This matter is at present under consideration; but the time at the disposal of the Government renders it difficult for them to incur fresh legislative obligations without great circumspection.

FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND—THE GREYSTONES HARBOUR.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If Grey-stones Harbour is to be constructed on the monolithic system, as asked by the inhabitants of the town in a recent Memorial to the Treasury?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I am making inquiries into this matter, and I would be obliged to the hon. Member if he would postpone his Question until Monday.

IRISH LUNACY REPORT.
MR. W. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the Report of the Inspector of Lunatics has not been presented to Parliament; and, will he take steps to have it printed in future earlier in the year?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The Inspectors inform me that their Report had been unavoidably delayed by pressure of

1625
business of an urgent nature at the Government printing office. They add that this is an exceptional year, and that a similar delay is not likely to occur in future.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — EDUCATION"OF THE DEAF—A ROYAL COMMISSION.
MR. ACKERSasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he will advise that a Royal Commission be appointed to consider the education and condition of the deaf in the United Kingdom, similar to the Commission that has been granted in the case of the blind?
THE VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have already stated the form of inquiry which Her Majesty's Government think ought to be instituted into the education of the deaf and dumb; and although it is very possible that some principles which may be laid down by the Royal Commission on the condition of the blind may be also applicable to the case of the deaf, we do not see our way to the appointment of a second Commission.

EGYPT (WAR IN THE SOUDAN)— MEDICAL OFFICERS.
MR. BERESFORDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that some of the Medical Officers, recently returned from the campaign in the Soudan, are to be sent abroad again immediately; what is the usual run of home service for Surgeons and Surgeon Majors; with reference to the recent rules made as to examinations for promotion, what chance have the Medical Officers of attending Civil Hospitals and gaining information, and why are not Medical Officers allowed leave to attend classes as the combatant officers are to attend Garrison Classes for their promotion examinations; and, can no arrangement be made which would insure a Medical Officer remaining at least a year in a station without a move?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Service in Egypt and the Soudan does not count as a tour of foreign service unless it extends to 12 months; and, therefore, medical officers who have returned home after less than that service there will be required to complete their periods of foreign ser-
1626
vice, and will probably be sent abroad during the autumn for this purpose. The tour of home service during peace ranges from two and a-half to three years. Campaigns abroad reduce this average in proportion to the medical officers required. Medical officers, as a rule, have 61 days' leave yearly, during which they can adopt-any means they think desirable for increasing their professional knowledge. Special leave for the purpose of attending civil hospitals is occasionally granted; but the grant could not be made a general practice unless the medical staff were greatly augmented, the number of medical officers scarcely sufficing at any time for the work to be performed. Officers can attend civil hospitals or schools at places where they are stationed if their military duties are not thereby interfered with. Every endeavour is made to keep officers at the same station during a tour of home service. With this view applications for change of station are constantly refused.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES IN SCOTLAND.
MR. C. S. PARKERasked the honourable Member for Bute, Whether Her Majesty's Government are willing to insert in the Housing of the Working Classes (England) Bill a Clause applying the Act, or parts of it, to Scotland (as in "The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1868," amended by the Bill); and, whether they will give effect to the suggestion of the Royal Commissioners that the expenses of transfer of small houses could be reduced (probably without loss of revenue), by making some abatement of the registration fees in Scotland, and of the Stamp Duties on such transfers, throughout the United Kingdom?
THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. DALRYMPLE): In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I have to say that I cannot positively state whether it is proposed to make the Bill applicable to Scotland or not; but I may mention that there are clauses in the Burgh Health and Police (Scotland) Bill which will secure the same benefits to Scotland which are desired by my hon. Friend. At the same time, unless the Scotch Members are disposed to accept that enormous Bill en bloc, it is not likely to be proceeded with this

1627
Session. As regards the second part of the Question, that will be answered by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.
THE SECEETAEY TO THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The suggestion of the Royal Commissioners will, no doubt, receive due consideration; but, as at present advised, the Revenue authorities do not think the present scale of stamp duties on transfers of small houses unreasonable. A reduction of the scale in cases of a small consideration would be subversive of the principle of an ad valorem, scale, and it would be difficult to confine any reduction to cases where the purchaser was poor. As regards the register house fees on searches, these are being reconsidered, with a view to their reduction.

CHINA—NAVIGATION OF SHANGHAI RIVER.
MR. SUTHERLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will direct the attention of the Chinese authorities to the necessity of removing all traces of the barriers which were constructed some time ago at the entrance of the Shanghai River, with the intention of eventually blocking access to that port, inasmuch as these partial barriers, remaining in the Channel, constitute a danger to safe navigation; and, whether, at the same time, Her Majesty's Government will further urge upon the Chinese authorities the imperative necessity of resuming the work of dredging the entrance to the Shanghai River, which, only having been undertaken after long and continuous pressure on the part of the mercantile and shipping communities, was suddenly discontinued before any real work had been done?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Pekin will be directed to represent to the Chinese authorities the importance of removing all obstructions to navigation at the mouth of the Shanghai River. Instructions were sent in June of last year to the late Sir Harry Parkes to press on the attention of the Chinese Government the necessity of putting back the dredger which had been sent from England for the purpose of clearing the Woosung Bar, but which
1628
was temporarily removed to another place. Mr. O'Conor will now be directed to urge the Chinese authorities to proceed with this important work with the least possible delay.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) BILL.
MR. ERESHFIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is his intention to move the insertion of a Clause in the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Bill, to increase the scale of allowance prescribed by "The Returning Officers Act, 1875," in respect of the presiding officers and clerks employed in elections, in consequence of the enlargement of the constituency, the increased number of the polling places and the clerks necessary, and the extension of the hours of polling?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER), who replied, said, that he must remind the hon. Member for Dover that this question was practically answered on Monday. He might, however, state that several Amendments having been put down by independent Members, which would enable the House to express an opinion on this matter, it was not the intention of the Home Secretary to propose any clause himself.

IMPERIAL DEFENCES—DEFENCE OF LONDONDERRY HARBOUR.
MR. LEWISasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he has received a Communication from the Port and Harbour Commissioners of Londonderry, complaining of the defenceless state of that port, and of Lough Foyle generally; whether the Government contemplate any steps to improve the condition of affairs, either by a man-of-war being stationed there, or a training ship and a volunteer torpedo brigade in connection therewith; and, if any, and what, local aid can be recommended by the Government?
THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Yes; a communication has been received from the Port and Harbour Commissioners of Londonderry, complaining of the defenceless state of that port and of Lough Foyle generally. The Government do not contemplate stationing a vessel of war

1629
permanently at Lough Foyle. In time of war every assistance would be rendered by the Navy to protect the coasts of the United Kingdom to the extent which could be afforded by cruising ships, but vessels could not be kept permanently for the defence of any one port; such permanent defences must be provided by fortifications and gunboats, supplemented, if necessary, by torpedo boats, submarine mines, and torpedoes. As to the establishment of torpedo corps for the protection of the various commercial ports in the United Kingdom and the manner in which they can be provided and manned in an efficient manner, the question is at present being thoroughly considered, but no decision has as yet been finally arrived at.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOL GRANTS—VICAR OF ST. MARK'S, SOUTH SHIELDS.
MR. BROADHURSTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether his attention has been called to a recent case in the Newcastle on Tyne Bankruptcy Court of the Vicar of St. Mark's, South Shields, in which it was stated in evidence that he had handed over for the purpose of liquidating his debts, among other sources of income, his draft from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and his "school grant;" whether ho will cause inquiry to be made into the truth of these statements; and, whether the teaching staff of the school for which the grant was intended have lost any part of their income in consequence of such reported diversion of funds?
THE VICE PRESIDENT (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I have not seen any such statement as that to which the hon. Member refers, nor has he, as I requested, furnished me with a copy of it. It is a fact that during the last two years the Vicar of St. Mark's, South Shields, has been in difficulties; but the suggestion of this Question is that public money has been applied by him to liquidate his private debts. The hon. Member does not seem to be aware that the "draft from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners," which means the half-yearly cheque sent by them in payment of his stipend, is absolutely at the disposal of the vicar. The school grant, which is awarded to the managers of the school after each examination, form
1630
part of the general income of the school, and has been handed over by the Vicar to his solicitor, with instructions to pay school liabilities out of the school grant. The cash-books and vouchers are annually submitted to the Inspector of Schools, and I am informed that no member of the teaching staff has lost any of his income, although on one occasion, owing to a lack of funds, there was an unavoidable delay. Perhaps the House will allow me to express an opinion that it is hardly fair to bring charges of dishonesty in the form of a Question without taking the trouble to verify their correctness in any way.
MR. BROADHURST: My Question was based on a newspaper report which I hold in my hand. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that I had asked a Question only, and it is a departure from the recognized principles for a Member of the Government to make such a statement in answer to a Question.

THE NEW EGAYPTAN LOAN (£9,000,000).
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true that negotiations are in progress for the very early issue of the £9,000,000 new Egyptian Loan; and, if so, whether, in pursuance of the pledges of both the late and the present Government that the requirements of the Law in this matter should be fulfilled, any steps have yet been taken to convene the Egyptian General Assembly and submit to them the proposal for a new loan, as required by the Egyptian Constitution in the case of a loan of this amount, thus:—Article 60. The General Assembly shall be consulted on every public loan exceeding £1,000,000?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BOURKE): It is quite true that negotiations are in progress for the issue of this loan. Her Majesty's Government cannot pledge themselves to the view taken for some time by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy in respect to the General Assembly. It is a question in which I know the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest; but, at the same time, the Government have every reason to believe that the Egyptian Government will take all the steps with respect to it which they consider to be legally necessary. With respect to the other

1631
Question asked by the hon. Member, I do not think I can go into that matter within the limits of a Parliamentary answer.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, surely the hon. Gentleman could say if it was a fact that the Assembly had been convened, and that the loan proposed would be laid before it?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE: We have received corroboration of the telegram on the subject.
MR. RUSTONasked whether the statements that had appeared in the newspapers were substantially correct, to the effect that the whole of the Great Powers had given their consent to the raising of this loan?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE: I think I have answered that Question before. Yes, Sir; the statements are substantially correct.

THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
SIR HARRY YERNEYasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Government, in view of the rebuilding of the Portrait Gallery, which will soon require more space, and of the Natural History Museum, which Sir Richard Owen declared would require in another generation to be enlarged, will acquire from the Commissioners of the South Kensington Exhibition the extra land now offered for building lots on each side of the entrance in Queen's Gate, which otherwise will have to be bought at great cost when the public buildings in question require increase?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): I cannot foresee any circumstances which are likely to arise which would justify me in asking the Government to purchase the lots of ground on each side of the entrance in Queen's Gate referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet. The Government are now the owners of 16 acres of land adjoining the property of the Exhibition Commissioners of 1851. Of this only four acres are at present covered by the Natural History Museum, so that there will be ample space for enlarging that building whenever it becomes necessary to do so, and also for the erection of a new building for the National Portrait Gallery if it should be thought desirable to build it at South Kensington; but
1632
nothing has yet been decided on that subject.

EGYPT—SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF'S MISSION.
MR. M'LARENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can give the House any further information as to the mission of the Right honourable Member for Portsmouth; and, whether he will lay the terms of his instructions upon the Table?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid that I have nothing to state to the House on this subject. The matter is not yet settled.
MR. M'LAREN: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to lay the terms of the Instructions to the right hon. Gentleman upon the Table?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I could not make any promise on this subject without first communicating with my noble Friend the Prime Minister. I have not had the opportunity of doing so, as the Question only appeared on the Paper to-day.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he intends to proceed with the Scotch Universities Bill, and if so, after what hour he will not proceed with it? I take this opportunity of informing the right hon. Gentleman that several Notices in regard to this Bill were dropped from the Paper in consequence of the statement formerly made on the subject.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I do not quite understand whether the hon. Member intends to state that the opposition to this Bill is diminishing or increasing.
MR. J. W. BARCLAY: What I say is, that in consequence of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman last week—not saying decisively, but indicating—that the Government had abandoned the Bill, the Notices have been allowed to drop in the expectation that the Bill would not be allowed to go on. What I ask now is, does he intend to proceed with the Bill?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I stated that as far as I could learn the feeling of the hon. Members

1633
for Scotland on the subject, the opposition was such that it would be impossible to proceed with the Bill; but I have heard since that that opposition is decreasing. Although we do not propose to proceed with it to-night, we would like to keep it amongst the Orders for to-morrow night to see what chances it may have.
CAPTAIN AYLMERasked, when the Government would take the Land Purchase Bill in the House of Commons?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I cannot name a day at present.
MR. PARNELLasked the Government, whether a day had yet been definitely fixed for the Queen's College Estimates?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, it would be impossible to say. He was afraid to take the Votes to-morrow; but he would be able to tell the hon. Member before the evening was over.
MR. BUCHANANasked, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would secure that the discussion in connection with the Telegraph Amendment Act should not prevent him bringing forward his Motion in regard to Heriot's Hospital?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that the Government would not take any Order that would throw the hon. Member later than half-past 12 o'clock; but it would be no use declining to proceed up to that time with their own Bills, though they would not proceed with anything after the Telegraphs Bill if it was likely to carry them beyond half-past 12 o'clock.

AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.
MR. R. H. PAGETasked, Whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would consent to lay on the Table a Return of the number of occasions on which the members of the Agricultural Committee of the Privy Council had been summoned to meet since the first appointment of the Committee in April, 1883; the names of the Committee present; and the official record, if any, of business transacted on each of such occasions?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Mr. CHAPLIN): No, Sir; I am afraid I cannot lay on the Table the Return for
1634
which my hon. Friend proposes to move, and for this reason. I have inquired into the matter; but I find there is no record in the Department of the Agricultural Committee, which was appointed in 1883. ever having been formally summoned, and consequently no record of the business transacted by them. With regard to the present Committee, it was only appointed on the 27th of June, and there has been no business before the Department to render such a course necessary. The hon. Member, however, will understand that it can be summoned at any time, and that it will be summoned at any time should the occasion arise.

EGYPT—THE SOUDAN—REPORTED DEATH OF THE MAHDI.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any information confirming the reported death of the Mahdi?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BOURKE): Yes, Sir; a telegram reached the Foreign Office a short time ago from Cairo. It mentions that Brigadier General Grenfell, who is on the Nile between Assouan and Wady Haifa, had telegraphed to Mr. Egerton to say the report of the Mahdi's death seemed to be generally confirmed; that a Sheik who had arrived in the neighbourhood of Assouan spoke of having attended the Mahdi's funeral. Most of the Mahdi's agents in and around Dongola appear to have returned South from that place, and Brigadier General Grenfell adds—"The news of the death is universally believed in and around Dongola."

CHINA—THE OPIUM TRADE—THE TREATY.
MR. CROPPERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he would be good enough to say whether the Treaty with China on the opium question had been signed; and, if so, when he would lay it on the Table?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BOURKE): The Treaty is signed, and will be laid on the Table as soon as

1635
possible. We are awaiting the ratification.

MOTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—HOUSE OF COMMONS—E. A. GOSSET, ESQ., SERJEANT-AT-ARMS.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I beg to move that the letter of Mr. Gosset be read by the Clerk at the Table.
  Motion agreed to.
  The following letter was then read:—
  "House of Commons,
  "20th July, 1885.
  Sir,
  "I have the honour to make application to you that you will be pleased to sanction my retirement on the 30th of September next from my office, by Patent, of Her Majesty's Serjeant-at-Arms attending the Speaker of the House of Commons.
  "I have been in the service of this honourable House for upwards of 49 years, and I feel that the time has arrived when it is desirable that I should no longer retain my appointment.
  "I make this early communication in order that arrangements may be made without inconvenience.
  "I hare the honour to be,
  "Sir,"
  Your very obedient Servant,
  "R. A. GOSSET,
  "Serjeant-at-Arms.
  "The Rt. Honble.
  "The Speaker."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am sure that the House will have received the letter which has just been read with a feeling of universal and sincere regret. The Serjeant-at-Arms entered the service of this House, as he reminds us in that letter, at a period now more than 49 years ago. He was first appointed on the 1st of July, 1836, as Assistant Serjeant by his father Sir William Gosset, who, as the House will recollect, was himself for 30 years Serjeant-at-Arms of this House. On the 1st of April, 1854, Mr. Gosset was promoted to be Deputy Serjeant, and on the 5th April, 1875, in response to what was at the time described as the strong if not the unanimous feeling of the House of Commons, Her Majesty was graciously
  1636
  pleased to appoint him Serjeant-at-Arms. This would be, in any event, a long record of able and faithful service to the State on the part of one of those officials to whom this House has always owed much, but to whom, I think, in view of our ever-increasing labours, it every year owes more on account of their faithful discharge of duty. But I think that the House will feel that this is no ordinary case. Mr. Gosset has not only obtained our confidence and esteem by the firmness and dignity with which he has always discharged the duties of a very important office, but he has also brought to bear upon the discharge of those duties—and I may perhaps say especially at those times when they have been most trying and most difficult—a genial and kindly courtesy which have won for him the affectionate regard of every Member of this House. Sir, we are very sorry to lose him. He has well earned the honourable repose which he seeks, and I am sure that he will carry with him into it a feeling of personal friendship on the part of everyone who has known him as a Member of this House. Sir, in accordance with precedent, I beg leave to move the Resolution which I now place in your hands.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Speaker be requested to acquaint Ralph Allen Gosset, esquire, that this House entertains a just sense of the exemplary manner in which he has uniformly discharged the duties of the office of Serjeant-at-Arms, and has devoted himself to the service of the House for a period of nearly fifty years."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I rise, Sir, with great satisfaction to second the Motion just made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I doubt if any Motion could be made in this House which would receive a more unanimous assent. There are few Members of this House—I doubt whether there is any Member present to-day—who can remember a period antecedent to that at which Mr. Gosset commenced his service towards this House. We all know the important nature of the duties with which he has been charged, and how much the personal convenience of Members depends upon those duties being discharged with diligence and judgment. The qualities which Mr. Gosset brought to bear upon the performance of those duties we have all experienced. We have all felt his

  1637
  constant courtesy and kindness, and I am sure that we join in the regret which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed that we are now to lose his services. We feel that in losing Mr. Gossot we are losing not merely an invaluable public servant, but each and all of us feel that we are losing a valued personal friend.
  MR. PAENELL: Sir. I desire to join in the expression of regret that Captain Cosset is to be no more among us in this House. Speaking for all my hon. Friends, as well as expressing my own opinion, I desire to take this opportunity of recording my high appreciation of the uniform kindness and courtesy which Captain Cosset has shown to each and all of us, and sometimes under trying circumstances. I do not know whether the old maxim is exemplified in regard to Captain Cosset—Hibernicis ipsis Hibernior. But it has been often observed that those who dwell among Irishmen catch some of their character, and especially of their humour and amiability. Captain Cosset has been, for many years, in that part of the House which is sacred to the Irish Members, no matter what Government is in power. Whether that fact has had any effect upon the natural disposition of Captain Cosset I cannot say; but we certainly have all found him exceptionally kind and amiable to us Irishmen who sit near him, and I have often noticed that, while generous and patient and good to everybody, Captain Cosset seemed to acquire an additionally pleasant aspect whenever he had to extend his courtesy to any one of us.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That Mr. Speaker be requested to acquaint Ralph Allen Gosset, esquire, that this House entertains a just sense of the exemplary manner in which he has uniformly discharged the duties of the office of Serjeant-at-Arms, and has devoted himself to the service of the House, for a period of nearly fifty years.

MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.
[Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Dalrymple.)
[BILL 232.] CONSIDERATION.
Bill, as amended, considered.
MR. THOMASSON, in moving the insertion of the following clause:—
(Removal of disqualification of members of Provident Medical Societies.)
"Any person otherwise duly qualified to have his or her name inserted in a list of voters entitled to vote at a Parliamentary, municipal, school board, or statutory election, but disqualified by reason of having received relief from the poor rates, who is legally entitled to receive medical assistance or hospital treatment for himself or for any member of his family, from any friendly society or friendly club registered under the Friendly Societies' Acts, or from any provident dispensary or other society or body providing medical assistance or hospital treatment, may claim to have his name inserted in such list of voters;
"Such claim shall be in writing, signed by such person, and shall be sent by registered letter, addressed to the clerk to the Board of Guardians in the Poor Law Union in which such person has received relief from the rates, and shall be posted in the present year on or before the first day of September, and in any subsequent year on or before the twentieth day of July;
"Every revising barrister shall appoint a day for hearing such claims, and shall give public notice of the. same in the same manner as public notice is required by Law to he given of the holding of Revising Barristers' Courts for the Revision of Lists of Parliamentary or Municipal Voters;
"The clerk to the Poor Law Guardians in each and every Poor Law Union shall prepare lists of such claims made by persons who have received Poor Law relief so disqualifying, and shall deliver such lists of claims to the revising barrister on or before the day appointed for hearing such claims, and shall attend in the Revising Barrister's Court to give evidence respecting such claims;
"A Post Office receipt for a registered letter addressed to the clerk to the Guardians of any Poor Law Union in which a person claiming under this section has received relief from the Poor Rates, shall he prima facie evidence of such claim having been made and of the date of such claim;
"If the revising barrister be satisfied that the person claiming under this section is legally entitled to receive medical relief or hospital treatment from any such registered friendly society or friendly club, or from any provident dispensary or other society or body providing medical assistance or hospital treatment, being in the opinion of such revising barrister a bona fide society or body providing such medical assistance or hospital treatment, the revising barrister shall insert the name of the person so claiming in the list of persons entitled to vote at such election or elections, and such person shall be entitled to vote accordingly: Provided always, That the revising barrister shall not insert any such name unless he is satisfied that the person so claiming is or would be entitled to be placed on such list of voters but for the fact of his having received relief from the Poor Rates,"
said, he did so because he thought the

1639
Bill would have the effect of discouraging persons from joining friendly and provident societies, the growth of which latter in Manchester and other districts he regarded with approval. He desired the House to show that some value was attached to the principle of providence in medical and other affairs; and he contended that the persons who belonged to these societies should not he placed on the same level as those who made no provision for themselves whatever. If the clause were accepted by the Government it would not delay the Bill, as he was certain that no one on the Front Opposition Bench would oppose it.
Clause (Removal of disqualification of members of Provident Medical Societies,)—(Mr. Thomasson,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
THE PEESIDEN-T OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that he entirely sympathized with the object which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Thomasson) appeared to have in view; because he understood that the hon. Member meant to give what encouragement he could to friendly societies, and the Government were anxious to do all in their power to prevent this Bill having any hostile effect upon such societies. It was not possible, however, for them to accept the clause proposed by the hon. Member. If he understood it aright, under this clause a man might receive any amount whatever of relief from the rates; and if he subscribed a single farthing to a friendly society, whatever relief he received from the rates, he would not be disqualified. In other words, the smallest contribution to a friendly society would guard him from the results of the reception of any amount of relief of any kind from the poor rates. He thought that if that was the effect of the proposed clause it would be hardly necessary for him to argue against it. A man might receive a far greater amount from the rates than he had any right to from his society. Therefore, much as he sympathized with the objects of the hon. Member, he could not, on behalf of the Government, agree to this clause.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS, in moving the insertion of the following clause:—
"The term 'medical or surgical assistance' in this Act shall include all medical and surgical attendance and all matters and things supplied by or on the recommendation of the medical officer having authority to give such attendance and recommendation at the expense of any poor rate,"
said, he thought that it was not necessary to go at length into the merits of the question, as it had already been pretty well thrashed out. He had received scores of letters from doctors, overseers, and medical officers in favour of the proposal he now asked the House to adopt. He had originally thought that the Government had made the provision contained in this clause; but on Tuesday, when the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) had asked the Question whether medical comforts and medical extras, such as beef tea or port wine, would be included under medical relief, he had heard with profound astonishment that medical relief was only to include drugs and physic. Under these conditions, he maintained that the Bill was a mere sham. On Tuesday night the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) held an informal meeting to see what should be forced on the House in reference to the measure. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan twitted hon. Members for their slow zeal in the matter. But he begged to point out that the action of the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan and his Friends would disfranchise thousands of Irish voters whose poverty compelled them to accept beef tea or wine, or something else which the medical officers might give them. He appealed to the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Deasy), who had as large an experience as any Member of the House on the subject, and that hon. Member in an exhaustive speech argued that the clause would affect numbers of Irish voters, and he went into the Lobby in support, not of the Government, but of the poor Irish voter, whose interest he would not oppose on any consideration. He would appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to make the Bill a real Bill, because without this clause it would not effect its object. In order that there should be no difficulty after-

1641
wards in regard to the question, he hoped that the House would accept the clause which he proposed. If it was not accepted, the effect would be to intensify agitation; and, so far as the Government were concerned, they would have directly violated the pledge which they gave when they introduced the Bill.
Clause (Definition of medical and surgical assistance,)—[Mr. Jesse Collings,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
THE PRESIDENT (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that the hon. Member implored him to make the Bill a real Bill. He had certainly hoped, when he introduced the Bill, framed exactly on the lines of the hon. Member himself, using the very words which the hon. Member used, and in the same manner, that it could not be described by him as an unreal Bill. The hon. Member seemed to think that he had some power of altering the English language as interpreted by the Judges. But how could the hon. Gentleman think that the words "medical relief" meant one thing when introduced in his Bill, and another when introduced in the Bill of the Government? The meaning of the words was perfectly well known, as they were suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) in his famous Amendment to the Registration Bill. Anyone who should consult Hansard would see that by medical and surgical assistance was meant then what was meant now. And the thing was made still clearer by the late Lord Chancellor (Lord Selborne) in the other House, because he distinctly asserted that the words did not mean, as now suggested, medical comforts. When the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) went down to agitate the country upon this question, he was as well aware as the House was of the actual meaning of the words, as stated by his own Colleague. And yet the right hon. Gentleman, at a late hour on Tuesday night, told the House, in language more forcible than classical, that unless they introduced the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) the Bill was not worth "a rap," that being the very Bill
1642
for which the right hon. Gentleman tried to raise the whole country, and for rejecting which he denounced the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman, after careful consideration, in a letter which had been published, described the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch as a clause which would remove a gross injustice. But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues, and hon. Members who desired this clause, how it was that words which in June would remove a gross injustice would "not be worth a rap" in July? When the right hon. Gentleman had explained that to their satisfaction, they should, perhaps, be able to understand the motives that had influenced him. After what had passed in that House and in "another place," and after the correspondence between the right hon. Member for Birmingham and Lord Balfour of Burleigh, no one could say that the Government intended anything different now from what they intended before. He admitted that it was extremely difficult and almost invidious to draw a distinction between ordinary drugs and a glass of brandy given to remove faintness. But if they were to draw the line at all before reaching the point of removing the disqualification from everyone receiving outdoor relief, this was the place to draw it. He did not mean to argue the question now whether persons receiving outdoor relief should be disqualified. Gentlemen on both sides, with one or two very rare exceptions, desired to continue the disqualification which did exist, and had always existed, with regard to persons receiving outdoor relief. If they wished to continue that disqualification, they ought to draw the line where it had been drawn by the late Government, and was drawn by the present Government. That line was already familiar in the administration of the Poor Law system. It was not in the power of a medical officer to give anything to a patient beyond medicine. If he did so it was upon his own responsibility. The line drawn by the Bill was also consistent with the practice of hospitals. Outdoor patients received medical assistance; but they did not receive medical comforts. He wished, further, to impress upon the House that if they accepted the clause hon. Gentlemen would make the relieving officer potentially a

1643
political agent, and give him an immense power of putting men on the Register or taking them off. Then, again, the House must bear in mind how great would be the inequalities which would exist between parish and parish, and union and union, if the Amendment were carried. If a doctor took a large view of his duties—if he thought it his duty to order mutton, chickens, beef-tea, port wine, and so forth—it would be in his power, by ordering a sufficiency of these extras, to prevent a man seeking any other form of relief, and the people in his parish would be kept on the Register. But in the neighbouring parish they might have a doctor who took an entirely different view of his responsibility, and who, before ordering these large medical extras, would think it his duty to call in the relieving officer. They would thus have two adjoining parishes under different medical authority, and they would have an entirely different practice as regarded the keeping on and the striking off from the Register. If the House were going to allow a man to get everything the medical officer gave, they would allow him to receive a great deal more, perhaps, than some hon. Members supposed. Medical officers were not obliged to restrict themselves in their advice to such things as beef-tea, port wine, and brandy. Within the last 24 hours a case had come under his notice where a medical officer recommended that the patient should be removed to a better house. If they once refused to disqualify a man from exercising the franchise when he received out of the rates better lodging, better food, perhaps clothes, perhaps bedding, perhaps nursing, he failed utterly to see how they were to maintain the distinction, which they all admitted to be a wholesome and necessary distinction, between the man who received outdoor relief and the man who did not receive outdoor relief. He did not think it was necessary for him to lay any more arguments before the House; but he might say, in anticipation of the discussion about to ensue, that it was the intention of the Government, at all events, to omit Scotland from the operation of the Bill. He should be out of Order if he were to state the grounds on which the Government had come to that determination; but to that determination they had come. He wanted to point out how
1644
great would be the inequality between Scotland and England if they left Scotland out of the Bill, and carried the Amendment. [An hon. MEMBER: And Ireland.] It would be recollected that he gave a promise across the floor of the House two nights ago that if the Irish Members also desired Ireland to be excluded from the Bill it should be so. Ho had taken pains to find what the views of hon. Members were; and he was now given to understand that not only the Scotch Members, but the Irish Members on both sides, and in every quarter of the House, also desired to be excluded from the Bill. If that were the case —if Ireland and Scotland were excluded from the Bill—and they introduced this Amendment, they would produce an enormous inequality between the three Kingdoms, and he could not believe that that was a wise proceeding. In Scotland a man would be absolutely excluded from the vote even if he got purely medical relief, and to that inequality it was now proposed to add the enormous inequality of allowing men in England to receive medical comforts, which might consist of new clothes, new bedding, and of a new house, and yet to retain their names on the list. Before the House sanctioned an inequality of that kind between England on the one hand, and Scotland and Ireland on the other, it would be well seriously to pause. The Government, then, objected to this clause, because it produced an inequality between the three parts of the Kingdom, because it broke down the only practical line which could be drawn between the existing system and one which should remove entirely the disqualification or account of outdoor relief, and because the Bill, as the Government had introduced it, was precisely the Bill as brought forward by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, the Bill upon which the country had been agitated from end to end, and which had received the enthusiastic support of the agricultural labourers. If the House should force this clause on the Government, and any serious accident happened to the Bill in its future progress, on hon. Gentlemen opposite, and on them alone, would the responsibility rest.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down quite cheerfully accepted the invitation to leave Ireland out of

1645
the Bill, and to leave Scotland out of it, and apparently the right hon. Gentleman would not be sorry if he had the opportunity to leave England out of it also. He (Sir William Harcourt) did not, however, make any complaint of the way in which the Government had dealt with the Bill. On the contrary, he thought they had very fairly brought in a Bill for the purpose of meeting a grievance which might not have been at first fully understood or appreciated, but which, when it came to be insisted upon, was felt to be a very great grievance indeed. The right hon. Gentleman said, he dared say truly. that the words in the Bill were in former Amendments and in former Bills; but that really did not conclude the question. As regarded himself, all he could say was that, not having sufficiently critically examined the words of the Bill, he was distinctly under the impression that the Bill did include all medical relief—that was, that it included what might be called medical comforts as well as medicine and surgical aid. He admitted now that he was wrong in that impression; but it was not until ho had made a careful legal investigation with Ms two hon. and learned Friends the late Attorney and Solicitor Generals that he discovered that the interpretation given to the words used in the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman was the right one. What was the state of the case. The great majority in the House were of opinion that certain persons who were unfortunate enough, under pressure of illness, to receive parochial relief in the form of medical assistance ought not to be disfranchised; and if that was the principle they ought to act upon it, and not introduce fine-drawn and invidious distinctions in the matter. Surely, everybody must feel that to draw a distinction between a stimulant administered in the form of brandy and one administered in the form of ammonia was a most invidious one. They should not, he thought, make any distinction between medical drugs and medical comforts. If they accepted the principle that disfranchisement was not to be the result of receiving assistance in illness by way of remedy, they ought to take a common-sense and liberal view of the question, and do, in fact, what they had said they intended doing. He believed that in nine cases out of ten medical as-
1646
sistance included medical comforts, and if this clause was rejected the Bill would—he did not say intentionally on the part of the Government—be practically inoperative. If that were so, there would be very great disappointment and regret. Then they ought not to overlook the danger that had been pointed out—namely, the danger of placing in the hands of the medical officer the power of disfranchisement. He did not desire to put the matter invidiously; but suppose that a medical officer did desire to disfranchise the poor people in his district, he had nothing to do but to recommend as necessary to the treatment of each case some medical comforts. Ought such a power to be placed in the hands of a medical officer? The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to exclude Scotland and Ireland from the Bill, and that if the Amendment were carried there would then be great inequality between the three countries. But inequality was not in the Amendment; it was in the Bill. To redress the grievance in the country where it existed was not to create an inequality between the countries—it was to create an equality. If no man was disfranchised from this cause in Scotland the grievance did not exist; and if men were disfranchised from it in England, then to cure that evil was to establish an equality, and not an inequality, between the two countries. He did not wish to argue the question in any hostile way; but he desired to put it very seriously before the House. There could be no doubt that great expectations had been raised throughout the country in regard to it. He dared say the exact bearing of the particular distinction which had been raised between medical drugs and medical comforts was not at first fully realized; but now that it was realized and was fully before the House they should take care not to practically destroy that which was intended to be given, and ho imagined that what was intended to be given was that a man who, by misfortune and illness, required to receive medical relief was to receive such relief as was necessary for the cure of his illness. He hoped, therefore, that there would be no hair-splitting about what was and what was not medical relief; and that the House, having resolved to give a boon, would see that it gave a boon which was real.
MR. MACAKTNEYsaid, they had had an illustration of the extremely difficult position in which the Government had placed themselves by having caught the Whigs bathing and running away with their clothes. On this occasion the particular suit of clothes which had been taken away seemed to him to be of the pattern of the Kilmainham Treaty—indeed, he might call it of the Maamtrasna pattern. He supposed that, owing to an arrangement with the Scottish and Irish Members, Scotland and Ireland were to be excluded from the Bill. He never liked the Bill, and was one of the 22 Members who voted against it on Tuesday night; but it seemed to him that the principle having been admitted by a large majority of the House, it was extremely inconsistent to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich. He (Mr. Macartney) belonged to what had been designated the reactionaries of the Tory Party. He could not understand the rapid changes of opinion which had recently taken place on the Ministerial side. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had said that Mr. Gosset, owing to sitting in the vicinity of Friends of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, had caught some of their geniality. The Members of the late Fourth Party who were now Members of the Cabinet also sat when in Opposition near the Friends of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and they appeared to have caught up the atmosphere of those hon. Gentlemen and to have brought it into the Cabinet. It was said that a little leaven leavened the whole lump; but a considerable leaven had in this instance got into the Cabinet. It seemed to him that at present the principle was that whatever had been advocated very loudly by one Party should be adopted by the other, and that they should hunt in couples and take alternative possession of the Treasury Bench. As to the present Amendment, he thought that when once the House had, by an overwhelming majority, decided to enfranchise paupers, this hair-splitting about medical relief was rather absurd. He was opposed to the entire Bill. and could neither vote for or against the proposed clause.
MR. MELDONsaid, that the arguments which had been adduced against the Amendment had been of a some-
1648
what extraordinary character. What was it that they had been told? That because the majority of the Scottish Members wished it Scotland was to be excluded from the Bill, and they were also told that Ireland was to be excluded for similar reasons. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had thrown out the threat that if this clause was adopted they would give up all responsibility for the Bill. He must enter his protest against such a threat. He hoped the Amendment would be carried by an overwhelming majority, and if it were its supporters would easily find means to have the wishes of the majority of the House of Commons on this very important subject carried into effect, notwithstanding what had been said on behalf of the Government with regard to the fate of the Bill. He passed by the arguments that had been used, and would ask the House if the Conservative jerrymandering of 1867 was to be repeated with a large Liberal majority in the House of Commons? In 1867 the Conservative Government filched one of the eggs of the Liberal Party in the shape of a provision connected with the borough franchise. What did they do? What they gave with one hand they took away with the other by the operation of the Eating Clause. Was that transaction to be repeated now, or was it not? The Conservative Government had filched the Liberal measure brought in before they acceded to power, and they took away a great part of what was intended to be given by the framework of the Bill as it stood at present. It had never been the intention of the hon. Member for Ipswich nor of any supporters of his Bill that it should have a limited scope. This fact ought to be clearly understood. In regard to the exclusion of Ireland, he believed that instead of being an enfranchising measure, supposing the Bill were to apply to Ireland, it would, on the contrary, most distinctly he a disfranchising Bill. The systems of affording medical relief were different in the two countries, and this Bill, if extended to Ireland, would be highly prejudicial. He hoped, therefore, that it would not be sought to include Ireland within the scope of the measure. There was one danger which they must guard against. They practically made the medical officer the returning officer,

1649
and gave him the power of qualifying or disqualifying electors in a closely contested election. Indeed, the politics of the medical officer in an election contest would be one of the first things to be inquired into.
MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought that everyone must have sympathized with his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board when he was speaking on behalf of the Government in the endeavour which he made to draw distinctions which, some days ago, had been pointed out to him were absolutely untenable between the propositions he was discussing. He was one of those who thought that the Government was perfectly right in accepting this proposition; and he believed that they accepted the proposition, which was the main proposition of the Bill, with the cordial assent of the great majority of those who agreed with them in political matters. But the fact was that, although the two Front Benches had to some extent pledged themselves with regard to the principle of the Bill, the majority of the House of Commons had not pledged itself and had not really expressed any opinion upon the principle. In the divisions which took place when the Registration Bill was before the House, it was agreed by both Front Benches that it was undesirable to embody a clause of this kind in the Bill; and those who were anxious, in the pressing circumstances of the time, to get the Bill sent up to the House of Lords joined the Front Bench in resisting the introduction of a provision which was felt to be undesirable. Those who voted in the first division on the 6th of May expressed no judgment on the main principle at issue; it was merely on the question of the convenience of Parliament. But it was very difficult to understand the position taken up by his right hon. Friend. It was clear from his speech, and from the speech made by the late Attorney General, that there were those on both Front Benches who now had no heart in this proposal at all, who were not in favour of the principle of this Bill, but who were simply making it a matter of competition for the votes of the agricultural labourer at the next election. He did not take that view. He thought the proposal was a good one on its merits. He listened
1650
the other evening with great interest and with a feeling of admiration for his great courage to the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). Undoubtedly, if this Bill were to trench upon the principles which he then enunciated, he (Mr. E. Clarke) would steadily refuse to vote for it; but he thought the House had accepted the clear distinction between ordinary Poor Law relief and that form of relief which was generally given in consequence of sudden or unforeseen illness, when the heavy expenses to which the working man was put could hardly be provided for by him. He, like the late Home Secretary, quite believed, when he voted in favour of this provision for medical relief, that the term "medical relief" included not merely the doctor's fee and the medicine, but also included those things which, though they might be comforts and articles of food, were, in his judgment, necessary to the medical treatment of the patient. He had been entirely unable to find any strict definition of the term "medical relief;" but he believed that if a legal definition could be taken it would be found to include everything which the doctor ordered for the medical treatment of the case. But whether technically or not the term "medical relief" included those things, he understood it to include them when he voted for this Bill; and if it was necessary to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Ceilings) in order to make the matter clear, he should quite readily and simply, in pursuance of the intentions he had the other night, vote for the Amendment. There had been certain considerations advanced with regard to the political influence of this matter. No one could be insensible to the danger that in all eases of this kind relieving officers and medical officers might act from political motives. Unfortunately, they could not get rid of those influences. If they made it a disqualification it might be as difficult to disqualify an opponent as to please a voter who remained on the list; and he was afraid by making this relief a matter of disqualification it would have the effect of obliging the poor man, instead of getting his relief from the rates, to go to the squire or to the clergyman, or some other private source of charity, for that which he had much better take from the rates. When

1651
a man was struck down with sudden necessity he had better go to the fund to which he had helped to subscribe, and out of which, with the help of his subscriptions, others had been relieved, than go to ask for individual doles from people of the neighbourhood. He believed that to do so would lower his self-respect and independence much more than by going to the rates. In these circumstances, he certainly intended to vote for the hon. Member's Amendment. He hoped the House would not take too seriously the last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's speech with regard to an accident happening to this Bill, for if ever there was a Bill over which the Front Bench had no real effective right or control, it was this Bill. While he believed the Government were right in accepting the principle of the measure, he thought they would have been much better advised, though, perhaps, not perfectly consistent with their dignity, if they had accepted the Bill of the hon. Member for Ipswich. They had chosen, however, to accept the principle of the Bill; they had carried that principle by an overwhelming majority and by a strong use of their influence in the House; and, that being so, surely they were not at liberty to threaten the House with abandoning the Bill, and thereby securing the disqualification of a large number of voters if the House took a different view from that which they themselves took as to the interpretation to be placed on one of the phrases of the Bill. He thought this Amendment was simply for making the interpretation of the phrase "medical relief" that which the House believed it had, and intended it should have; and, believing that, he hoped the Amendment would be successful, and that the Bill would, nevertheless, live and be carried into effect.
MR. HENEAGEsaid, he. had assisted the hon. and learned Member for Christ-church (Mr. Horace Davey) with his Amendments to the Registration Bill, and was associated with him and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), and the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Mellor) in the preparation of their Bill and with the present Amendment, and they believed that the measure contained that provision for which they were now fighting. He was of opinion, however, that they
1652
owed nothing to the two Front Benches in this matter. It was absurd to say that the hon. Members from Ireland and Scotland wore to have their way as regarded the application of the Bill to those countries, and that the English Members were not to have their way in regard to the measure. He considered that if the Government were to throw out this Bill on account of a majority in favour of the Amendment such conduct would be a breach of faith with the hon. Member for Ipswich, who withdrew his Bill on the understanding that Her Majesty's Government would take up the measure themselves and carry it forward.
MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, he hoped the Government would see that the feeling of the House was in favour of the Amendment, and that they would think it proper to include it in the Bill and see it passed into law.
MR. PELLsaid, he thought it might be convenient to state the course he intended to take with regard to this Amendment. The only course which to his mind was consistent and proper for him to pursue was to walk out of the House when the division was called. The House of Commons, as far as this Bill was concerned, had accepted what he believed to be a wrong principle—namely, that relief from the rates was not to disqualify when it was given to a poor man in the shape of medical relief. The Government said that so long as the parish doctor gave a man medicine and drugs the man should not be disqualified; but the moment he went beyond that, even to the extent of giving a teaspoonful of brandy, the man should be disqualified. He ventured to say that if they gave sick people good food and nourishment and kept the drugs and the doctor away, more people would recover. He detested the Bill, and thought it the most mischief-making measure ever considered since he had been a Member of the House; but he could not vote against the hon. Member for Ipswich's Amendment.
MR. ACLAND, after the ominous declaration of the President of the Local Government Board, wished to suggest that, in the event of the present Amendment being carried, the Government, instead of sacrificing the Bill, should fall back on the purpose of the Amendment he had moved on Tuesday for making

1653
The Bill an experiment confined to a limited period.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 180; Noes 130: Majority 50.

AYES.

Ackers, B. St. J.

Gladstone, H. J.

Acland, C. T. B.

Gordon, Sir A.

Agnew, W.

Gourley, E. T.

Ainsworth, D.

Gower, hon. E. F. L.

Allen, H. G.

Grafton, F. W.

Allen, W. S.

Gray, E. D.

Armitage, B.

Grosvenor, right hon. Lord R.

Arnold, A.

Asher, A.

Gurdon, R. T.

Ashley, hon. E. M.

Hamilton, J. G. C.

Baldwin, E.

Harcourt.rt.hn. SirW. G. V. V.

Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

Barclay, J. W.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Baring, T. C.

Harvey, Sir R. B.

Barran, J.

Healy, T. M.

Barry, J.

Hill, T. R.

Bass, Sir A.

Holden, I.

Beaumont, W. B.

Holms, J.

Biddell, W.

Houldsworth, W.H.

Biddulph, M.

Howard, E. S.

Biggar, J. G.

Ince, H. B.

Brassey, H. A.

Inderwick, F. A.

Brett, R. B.

James, rt. hon. Sir H.

Briggs,W. E.

James, C.

Bright, right hon. J.

Jenkins, D. J.

Broadhurst, H.

Johnson, E.

Burt, T.

Kensington, rt. hn. Lord

Buszard, M. C.

Buxton, F. W.

Kinnear, J.

Caine, W. S.

Labouchere, H.

Callan, P.

Lawrence, Sir J. C.

Cameron, C.

Lawrence, W.

Campbell, Sir G.

Lawson, Sir W.

Campbell,R. F. F.

Leake, R.

Causton,R. K.

Leamy, E.

Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

Lennox, rt. hon. Lord H. G. C. G.

Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

Lloyd, M.

Clarke, E.

Mackintosh, C. F.

Cohen, A.

M' Arthur, SirW.

Collins, E.

M'Arthur, A.

Colman,J. J.

M'Carthy, J.

Corbett, J.

M'Intyre,AEneas J.

Cowen, J.

M'Kenna, Sir J.N.

Davey, H.

M'Lagan, P.

Davies, R.

M'Laren,C. B B.

Deasy, J.

Maitland, W. F.

Dickson, T. A.

Mappin, F. T.

Dillwyn, L. L.

Marjoribanks, hon. E.

Dodds, J.

Martin, R. B.

Duckham, T.

Marum, E. M.

Duff, R. W.

Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

Earp, T.

Ebrington, Viscount

Mason, H.

Edwards, P.

Meldon, C. H.

Ferguson, E.

Molloy, B. C.

Findlater, W.

Monk, C. J.

Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W.

Moreton, Lord

Flower, C.

Morley, A.

Foljambe, C. G. S.

Morley, S.

Fowler, H. H.

Mundella, rt. hn. A. J.

Fry, L.

O'Brien, Sir P.

Fry, T.

O'Brien, W.

1654

O'Connor, A.

Slagg, J.

O'Kelly, J.

Smith, Lieut-Col. G.

O'Shea, W. H.

Spencer, hon. C. R.

Palmer, C. M.

Stanton, W. J.

Parker, C. S.

Storey, S.

Parnell, C. S.

Stuart, H. V.

Pease, A.

Stuart, J.

Picton, J. A.

Sullivan, T. D.

Power, J. O'C.

Summers, W.

Power, P. J.

Synan, E. J.

Power, R.

Tennant, Sir C.

Pulley, J.

Ihompson, T. C.

Ralli, P.

Thynne, Lord H. F.

Roberts, J.

Torrens, W. T. M.

Robertson, H

Verney, rt. hon. Sir H.

Roe, T.

Waddy, S. D.

Rogers, J. E. T.

Walker, S.

Ross, C. C.

Wallace, Sir R.

Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

Walter, J.

Waterlow, Sir S.

Russell, C.

Watkin, Sir E. W.

Russell, G. W. E.

West, H. W.

Russell, T.

Whitworth, B.

Ruston, J.

Wiggin, H.

St. Aubyn, Sir J.

Williamson, S.

Seely,C. (Nottingham)

Wills, W. H.

Sexton, T.

Wilson, Sir M.

Shaw, T.

Wilson, C. H.

Sheil, E.

Sheridan, H. B.

TELLERS.

Simon, Serjeant J.

Collings, J.

Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

Heneage, E.

Sinclair, W. P.

NOES.

Allsopp, C.

Egerton, hon. A. de T.

Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

Egerton, hon. A. F.

Aylmer, J. E. F.

Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

Bailey, Sir J. R.

Elliot, G. W.

Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

Ellis, Sir J. W.

Barttelot, Sir W. B.

Emlyn, Viscount

Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

Evans, T. W.

Ewart, W.

Beach, W. W. B.

Ewing, A.O.

Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

Farquharson, Dr. R.

Beresford, G. De la P.

Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

Bourke, right hon. R.

Finch, G. H.

Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

Fletcher, Sir H.

Floyer, J.

Bruee, Sir H.H.

Folkestone, Viscount

Burghley, Lord

Fowler, rt. hon. Sir R. N.

Campbell, J. A.

Cavendish, Lord E.

Fremantle, hon. T. F.

Churchill, rt. hn. Lord R. H. S.

Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

Giles, A.

Close, M. C.

Gooch, Sir D.

Coddington, W.

Gorst, J. E.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Greene, E.

Corry, J. P.

Greer, T.

Cotton, W. J. R.

Gunter, Col. R.

Cubitt, right hon. G.

Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

Curzon, Major hon. M.

Dalrymple, C.

Hamilton, Lord C. J.

Davenport, H. T.

Hamilton, I. T.

Dawnay, hon. G. C.

Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

De Worms, Baron H.

Digby, J. K. D. W.

Herbert, hon. S.

Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

Hill, Lord A. W.

Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

Holland, Sir H. T.

Holmes, rt. hon. H.

Ecroyd, W. F.

Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

1655

Hope, right hon. A. J. B. B.

Ritchie, C. T.

Ross, A. H.

Jackson, W. L.

Round, J.

Kennard, C. J.

Sclater-Booth.rt.hn.G.

Kennaway, Sir J. H.

Scott, M. D.

King-Harman, Colonel E. R.

Severne, J. E.

Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

Lechmere, SirE. A. H.

Smith, A.

Legh, W. J.

Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

Lewis, C. E.

Stanley, rt. hon. Col. F.

Lindsay, Sir R. L.

Stanley, E. J.

Lubbock, Sir J.

Stevens, J. C. M.

Macnaghten, E.

Storer, G

M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

Talbot, J. G.

Makins, Colonel W. T.

Thomasson, J. P.

Manners, rt. hon. Lord J. J. R.

Thornhill, Sir T.

Tollemache, hon. W.F.

March, Earl of

Tollemache, H. J.

Marriott, rt. hn. W. T.

Tomlinson, W. E. M.

Master, T. W. C.

Tottenham, A. L.

Miles, C. W.

Tyler, Sir H. W.

Mills, Sir C. H.

Warburton, P. E.

Milner, Sir F. G.

Warton, C.N.

Moss, R.

Webster, Sir R. E.

Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

Whitley, E.

Wilmot, Sir H.

Mulholland, J.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Nicholson, W. N.

Wolff, rt. hn. Sir H.D.

Northcote, hon. H. S.

Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

Paget, R. H.

Wroughton, P.

Patrick, R. W. Cochran-

Wyndham, hon. P.

Wynn, Sir H. L. W.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Pemberton, E. L.

TELLERS.

Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

Douglas, A. Akers-

Ramsay, J.

Walrond, Col. W. H.

Repton, G. W.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

THE CHANCELLOK OF THE EXCHEQUER: We did not conceal from the House, either on Tuesday or this evening, that in our opinion the adoption of the new clause or the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow) would be a matter of very great importance; and we cannot, under present circumstances, take any further responsibility with regard to the measure.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I would only say that under the circumstances I suppose that the responsibility devolves on the majority of the House, whose property this Bill is, and therefore I beg leave to give Notice—I do not know what course the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to take, or how far he means to carry his dissent from this Bill; but if he only cast upon us the responsibility for the Bill I will ask whether the House will allow the Bill now to be read a third time?
MR. SPEAKER: The Question now before the House is whether the clause be added to the Bill.
Clause added.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked whether he might be enabled to move the Amendment to the new clause standing under the name of Mr. Arthur Balfour?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it was competent for the hon. Member to move the Amendment.
Amendment proposed,
In New Clause, "Provision for registration in the present year," line 12, leave out, qualification, "and insert"qualifications."—(Mr. Jesse Collings s.)
MR. WARTONsubmitted that this Amendment would not be in Order, as the new clause must naturally come after Clause 2.
MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, that the last time the Bill was before the House he had moved as an Amendment that the words "United Kingdom" should be left out of the Bill, and "England and Wales" substituted.
MR. SPEAKER (interposing): The hon. Member is going to a point prior in the Bill to that in respect of which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) has moved an Amendment; and it is only by asking the hon. Member to withdraw that Amendment that he can bring forward the Amendment to which he refers. Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: No.
Amendment agreed to.
On the Motion of Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, the following Amendment, which stood in the name of Mr. A. J. Balfour, was agreed to. Line '39, after "registered," insert as a new paragraph:—
"Any person whose name ought to have been inserted in the list made by the overseers under this section, and has been omitted therefrom, may claim to have his name inserted in the list of voters by giving to the overseers, within six days after the publication of such list, notice of such claim in the manner and form provided by law with respect to other claims, and the overseers shall produce all such claims to the revising barrister, and he shall revise and deal with the same in like manner as with ordinary claims."
MR. ORR-EWING: I beg to move that the words "United Kingdom"—
MR. SPEAKER: That is not in Order now.
MR. HEALYsaid, he begged to move an Amendment to the effect that no new disability should be created by the application of the clauses to Ireland where such disability did not exist.
MR. WARTONpointed out that the two Amendments which had been adopted were Amendments to the new clause. He thought that it was not competent for the hon. and learned Member to move this Amendment now, as it was in precisely the same position as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing).
MR. HEALYcontended that this was an ordinary Amendment, and might be moved in the ordinary way.
MR. SPEAKERheld that it was competent for the hon. and learned Member to move his Amendment, as the place of the new clause in the Bill had, not yet been determined.
COLONEL KING-HAKMANwished to know how far this Amendment would go in regard to ratepayers who received medical comforts for their wives or children on the recommendation of the relieving officer or the recommendation of the doctor?
MR. PARNELLsaid, that the purpose of the Amendment was to insure that such persons should not be disqualified.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. ORR-EWING: I beg to move that the words "United Kingdom"—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order now. We have passed that point, and if no further Amendments are proposed a day will be fixed for the third reading.
MR. JESSE CODLINGS: With the consent of the House, I will move that the Bill be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER: It would be very unusual under the circumstances to take the third reading of the Bill now, and I can only assent to that with the assent of the House.
MR. RAMSAY: I wish to move that the Bill be now re-committed, and if that Motion is competent I hope the House will at once assent to it, in order that the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire may have an opportunity of moving his Amendment.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will be perfectly in Order in moving that the Bill be re-committed if he will state the purpose for which it is proposed.
MR. RAMSAY: It is in order that the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire may have an opportunity of moving his Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of an Amendment to Clause 2."—(Mr. Ramsay.)
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the proposal of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Ramsay) was not an unfair one. He was quite sure nobody would wish that by a mere accident a question of this importance should be excluded. He did not himself know what the view of the Scottish Members generally might be in regard to the question of the exclusion of Scotland.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE INDIA (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): Might I ask, Sir, whether it is in accordance with precedent or custom for a Motion for re-commitment of a Bill to be made other than as an Amendment to the Motion to read the Bill a third time, or to make such a Motion without Notice?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would be in Order in moving to re-commit the Bill with a view to insert a definite Amendment.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he wished it to be understood that the Scottish Members were not unanimous on the question whether Scotland should be excluded from the operation of the Bill.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that in view of the great urgency of the Bill he trusted the House would not allow it to be re-committed, as Scottish Members were not agreed as to the Amendment.
DR. CAMERONsaid, he was entirely opposed to the exclusion of Scotland from the Bill. He came down to the House resolved to oppose that exclusion, or the infliction upon Scotland of a penalty which was not inflicted upon the other parts of the United Kingdom; but he would prefer to have the matter threshed out in that House rather than to have it debated in the House of Lords. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member for Ipswich would not oppose the re-committal of the Bill.
MR. WARTONsaid, that it was by mere accident that the hon. Member for Dumbarton had been prevented from moving his Amendment.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was perfectly competent for the House to agree to the re-committal.
Question put, and agreed, to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. RAMSAYsaid, that he was only desirous of addressing a word to the House with reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow. Of the Scottish Members who had been consulted in this matter, 21 were in favour of the exclusion of Scotland, and five were indifferent about it, but were rather in favour of Scotland being included. The hon. Members for Glasgow and Kirkcaldy made two more who adopted the latter view.
MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTasked whether, when the Speaker left the Chair, it would be perfectly competent for any Member to move that Scotland be excluded from the Bill?
MR. SPEAKER: After I have left the Chair an Amendment is to be moved in accordance with the Motion which has been carried, that the Bill be re-committed for the purpose of proposing an Amendment in respect of Clause 2.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 2 (Medical relief not to disqualify).
MR. ORR-EWINGproposed to leave out the words, in line 7, "the United Kingdom," and insert the words "England and Wales." He said it would be remembered that when this question was last before the Committee every Scotch Member in the House at that time spoke in favour of Scotland being omitted from the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) promised that he would make inquiries, and if he found that the majority of the Scotch Members were in favour of Scotland being left out of the Bill, he would, at a later stage, move the exclusion of Scotland. In consequence of what had taken place since then, he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) moved this Amendment.
Amendment proposed,
In line 7, to leave out the words "the United Kingdom," in order to insert the words "England and Wales,"—(Mr. Orr-Ewing,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words "United Kingdom' stand part of the Clause."
DR. CAMERONsaid, it was quite true, as had been said by his hon. Friend (Mr. Orr-Ewing), that the other night there was a chorus of Scotch opinion in favour of omitting Scotland from the Bill; but, as a matter of fact, that was accounted for because there was no Radical Representative from Scotland in the House at the time, and he thought it was to be also accounted for by the fact that the representations made as to the law in Scotland on the subject were totally inaccurate. They had been told to-night by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that the Irish Members wished to have Ireland omitted from the scope of the Bill. It was true they did so, because they had got a better Bill of their own. To include them in this Bill would be to create a certain disfranchisement in respect to medical relief. It would disfranchise those who received it from voting in the election of Poor Law Guardians. As a matter of fact, outdoor medical relief in Scotland was administered in a manner so parsimonious and stingy as to be a disgrace to any civilized nation. But there was a certain amount of medical relief given in Scotland. That House voted annually a sum of £20,000 as a grant in aid of medical relief in Scotland. The sum was handed over to the Board of Supervision—their only equivalent for the English Local Government Board—for distribution amongst the various Parochial Boards. The Board of Supervision had laid down certain regulations with regard to participation in this grant. Any Board wishing to have a share must comply with certain regulations, and the medical officer must attend to the poor on certain conditions; but there were 117 parishes in Scotland which did not think it worth their while to comply even with the rudimentary requirements laid down by the Board of Supervision, and did not participate at all in the grant in aid of medical relief in Scotland. Let the Committee understand precisely what amount of money was spent on Scotland in medical relief. The amount per head of the population spent in the parishes which complied with the requirements of the Board of

1661
Supervision, and which participated in the grant, was only 2½d. per head per annum, or, to speak accurately, 2·61 of a penny per head of the population per annum; and in the parishes which did not think it worth their while to comply with the very rudimentary requirements of the Board of Supervision, the amount spent in medical relief was less than 1¾d. per head of the population per annum. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) spoke to them about medical relief including fine clothes, and new houses, and all sorts of things. He (Dr. Cameron) thought the Committee might understand from the figures he had given what amount of fine clothing, or what number of new houses, could ho provided for the sick poor of Scotland out of 2½d. or l¾d. per head per annum. He believed that the Public Health Act of Scotland created the municipal body in towns the local sanitary authority, and in parishes it created the Parochial Board the local sanitary authority. If a man in a town contracted fever, or any infectious disease. and was unable to take care of himself, and to prevent himself from becoming a vehicle for the dissemination of disease, the municipal body, which was the sanitary authority took possession of him and placed him in hospital; and although he was maintained there out of the municipal rates, there was no question of his pauperization. In certain places in counties it was the custom for the Parochial Board to levy a special rate in respect to expenses required for epidemic diseases; but that was not universal. He had been told that in such cases men did not receive grants from the Poor Law funds, and were not thereby pauperized; but he had looked into the law on this point, and he had in his hand a standard work, in which it was laid down that the Public Health Act did not relieve the Parochial Board of the duty incumbent upon them by law, in cases of infectious disease, to take all means in their power to suppress it. It declared that it was the duty of the Parochial Board either to isolate the patients itself, or to allow the Local Authority to do so; and then it stated how the Local Authority might recover from the Board. The patients would be in receipt of relief from the Poor Law authorities, and would thus be pauperized. He believed that in certain coun-
1662
ties they would come on the Poor Poll, and that in other counties they would not. But, to put aside all those cases, there were in every county a great number of cases which must come on the Poor Roll. When a man broke his leg, or met with a serious accident, he was no longer able-bodied, and he at once came to he in the position of a pauper. He received a certain share of medical attendance, equivalent to his share of the I¾d per head per annum; and if they were to exclude Scotland from the operation of this Bill, that man would thereupon become pauperized, and lose his right to vote. This would occur not merely in the case of accidents; there were constant and innumerable cases of persons—persons suffering from consumption, or from chronic diseases of various sorts—whose relations were perfectly well able to pay for their keep, but who could not afford to pay for medical assistance for them. If the House were to exclude Scotland from the operation of the Bill, such persons as he had indicated in Scotland would he treated in a manner quite distinct from the treatment accorded to people in a similar position in England and Ireland. One principle had run through all those electoral reforms, and that was that they should take the widest measure of enfranchisement existing in any portion of the United Kingdom, and apply it to all portions of the United Kingdom. There was no justification and no logic to recommend a departure from this principle. If Parliament adopted the view of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), there would be enormous dissatisfaction throughout Scotland. He was glad the matter had come before the House in a shape in which they could take a division upon it. If any Scotch Members were opposed to Scotland obtaining the same benefit in the way of the franchise as England and Ireland had obtained it, it was right that those Members should be paraded through the Lobby, and thus have their names brought before the constituencies. The constituencies would thus he able in November next to form an opinion of the difference between the different kinds of Scotch Liberals who came to the House of Commons.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was very much in favour of Home Rule,

1663
and was quite ready that the Scottish Members should decide this matter. It was said there had been no consultation amongst Scotch Members; there had been no meeting, and still less had there been any opportunity of conferring with the constituencies. He was told that the majority of Scotch Members wished to exclude Scotland from the Bill. He thought he knew one hon. Member, the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), who at one time was in favour of excluding Scotland from the Bill, but who, on obtaining further information, had changed his mind, and was now decidedly against the proposal. Another hon. Member, the Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) told him he had been in communication with Scotland, with the result that he was prepared to resist the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing). He did not see how it could be assumed that the majority of Scotch Members and of the people of Scotland were in favour of the exclusion of Scotland, because there had really been no opportunity of ascertaining how the people of Scotland really wished this question to be decided. It was true that in Scotland an able-bodied man was not entitled to relief; but, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had pointed out, a man who met with an accident or who became ill was no longer able-bodied, and therefore, under the law of Scotland, was entitled to relief. He (Sir George Campbell) was convinced that if the House of Commons adopted the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), there would, whether the majority of Scotch Members were of one opinion or the other, be enormous dissatisfaction in Scotland; because of the inequality which would be created between the treatment of Englishmen and Scotchmen in the matter of medical relief. He agreed with his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) that those Members who proposed to leave Scotland out of the Bill should bear the responsibility which would be involved.
MR. BOLTONsaid, he was one of those who were quite prepared to bear the responsibility of omitting Scotland from the Bill. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had given the Committee some very interesting statistics; but, unfortunately, they bore very
1664
slightly upon the matter. The Poor Law of Scotland excluded all able-bodied men from the pauper roll. No man in Scotland could get upon the Poor Boll unless he was destitute and disabled, and being upon the Poor Boll this Bill would not enfranchise him. A man could only be enfranchised by the Bill if he received assistance from the Parochial Board in the shape only of medical relief; but in Scotland he could not receive medical relief until he was upon the Poor Boll. Consequently for the Bill to be of effect there must be a change in the Poor Law of Scotland, and he questioned whether even the very Radical Member for Glasgow would propose the assimilation of the Scottish Poor Law to that of England. He(Mr. Bolton) opposed the inclusion of Scotland; first, because if the Bill were operative at all it could only be operative in an objectionable sense. It would be an encouragement to the people of Scotland, who now looked with horror and contempt upon the name of pauper, to accept that name, and plead for it the sanction of the House of Commons. He also objected to the Bill, because he felt it was the first step towards some change in the Poor Law of Scotland, and to that he was most decidedly opposed. He had still another objection to the Bill. If it would enfranchise a number of people it would also add to the rates; and certainly the ratepayers of Scotland were as much entitled to consideration at the hands of Members of the House of Commons as the very few who, according to the argument of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), might possibly come within the purview of the measure. For all these reasons he cordially supported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire.
MR. THOMASSONasked the late Lord Advocate for Scotland (Mr. J. B. Balfour) whether, if a man got his leg broken by accident, and was taken while unconscious, or otherwise against his will, to a place where his injury would be attended to by a Boor Law officer, he would lose his vote? If that were so he would vote in favour of Scotland being included in the Bill.
MR. WEBSTERsaid, he thought the question had been debated on both sides in a rather broader way than it fairly required. It really lay in a very small compass. He was exceedingly averse

1665
to any clause being inserted which would exclude Scotland from the apparent advantages of this Bill. Ho quite agreed that the Bill would affect a very small class in Scotland; but still the Bill was, on the face of it, a beneficent one. It was intended as a boon to the humbler classes, and it seemed to him there would be great misconception if that boon were denied to these poorer classes. It was quite true, he repeated, that the advantages which would flow from this Bill would, in Scotland, be confined—from the peculiar system of parochial relief—to a very small class. As he understood the matter—although the able-bodied poor were not entitled either to medical or pecuniary relief from the funds raised by rates—there was still a small class at present who might be entitled to medical relief as distinct from pecuniary relief. That was the class of men who had been temporarily disabled, and who were entitled by law to be placed for the time among those who received parochial relief. That class, although small, was entitled to equal consideration with such men in England. It was said that the passing of such a measure as this would be an encouragement and incentive to persons not now receiving medical relief to come on the funds for that purpose; but there was no fear of that in Scotland, because there were two parties who must be consulted in such a transaction—not merely those who applied for relief, but the Parochial Board, who administered relief. The Parochial Boards were not entitled, under the stringent Poor Law of Scotland, to give such relief, except to those who were strictly entitled to it; and for these reasons he conceived that the passing of a clause, which would prevent the Scotch people receiving the benefits of such a measure as this, was a mistake.
MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, he would only repeat, in a few sentences, the statement he made the other night of what ho understood to be the law of Scotland in this matter, taking special account of the question put to him by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomasson). In Scotland no able-bodied person was entitled to parochial relief; consequently, there would be a comparatively limited application of the Bill in Scotland as compared with England, if it became law,
1666
as it now stood. But still there were conceivable cases which might arise, as he explained the other night, to which the Bill would apply. For example, it would apply to such a case as this—A person, not able-bodied, might be in such a position that he or she could out of his or her own resources, or the resources of friends, provide adequate food, clothing, and shelter, and yet might stop short of being able to provide medical relief or assistance. Undoubtedly, in a case of that kind, the Bill would apply. Whether the cases were numerous or not seemed to be a matter on which there was a difference of opinion. He should have thought they would be few; but several hon. Friends, with whom he had conversed, thought they would be more numerous than those who were present in the House the other night seemed disposed to think. It was impossible to ascertain the number precisely; but it did appear to him to be an appreciable, and, in the opinion of some, it was a considerable number. In reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton, he should say that if a man had his leg broken, he would, by that fact, become no longer an able-bodied man, and would, therefore, fall within the category of persons who, if they were poor enough, were entitled to apply for relief. That would be a particular instance of the class—a somewhat limited class—to which he had already referred. What was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Webster) with regard to some other points of law was quite correct. He (Mr. J. B. Balfour) thought he had stated sufficient of what the law of Scotland was on the point to enable hon. Members to form a judgment. The remaining question was whether there might not possibly be a larger number of persons affected by the Bill than many hon. Members were disposed to think; and if the number was found to be considerable, it would undoubtedly be a serious step to make the law different as between the two countries. The prevailing fooling the other night was that the Bill—and he confessed that was rather his own view—would hardly have any application in Scotland; but that appeared now to be rather doubtful.
MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he was afraid that, although his right hon. and

1667
learned Friend the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) was well conversant with the law of Scotland, he was not well acquainted with the practice of Parochial Boards. The medical officer received the names of the paupers from the Inspector of the Poor, and then he was obliged to attend to them, and then only. As to the case which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and repeated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. B. Balfour), if a man was obliged to send for the medical officer, he would not then be an able-bodied man, and would come on the Parochial Board, and would be disfranchised. He had some experience in the management of Parochial Boards; he employed a vast number of men; he had been Chairman of two Parochial Boards for many years, and he did not hesitate to say that such a thing as a man, not actually a pauper, losing his right to vote in consequence of receiving medical relief, never happened in Scotland, and could not happen.
MR. BRYCEsaid, he understood that when this subject was last under consideration the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. A. J. Balfour) promised to ascertain the opinions of all the Scotch Members upon it. Had the right hon. Gentleman any objection to say what the result of his inquiries was, and what course the Government would have recommended but for the resolution they had just come to not to make themselves further responsible for the progress of the Bill?
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he quite agreed with very much that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing) had said; but he did not think the hon. Gentleman was quite right in his interpretation of the Poor Law of Scotland. It was quite true that the parochial doctor received a list of patients whom he was expected to attend; but it was provided by the Board of Supervision that in a case of necessity the doctor was bound to attend a patient on receiving a notice from any member of the Parochial Board. The individual so attended would be disqualified from exercising the franchise unless he were protected by the this Bill. The Committee would do well to accept the late Lord Advocate's
1668
(Mr. J. B. Balfour's) interpretation of the law—namely, that if the parochial doctor attended a patient who happened for the time not to be able-bodied the patient would be disfranchised. If there were very few who would be affected by the Bill, that was a very great reason why the Bill should be allowed to remain as it now stood. What was the use of making the law in Scotland different from that in England and Ireland? It was very desirable to have uniformity in this matter. In this matter there was very considerable difference between the positions of the Scotch towns and counties. In the towns, the Town Councils, as the Local Authority, had to deal with infectious diseases, and a man in a town would not be disqualified if he received relief from the Town Council, because he was suffering from an infectious disease. But he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had very strong reason to believe that in counties outside towns the case was different. In counties the Local Authority charged with the duty of dealing with infectious diseases was the Parochial Board. If, therefore, a man in a county was striken down by an infectious disease and received temporary assistance from the Parochial Board out of parochial funds he would be disqualified from voting. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) considered that the attempt to show cause why Scotland should be exempted from the Bill had entirely failed. There was no substantial difference between the laws of the two countries in this respect, because the law of Scotland prohibited relief to any able-bodied man, yet the circumstances of medical relief pre-sup-posed a temporary disability. He would not enter into the arguments about the general evil effects which would accrue to Scotland if it were included in the Bill. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Bolton) that the people of Scotland were extremely anxious to pay their way. It was because of that general disposition on the part of the people that he thought there was less reason for disqualifying the few persons who might be under the necessity of accepting medical relief. He failed to see that any valid reasons had been given why the Bill should not apply to Scotland as well as to England.
MR. ASHERsaid, he desired to state the grounds upon which he intended to

1669
vote against the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire. In the first place, the House, by a very large majority, had approved of the principle of the Bill; and, in the second place, he was not satisfied that if the Amendment was carried it would not have the effect of disqualifying a considerable number of electors in Scotland. An impression appeared to prevail on the part of some hon. Members that there was something connected with the Poor Law of Scotland which made it impossible that this Bill could have any effect in Scotland. It did not appear to him that there was anything connected with the Poor Law of Scotland which should prevent the occurrence of a considerable number of cases to which this Bill could apply. It was true that, by the Poor Law of Scotland, no able-bodied person was entitled to parochial relief; but, on the other hand, a person might be temporarily disabled by accident or disease or delicate health, and when in that condition, though able from his own resources to maintain himself and family, he might yet not be able to procure medical attendance or medicine for himself or some of his young children resident with him and dependent upon him. It would be competent for a man in that position to go to the Inspector of Poor and explain his difficulty, and having satisfied the Inspector that he was unable to supply himself or family with medical attendance and medicine, he thought he would be entitled by the law of Scotland to receive assistance. It was quite true that in consequence of receiving that assistance he would become a pauper, and it would be the duty of the Inspector to put his name on the Roll; but he would only be a pauper in respect of receiving that medical relief or assistance either for himself or for a member of his family. As soon as he recovered he might be able to resume his duties, and to dispense with all further medical relief; and yet, in such a ease, if this Bill did not apply to Scotland, he would be disqualified from voting. Then it was said that the Bill would only apply to a limited number, and that, therefore, the benefit of extending it to Scotland would be comparatively small; while there would be an attendant evil of a much greater magnitude. It seemed to be supposed that the extension of the Bill to Scot-
1670
land would have the effect of increasing the class of persons whom ho had described as entitled to temporary medical relief of the kind he had mentioned. He had a much higher opinion of that class than to suppose that the mere extension of the Bill to Scotland would produce any general feeling of that kind among the working classes throughout Scotland. But the matter did not stop there. Suppose a tendency to apply were thereby created, that did not mean that the right to receive relief thereby arose. Even if it led to applications being made to the Inspector of the Poor it would be the duty of that officer to investigate the circumstances of each case, and satisfy himself that the person applying for medical relief was entitled to receive it. He (Mr. Asher) was unable to appreciate the attendant or incidental evil which was said to be connected with the extension of the Bill to Scotland. Therefore, on the ground that ho approved of the principle of the Bill, and that he was was not satisfied that the exclusion of Scotland would not have a disfranchising effect, his intention was to vote against the Amendment.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, in Scotland, when a working man got into difficulties through illness, he applied to his own doctor, and not the relieving officer, therefore the case cited by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had no bearing on the case. The man would be disqualified not on account of receiving medical relief, hut through coming on the Poor Poll. He (Sir Edward Colebrooke) had some experience of the practical working of the Poor Law in the agricultural districts of Scotland; and, in his opinion, the Bill would be practically inoperative in Scotland, and, under these circumstances, ought not to apply to Scotland. Until the hon. and learned Gentlemen (Mr. J. B. Balfour and Mr. Asher) below him could give something more than mere hypothetical cases, he should hold that the Bill ought not to apply to Scotland. There were, of course, cases of epidemic, but the sufferers were not put on the Poll, and, consequently, would not be disqualified under the existing law. The desire of the agricultural labourer in Scotland was not to pauperize himself or his family, and that desire was a very commendable one. It was because he wished to support the

1671
labourer in this desire to maintain his independence that he (Sir Edward Cole-brooke) intended to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Orr-Ewing). He had opposed the Bill throughout, not with reference to Scotland only, but from his experience in England as a Guardian of the Poor in the Metropolis; he had been struck by the gross abuses which attended relief of any kind. He wished that in his country there should be no temptation whatever to the people to apply for relief. No matter what threat might be held out to him, he was not afraid to walk though the Lobby and have his name paraded before the country as one of those who wished to exclude Scotland from the operation of this Bill.
MR. A. E. D. ELLIOTsaid, the hon. and learned Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. J. B. Balfour and Mr. Asher) had spoken as if Scotland would be placed in an invidious position if this Amendment were carried. As a matter of fact, Scotland, instead of being placed in an invidious position, would be placed in a very creditable position, because it would be recorded on the Statute Book that there was in Scotland some respect paid to what was called the free and independent electors. It was because he wished to preserve the good quality and the independent spirit of the electors that he supported the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing). Like his hon. Friend who had just spoken (Sir Edward Colebrooke) he had opposed this Bill throughout, because he greatly regretted to see the want of respect paid in the House to the independent character of the electors. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had said that the other night —he (Mr. A. Elliot) was not able to be present on that occasion—there were few Radical Members from Scotland present. He did not know how the hon. Gentleman classified the Members; but the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Henderson) was generally supposed to be as thorough-going a Liberal as the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), and he understood that the hon. Member got up and indignantly repudiated the idea of extending these pauperizing provisions to Scotland. He (Mr. A. Elliot) very much regretted that the question had come on for decision now,
1672
when the House was empty, and when many Scottish Members had gone away. It was not apprehended that anything of this sort would occur, and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Henderson) was not present; no doubt he would have made it convenient to be here had he known that the matter would be again considered. He (Mr. A. Elliot) would repeat the question put by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Ham-lets (Mr. Bryce) to the Government as to what the result of the inquiries among Scottish Members had been, which the President of the Local Government Board promised to make. It had been pointed out by the late Lord Advocate that persons here and there might be excluded from the franchise; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman almost went out of his way to avoid declaring that he had known of such cases occurring previously. Were they, for the sake of a few possible cases, to give up that on which the Scottish electors and the Scottish Members prided themselves—the independence of the electors? They wanted the voters to be perfectly free and independent, as they had hitherto been; and he implored the House not to do anything which would detract from the high character of the Scottish electorate.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped they would now decide the issue of this question. The hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) had spoken vehemently against Scotland being included in the Bill. He could not forget that that hon. Member was as equally vehemently opposed to the general principle of the Bill. There were some Scottish Members who thought that this Bill would have no application to Scotland as it stood. It was quite plain it could have no evil effect, except the suggestion that it might alter the sentiment of Scotland on the subject of pauperism. That he did not think was a solid ground to go upon. On the other hand, there were many Scottish Members who thought that there would be a considerable number of cases coming within the Bill. If there were only 20 persons in Scotland who would be affected by the Bill he did not see why they should be disfranchised. The application of the Bill to Scotland could do no harm. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late

1673
Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) considered it was quite possible there might be cases which the Bill would reach. As it might be an injustice to a certain number of Scotchmen if Scotland were excluded from the Bill, he should vote against the Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 30: Majority 95.—(Div. List, No. 242.)
Bill reported, without Amendment.
MR. JESSE CODLINGS: Considering the extreme urgency of the measure, I beg to move that the third reading of the Bill be now taken.
MR. WARTON: No.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to take the third reading of the Bill now? [Cries of "No, no!"and "Yes!"] The third reading of the Bill can only be taken with the general consent of the House.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Would it be in Order to ask for a division?
MR. SPEAKER: No; I ruled that. In fact, the third reading can only be taken by the general concurrence of the House, and that has not been obtained.
MR. LABOUCHERE: In view of the present crisis—
MR. J. G. TALBOT: I rise to a point of Order. There is no Question before the House.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no Question now before the House.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The day, I understand, has not been fixed yet for taking the third reading; and, as I understand it, you have asked for the day to be named. [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will name a day, an opportunity will then be afforded for discussion.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to move that the third reading be taken tomorrow.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the third time To-morrow."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked whether, in view of the Government having ceased to take any responsibility for the Bill, they would afford facilities for its being proceeded with? The Government were in possession of the time
1674
of the House, and could use great influence in preventing the further progress of the Bill. Ho should like to know what course Her Majesty's Government were going to pursue, and whether they would place the Bill in such a position on the Paper as would enable the House to pronounce an early opinion upon it?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under a mistake. The Government had no control under the arrangement of the Orders for tomorrow, which was Friday, and was, therefore, in possession of private Members. If the Bill was put down for tomorrow, it would take its ordinary position. There could be no need for further discussion on the third reading. The subject had been fully debated; it was not a Bill for which special facilities were required.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that it would be extremely inconvenient for hon. Members who desired to support this Bill if it were brought up at a very late hour.
Dr. CAMERONsaid, that the possession of the time of the House by the Government did not apply to Friday; and if they would not accede to the wishes of the majority and give facilities for the third reading of this Bill, he and several of his Friends would put down a number of Motions on going into Committee of Supply on Friday.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I was, unfortunately, out of the House when this question arose, and I do not know the exact position of affairs; but I understand that a request has been made that we should place this Bill before the other Orders of the Day for tomorrow evening. I do not quite see the object of that. The Bill can come on at any hour of the evening; it cannot be blocked; it has been discussed over and over again, and I cannot imagine any necessity for any lengthened debate. We cannot put it before Supply, because that would be contrary to the Orders of the House. The Bill, however, can be moved by any hon. Member of the House, and the House can deal with it.
MR. CAUSTONasked if the House was to understand that the Government did not intend to oppose the third read-

1675
ing of the Bill, and that it might consequently be taken at any hour of the evening?
MR. BRODRICKsaid, that the House had taken a very unusual course in taking up a Bill after it had been abandoned by the Government; and the least hon. Members opposite could do was to give the Government time to consider the matter. He was prepared to move that the third reading be taken on Monday.
MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether Her Majesty's Government recognized this as a Ministerial crisis? Was it their intention to pursue the course adopted a few weeks ago under similar circumstances—namely, to go through the Orders of the Day, and then adjourn?
MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought the question of his hon. Friend (Mr. Causton) was a very reasonable one, and required an answer. What they wished to know was, what the position of the Government was at the present time with regard to this Bill. The Government had said that they ceased to have any responsibility with regard to it. Did that mean that they would not offer any active opposition to the third reading?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): It is very unusual to ask the Government on one day to state a course which they may be inclined to take on another day. I imagine that no one would have resisted an inquiry of such a kind more strenuously than hon. Gentlemen opposite when they occupied these Benches. The matter stands thus. The Government having ceased to take responsibility for this Bill, the hon. Member for Ipswich has very properly taken it up. The Bill will take its place in the other Orders for to-morrow. There are already nine Orders of the Day down, and it is not in the power of the hon. Member to move that it come before them. It will stand as the tenth, and will come on in the ordinary course; and no doubt hon. Members who take such an interest in the Bill will find no inconvenience in attending in order to move the third reading.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he would not ask the noble Lord, for no one expected him to know to-day what course he would take to-morrow—
1676
if, when the Bill did come on for third reading, the Government intended to support, oppose, or remain neutral with regard to it?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must put it to the hon. Member whether this is a fair question. Alterations have been made in the Bill which we conceive to be of great importance, and I have been utterly unable to consult my Colleagues with regard to it. It may be our duty to take one course or another; but all I can say at present is that we cannot assume the responsibility towards the Bill that we have hitherto done.
SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if the House agreed to the Bill being taken on Monday, the Government would lot it be put down as the first Order for that day? It was of great urgency.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had answered himself. If it was of such urgency, it should be taken tomorrow. He could not accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.
MR. HENEAGEsaid, the proper course to take was to move the adjournment of the House in order to give the Government time to make up its mind, which he would therefore do. He took this course in no Party spirit, for he had agitated this question against both the late and the present Governments. It was not only a question as to when the third reading would be taken, but what would become of the measure when it got to "another place." Was the Bill to be rejected there? He would remind the Government that they were allowed the time of the House upon their promise to take up certain Bills, and this was one of them. He desired to know if the Government felt bound to go on with the measure and see it passed into law or not?
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Heneage.)
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, the hon. Member, who was so very anxious for the passing of this Bill, had moved the adjournment of the House, which, if carried, would result in no day being fixed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer

1677
was willing for the third reading to be put down for to-morrow; and if hon. Members opposite were so anxious for the Bill, why on earth did they not take that course? The hon. Member for Grimsby had asked the Government to say what the House of Lords would do with the Bill. Well, he would say, let this House deal with the measure in its wisdom to-morrow or any day it fixed, and when it went to the House of Lords that House would, no doubt, in its wisdom also deal with it. But he had no right whatever to say what course the House of Lords would take with regard to the Bill. So far as this House was concerned, let it be put down for tomorrow.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not think that either the tone or the language of the right hon. Gentleman was calculated to facilitate the progress of Business. The inquiry made of the Government was a very fair inquiry. It was true they had declined responsibility for the Bill; but it was a Bill the importance and urgency of which they had admitted. True, it had been altered in a particular from which they differed, but a particular which the country would regard as not a very vital particular. The question which was now put to them was this—"What course are you going to take with regard to the Bill?" That question could not be disposed of by the defiant manner of the right hon. Gentleman, and by his saying—"Put it down for what day you will." Why could not the Government make up their minds what they wore going to do with reference to this Bill? Why could they not say that, although they did not support it in its present shape, at the same time they could not go the length of endeavouring to destroy the Bill here or "elsewhere?" That would be a reasonable and satisfactory statement. Let the Government say whether, on account of the alterations made, they were going to try to defeat the Bill, either directly or indirectly. The inquiry made was not an unfair one. The Motion to adjourn was made simply for the purpose of eliciting an answer to that question. It was not correct that the Motion for Adjournment, if carried, would defeat the Bill, because in that case it would be put down for Monday. The question was really one of the convenience of Members. They
1678
wished to avoid the inconvenience that would attend uncertainty as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the Bill, and they wished to avoid being kept at the House until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning if there were no necessity. The Leader of the House would not desire to put Members to any unnecessary inconvenience. Let him make a statement which would allow Members on both sides to know whether there was to be a Party division. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some information.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he gladly recognized that the right hon. Gentleman had supported the Motion to adjourn with the simple object of obtaining information; but it appeared to him that the Motion had been made to prevent any further progress with Business this evening.
MR. HENEAGEsaid, he could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had moved the adjournment solely to obtain some information as to the intentions of the Government.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: He was very glad that the hon. Member denied that imputation. The request that was made of the Government appeared to be unreasonable. They were asked to state what were the intentions of the Government with regard to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must know that he could not speak on behalf of his Colleagues without having had the opportunity of consulting them. If this were an important matter, the more necessary was it that the Members of the Government should consult before they stated what course they should pursue. He was afraid ho could not say more than that. He would consult his Colleagues at the earliest possible moment; and he should be prepared at half-past 4 o'clock on Friday to state what course the Government would take with regard to the third reading of the Bill.
MR. FINCH-HATTONsaid, be hoped the consideration of the Bill would be resumed at the earliest practicable moment.
MR. CALLANsaid, he had been amused by the by-play which had taken place. The Government could not give any facilities on Friday; it was not in the power of the House to do so. The hon. Member for Grimsby had a Party

1679
purpose in view. Did he wish to put the Bill down for Monday so as to enable the rank and file of the great Liberal Party to pay their last tribute to the nobleman who brought about the downfall of the Government?
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 223.]
(Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Holland.)
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 223.]

  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

LANDS HELD IN MORTMAIN.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD, in rising to move the following Amendment:—
  "That the proposed exemption of lands held in mortmain from the charge to be imposed on corporate property in lieu of Death Duties is inexpedient and unjust,"
  said, this had been a most unfortunate Budget, and the proposal he attacked had now no legitimate parents. Neither Party was under any obligation to support this part of the Bill, and from what had occurred he was inclined to doubt whether the Budget of the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had at any time the highest sanction of official authority other than his own. He could not suppose that the late Prime Minister, who had lately declared that indirect taxation still bore an unduly large proportion to the taxes on property, had any part in suggesting the proposal of the Budget; and. he gathered from what the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the second reading of the Bill that his proposals had not the concurrence of the Board of Inland Revenue. That the late Prime Minister desired the exemptions referred to in the Amendment seemed impossible, and he should rejoice if his action were successful in getting rid of the part of the Bill relating to corporate property, which was not worth having at the price of these exemptions. The exemptions granted by the Income Tax Act, so far
  1680
  as land was concerned, were nearly identical with the exemptions proposed in Clause 10 of the Bill now before the House. He had not to deal with the question of Income and Property Tax. But the exemption was as real as it was unreasonable. It co-operated powerfully with the exemption from Death Duties, or charge in lieu of those duties, which was the subject of the Amendment, in holding land in mortmain, and all these exemptions formed a grant or bounty upon retaining land in that condition. He objected to the exemption on fiscal grounds, but especially he objected to it on economic grounds, because it was a premium upon holding and upon placing land in a state the most opposed to freedom. The exemption for property held for religious, educational, charitable, or any public objects was not the question he was now raising. He was not proposing a tax upon the property of religious and educational Corporations. He was dealing with the Land Question, and was objecting to a new encouragement being given by law to the holding of land in mortmain. Indeed, as he should show, these absentee Corporations would be richer, not poorer, if he could have his way, because their incomes would be enlarged by conversion of their estates from real property into personal property. Therefore, let no hon. Gentleman suppose that the matter before the House was the taxation of charities. The question upon which he asked the House to vote was this—Ought the State to encourage, by such legislation as was now proposed in these exemptions, the holding of land by absentee and impersonal ownership? On many occasions he had endeavoured to call the attention of Parliament to that which was the most prominent and peculiar feature of land-holding in this country—the absence of responsible and unlimited proprietorship. In 1882, with much encouragement from the late Prime Minister, who said, "I am averse to this method of holding land," he was permitted to deal in that House with the land-holding operations of the greatest and richest Corporation—namely, the Ecclesiastical Commission, and the suggestion which he tendered was that such Corporations should be restrained from traffic in real property. In 1883 he dealt briefly with the landed interests of that Corporation, which was the most

  1681
  illustrious in dignity, but second in the extent of its possessions—the Crown, whose revenue-producing and saleable lands were placed in the charge of an inferior Corporation not directly represented in that House—a Department which, with advantage to public economy and to the public service, he contended might and should be speedily abolished. He alluded to the Office of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The Motion which he made that evening followed strictly in the same line of policy; but while the attacks which he had advanced against the comparatively irresponsible holding of land by limited owners and by Corporations had been of necessity more or less abstract and indirect, he had now the satisfaction of asking the House that evening to strike a powerful and direct blow against the baneful system of the impersonal ownership of land. In the case to which he invited the attention of the House, that system was sustained by a partial, a most unjust, and most inexpedient exemption from taxation. He believed the holding of land by Corporations beyond that which was necessary for their operations in works of public utility and sanitary improvement to be an evil. It led in the case of the two Corporations he had mentioned to very considerable waste of national resources; it was opposed to the public interests in the soil, and it established a proprietorship which was generally hostile to agricultural improvement. It was not reasonable to expect that under the most favourable conditions the soil of any country would or could be owned entirely by those who were its beneficial occupiers. But he asserted that the interests of all classes, and therefore of the commonwealth, lay in that direction; and he appealed to Parliament to remove every shred of law and every tissue of exemption which tended to uphold and to maintain ownership apart from occupation. In the larger cases, Corporations were absentee landlords, and he thought without exception they were bad neighbours. There were parts of that House in which the feeling against absentee landlords was very strong. To no Leader of the Tory Party had greater personal attachment been felt than to Lord George Bentinck, who proposed that a special poor rate should be levied in Ireland upon landlords of that class. But the
  1682
  matter, to which he would draw the attention of the House that night, was one of the exemption of absentee landlords from taxation to which resident landlords were subject. He could not suppose that any hon. Member would contend that an absentee landlord should be exempt from taxation which a resident landlord had to pay. A resident landlord had many obligations from which a Corporation or any other absentee was exempt. He had to sustain the duties of constant hospitality, the duties of charity, the duties of liberal and enlightened example; he had often to bear without a murmur the exactions of the village tradesmen. He had to meet the importunity of the clergyman, for, unlike a Corporation, he had a heart to feel for the poor, and he believed he had a soul to be saved. He could hardly imagine a more scandalous fiscal wrong than that such Corporations should be exempt from taxation to which resident landlords were liable. He was by no means content with the incidence of the Succession Duty as it affected landowners generally; but be did not enter upon that wider subject that night, partly because he looked upon the full and effective reform of the Succession Tax as a matter which must follow, and which could not precede, the reform of the general Land Laws of the country. The reason why they could not deal now completely with that greater part of the subject was the same reason which existed 32 years ago, when in his first Budget speech the late Prime Minister put the matter tersely in this way—"As a matter of fact, under the social arrangements of this country, our great estates are settled estates." It seemed to him that as long as the greater part of the United Kingdom remained in settlement, the injustice of the 21st section of the Succession Duty Act, 1853, providing that—
  "The interest of every successor, except as here in provided, in real property shall be considered to be of the value of an annuity equal to the annual value of such property,"
  must remain without any effective remedy. Whenever Parliament should decree the liberation of the land, then the tax might be levied upon the capital value of the real property; and such undoubtedly would be the increased value given to the soil by freedom from complication of title, and consequent

  1683
  simplicity of transfer, that a large taxation could be borne without any addition to the burdens upon land. The Amendment which he asked the House to accept was strictly confined to the exemption of lands held in mortmain. and he would endeavour to give the House an approximate estimate of the extent and value of those lands. Any hon. Member who had a wide knowledge of the Kingdom would agree that these lands were generally in the best position, and of the most fertile and marketable character. An abstract or skeleton of a Return presented to Parliament in 1882 showed the whole extent of these lands to be 1,995,046 acres, and the annual value chargeable under Schedule A of the Income Tax to be £10,370,828. But that was not a trustworthy statement. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to tax all lands held in mortmain upon that estimate, he would not fear to guarantee that he should have a surplus, and he would point out one direction in which this Return was very much below the facts of the case. The evils of a corporate ownership of land were, perhaps, peculiarly evident upon glebe lands. It was a fact, established upon the practical testimony of the highest authority, that glebe lands were, as a rule, the worst farmed. The reasons were patent. The rector or vicar, who was a Corporation sole, exempt under this Bill, had rarely either capital or competency for agriculture. He had the faintest possible interest in his successor, and he was, consequently, as a rule, a bad landlord and a bad farmer. He supposed that the glebe lands of England alone were not less in extent than 200,000 acres, and he felt confident that only a fraction of that land was included in this Return. The Return was compiled from the same sources as those which furnished the material for the Return of landowners, commonly known as the New Doomsday Book, which Parliament ordered upon the Motion of Lord Derby. It would probably not be wrong to say that wherever corporate lands were assessed in the name of an individual, that such lands had been excluded from this Return of lands held in mortmain. This error did not, of course, apply only to glebe lands; but he would give an illustration of the enormous extent to which it applied to those
  1684
  lands. There were probably more than 10,000 parcels of glebe land in the 15,000 parishes of England and Wales. He took the counties of Buckingham, Hertford, and Lancaster by way of illustration. In Bucks there were only five parcels of glebe described as corporate land; in Hertford there were only three; and in Lancaster there were but seven. Of course, there was a very large error in this statement, and this was part of the explanation. In the Return of landowners in Bucks there were 235 clergymen of the Church of England; in Hertford there were 159; and in Lancaster there were actually 286 "reverend landowners." It was certain that, with very few exceptions, these clergymen were Corporations whoso lands were to be exempt from charge in lieu of Succession Duty. "An exemption," it had been truly said by the late Prime Minister, "is a gift." The leading proposition which he put before the House that night was that the tenure of agricultural estates by absentee Corporations was a bad tenure, injurious to the interests of production, and that it ought not to be aided by the State. They ought to consider whence this grant in aid of the most wasteful ownership of land proceeds. It was levied upon the widow's frugal cup of tea, upon the poor man's breakfast coffee, and upon his tobacco, as well as upon the beer which refreshed the thirsty labourer. It was part of the high rent which was wrung from the poorest of the poor in those most wretched homes which were now attracting the sympathetic attention of illustrious Princes and of Royal Commissions. A body which represented the people ought not to extend the exemptions which were a grant in aid of putting land in mortmain. He did not attempt to impose himself upon the House as being in any way the proprietor or the discoverer of this question. For nearly 30 years it had been before Parliament, and so long ago as 1859 the Government of Lord Palmerston was moved by the late Prime Minister to announce its intention to ask Parliament to extend the Succession Duty to all Corporations. More than 20 years ago the late Prime Minister referred to that attempt in these words—
  "We had not time to compass actual legislation—there was a change of Government in 1859—for the purpose in that Session; but the

  1685
  principle appeared to receive the decided approval of the House. It appeared to he felt that there was no reason in the world why corporate property should enjoy a benefit not enjoyed by the property of individuals, or, in other words, should receive a premium at the expense of the property of individuals."
  For himself he would only make this claim—that he was besieging this unjustifiable and most inexpedient privilege not so much upon fiscal interests as in those of agricultural production. He was acting as one who, if he could, would be a Land Law Reformer in beseeching the House not to encourage a tenure of land which was inimical to those interests, and which certainly ought not to command the sympathy of individual proprietors. If we encouraged control of land by absentee Corporations, then we should support nationalization of the land. If the Ecclesiastical Commission should be aided and supported in adding to the 300,000 acres in its possession, then there was no reason why a Department of State should not manage the 40,000,000 acres of cultivated land. He said that such management of landed estates from Whitehall or from Guildhall was detrimental to the interests of the community. If he was wrong, then we should repeal the Mortmain Act. That Act recited—
  "That, whereas gifts, alienations of lands, tenements, or hereditaments in Mortmain, are prohibited or restrained by Magna Charta, and divers other wholesome laws, as prejudicial to and against the common utility."
  He admitted that the views which led to the Mortmain Act were not altogether those which had most force in the present day. But as our knowledge of, and regard for, the sources of national wealth had increased, so had we become confirmed in our belief that such ownership was opposed to the interests of production. The revenue of these Corporations would be increased by ceasing from landowning. The Admiralty was a landlord, and was formerly, until part of the Greenwich estate was sold, a greater landlord. The hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) gave evidence before the Commission on Agriculture in his capacity of Civil Lord of the Admiralty, and he said—
  "In 1874 we sold land for £319,000, and we realized £8,000 per annum over what we received in property from the ready money."
  1686
  If there were any Corporations disposed to complain of his desire to cancel the exemption of lands from taxation, he might refer them to this incident. Here was an increase of £8,000 a-year obtained by sale of land, worth only £319,000; that was by abolition of the necessarily extravagant expenses of management. From such sale other benefits would flow. "How do you fulfil the social duties of a landlord?" was asked of the official representative of a great landed Corporation. "The only answer I can give," said the official, "is that we give half-yearly audit dinners to the tenants." That was the nice attention of a Government Department. Let them look a little further. There was St. Bartholomew's Hospital, with 8,000 acres, to which this Bill gave exemption. They had it in evidence that the farms were visited only once in four years by the surveyor, and that the leases were for 12 years. The official manager of that estate was, ho believed, the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir Sydney Waterlow), who was also at the same time for many years governor of the estates of the Irish Society. In 1883 the late Prime Minister said that St. Bartholomew's Hospital obtained a "gift" by exemption from Income Tax, amounting to £1,050 a-year. There were the 14,000 acres of Christ's Hospital, which wore controlled by the late Member for Worcester (Mr. Allcroft), who was also controller of the estates of the Sons of the Clergy Corporation. There was Guy's Hospital, with nearly 24,000 acres, and, in a somewhat different category, the Woods and Forest Commission held upwards of 70,000 acres of farmlands; the Duchy of Cornwall estates included more than 50,000 acres; the Duchy of Lancaster 35,000 acres. All were to be exempted. These Royal Corporations stood, by law, in a peculiar position; but he was not in favour of according to them any privilege or exemption. He believed that, without exception, these Corporations, each and all, denied to their tenants the benefits of the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875. He thought he had shown the House that it was not desirable that this exemption should be given; that it was not desirable that the labouring population should be charged with a grant in support of the holding of land by Corporations, which was directly opposed to

  1687
  their interest in what was called the Wages Fund, and which, by diminishing production, tended to increase the cost of food. He had further quoted evidence to show that it was for the advantage of the Corporations that they should make investments in securities not involving such multiform charges for management. He begged leave to repeat that upon the present occasion he was not opening the general question of the taxation of charities. He was rather confining himself to one of the by-ways of Land Law Reform. He well remembered the speech of the late Prime Minister in 1863 upon the taxation of charities. He recalled how, in 1881, in the possession of still larger power, he said —"I myself have had the honour of once failing in an attempt to deal with it;" and he did not presume to take his stand where the right hon. Gentleman had not succeeded. He confined himself to the economic objections to the exemption from taxation of lands held in mortmain. Instead of exemption he was inclined to think the taxation of lands in mortmain should be heavier than upon land of individual proprietors. Lord George Bentinck said—
  "I think if there were two poor rates introduced into Ireland, the one applying to all occupiers of land and the other to all those who did not spend a certain portion of the year upon some portion of their estates in Ireland, it would prove useful."
  These Corporations were absentee landlords in perpetuity. He was proposing to get rid of the exemption from taxation of land which had no personal owner. More than that, he should be glad to facilitate the escape of these Corporations from this particular charge upon land by assisting to build a golden bridge for their retreat from the position of landholders. It was upon this narrow ground that he asked the House to assent to this Amendment. He entreated hon. Members to have regard to the struggles and the penury of the poorest class of taxpayers in their several constituencies, and in doing so they could not fail in their duty to join in refusing to make a grant from the pockets of the poor for the benefit of those wealthy land-owning and absentee Corporations. Nor was it, to his mind, one of the smallest recommendations of this very moderate proposal that it would tend to bring us by one indirect step nearer to that time
  1688
  when the divorce of the British people from the soil of their country should be annulled, when there should be no more decline of British agriculture, when the fertile fields of England should be made to yield a far greater produce, and when the voices of a happier and more healthy people should resound in all parts of our beloved Motherland. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the proposed exemption of lands held in mortmain from the charge to be imposed on corporate property in lieu of Death Duties is inexpedient and unjust,"—(Mr. Arthur Arnold,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, his hon. Friend had given some excellent reasons why the amount of land held in mortmain should be reduced as much as possible; and he quite agreed with his contention that it was highly desirable that land should be held by private and responsible persons rather than by Corporations. If they could get rid of the tenure of land by Colleges, hospitals, or other Corporations, and for ecclesiastical purposes, except the mere occupation of palaces, Canons' houses, or parsonages, by the dignitaries of the Church and parochial clergy, a very great advantage would be gained. Therefore, he had no objection to the terms of the hon. Member's Motion, and, indeed, supported its object. But the hon. Gentleman in his speech argued that this Bill would encourage the holding of land in mortmain, and that was an entire misapprehension. The clause of the Bill to which the hon. Member objected merely provided that in respect of all real and personal property Corporations, since they did not pay Succession Duty, should pay an equivalent duty of 5 per cent, but that Corporations founded for charitable, religious, or educational purposes should be exempted. That was in no way encouraging the holding of land in mortmain.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: Does my right hon. Friend mean to contend that it does not exempt the real property held by Corporations?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that it did not exempt real property one whit more than personal property. The exemption was not of certain classes of property, hut of certain classes of Corporations. The Motion of his hon. Friend was, therefore, not really an Amendment to the Bill, and it might almost be a question whether it could he put. If the hon. Member had raised the question as to whether these classes of Corporations should be exempted then there would have been some case for argument. As the clause now stood exactly as when introduced by him when Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should have risen to justify those exemptions; but the hon. Gentleman did not raise that question. He contented himself with enunciating a principle which was generally accepted on that side of the House, and moving an Amendment which was really not an Amendment to the Bill at all.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he was of opinion that there should be perfect equality of taxation, whether the property was real or personal; and he thought the proposal to tax corporate property at the rate of 5 per cent upon its net annual value was very fair. The State extracted Legacy and Succession Duty on the principle that it was joint heir to every one of its subjects who died; but Corporations did not die, and thus escaped Succession Duty. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had very wisely and equitably proposed an Income Tax of 5 per cent, which might be considered as equivalent to a Succession Duty of about 9 per cent upon the capital value. With regard to taxing such Corporations as were mentioned by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), he came to an entirely different conclusion from that hon. Gentleman. Such Corporations as were to be found in the City of London, which enjoyed the profits of the property which they administered, ought to be taxed; but other institutions did not enjoy the profits at all. They were simply trustees of the property. The trustees of Greenwich Hospital or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners did not enjoy the property which they administered. The property was possessed, not for the benefit of the Commissioners, but of the whole country; and it would be acknowledged by those
  1690
  who knew the estates of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that there were very few estates in England so well managed and which possessed more respectable or prosperous tenants. The system must be judged by its fruits, and if it was found that those large estates were the best managed in the country, and did a very great amount of good to the country and to their tenants, there was no reason why a dead set should be made on them. He believed the present system had been found entirely conducive to the general well-being of the country, and he held also that the different Corporations now exempt were properly exempt even under the rules laid down by the hon. Member himself. They were all either charitable, or religious, or patriotic in their object. He must protest against the statement that the present system was injurious to the labourers of the country. The labourers could not become possessors of the soil unless it were purchased from its present owners; and if the labourers were supplied with the necessary funds, they would find a more profitable way of employing it than by becoming pauperized landholders. He accepted entirely the sound maxim of political economy laid down by the hon. Member for Sal-ford; but he could not find within the Bill a single item which affected the principle the hon. Member had laid down. They could not charge charities and national institutions with taxes of this kind without defeating the purposes for which they were devised. If they taxed those institutions they would incapacitate them from carrying out the objects for which they were established. The Prime Minister, in 1863, made a great speech in favour of taxing those institutions; but he found out afterwards that he had made a great mistake, and that mistake would never again be repeated in that House. It was simply suicidal to discourage and destroy by taxation the charitable and patriotic work of the country. He had great pleasure in supporting the measure.
  MR. SHIELDsaid, that the second part of the Bill was certainly very important, and it was much to be regretted that it came to be dealt with by the House in circumstances not the most favourable for careful legislation on a difficult subject. His hon. Friend had said that this Bill had no legitimate

  1691
  parent. It had at its birth; hut, considering the position of the Bill now, no one was really responsible for it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had taken it over from his right hon. Friend below him; but, occupied as he was with so many pressing matters, it was not possible that he could have given it that full amount of thought that might make him responsible for it. His right hon. Friend, on the contrary, seeing that this part of the Bill was separated from the other proposals with which he had connected it, could not be held properly responsible. Everybody thought that the Budget of the late Government had dropped with them, and he verily believed that very few corporate bodies which were affected were really aware that they were affected. The improvements which he would wish to effect in the Bill were of a twofold character—first, an enlargement of its scope by removing some of its exceptions; and, secondly, a reduction of the rate of taxation. He had put down for Committee an Amendment asking the House to reduce the tax from 5 per cent to 3 per cent, believing that the tax as now proposed was inequitable. He held that it would be impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to justify this 5 per cent. This tax of 5 per cent for corporate bodies was first presented to the House as part of a large scheme. Exemptions that were allowed to prevent double taxation must be maintained; but he should certainly deal freely with the others. These included landowning Departments of the Government and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and he could not help feeling that the susceptibilities of the officials connected with these Corporations and their objection to taxation counted for a good deal. There was confusion of thought as between Death Duties and Property and Income Tax. This Bill professed to be a Death Duty Bill; but, to all intents and purposes, it was an Income Tax Bill. An important Petition presented to the House said that it was nothing but a new Income Tax of 1s. in the pound, and it put three times more Income Tax on the Corporations affected by the Bill.
  MR. TOMLINSONrose to Order, and asked whether the remarks of the hon. Member were relevant to the Amendment before the House?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was out of Order in anticipating an Amendment he had put upon the Paper.
  MR. SHIELDsaid, it was not his intention to do so. The Amendment sought to get rid of exemptions; he desired to do so too, and, therefore, he supported it. If the Amendment succeeded, it would get rid of the second part of the Bill; and he, for one, should not regret that. We were only going to raise by it £130,000 of Revenue, and a considerable portion of that would be absorbed in the cost of obtaining it.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYsaid, the Amendment had been entirely disposed of by the speech of the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers). Speaking as a Representative of the Ecclesiastical Commission, he doubted whether the hon. Member for Salford was aware of the facts as regarded that Corporation. Up to October, 1881, the Commissioners had sold 416,117 acres of land. He was surprised to hear that the Commissioners were hostile to agricultural improvement. He would leave that point to be settled by independent testimony; but certainly they had had a smaller proportion of land thrown on their hands than any other landowner in the Kingdom. They knew their interests would be promoted by the sale of land, and they had offered it to tenants on advantageous terms—15 per cent down, and the residue in instalments spead over 30 years. Income Tax was paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on all their income, whether derived from lands, tithe-rent charge, ground-rents, royalties, manorial rights, or any other source of income. The Commissioners deducted Income Tax from the payments made by them to the clergy; and the amount of Income Tax shown in the common fund account was only the balance chargeable to that account after deducting the amount of Income Tax retained by the Commissioners out of the annual grants paid by them. During the year ending October, 1884, the Commissioners paid, in respect of Income Tax, £28,717 7s. 10d, and they deducted out of payments made by them a sum of £22,395 3s. 2d., leaving the balance £6,322 4s. 8d., shown in accounts as chargeable to the common fund.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, that the hon. Member for Salford ob-

  1693
  jected to land being held in mortmain to a great extent, on the ground that Corporations escaped the payment of the Death Rate. A large Corporation with which he was connected, in their Report to the Royal Commission, said they ought to pay something in lien of the Death Rate. He believed that a tax of 5 per cent on the income would amount to loss than 10 per cent on the value of the property, that calculation being based on the assumption which was generally accepted that land in individual ownership paid the Death Duty once every 20 years. With regard to property applied exclusively to the public benefit, it would be ridiculous to impose any tax upon it, for it was only taking out of one pocket to put it in another. Nor did he think that any good would be effected by the taxation of property held for charitable purposes, as the amount paid in taxation would only reduce the sum available for the relief of the sick poor, and thereby render it necessary for the ratepayers to spend more on hospitals and infirmaries. He trusted that the House would not agree with the Resolution.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, however interesting the subject they had been discussing might be, he failed entirely to see its relevancy to the Bill before the House. He was inclined to agree with a great deal that had been said as to the advantage of resident landlords; but he thought that the argument might be pushed too far. It was the case that residents were to be found who did not do their duty as landlords, while he would venture to say that there were many tenants of Corporations who were infinitely better off than if the property had belonged to individual landlords who did not do their duty. He would not follow the right hon. Member for Pontefract in his very sweeping objections to property being held by Corporations. He certainly could not concur with the right hon. Gentleman to the full extent. No doubt, it would be undesirable that property held by Corporations should increase, or be-come as great as that held by individuals; but it would be equally undesirable that there should be no property held by Corporations. The particular Corporations which the right hon. Gentleman wished to be excluded from
  1694
  the inability of Corporations to hold property were Corporations sole—namely, clergymen of the Church of England holding glebes. Ho thought that there could be no question that the position of clergymen rendered them less qualified to perform the duties of landlords than other Corporations. The hon. Member for Salford, in his zeal to got rid of property held in mortmain, proposed to put an extra tax on that kind of property. He was surprised that the hon. Member, holding the views he did, should have moved an Amendment to the Bill, as he should have thought that, from his point of view, he would have supported the Bill and tried to extend its operation by removing some of the exemptions from taxation. In his opinion, it would not be possible with advantage to remove any of those exemptions; but, from the point of view of the hon. Member, he should have thought he would endeavour to remove some of them. He would not deal with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Shield), as those points would be better dealt with in Committee. He would not attempt to go at any further length into the subject discussed by the hon. Member for Salford, as he thought this was not the proper time to do so; but if the subject was fairly brought before the House as a separate Motion he should be prepared to deal with it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 38: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 243.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE, who had the following Motion on the Paper:—
  "That taxation, as now levied, presses too heavily on those who cannot well hear the burden, and this state of things ought to be remedied by increased imposts upon land, particularly upon such as is not in the actual occupation of those entitled to its rents, and upon such land as is capable of being devoted to increasing the wealth of the community, but which is not, by assimilating the Death Duties on real estate with those on personal estate; and by a progressive Income Tax and progressive Succession Duties,"
  said, it was admitted by all persons that this Budget was not a proper one. The Conservatives threw the blame upon the Liberals by saying that they had not had time to bring forward a proper Budget. But ho maintained they should

  1695
  not have made the attack on the Liberal Budget without having a Budget of their own to bring forward, and it was in consequence of their not having such a Budget that they found themselves in the present unsatisfactory position. The fact was they were paying the price of a Conservative Government, and that price was to borrow money in order that it might be spent, instead of money being raised by taxes for the current year, as had been proposed by the late Government. The first proposition which he ventured to lay down was that the poor were unjustly taxed, and the rich not sufficiently taxed. Mr. Leone Levi said that "the families which have the smallest incomes pay the highest contributions." This contribution was put as high as 15 per cent on the means of the poor man and 5 per cent on those of the rich; and he thought everyone would admit that the poor man with a large family paid at least 10 per cent on his income, and the rich man did not pay more than 5 per cent. What was the reason of this? The reason was that although poor men were the majority of the electors in this country, practically almost all persons in the House were more or less rich men. [Cries of "No!"] He said "Yes." This was due to the fact of a candidate being obliged to pay his own election expenses, and in consequence of Members of the House of Commons not being paid for sitting as Representatives. He was afraid that this state of things would continue until the two excellent reforms in our representation which he had indicated were accepted. What was the consequence? The House of Commons, composed as it was of rich men, did not dare directly to tell poor men that they were paying more than their proportion as compared with the rich men. The result had been that the system of indirect taxation was invented, and he considered it to be nothing but an organized form of trickery. It was bad enough that they should make men pay irrespective of their means as they did by indirect taxation; but it was more absurd that of £3 collected by indirect taxation, only £2 went into the Treasury. The object of every Chancellor of the Exchequer in imposing indirect taxation was to levy that taxation on primary articles of consumption, and the consequence was he had to select articles
  1696
  which were considered as food for the people. For instance, they taxed tea, and tea was to a large extent the food of the poor. Again, there was tobacco, which was an article of almost universal use. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, every reasonable person who wished to go through the world calmly and quietly and who did not wish to get excited used tobacco; but look at the immense amount of taxation levied on this article of consumption! They made the poor man pay 400 per cent on his tobacco, while the rich man paid 50 per cent on his cigars. He contended, therefore, that indirect taxes, in order to be fair, ought in reality to be ad valorem duties; but all Chancellors of the Exchequer knew of the difficulty of raising ad valorem duties. They were not prepared to incur the trouble and the expense of imposing them. Take, again, the case of alcohol. By their not having an ad valorem system of duties, the poor man paid 200 per cent on his spirits, while the rich man paid 25 per cent on his wine. He asked hon. Members to say whether they considered this to be a fair system of taxation? He acknowledged that expenditure must be met; so far he agreed with all Chancellors of the Exchequer. But he was not one of those who thought the Budget could be materially reduced. Something, no doubt, might be done to avoid useless wars, to reduce pensions or salaries; but all that could be done in this direction would be very little. He thought it was a financial and political heresy to complain of the Budget being so excessively high. What they should complain of was the mode in which the money was raised, and the manner in which it was often spent. He would suggest that they should at once increase the burden on land. The community had been robbed year after year and generation after generation by the landlords. A bargain was made long ago that the landlords should pay 4s. in the pound on the annual value of the land; but they had managed to escape from their proper contribution under that arrangement. The result was that the landlords at present paid about £1,000,000 as Land Tax, whereas they ought in reality to pay at least £20,000,000. Thus the country was robbed of £19,000,000 through their having a landlord Parliament composed of one House, consisting entirely of landlords, and another House

  1697
  in which the landlords were still almost the masters. He desired to see adopted a graduated Land Tax, dependent on the number of acres that each individual had. Again, if the landlords did not make a proper use of the land—if they devoted it to shooting purposes, or let it lie waste, they ought to be called upon to pay a considerable amount of taxation upon it. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed to equalize Death Duties upon real estate and personal property; and the House knew what had been the fate of that proposal. It was said that land bore many local burdens; and so, he held, it ought to do. That was always intended. He thought that land should bear not only all local burdens, but also a greater amount than it now bore of Imperial taxation. There was, however, one way in which they might obtain relief as regarded the education rate. The Established Church had a very large amount of property. After providing for all existing rights they might take, he thought, about £50,000,000 from' the Established Church and devote it to educational purposes. It was in that way alone that in a Radical Parliament the landlords could get any relief from what they called their heavy burdens. A progressive Income Tax and progressive Succession Duties ought to be imposed so as to make rich people pay, as they ought to do, towards the necessities of the State. There was no reason why they should allow a man to have a largo income. It was no benefit to the State. They allowed it as a concession, and it should be paid for by a graduated Income Tax, increasing in proportion as the income increased above a man's fair requirements. Again, it was a concession to permit men to leave large sums to particular individuals, and if £50,000 or £100,000 were left to an individual the State ought to have one-third of the £50,000, and one-half of the £100,000, or some such proportions. They had heard a good deal about "ransoming" property lately, and he himself valued that phrase because it seemed to indicate something in the nature of what he was suggesting. He knew he was in a minority in that House, but there were several millions outside who entirely agreed with him. There should also be a distinction made between incomes derived from realized property and incomes
  1698
  derived from trade and manufactures. The income from the latter was not all spending income, because the possessor had to lay by something against a rainy day for his family. His was, perhaps, the extreme Radical idea of finance, but it was not in the least a Socialist doctrine. He would put the burden on the shoulders best able to bear it. He would have the poor pay some small quota when they could afford it. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed; it was the habit of the House to laugh at the poor ["No!"]; but how could a person who was struggling for the bare necessaries of existence pay taxes? Taxation ought to commence after the mere struggle for existence had ceased, and those who had incomes admittedly in excess of their requirements should pay a ransom to prevent those who were in want from taking those incomes from them. He would not trouble the House further; but he had thought it right to point out the grand lines upon which financial democracy should run in future.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Sugar store to be entered by brewer for sale and accounts of sugar to be kept).
  MR. HICKSmoved an Amendment to provide that Returns should also be made of raw grain or rice. He said, that after the promise made on behalf of the Government when the Bill was read a second time he did not think it necessary or desirable to enter at length into the question which this clause appeared to him to open out. He would merely explain why he thought the Returns which the Government called for under this clause should be extended to raw grain and rice. No doubt, it would be within the knowledge of many Members of the Committee that, prior to 1847, a brewer of beer for sale was not allowed to use any other material whatever in the manufacture of beer than malt and hops. In that year, for the first time, the brewer was allowed to use sugar, on the condition that the sugar he used had paid duty. But not only was he not allowed to use any

  1699
  other material than sugar that had paid duty, but he rendered himself liable to a heavy penalty if he had any other material on his premises. That regulation went on down to 1880, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), in his great desire to benefit the agricultural interest, brought in a Bill substituting a Beer Duty for a Malt Duty, and giving the brewer the right to use anything he thought fit in the manufacture of beer. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not present. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman absented himself from all participation in the Business of the House in order to imitate the conduct of that great Minister, Charles James Fox. The right hon. Gentleman was evidently trying to give a faint imitation of that great Minister.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member that his remarks were not applicable to the Amendment he was moving.
  MR. HICKSwould only say that he was sorry the Committee had not the advantage of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, in order that he might take part in a discussion of the Act which he had himself passed in 1880. But as the right hon. Gentleman was not there they must do the best they could without him. He (Mr. Hicks) had pointed out what was the state of the law in 1847, 1880, and at the present time. They had now a fresh clause brought in by the Government requiring certain Returns and entries to be made by brewers of beer for sale, but those Returns were confined entirely to the substitution of sugar; but he (Mr. Hicks) maintained that the consumer had a right to know—perhaps not what every particular thing was which was used in the manufacture of beer by every brewer—but to know broadly what materials were employed, and especially whether raw grain and rice were used. He thought it was right that the consumer should know that as well as know whether "cane sugar, saccharum, glucose, or other saccharine substance or extract or syrup" was used. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name—that, after the word "syrup," the words "or raw grain or rice" be inserted.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 39, after the word "syrup," to insert the words "or raw grain or rice."—(Mr. Hicks.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his hon. Friend had entirely mistaken the object and meaning of the clause. It was not in any way to dictate what the brewer should use in the manufacture of the article called beer, but merely to provide security against frauds on the Revenue. Of course, raw grain and rice and other materials might be used to make beer, although a good many people would agree with the hon. Member in preferring malt and hops.
  MR. HICKSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had rather misunderstood his meaning. He had no wish in the Amendment he had proposed to dictate to the brewer what materials he should use. He was already at liberty to use what he pleased under the famous Act of 1880. All he desired was that a Return should be made to the Government in the case of raw grain and rice just as much as in sugar, and that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to call for a Return of the sugar and syrup used, he should also call for a Return of raw grain and rice. His Amendment had nothing whatever to do with the making of the beer by the brewer.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Grant of duty on property of corporate and unincorporate bodies).
  MR. SHIELDmoved to reduce the duty from 5 to 3 per cent. He said, the proposition which he had to make good was that in levying a tax of 5 per cent upon the annual value or income or profits of Corporate property the Government were proposing a tax which was inequitable and higher than that which was received from the death rates from the owners of individual property who succeeded in consequence of death. Perhaps he might be allowed to explain the circumstances under which this 5 per cent had been proposed. It formed part of the scheme of his right hon.

  1701
  Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1883. Under that scheme the Death Duties, to which this 5 per cent was made equivalent, were calculated at 13 per cent; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having abandoned the complementary measure with which this Bill was associated, had to provide an equivalent for Death Duties at 10 per cent. His first proposition was one which he thought was a self-evident one. If the tax sought to be imposed by the Bill were equivalent to Death Duties calculated at 13 per cent, it must be more than an equivalent for the same Death Duties calculated at 10 per cent. Ho awaited with some curiosity to know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer would deal with that argument. The tax now proposed was to be imposed as an equivalent to Death Duties at 13 per cent, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer now sought to make out that it was no more than equivalent to Death Duties at 10 per cent; and he was curious to discover the actuarial basis of the right hon. Gentleman's calculation. In 1853, when the Succession Duties were first imposed, the Government of that day contemplated a measure to levy a tax upon the property of Corporate bodies equivalent to the Succession Duty. He had before him the volume of Hansard in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the provisions of his scheme. The right hon. Gentleman estimated that the Succession Duties would yield £2,000,000 a-year; but, as they all knew, that amount had proved to be greatly overestimated, and the actual amount obtained was not much more than one-third of the estimate. But the tax now proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one of 5 per cent, which he proposed as an equivalent for the Succession Duties which had been so much over-estimated. He (Mr. Shield) thought that a 3 per cent tax would provide a much nearer equivalent to the Death Duties than one of 5 per cent; and he maintained that the Death Duties paid upon succession to real property by individuals were not much more than one-half of the tax sought to be imposed by the present Bill. The Committee must bear in mind that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer who imposed the Succession Duties was approximately right, the proposal of the present Bill must be
  1702
  considerably over the mark. The real property upon which Succession Duty was paid was not subjected to Probate Duty; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 30 years ago was approximately right in imposing a tax of 3d. in the pound for seven years, and then of 6d., as equivalent to a Succession Duty, it afforded a very strong argument, indeed, to show that the present proposal was more than equivalent to the Succession Duty. Ho thought this point was capable of illustration in another way by a pure arithmetical calculation. This Bill said that 5 per cent on the yearly income was no more than equivalent to the Death Duties on the same property if owned by an individual at the time of death. Now, what was 5 per cent? Five per cent upon a yearly income was equivalent to 10 per cent upon the capital value every 40th year. But the Death Duties wore calculated every 30 years; so that the question was, what tax calculated every 30 years would this 5 per cent levied every year be equivalent to? He contended that ordinary property, much less Corporate property, would not yield, upon an ordinary actuarial calculation, the tax which the Bill sought to impose. Seeing that 5 per cent was much more than equivalent to the Death Duties which the State could collect from Corporate property, ho asked the Committee to reduce the rate to 3 per cent. He was not prepared with any actuarial computation as to what the exact rate ought to be; but he thought that a tax of 3 per cent would much more nearly provide an equivalent for the Death Duties than 5 per cent.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 4, to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "three."—(Mr. Shield.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, that this was a matter which had been discussed in the House a great many times; and the object now was to endeavour to assimilate Corporate property, as far as they could, with individual property, by imposing a percentage every year of equal amount. He understood that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Shield) did not object to that proposition, but simply to the amount of

  1703
  the percentage which the Government proposed.
  MR. SHIELDsaid, he did object, as a matter of fact, to the proposal altogether.
  SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, he had understood the hon. Gentleman to object to 5 per cent, as being; too high a figure. Leaving Probate Duty out of the question, personal property paid in the shape of Death Duties once, at least, in a very 16 years. Take £100 invested in Consols. That gave £3 a-year, upon which a Corporation would pay 5 per cent, or 3s. Spreading the payments over 16 years they would amount to 48s.; whereas, if the amount were capitalized, and 5 per cent paid every 16 years, the sum paid would be £5. Therefore, upon an actuarial calculation a Corporation, under the scheme of the Government, would not in reality pay more than 3 per cent, but somewhat less, compared with the sum they would pay if the value of the property were capitalized.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he did not agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney) that the 5 per cent upon the income or profit would practically amount to little more than 3 per cent upon the capitalized value; he thought that 16 years was too short a term on which to base the calculation. It must also be remembered that they were bringing in property which had never been subjected to this taxation before, and in all probability they would bring in a much larger amount of property than originally contemplated. He, for one, was of opinion that exemptions could not be maintained; and, taking the whole of the Corporate property, he thought that the tax imposed by the Bill would really amount practically to a tax of 10 per cent upon it. He looked upon that as a very large percentage; but he would not say that 3 per cent on the annual income would not be too small, and therefore he would suggest something between 3 per cent and 5—say 4 per cent, which he thought would be a reasonable amount. He hoped that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to make some concession.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was a very difficult calculation to arrive at the precise figure
  1704
  which should represent the fair annual payment which should fall upon Corporate property instead of the Probate Duty. He confessed that when he first looked into the matter he was of opinion that 5 per cent was too high; but after becoming more thoroughly acquainted with it, he came to the conclusion arrived at by his hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Sir Gabriel Goldney) that, on the whole, Corporate property would really have nothing to complain of in having to pay a 5 per cent duty. There was one point which had not been alluded to—namely, that this duty was only paid after deducting from the profits all the necessary outgoings. It must be remembered that, in regard to Corporate property, the deductions under the head of necessary outgoings would most likely be much greater than in the case of the property of private individuals. Therefore, under the circumstances, he hoped the Committee would adhere to the 5 per cent.
  MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could give the exact definition of the words "annual value," because there were plenty of Clubs, such as the Atheneum and the Carlton Clubs, in which the library and other property were of very great value? He therefore wished the right hon. Gentleman to state exactly what was meant by the term "annual value." If property of the kind to which he referred had existed for more than 30 years, would the whole of it have to pay the tax?
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, that before the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered the question he wished to say that, when they came to that part of the clause, he intended to move that the word "value" be omitted. There could be no doubt as to why the tax should be imposed on income or profits; but the annual value of the property might form no part of the annual income. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider that point before they came to the word "value."
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDwas of opinion that the present proposal would amount to very nearly 4½ per cent upon the capitalized value of Corporate property, instead of 3 per cent only.
  MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he could understand that if they were to impose the whole of the Death Duties that 5 per

  1705
  cent would not be far from the mark; but as Corporate property did not pay Probate Duty, and was very largely composed of real estate, he could not help thinking that this was rather a severe measure. He certainly could have no sympathy with the Bill so long as absurd exemptions were retained in it, and he would feel inclined to vote for a reduction of the charge on Corporate property until the whole of it was included. Instead of attempting to insert the thin edge of the wedge only, they ought to deal with the whole question boldly; and if they were only going to introduce a half-measure such as this they ought to be careful not to make it too severe. He was afraid that in the exemptions they were leaving out some of the largest and most profitable property. For instance, Ecclesiastical property, although it certainly paid Income Tax, was left out of the Bill. That being so, he was inclined to agree to a more moderate measure, and he should prefer 4 per cent instead of 5. He thought a reduction to 3 per cent would be going too far; but he agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that the figure ought to be 4.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he hoped that the Government would stand by the 5 per cent. It ought to be regarded as deferred payment, and not anticipated payment, seeing that these Corporations had been largely increasing their property for centuries without paying for it. Instead of being asked, like other inheritors of property, to pay a lump sum on succession at once, all they were called upon to do was to pay an annual percentage upon the interest of their capital.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Shield) was inclined to accept his suggestion. If the hon. Member was, he would move that 4 per cent be substituted for 5.
  MR. SHIELDsaid, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GREGORYmoved to substitute 4 per cent for 5.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 4, to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "four."—(Mr. Gregory.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, the matter was one which must be dealt with on principle so as to determine exactly the amount of duty which a Corporation ought to pay. If they went into the question of compound interest, he was prepared to maintain that 5 per cent paid annually was not really more than 3 per cent paid at long intervals on the direct descent of property.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWmoved, in page 5, line 4, to omit the word "value." The effect of the Amendment would be to limit the tax to the annual income or profits of property accruing to any corporate or unincorporate body. He thought it was quite sufficient to tax the income or profit, and that only. If the property was intended to be taxed upon its value, it would have to be valued every year. He was satisfied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to tax the value of the property, hut only the income or profit arising from the value of it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 4, to leave out the word "value."—(Sir Sydney Waterlow.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'value' stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that this was rather a technical matter, and he certainly preferred the clause as it stood to the Amendment. He should, however, have liked to consult the authorities on the subject. It occurred to him that if the Amendment were carried, the result would be that no Corporate body would pay the tax except where some income or profit was derived from its property. But a Corporation might occupy a freehold of great value, and yet derive no income from it. Surely, such property ought not to be exempt from taxation. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaid, he would instance the case of the Fishmongers' Hall. That was very valuable property; but surely the Fishmongers' Company ought not to be taxed upon the annual value of the premises in order to replace the Property Tax?
  MR. CHILDERSasked upon what Death. Duties paid by individuals were imposed? They were imposed not on the income, but upon the corpus of the estate; and if they, in the present case, abandoned that principle, and only levied a duty upon the income or profit derived by the Corporation, they would exclude a large amount of property upon which Death Duties would undoubtedly be paid if it were held by a private individual. Upon that matter there could be no question. The object of this clause was to place the property of Corporations as nearly as possible on the same footing as the property of individuals, and they would run counter to that principle if they were to accept the Amendment.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWintimated that he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GREGORYmoved, in line 7, after the word "outgoings," to insert—
  "Including the receiver's remuneration, and costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred in the management of such property."
  The object of the Amendment was to make it perfectly clear what the "necessary outgoings" were to comprise.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 7, after the word "outgoings," to insert the words "including the receiver's remuneration, and costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred in the management of such property."—(Mr. Gregory.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYmoved, in line 16, to leave out the words "and applied exclusively." The sub-section proposed to exempt property which, or the income or profits whereof, should be legally appropriated and applied exclusively for the benefit of the public at large in any county, shire, borough, or place, or in any manner expressly prescribed by Act of Parliament. He ventured to submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the true test of whether property ought to be exempted or not was not whether it was actually applied, but whether it was legally appropriated, and, if legally appropriated, it ought to be exempted whether the Trustees who had the distribution of the income did their duty or not. If they failed to to their duty they could be called to ac-
  1708
  count and made to do it. The property liable to taxation ought not to depend upon the extent or manner in which the Trustees fulfilled their duty. The test should be whether the property was legally appropriated and devoted to public purposes or not. He therefore proposed to omit from the sub-section the words "and applied exclusively." If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that those words ought to be retained, he (Mr. Davey) would venture to submit that the words were misleading and that they did not carry out the intentions of the Government. He would give an illustration. Did the words "applied exclusively" mean that the whole of the income was to be applied in a particular manner? If so, what would happen if 19–20ths were so applied, and the other 20th was not? What would be the effect? The clause in such a case might be construed to mean, not that the l–20th was to lose the benefit of the exemption, but that the whole of the income was to be deprived of the advantage of this clause. He therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, at any rate, to the extent of leaving out the word "exclusively."
  THE CHAIRMANasked what it was that the hon. and learned Gentleman moved?
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he proposed to leave out the words "and applied exclusively."
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 16, to leave out the words "and applied exclusively."—(Mr. Horace Davey.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was afraid that he could not agree to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He thought that the words "and applied" ought to be in the clause. When property was legally appropriated to a certain purpose it surely ought to be applied to that purpose, and if the Trustees did not apply it to that purpose they would fail to carry out their legal duty, and would certainly have no right to claim an exemption. Therefore, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press the Amendment. He

  1709
  had consulted the Attorney General upon the subject, and his hon. and learned Friend entirely agreed with him that it would be a mistake to omit those words. If the Amendment was to have any effect at all it would have the effect mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that was not the effect which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) desired that it should have.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment and substitute another, to leave out the word "exclusively" only.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYmoved to omit the word "exclusively."
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 16, to leave out the word "exclusively."—(Mr. Horace Davey.)
  Question, "That the word 'exclusively' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  MR. THOMAS RUSSELLmoved, in line 19 of the same sub-section, to insert the words "Royal Charter," in order to provide that the exemption should be extended to property applied for the benefit of the public, or the ratepayers or inhabitants of any county, shire, borough, or place expressly prescribed by Royal Charter or Act of Parliament. The hon. Member stated that his object was to make it perfectly clear that such institutions as hospitals, and institutions in which the income or profit was devoted to the promotion of health, would be exempt from the operation of the tax. The position of such institutions was this. They were built by public subscription, and were carried on wholly and solely for the benefit of the public; but there might be a difficulty in bringing them under the word "charitable" which appeared in the 3rd sub-section, arising from the fact that a charge was made for some of the patients. Therefore, the charity was not direct, and it might be called in question if the clause was to be governed by the word "charitable" which followed, in the 3rd sub-section, in the phrase "or for any charitable purpose." He would, therefore, suggest that the words "or incorporated by Royal Charter" might, with advantage, be added in line 19 of the 2nd sub-section, in order to secure that these insti-
  1710
  tutions should be exempted from the tax; and he would move the insertion of those words.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 19, to add at the end of the clause the words "or incorporated by Royal Charter."—(Mr. Thomas Russell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the effect of the addition of those words would be really to limit the application of the clause, because the words "legally appropriated" governed the whole matter, whether by Act of Parliament or by Royal Charter. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYasked whether, under those circumstances, the last words of the sub-section were not also surplusage? Was there any necessity for retaining the words "by Act of Parliament?"
  Question put, and negatived.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved, in the 3rd sub-section, to omit the word "exclusively," the effect of which was to limit the exemption to property which, or the income or profits whereof, should be legally appropriated and applied for any purpose connected with any religious persuasion, or for any charitable purpose, or for the promotion of education, literature, science, or the fine arts.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 21, to leave out the word "exclusively."—{The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, that at the end of the sub-section some words ought to be added to indicate that the institutions referred to were carried on without profit to the promoters and managers, because it might be the case that some institutions for the promotion of education, literature, science, or the' fine arts, were institutions for private profit.
  MR. THOMAS RUSSELLmoved to add, in line 23, after the words "promotion of," the word "health." His object was to serve the purpose he had explained before, and he hoped the Government would assent to the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 23, after the words "promotion of," to insert the word "health."—(Mr. Thomas Russell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'health' be there inserted."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he had consulted the Attorney General in reference to this point, and as to the wording of the 3rd sub-section generally, and his hon. and learned Friend informed him that, in his opinion, hospitals, or other similar institutions in which no profit was divided, were exempted from duty, notwithstanding that the income of the hospital might be partly derived from payments made to it.
  MR. THOMAS RUSSELLsaid, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was quite sufficient, and he would not press the Amendment.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYwished to point out, before the Amendment was withdrawn, the extreme danger, at a moment's notice, of putting in words of this sort.
  THE CHAIRMANasked if the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. T. Russell) had withdrawn the Amendment?
  MR. THOMAS RUSSELL: No.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he had understood that the Amendment was not withdrawn.
  MR. THOMAS RUSSELL: No; it is still on the Paper.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he wished to point out the great danger of introducing words of this kind, because a gymnasium or a hydropathic establishment, carried on exclusively for private profit, would come under the words "promotion of health."
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, there were several asylums and institutions in Scotland which had been originally built by subscription, and were partly carried on for charitable purposes. But, although there was no profit to anyone from them, they could hardly be called exclusively charitable, because it so happened that persons in the higher ranks of life paid for some of the patients. The words of the clause left a case of that kind in doubt; and he thought it was desirable to make it perfectly clear that such institutions, asylums, places of retreat for the restoration of health, and places for the treatment of disease, should
  1712
  be included in the exemption. They were certainly in the nature of public institutions, and had been erected at the public expense. The only doubt was whether they could be called exclusively charitable, although, at the same time, no profit was gained by those who had the management of them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, there were various institutions in the country that were doing good work in the regulation of professions, and the governance of the members of such professions. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to exempt those from the operation of the clause, inasmuch as their operations were for the public benefit.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 24, after the words "fine arts," to insert the words "or for the advancement or regulation of any profession, or the governance of any members thereof."—(Mr. Gregory.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that so much of the property of the institutions referred to by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) as was devoted to the promotion of education was already exempt under the sub-section, and he could not consent to extend the exemption further.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he should have some difficulty in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Sussex, although he was a member of one of the societies which the hon. Gentleman had in his mind in moving the insertion of those words. He rose for the purpose of pointing out the peculiar way in which the wording of the latter part of the sub-section was drawn. Sub-section (3) provided for the exemption of property which, or the income or profits whereof, should be legally appropriated and applied exclusively for any purpose connected with any religious persuasion—
  "Or for any charitable purpose, or for the promotion of education, literature, science, or the fine arts."
  From that wording one would suppose that the draughtsman did not understand the expression "charitable purpose," and was not aware that the promotion

  1713
  of education, literature, science, or the fine arts, was a charitable purpose. He suggested that it would be worth while for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether this wording should not be amended on Report by striking out everything after the words "charitable purpose," as the effect of the subsequent words might be to cut down the meaning of the former.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) for his suggestion, and he would certainly consider the point before the Report, and any suggestions that other hon. Gentlemen might make on the subject.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he had an Amendment which he thought would make clear what it was intended to tax and what not. He proposed to add "without profit to the managers or governors." There were institutions which might be connected with the promotion of education and yet be undertaken for profit. The Royal Academy, for instance, was for the promotion of the Fine Arts; but it was really conducted with a view to profit. If the Royal Academy Exhibition was strictly for the promotion of Fine Art, and if the Managers and Governors were proved to be Trustees of the 1s. charged for admission, then it might come in under the words "charitable purpose;" but, unless they restricted the clause in the manner he proposed, he thought they would be giving an undue advantage to societies of the kind ho had alluded to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the point of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) was covered by the clause as it stood; but he would inquire into the matter, and, in the meantime, would ask the hon. Gentleman not to press it at that moment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Duty to be a first charge on property; what parties accountable for the duty).
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he had three Amendments to this clause on the Paper, but he only proposed to press one of
  1714
  them upon the Committee. By the clause as it stood the duty imposed was to be
  "A first charge on all the property in respect whereof the same shall be payable while such property shall remain in the possession or under the control of the body corporate or unincorporate chargeable with such duty."
  And it further provided that—
  "Every accountable officer shall, to the full extent thereof, be answerable to Her Majesty for the payment of the duty charged thereon."
  The accountable officer would, therefore, incur personal liability. Now, if hon. Members would refer to the Interpretation Clause they would find that the term "accountable officer" included in its scope a large number of personages —that was to say—
  "Every chamberlain, treasurer, bursar, receiver, secretary, or other officer, trustee, or member of a body corporate or unincorporate by whom the annual income or profits of property, in respect whereof duty is chargeable under this Act, shall be received, or in whose possession, or under whose control, the same shall be."
  It followed that all those officers would be personally liable for the duty under the Act; and every person exercising control over the funds of charities would be liable. Now, when they remembered that "no time runs against the Crown," and that the duty might be claimed even after the lapse of 50 years, it really became a matter for serious consideration whether they ought to bind all those officers to a responsibility of the kind. If they had the property of the Corporation liable, he thought that was as much as they ought to expect. Let the Corporation have the entire responsibility, and let the claim be against the Corporation generally to whom the property belonged; but he urged on the Committee not to cast this serious personal liability on everybody engaged in the administration of those charities.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 25, to leave out the words "and every accountable officer."—(Mr. Gregory.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the Committee would agree that there must be in these matters some person accountable for the

  1715
  payment of the duty. In inserting those words in the Bill they had simply followed the precedent in the case of the Income Tax. The hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had indicated a number of persons who, he said, would be personally liable for this duty under the clause as it stood; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought that the case was governed by the phrase—
  "By whom the annual income or profits of property, in respect whereof duty is chargeable under this Act, shall be received, or in whose posession. or under whose control, the same shall be."
  MR. GREGORYwished to draw attention to the force of the words "or under whose control." They knew that Trustees controlled more or less. Under the clause they would be liable, as would also be any one of those persons to whom the money was paid.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that Trustees were accountable, and their families after them, for the money under their control.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 14 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Stamp duty on securities to bearer).
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had an Amendment on the Paper, the object of which was that Colonial securities payable to bearer should not be charged with this Stamp Duty; in other words, that they should not be treated as foreign securities. In order to elicit the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point, he would, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, move the Amendment referred to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 37, to leave out from "shall" to "and," in line 39.—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, this applied to a comparatively small matter, but the hon. Gentleman had given no reasons in favour of the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Grant of duties of income tax).
  MR. CLARE READsaid, he desired to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee to the unsatisfactory and misleading way in which Schedule B was assessed. He did not now wish to find any fault with the principle on which the tax was charged, but with the way, as he had stated, in which Schedule B was assessed. The assessment of that Schedule was not based on income or profits. All the other Schedules were based on income and profits, while Schedule B was based on the full annual value of the land which the tenant occupied. The consequence was that some of the most accomplished statisticians had been led into a fatal error. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had stated the other day at a meeting of a Chamber of Commerce that the profits upon land still amounted to £140,000,000, and even now that statement continued to be made. The mistake was an extraordinary one for a clever man to make; but there had been a mistake still more extraordinary made by Mr. Giffen, who, at a meeting of the Statistical Society on the 24th of June, said that the incomes of farmers as capitalists and workers amounted to £70,000,000. He (Mr. Read) wished it were so. The hon. Member for Cambridge and Major Craigie had written to The Times, exposing the error into which those two high authorities had fallen. For England, according to the Returns, the amount of Schedule B was £48,000,000; income charged, £24,000,000. For Scotland, £7,500,000; income, £4,000,000. For Ireland the amount was £10,000,000, and the real income was £3,350,000. Then it would be seen that, whereas it was supposed that the assessment of Schedule B was £65,500,000, it was something under £30,000,000; so that, instead of the £70,000,000 which Mr. Giffen put down as the profits of tenant farmers, the Returns of the Inland Revenue Department showed that the amount was £30,000,000. If such mistakes as those were made by the remarkably clever men he had named, and who ought to

  1717
  know the truth with regard to the statistics of the country, in what position were Members of Parliament placed who, like himself, had to go by those Returns? Again, Schedule A was assessed at nearly the same amount as Schedule B; and if they deducted from the £65,000,000, 15 per cent for repairs, insurance, and the necessary outlay on farm buildings and land, the amount would be reduced to about £56,000,000, which amount would be further reduced to £50,000,000, or to a rental of about £1 per acre, by taking into account the Land Tax and tithes. In the assessment of Schedule B which was based upon the farmer's supposed profits, no such mistake could possibly arise as had been made by these distinguished persons. Although it might be a little trouble some to the Inland Revenue to make the Returns what they ought to be, he trusted that in the future such misleading assessments as these would not be allowed to appear in the statistics.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if there was anything he could do to make the statistics on the subject more accurate he would be very glad to do it. But, although he had every reason to feel great personal sympathy with much his hon. Friend (Mr. Clare Read) had said, he hoped the Committee would not be disposed to go into this large question now, but would proceed with the consideration of the Bill. He might remind his hon. Friend that the basis of the assessment of the Income Tax was in no way changed by the clause.
  MR. M'LARENcalled attention to the change in the incidence of the Income Tax in the case of Insurance Companies in which there were participating policy holders, in the case of Co-operative Societies in which there were shareholders, and in the case of workmen who took a share of the profits of the business in which they were engaged as part of their wages. The Inland Revenue Commissioners had now decided to charge the shareholders in Insurance Companies in respect of the profits, so-called, upon participating policies, and Lord Bramwell had characterized the decision as disastrous and unjust. The change, of course, applied equally to Cooperative Societies and workmen receiving a share of profits. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche-
  1718
  quer appeared to be at variance with him. He could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman desired that the law should take that shape; but having regard to Lord Bramwell's opinion, something ought to be said to prevent that consequence accruing. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would assure the Committee that the Inland Revenue Commissioners would not direct the tax to be assessed on that principle, he (Mr. M'Laren) would have nothing more to say.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had consulted the Inland Revenue authorities on this matter. Although he did not wish to set himself against a legal authority like Lord Bramwell, he could assure the hon. Member (Mr. M'Laren) that the practice which had hitherto been pursued with respect to the Income Tax on Cooperative Societies and workmen admitted to a share of the profits would not be in any way changed.
  MR. GREGORYsuggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the propriety of relieving the public from many of the harassing Returns they were called upon to make in regard to the Income Tax.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Provisions as to duty on dividends, &c, paid prior to passing of this Act).
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDmoved the omission of all the words after "thirty-five," in page 9, line 37, to the end of the sentence. He did not see the object of the words. If the amount was paid it could not be any object to the Treasury to know on whose account it was paid.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 37, to leave out from the words "thirty-five" to end of sentence.—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas not quite prepared to explain the reason of the words; but he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment. The words were in the

  1719
  Act of last year, and he bad no doubt there was a good reason for them.
  MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTINthought the avowed reason why those words appeared in the clause was to meet such a case as happened this year. The practice of the Government was to apply to the agents who collected the Income Tax, and to ask them to pay the extra tax put on for the previous half-year. It would be much more satisfactory and economical of the Treasury to put the Income Tax on at a double rate for the half-year, instead of at a single rate for the whole year.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Provision for further so-curing income tax on foreign and colonial dividends).
  MR. W. FOWLERcalled the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the words "bills of exchange" in line 9. It was very true that a coupon expressed on the face of it what it was for, and so did a warrant. Bills of exchange constantly bore no indication what they were for. Supposing a bill of exchange relating to an American undertaking was sent to a banker. The banker had no idea what it was for, and could not possibly charge Income Tax upon it. It would be very hard indeed to make him liable for what he could not possibly discover. It might be perfectly fair, from the point of view of this clause, to make a banker liable when the document showed it was for a dividend. As a rule, a bill of exchange did not show whether it was for a dividend or not; it was merely somebody abroad drawing on a merchant in London payable to order or to somebody else. Even supposing the clause was right, he thought the words he had called attention to were wrong. If necessary, he would move to omit them; but he would prefer the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to promise to consider the point by Report.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had listened attentively to the hon. Member, and it seemed to him there was much force in what the hon. Gentleman had said. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would be glad to consider the matter before Report.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWproposed to add, in page 11, after line 19—
  "Such banker or person receiving as remuneration for the expense of collecting the Tax such poundage as may ho agreed upon not being less than the sum payable by the Commissioners of Income Tax to the collectors of the district in which the Tax is deducted."
  By this clause the Government were trying, and he thought very justly so, to obtain Income Tax upon sources of income which hitherto had evaded the tax to a large extent; but in order to do it they were obliged to call to their aid not only bankers, but money dealers or changers, who were constantly buying foreign coupons. Now, those people would have to keep an account of transactions they never kept before; and, therefore, he was afraid that unless they were remunerated many of them would still evade the tax. He understood it was now the practice to allow some bankers so much in the pound on the Income Tax they collected. There was. however, no statutory obligation to do that. He thought it would be better to make it a statutory obligation that the person collecting the tax for the Government should be entitled to a certain poundage. Take the case of foreign coupons. In places like Liverpool, where foreign ships were constantly arriving, there were many persons who bought foreign coupons. The buyers kept no record, and therefore they could not be called upon to give any account. If the Bill passed with this clause in it they would be required to keep an account. Ho believed a much more faithful account would be kept if some remuneration were given. In the interest of the collection of the Revenue, in the interest of the public, and also in fairness to those who had to take some trouble to collect the tax, ho hoped those words would be accepted.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11,after line 10,toadd—"Such hanker or person receiving as remuneration for the expense of collecting the Tax such poundage as may be agreed upon not being less than the sum payable by the Commissioners of Income Tax to the collectors of the district in which the Tax is deducted."—(Sir Sydney Waterlow.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not see the necessity of the words; but if the hon. Gentleman

  1721
  was willing, he would deal with the question on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKproposed to add to the clause—
  "But this clause shall not impose on any hanker the obligation of disclosing any particulars relating to the affairs of any person on whose behalf he may he acting."
  There was a difference of opinion amongst bankers as to the exact meaning of this clause They were not quite clear what the obligation imposed upon them was. Ho understood from his hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. R. Biddulph Martin) that he had been in communication with the Government, and had been led to believe that they would not require details, but only a statement as to the stock or loan on which the coupons were paid. Of course, if lists of the coupons were required much more labour and expense would be involved without any corresponding advantage. The public were always jealous of any information being given by bankers with reference to the concerns of their customers. Of course, the matter was in the hands of the House; at the same time, he was anxious that if bankers allowed officials of the Government to require information from bankers as to the accounts of their customers, it should be distinctly enacted that bankers had no option in the matter.
  Amendment proposed,
  At end of Clause, to add—"But this clause shall not impose on any hanker the obligation of disclosing any particulars relating to the affairs of any person on whose behalf he may be acting."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
  Question proposed. "That those words be there added."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was much in what the hon. Baronet had said. Although he could not accept the words now, he would undertake to consider them before Report.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTINproposed to leave out the clause, on the ground that it introduced a totally novel feature into legislation. The whole gist of the clause was contained in the first lines—
  1722
  "Whereas the enactments herein-after mentioned have been found inadequate to secure the charging and payment of income tax upon dividends payable out of the revenues of foreign and colonial states and dividends of foreign and colonial companies."
  That was to say, the Government considered they ought to employ a new set of collectors. He could not help thinking it would be very unwise to pass this clause. He was quite willing to believe, in fact he knew, that most bankers would give every facility to assist the Government as far as they could in the collection of the Income Tax; but any interference between the banker and his customers, in order to ascertain what transactions passed through a man's account, would be very inconvenient, and capable of mischief. Of course, it was well known that a great deal of Income Tax was evaded by people holding coupons which were not paid in this country, and he quite admitted it would save the Government much trouble if the bankers holding such coupons had to collect the tax. There was no indisposition on the part of the bankers to act as far as they could as agents for the collection of the tax; but to make them do so was quite a different thing. It was the thin edge of the wedge of interference between the banker and his customer. He held that Parliament had no right to impose a duty upon a set of men unless it was distinctly within their legitimate province to undertake that duty. To act as collector of Income Tax was not the legitimate duty of a banker, and therefore he moved the omission of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the Clause.—(Mr. R. Biddulph Martin.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the Committee generally would sympathize with the Preamble of the clause—namely,
  "Whereas the enactments herein-after mentioned have been found inadequate to secure the charging and payment of income tax upon dividends payable out of the revenues of foreign and colonial states and dividends of foreign and colonial companies."
  There was no question, he believed, that large incomes were derived from these sources by persons in England—incomes

  1723
  which, escaped Income Tax, and which ought to pay it. The question was whether anything could be done to prevent that evasion. The present proposal had been embodied in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had thought it right to introduce it into the present measure in view of the large evasion which existed at the present moment. In reply to an hon. Member opposite, he had promised that he would consider the question as to whether bills of exchange should be included in the clause, and he had also declared that the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) was one that they should endeavour to carry out. These two points appeared to him to remove what were really the principal objections to the clause; for what had the hon. Gentleman opposite argued? He had argued that it was a terrible thing to interefere between the banker and his customers, and make the banker the collector of Income Tax. But it was not proposed to interfere between bankers and their customers one whit more than was necessary to insure the payment of Income Tax. The Government were willing to limit that interference, so that no wrong would be done; but the banker could not complain if he was made technically what he practically was at the present time-namely, the agent for his customers in this matter. As agent of his customers, the banker was asked to do that for which the State proposed to remunerate him—that was to say, to deduct the Income Tax from the coupons he paid. The requirement was no very formidable one—in fact, it was one which at the present moment was carried into effect by several houses of importance in the City. That being so, there could be no earthly reason why the system should not be carried out by all bankers, as proposed. He would be glad to take the decision of the Committee on the matter, and hoped they would agree to the proposal of the Bill.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDregarded the question as one of principle, and objected to making a large portion of the community tax collectors against their will. He protested strongly against the principle, as an entirely new one in
  1724
  the country, and wished to point out to the Committee that a large quantity of coupons were collected by solicitors as well as by bankers. If this clause were passed, a large quantity of coupons would be collected by solicitors, and the tax would be evaded as it had been evaded before. Take only one case that would strikingly show the objectionable character of the principle. During the summer months very many Americans came over to this country and remained here for some time, on the way to and from the Continent. They did not bring money with them, but brought coupons of Stocks they had in America, and paid them to the bankers they were introduced to. Those people should not be made liable to the payment of Income Tax in this country; but under this clause every American who came over and cashed coupons with English bankers would have to have his Income Tax deducted. Such a charge would be by no means fair. If the principle were to be insisted on, the clause should not be limited to bankers, but solicitors and agents of all sorts should be introduced. There was no reason why bankers as a class should be picked out and, because they happened to have a large amount of money, be made collectors of taxes. No doubt, voluntarily, the bankers would help the Government as much as they could. They would have no objection to lending their assistance; but they decidedly objected to being made tax collectors by law, and to having a penalty inflicted upon them for neglecting to act in that capacity.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 20: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 244.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg to move the following new clause by way of alteration in the present licences for brewing: —
  "On and after the first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, the Duty of Excise payable under 'The Inland Revenue Act, 1880,' on a licence to be taken out by a brewer of beer (not being a brewer of beer for sale) shall be four shillings in lieu of six shillings."
  The Committee will remember that in introducing the Budget this year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) proposed to

  1725
  alter the present system of brewing licences. These licences, as they at present stand, are, I think, a duty of 6s. on houses over £15 valuation, which are also chargeable with Beer Duty; of 9s. on houses of between £15 and £i0 valuation; and 6s. on houses of below£10 valuation. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to allow private brewers to take out half-yearly licences at the rate of 4s. for the six months for houses under £10 valuation, and 6s. for houses between £10 and £15, so that there would have been five or six kinds of brewing licences. I am quite aware of the strong desire that exists to facilitate brewing by the labouring, classes in cottages and houses of small valuation. I believe it conduces to temperance as well as cheapness to allow these classes to provide themselves with beer. On the other hand, it is evident that nothing could be worse for purposes of administration than having so many different classes of licences varying in amount for so simple a matter as brewing. Therefore, the clause I propose is one which reduces the 6s. licences altogether to 4s. The Committee will desire to know what loss we anticipate to the Revenue. The loss will, I think, be very little more than was anticipated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract in the proposal he submitted to the House. A large number of these licences now taken out are taken out by persons living in houses of below £10 value. I find that under the existing regulations 73,000 are taken out by persons living in houses of under £10 value, and 8,222 by persons living in houses of above £15 value. There is no particular ground for exempting houses above that value from paying this new tax; but it must be remembered that with them the licence is little more than a registration fee, the payment they really make for brewing being the large duty they pay for the beer they brew. The main loss, therefore, will be the loss of 2s. on these 73,000 licences for houses of under £10 valuation; but I think there is good reason to anticipate that the 4s. licences will be taken out by a larger number of people than the 6s. licences have been; therefore, the Revenue will be recouped, to some extent, in that way; and the labourers who desire to brow will have a yearly licence for 4s. in place of a half-yearly
  1726
  licence for the same amount that the right hon. Gentleman opposite proposed. I do not think that, on the whole, any material loss to the Revenue will occur. I see that my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Birkbeck) intends to propose a system of half-yearly licences; but it seems to me that the yearly licence is much more suited to the circumstances of the labourer. If he wants to brew at all, he will want to brew frequently all the year round. If he once gets into the habit of brewing, he will wish to take out a yearly licence. My proposal, I think, is an easier one to work than that of my Predecessor, and I think it will be found, practically, quite as great a boon.
  New Clause (Reduction of duty on licences to be taken out by certain brewers not being browsers for sale,)—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. BIRKBECK: I would propose to move an Amendment to the clause relative to the question of half-yearly licences.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Before the hon. Member can move an Amendment the clause must be read a second time.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. BIRKBECKsaid, he proposed to move an Amendment relative to the question of half-yearly licences. The principle of half-yearly licences, at his own and others' request, had been adopted by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it had been very favourably received by the country. What the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had also done was certainly a move in the right direction; but the right hon. Gentleman had not gone far enough, and what he (Mr. Birkbeck) would, therefore, propose would be that he should arrange to grant half-yearly licences at 2s. 6d. The Amendment he had intended to move was on the Notice Paper, but he only now proposed to move a portion of it. It dealt with half-yearly licences from the 1st of April to the 30th of September and from the 1st of October to the 31st March. He was sure that in adopting this proposal the right hon. Gentleman the Chan-

  1727
  cellor of the Exchequer would find that the Exchequer would not only sustain no loss, but would experience a considerable increase. He (Mr. Birkbeck) knew from having spoken in many cases to agricultural labourers on the subject, and had been informed, that they had left off brewing at home since 1880, but that, if they could get six months' licences, they would be very glad to avail themselves of them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far as the Eastern Counties were concerned, was wrong in saying that the agricultural labourers would desire to brew their own beer all the year round. They would only desire to do so from April to Michaelmas—during hay time and harvest. He would, therefore, move the following new clause:—
  "(1.) There shall he charged and paid on licences taken out for a half year by brewers of beer not being brewers of beer for sale the duties following (that is to say):—
  On a licence when taken out on and after the first day of April in any year to expire on the thirtieth day of September following, and on a licence when taken out on and after the first day of October in any year to expire on the thirty-first day of March following—

  Duty.

  £

  s.

  d.

  By any such brewer who is the occupier of a house of an annual value not exceeding ten pounds

  0

  2

  6

  (2.) Every such licence shall be in such form as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall direct."
  To charge 4s. for a licence to an agricultural labourer who, perhaps, only earned 11s. or 12 s. a-week wages, and most likely had a large family to keep upon it, would still be an injustice. The granting of these cheap brewing licences was, he thought, one way of preventing agricultural labourers from going to public-houses, because they would know when they brewed that their beer was made of malt and hops; whilst in the public-house they had no idea what their drink was composed of. He earnestly trusted that in time 1s. only would be charged for a six months' licence simply as a register.
  New Clause (Duties on half yearly licences to brewers other than brewers for sale)—(Mr. Birkbeck).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be there added."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must say I think my hon. Friend has hardly given me sufficient credit for the reduction I propose to make, for it is really a considerable difference that licences which have been 6s. should be in future reduced to 4.s. If the hon. Member insists upon this Amendment and carries his point, the result will be a still further diminution of the Revenue from this source—the diminution which I have already proposed being in excess, I admit to no large extent, but still in excess, of that estimated by my Predecessor. I hope the Committee will sustain me in this matter and will not assent to a further reduction, which would be really going beyond what we can be reasonably expected to do.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HICKSsaid, he was fully sensible of, and grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for, the concession he had made to the agricultural labourer in proposing this change. Ho and others had, on behalf of the agricultural labourers, objected to the tax when it was put on in 1880, and had protested against it ever since. Therefore, he, for one, begged to return the right hon. Gentleman thanks for the concession he had made. He, however, would venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman still further to consider the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Birkbeck), and accept it in a modified form. He said a modified form, because he thought the Amendment should be so altered as to limit the licences to a specific half-year—namely, from the 1st of April to the 30th of September. He begged to put this before the right hon. Gentleman in the hope that he would be able to see his way to the adoption of the proposal, and thereby give great relief to the agricultural labourers, whom he knew, from his own experience, only wanted to brew during the summer half of the year.
  MR. STORERsaid, he did not know whether or not the Amendment was seconded; but, for his own part, he did not agree with it. He thought the labouring classes were very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his proposal—not only the agricultural labourers, but labourers engaged in

  1729
  manufactures, and mechanics in all parts of the country who were very much disposed to brew at home if they had the opportunity of doing so; but who had hitherto been deprived of the possibility, owing partly to the heavy licence, which, in many cases, nearly equalled the old Malt Tax. If the question were to be viewed from a temperance point of view, no doubt the brewing licence was conducive to the cause of temperance, because both in the rural districts and in the towns it had the effect of keeping many men out of the public-house. If they granted a half-yearly licence, it was as much as to say that a man might go to the public house during one-half of the year, and not during the other half. He thought there was a strong objection to granting the licence for half a year.
  MR. BIDDELLthought that a half-yearly licence would be for the benefit of the poorer section of the working classes who lived in cottages. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, he thought that he would be making a concession to that class which they deserved; but, at the same time, if the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way in the matter, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Hicks) would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what position the Criminal Law Amendment Bill stood? There was, he believed, a general understanding that the Bill was to be the first Order of the Day on Tuesday next.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, they had to take Supply tomorrow if they were able to do so, and again on Monday. Much depended on whether they could finish Supply on Monday or not, because, if not, they would have to go on with it on Tuesday, and then the Telegraph Acts Amend-
  1730
  ment Bill would follow on the same evening. When they reached the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, it would be desirable that they should go on with it as rapidly as possible. His wish was to finish Supply, then to proceed with the Telegraph Acts Amendment Bill, and then to go forward with the Criminal Law Amendment Bill; but he should have to communicate with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the subject.

REVISING BARRISTERS BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General, Secretary Sir Richard Cross.)
REVISING BARRISTERS BILL.

  [BILL 237.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. MORGANLLOYDsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not proceed with the Bill at that late hour. It was a measure which required some consideration, and it was, in his opinion, too late to discuss it properly. Therefore, in order to give time for further consideration, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he would strongly appeal to his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his objection to the Motion for the second reading of the Bill. The Bill was brought in to meet a purely technical difficulty which it was absolutely necessary to get rid of. His hon. and learned Friend would have an opportunity of discussing this matter; but he could assure him that there was nothing in the Bill which would render it necessary to reject the Motion for the second reading.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he had no wish to prevent the Bill being read a second time; but he desired a proper opportunity for discussion, and that he should take on the next stage of the Bill. With the permission of the House he would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

POLICE ENFRANCHISEMENT EXTENSION BILL.— [BILL 219.]
(Mr. Coleridge Kennard, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbet-son, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, Mr. Cowen, Lord Gland John Hamilton, Mr. Robert Fowler, Mr. Houldsworth, Mr. George Elliot.)
POLICE ENFRANCHISEMENT EXTENSION BILL.— [BILL 219.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read a second time."—(Mr. Coleridge Kennard.)
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he was prepared to say, with regard to the Bill, that he strongly sympathized with its principle. He saw no particular reason why the police should not be enfranchised as well as any other class of the community. But, on the whole, he thought it should be remembered that Bills for the enfranchisement of persons who ought to have been admitted had been resisted in that House. The Woman's Franchise Bill had been dropped; and he confessed that so large a question as the present should not, in his opinion, have been brought forward in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. This was a question which particularly referred to the functions of domestic legislation, and he thought that a Bill of the kind ought not to be read a second time at that late period of the Session; he objected to it also on the ground that the Home Secretary was not present on the occasion. Further than that, he should like to call attention to the fact that the police had at the time of elections a peculiar and important function to discharge. By law, whatever might happen at the time of elections, the military were disabled from being called out; and, therefore, if it became necessary to keep the peace at the time of election, the police were necessarily employed for the purpose. It seemed to him that a very large principle was involved in the present Bill. Unless some provision were made for the conduct of elections, it seemed to him that it would be extremely unwise to be debarred from the services of the police in districts where the election going on might put them in the position of partizans. He strongly sympathized with those who moved this Motion. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh at that, but he should not
  1732
  reply to their interruptions. He had spoken a dozen times on this point. Where disturbances might occur he did not pretend to say; but he thought it was possible to imagine that, even in this peaceful country of theirs, it might be necessary at election time to employ other officers than special constables to preserve the peace. There were, no doubt, parts of the country where there might by accident be some machinery that would achieve that result. Although he was perfectly in favour of enfranchising the police, he did not feel disposed to join in any Bill for their enfranchisement without previous consideration of the matter, and on what he conceived to be a very logical objection on the part of his hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Kennard), without any statement on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He begged, therefore, to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, he hoped the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) would not press his Motion for the adjournment of the debate. The hon. Member had urged that he had not heard the Government upon the Bill; but he would point out that if he wished to hear them it was impossible that they could say anything about it on his Motion for Adjournment. He hoped, however, that he would not press his point until the general views of the House on the subject had been made known.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, the understanding was that no measure of a contentious character would he taken. All he could say was that this was a very contentious matter. There was no great principle involved in it; but a great deal could be said as to its expediency, and there would be a long debate on the Motion, which he hoped would terminate in the rejection of the Bill. At present they were without the presence of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and hon. Members wanted to have a statement from him as to the opinions of the heads of the Police Force. For his own part, he could not possibly agree to the Motion.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONstrongly appealed to the House to agree to the second reading of the Bill. It was all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) to say that because this was a contentious Bill, and because there would be a long debate upon it, that, therefore, they ought not to take the second reading stage. There was no opposition to the Bill on the Notice Paper, and under those circumstances they wore entitled to suppose that the Bill was not an opposed measure. As to the question whether the police ought or ought not to be enfranchised—
  MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Baronet that the Question before the House is that the debate be now adjourned.
  SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he should, of course, not pursue that subject. He believed he was entitled, on a Motion for the adjournment of the debate, to point out that at that late period of the Session it was only possible to advance measures like this when such opportunities as the present presented themselves. He trusted that the House would not agree to the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that there had been two Notices of opposition on the Paper, and that was why other Members had not put down their Notices of opposition. These two Notices had been unexpectedly taken off, else the Bill could not have come on to-night. It appeared to him absurd to ask the House at that hour of the evening to go into a discussion upon the principle of the Bill, which was strongly opposed by a great many Members.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who represented the Government, to what had passed that evening—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly informed an hon. Member that after half-past 12 o'clock no contentious Business should be taken.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCILsaid, that if this was a contentious Bill, he was utterly at a loss to know what a non-contentious Bill was like. There was absolutely no opposition to it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 48: Majority 11.—(Div. List, No. 245.)
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

PLURALITIES (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Acland, Mr. Edward Howard, Sir John Kennaway, Lord Edward Cavendish.)
PLURALITIES (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 241.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR.ACLANDsaid, he hoped the Bill would be passed through Committee now. Notice had been given of three Amendments, but they were unimportant, and could be very well moved on Report.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE)trusted that the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with getting the Speaker out of the Chair. The House was anxious to get to other Business, and the hon. Gentle-man would, in all probability, promote the progress of the measure than otherwise by consenting to report Progress now.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

HERIOT'S HOSPITAL SCHEME.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDERSS.
  MR. BUCHANAN, in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent to the Scheme of the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Commission now lying upon the Table of the House, for the management of the Endowments of Heriot's Hospital,"
  said, the circumstances in which he brought forward this important subject illustrated very forcibly the futility of the Parliamentary control over the schemes of the Educational Endowments Commissioners. It was a matter of especial regret that he was driven to call atten-

  1735
  tion, at that hour of the morning (1.45), to a scheme affecting so important an endowment as that of Heriot's Hospital. Under the circumstances, he would best consult the convenience of the House if he stated very shortly the points in the Commissioners' scheme to which he took exception, and the grounds on which he based his objection. Of course, he would be obliged to assume that hon. Members present were acquainted with the main facts of the case—namely, that the endowment was one of the largest and most important in Scotland; that its annual revenue amounted to £25,000, a larger sum than the total capital bequeathed to the Trust by George Heriot a couple of centuries ago; that its available income for educational purposes was £21,000 a-year; that that income was devoted at the present moment to the support of a hospital and a large number of free schools, and to the maintenance of bursaries and evening classes; and that all the education given under the endowment was entirely free. The principal features of the Commissioners' scheme were three in number. The Commissioners proposed to turn the hospital into a day secondary school, with an exclusively modern side; they proposed to take over the Technical College in Edinburgh, called the Watt Institute; and they proposed to discontinue the free schools. Now, with regard to the first two points he had no very substantial objection. The Governors, in the scheme they presented to the Commissioners, themselves also proposed to turn Heriot's Hospital into a day secondary school; but the school they proposed to establish was to have, besides a modern side, a complete classical side. He could not forbear alluding to one point in connection with the hospital, because he well remembered that during the debate on the Endowments Bill the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) said that the only object of those who brought forward that measure was to carry on the reform of Scottish education in accordance with the best Scotch traditions. Now, it was one of the best traditions of Scottish education that a boy, of however humble origin, to whatever school he might go, and however humble in its character, should have an opportunity of proceeding from his school to the University; but by the
  1736
  action of the Commissioners the only school in all Scotland from which that, in the future, would he impossible, would be the school which was to be established in Heriot's Hospital. The exclusion of Greek from the Hospital School was surely an unnecessary provision, and the Commissioners might well have given way on this point to the objections of the Governors. Practically, however, he had no serious objection to take to that part of the scheme, or to that part of it which dealt with the Watt Institute or Technical College. The Governors were in favour of supporting technical education in Edinburgh. He believed they originated the idea of largely aiding the Watt Institute in furtherance of technical education; indeed, technical education had formed an integral feature of every scheme they had brought forward during the last 15 years. But it was in regard to the discontinuance of the free schools that he principally took exception to the scheme of the Commissioners; and he hoped to be able to show that the reasons alleged by the Commissioners for discontinuing those schools were not adequate to justify such a step; and, further, that the proposal was contrary to the tendency of all modern legislation. He hoped also to show that the principle underlying the changes which were proposed in the constitution of the Governing Body were retrograde in their character, in that they made that Body less open and less representative, instead of more open and more representative, and in that they also decreased the weight and responsibility of the municipality in that Governing Body. And now with regard to the discontinuance of the free schools. What were the reasons alleged by the Commissioners for taking that very drastic step, and what was the substitute they proposed? The Heriot free schools were 15 in number. They educated 4,500 children of poor parents; and he might add that the selection of those children was made by a careful system of Schedules, in which every particular with regard to the circumstances of the parents or guardians was set forth in detail. He had an analysis of the Schedules for a couple of years, and from it he gathered that the average wage of the parents of the children who obtained free education was about 17s. 4d. a-week. He need

  1737
  not detain the House on that point, because it was generally acknowledged that those who obtained the benefit of the free schools were those who, from their condition, most deserved it, and that they appreciated the education given them in the best possible way— namely, by insisting on their children attending regularly. It was generally acknowledged also that the education given in the schools was of the very highest character; he did not think that anyone disputed that. The percentage of passes at the last inspection was 95·7. Six of the schools had an average pass of 98, and one of them of 99—almost equal to the famous Jewish school which his right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) was so fond of quoting as a model. It was evident, therefore, that it was not on the ground of inefficiency or of bad management that the Commissioners desired to discontinue those schools. Now, the substitute for those free schools which the Commissioners offered was the application of an
  "annual sum not exceeding £3,500 in paying in whole or in part, as the Governors may think fit, the fees of scholars, with books and stationary, at public or State-aided schools in the City of Edinburgh for elementary education."
  Undoubtedly, that was a very substantial grant in aid of free education; and those hon. Members who fought the battle on the Endowments Bill three years ago might fairly congratulate themselves that such a substantial aid had been given for that object. But he should like to make one remark by way of a criticism of the proposal, especially as he saw present one of the Commissioners, the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Mr. J. A. Campbell). It was as to the mode in which the free places were to be given. The free scholars, as was well known, had to be children of parents who were not in receipt of parochial relief. Of the grant of £3,500 a-year, two-thirds was to be given for children over 10, and these places were to be allocated by competitive examination, and one-third only was to be reserved for children under 10. And the
  "selection shall ho made with due regard to merit as ascertained by such examination, suited to the age of the candidates, as the Governors may from time to time prescribe, or in the case of children for whom such examination
  1738
  is unsuitable, by evidence that the children possess such qualifications as to justify their selection."
  It would be remembered that there was a great deal of discussion on the 16th clause of the Endowment Act as to the manifest absurdity of introducing competitive examinations for children of this class, especially for those of tender age. Not only would it be manifestly absurd to introduce competitive examinations, but their introduction could not fail to operate in diverting the funds from the class who were most deserving of the assistance. The poorer the parents of the child the less prepared he would be for such a competition. The House would see, from the words he had quoted from the Commissioners' scheme, that this kind of examination was made compulsory for all children above 10, and was suggested as a desirable means of ascertaining the qualification of children under 10. It was fair to state, however, that the proposal which endeavoured to introduce, as far as possible, competitive examination even in the case of children of tender years was not that which the Commissioners themselves desired to carry out. The clause had originally been framed in a different form. Objection was taken to it by the Education Department, and reference made to the Scottish Law Officers of the Crown. In accordance with their opinion the present clause was drafted. Both Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Lord Shand sympathized with the objections raised against this undue extension of the system of competitive examinations, and expressed their opinion on the evidence that the clause went too far in that direction. They, therefore, could not find fault with the Commissioners. It was the Department, which had set itself to work this clause with the utmost possible rigour against the poorer beneficiaries in a way which certainly was not justified by the intention of the Act. They might fairly state that the reservation contained in the clause took away the greater part of the value of the substitute offered for the closing of the schools. What were the reasons alleged by the Commissioners for the closing of the schools? Lord Balfour of Burleigh was asked this question by Mr. Mackay of the Edinburgh Trade Council, and in reply his Lordship stated that, summing up the result of the evidence taken, the

  1739
  two main reasons which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, justified the abolition or closing of the free schools were, firstly, that it was expedient to put all the education of the city as far as possible under one Board; and, secondly, that the existence of the Heriot's free schools side by side with the Board schools was prejudicial to the general interest of education in Edinburgh. It would not be right of him to detain the House at that hour (2 o'clock) by examining the evidence as it was submitted to them in the Report of the Commissioners; but he took it that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. E. Stanhope) had examined the evidence—the evidence given by the School Board, and the rebutting evidence given by the representatives of the Governing Body. With regard to the way in which the general education of Edinburgh was supposed to be adversely affected by the existence of those schools, he took leave to allude to two of the contentions of the School Board. First of all they said they had a difficulty in recovering fees owing to the existence of the free schools. But the Chairman of the Edinburgh School Board was asked directly whether the difficulty in recovering fees was due to the juxtaposition of the free schools, or to the position of the parents, and his reply was that it was due to the position of the parents. Supposing the difficulty were due to the juxtaposition of the free schools, it appeared clear on the face of it that the difficulty would continue to exist in a great degree when there was a juxtaposition not of free schools amongst paying schools, but of free and other scholars in the same school. The only other allegation of the School Board was with regard to the transference of scholars from the Heriot to the Board Schools, and from the Board to the Heriot Schools. It was alleged that the transference caused irregularity of attendance; and that during a single quarter, more than 200 children had been transferred from the Heriot schools to the Board schools, and more than 600 children from the Board school to the Heriot schools. The figures were examined by the Governing Body, and it was discovered that while it was alleged that the transfers from the Heriot schools to the Board schools consisted solely of children who had been dis-
  1740
  missed for irregular attendance, the fact was that only 12 children had been dismissed during the year from the Heriot schools for irregularity of attendance. On the other hand, it was discovered that the average wage of the parents or guardians of the 600 children who were transferred from the Board schools to the Heriot schools was 16s. 2¼d. a-week, and 23 per cent of the children were orphans or fatherless. It was clear they were exactly the class of children who were most deserving, and who, as a rule, were most appreciative of the advantages of free schools. Lord Balfour of Burleigh's other reason for closing the free schools was that it was expedient to put the whole education of the City under one Board. He (Mr. Buchanan) submitted that, in the first place, the Commissioners had not succeeded under the scheme in doing so; and, in the second place, that they were not empowered under the Act to do so. Now, provision was made, as everyone knew, by Sections 38 and 39 of the Education Act of 1872, for the transfer of Voluntary schools to Board schools; the transfer was not compulsory, but provision was made for it. It was no part of the Endowment Act to supplement the Education Act in this particular. If the Commissioners had wanted to carry out what Lord Balfour of Burleigh considered expedient— namely, the placing of the whole education of the City under one Board, they should have taken the advice of Mr. Wallace, one of the members of the School Board who appeared before them, and transferred to the School Board the Heriot schools bodily, and all the money spent upon them. He did not think they ought to have done so, or could legally have done so; but that would have been the only way in which they could have carried out the intention which, apparently, they had in view. There was another point worthy of consideration, and it was that the £3,500 which was to be granted under the present scheme would not be confined solely to Board schools, but a portion of it would be given to the Voluntary schools of the City. There were almost as many scholars in the Voluntary schools as in the Board schools, and therefore the administration of the grant would tend to foster not unity of administration under the

  1741
  School Board, but rivalry of administration between School Board and the managers of Voluntary schools. Therefore, by this scheme, no real or substantial advance was made towards what was considered to be expedient, the placing of the whole education of the City under one authority. He submitted that even if they gave greater weight than he had been able to give to the educational arguments of the Commission, those arguments were hardly enough to justify the very drastic step which the Commission proposed to take in closing up and abolishing this large system of free schools which had given such excellent education. It was by no means a necessity, in order to carry out the other good objects the Commissioners had in view, because the scheme framed by the Governing Body proposed to establish a day secondary school with a fully equipped modern side, to take over the Technical College called the Watt Institute, to found bursaries, and yet maintain the free schools. He did not think such a step as the discontinuance of the free schools could be justified except by clear and undoubted substantial educational benefits to be acquired by Edinburgh, and that, of course, was the object they all had in view. He had endeavoured to show that no such clear case had been made out by the Commissioners. Besides, it must be borne in mind that the Commissioners were running counter to the strongly expressed local opinion on the subject; that they were running counter also, as he had already said, to the tendency of modern legislation; and that they were endeavouring to forestall the decision upon an issue which was coming prominently to the front, and would become one of the chief topics of discussion by the new electors and the new Parliament. Of local opinion on the subject it was hardly necessary for him to speak. Only that afternoon he presented a Petition on the subject signed by 42,000 of the inhabitants of Edinburgh. The Petition had been got up by the working classes in the city, and it was many times larger than any Petition he had had the honour during the last four years of presenting from the much petitioning City he represented. The feeling on this subject, as shown by the signatures to the Petition, was not confined to people of one shade of politics—it was
  1742
  not confined to one class in the community. But it was not worth while to enlarge upon the popular interest taken in this subject—anyone who knew anything of the politics of Edinburgh knew enough about this subject. He thought the late Lord Advocate (Mr. Balfour) knew something about popular opinion with regard to the scheme. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was deservedly one of the most popular men in his own constituency; but, if he (Mr. Buchanan) mistook not, on the last occasion when the right hon. and learned Gentleman addressed his constituents the unanimity of the proceedings was somewhat marred by the indignation of some of the inhabitants against the Dollar Scheme of the Endowments Commission. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) knew something about popular interest in a scheme of the Charity Commissioners which related to Cam in Gloucestershire, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) knew something of the feeling with which some of the Commissioners' schemes were regarded by the people. Last Session a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the operation of the Charitable Trusts Acts, and amongst the recommendations of that Committee was one to the effect that in the appointment of the new Governing Bodies there should be a larger recognition of the principle of representation. The other day a dinner was given in London in honour of the Lord Advocate (Mr. Macdonald), who, he was sorry, had not a seat in the House; and at that dinner the Marquess of Salisbury, the Prime Minister, insisted upon increasing the powers, and throwing more responsibility and weight upon the municipalities with regard to all local matters, including educational matters. He could hardly believe, therefore, that a Government of which the Marquess of Salisbury was Prime Minister would give its adhesion to this scheme, which diminished from four-fifths to just over one-half the representation of the municipality, upon the Governing Body of this important Trust. When a demand for a system of free education was made in all quarters he could not believe it would be prudent or wise in the House to give its assent to a proposal which was to do away with the largest system of free schools at

  1743
  present existing in the Kingdom; when they knew that the larger subject was coming forward it surely was exceedingly unwise to put a stop to the best example and only large example of free education in the United Kingdom. He could understand those who were resolutely and somewhat selfishly opposed to the principle of free education saying —"Here is an excellent system of free schools in existence, let us vote for its discontinuance lest it should be quoted against us;" but he could not understand how those who were in favour of the principle of free education, or who desired, at least, that the question should be fairly discussed, could support the scheme relating to Heriot's Endowments. He apologized for having detained the House so long. He had endeavoured, however, very imperfectly he knew, to show that the educational advantages which were set forth by the Commissioners as likely to accrue by this scheme were not sufficient to justify the very drastic step they had taken in suppressing these free schools. He had also endeavoured to show that both in that matter and in the changes they proposed in the Governing Body the Commissioners were running counter to the development of representative principles, and to the tendency of modern legislation. He begged to move the Motion which stood in his name.
  MR. M'LAREN, in seconding the Motion, said, he did not wish to go into the question at any length, but merely wished to say that if the House should see fit to reject this scheme now they would not thereby endanger any necessary or useful reform of Heriot's Hospital. This question of Heriot's Hospital had now been before the public for a good many years. The Governors had themselves prepared a very excellent scheme, and should this scheme be rejected the only result would be that the Education Commissioners would take the matter into consideration next year, and probably lay on the Table of the House a scheme very much better fitted to meet the interests of the public, and more in accordance with the spirit of the foundation. This would not be the first time that this Institution had been reformed by Parliament. Fifty years ago an Act was passed reciting that it was desirable to carry into effect the intentions of the founder, and in pursuance of that Act
  1744
  15 primary schools were established in the City of Edinburgh. The Act of 1882, which was passed at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), also contained a recital to the effect that it was the intention of that Act to carry out more fully than at present the spirit of the founder's intentions. The words of the will were—
  "That this should he a Trust for poor fatherless bairns, sons of decayed burgesses in the City of Edinburgh."
  The spirit of the founder's intention had been carried out faithfully by Parliament and the Trust until the present day. Now, for the first time, the Commission, consisting of gentlemen for whom there could only be the deepest respect, had taken upon themselves to examine into the circumstances of the Trust; and with the best intention he was bound to say they had prepared a scheme which differed in most material respects from the intentions of the pious founder. In doing so they had set against them the opinion of Edinburgh, and of those towns in Scotland which possessed similar Trusts. The Town Council had unanimously petitioned against this scheme, and if there was anybody which represented the public opinion of Edinburgh it was the Town Council. They had all the parish ministers against it; and, on the other hand, they had a Petition from the Free Presbytery against it; and the Trades Council, which represented all the working classes in the city, and other public bodies, were equally opposed to the scheme. That afforded primd facie ground for delaying this matter. They did not ask for a final decision to be come to. They only asked that the scheme should be delayed for final consideration. His right hon. Friend the late Vice President (Mr. Mundella), when the Educational Endowments Bill was passed in 1882, said distinctly that it was not the intention of the Education Department to interfere with the free schools in Edinburgh. He would not hold his right hon. Friend responsible for what the Commissioners had done; but what the right hon. Gentleman said was some evidence of what the intention of the House was when the Bill was passed. He (Mr. M'Laren) submitted that in acceding to this Motion the House would be not only doing

  1745
  a great service to the City of Edinburgh., and to the poorer inhabitants of Edinburgh, but they would be doing a simple act of justice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent to the Scheme of the Educational Endowment (Scotland) Commission now lying upon the Table of the House, for the management of the Endowments of Heriot's Hospital."—(Mr. Buchanan.')
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELLregretted very much that at that late hour he was unable, as one of the Commissioners whose scheme had been assailed, to address the House as fully as ho could have wished upon this subject. He would ask the House to remember that the Commissioners were appointed under an Act of Parliament, and their duty was to do their best to carry out that Act in the spirit in which it was conceived. They had certain lines laid down for thorn, and their duty was to follow those lines. One of the conditions, about which a good deal had already been said, was that they were bound to have regard to the spirit of the founder's intentions. Now, the House must know that the Commissioners were not bound by any arrangement or Act of Parliament that might have been passed since the founder made his bequest; but they were referred to the original deed. They had also to construct such Governing Bodies as appeared to be most suitable to the work which they would be called upon to perform. The changes which the Commissioners had proposed in their scheme were not suggested from any doubt that the present Governing Body had done their best, but from a conviction that a smaller body, composed of persons elected with special reference to the work they had to do, would be a more efficient Governing Body than the whole of the Town Council, with the City ministers, none of whom occupied their positions because of any special fitness for this particular work. Many of them might be considered most highly-qualified men; but this was not the special work for which Town Councillors and City ministers were appointed. The Commissioners proposed to reduce the Governing Body to 21 members. Eleven of those were to be elected by the Town Council, and three by the
  1746
  School Board, so that the public bodies of the City had a majority (two-thirds) on the Board. There were, besides, one member to be elected by the Chamber of Commerce; two to be elected by the City ministers; one minister, not of the Established Church, to be elected by the Town Council; two to be appointed by the Senate of the University of Edinburgh; and one by the Royal Society. Considering the nature of the duties that fell upon the Governing Body, he had no hesitation in saying that this was a carefully-constructed Board. The Board at present was three times as numerous as the Governing Body which George Heriot had in view in his will; and the scheme now proposed introduced such changes as made it more necessary that the Governing Body should be elected with special regard to the duties which it had to undertake. The objection to the existing Governing Body was not new. Exception was taken to it in the Report of the Endowed Schools and Hospitals Commission, which set forth that while Town Councils had exercised their patronage with fairness and impartiality, they were
  "A variable body, and, as a rule, too much inclined to regard merely the wishes of the community, without reference to what was best in the interests of education."
  A citizen of Edinburgh, a late Chairman of the School Board, who, he was sure, commanded the respect of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan)—Professor Cal-dorwood—gave this evidence—
  "I think there is an obvious disadvantage to us as a City, in connection with our municipal elections, that this question of the Heriot Trust, and the use of the Heriot money, should come up as influencing the elections to the Town Council. I think that anything that could be done to deliver our City from the possibility of that should be done."
  In the same way the Endowed Institutions Commission reported in the following words: —
  "While there can be no doubt of the right and of the interest of any members of the community to express their opinion in a matter which they consider important to themselves and their families, we think that the kind of control and pressure which is now indicated is one to which the Governors of such an institution ought not to be exposed, and is incompatible with due administration."
  That statement was called forth by evidence before the Commission, showing

  1747
  that the conduct of the Governors of Heriot's Hospital was made a leading question at the municipal elections, and that Town Councillors were elected with regard to how they pledged themselves to act in the matter of the free schools. The conclusion was not that Town Councillors should have nothing to do with such bequests, but that those bequests should be managed by men who could exercise free judgment as to what was best to be done—Town Councils, in common with other public bodies, being represented on the Governing Body. With regard to the free schools, while the Commissioners proposed to close those schools, they did not propose to put an end to free teaching. Those free schools were not contemplated, and were not provided for by George Heriot. They were the creation of an Act of Parliament in 1836. When they went back to the deed of George Heriot, they found that his object was to erect
  "A hospital and seminary of orphans, for education, nursing, and upbringing of youth, being poor orphans and fatherless children of decayed burgesses, and freemen of the said burgh—destitute, and left without means."
  Thus the institution was not founded for the whole of the poor of Edinburgh, but for the orphan children of burgesses who were poor, but had been in better circumstances. The object, then, should he neither to relieve the ordinary poor rate nor the ordinary school rate, but to dc all that possibly could be done for such poor as Heriot had in view. They allowed that the free schools had done a good work; but it did not follow that more might not have been done. For instance, had they taken moderate fees from such scholars as could afford to pay them, the Governors might have extended the benefit over a far greater number. Again, by not placing their schools under inspection for Government grants, the Governors had lost money to the Trust. They had in that way lost about £4,000 a-year to the Trust for many years past. They had had so much less money to expend on other educational work. And, besides that, they had done an injury to the scholars. They had not improved their schools as they would have been forced to do under inspection for grants. It was notorious that the Heriot schools were not equal to the Board schools in the matter of accommodation and general equipment
  1748
  —a state of things that would not have been possible had they been under Government inspection for grants. The attendance had been excellent; but no wonder, because if the children did not attend they lost their places in the school, and the School Board officer would send them to the Board school, where they would have to pay. It was no wonder that free schools, alongside of schools with fees, were well attended. He did not deny that the educational results in the Heriot schools had been very good; but he said that better work might have been done at less expense. What was proposed in the scheme now before Parliament was to spend upon free education for poor children at public or State-aided schools £3,500, to spend £250 on maintenance and clothing, and also to give bursaries at these schools to the extent of £2,150, so that upon ordinary elementary education the proposal was that £5,900 should be spent. Then as to the Hospital School. The Hospital system was to be abolished, and that in itself would, in the opinion of the Commissioners and, ho thought, of many others, be a good point gained. The school which was to be established in the Hospital building was not to be, as it had been described, a day secondary school; it was to be a school of a peculiar character, embracing technical instruction, and have many appliances not usually found in secondary schools. The nature of the proposed school could be gathered from what was said in the scheme as to the subjects of instruction—
  "The Governors shall take especial care to secure thorough and advanced teaching in mathematics, drawing, and modern languages. The classes in mechanics, physics, and chemistry shall in all cases be associated with sufficient experimental demonstration and practical teaching, and the Governors shall provide proper laboratory accommodation for the purpose. The use of tools shall be taught in workshops to be provided by the Governors, but not the practice of any specific trade."
  A school of that kind was not intended to be an avenue to the University; but there was a provision made that any scholar showing a particular talent for classics should be sent to the High School. There were bursaries to help such scholars there. The expenditure proposed for this school altogether would be £4,700. It was not, as had been stated by a Circular which he held in

  1749
  his hand, to be placed in a lower position than any public State-aided school. It was to be a very different kind of school from any ordinary State-aided school, and in some respects would be placed in an altogether higher position. On the subject of the Heriot-Watt College it was not necessary to detain the House. The scheme proposed that £5,300, including bursaries, be applied to that object. Bursaries were proposed to be given to the High School, and bursaries and fellowships in the University, and a sum of £1,000 was to be expended on the higher education of girls. Altogether it was proposed, under this scheme, to expend on the various objects embraced by it £18,570. The Governors had instructions as to the spending of the surplus; but there was this sum definitely prescribed to be expended out of the net income of £21,000. He would pass on to allude to a not very creditable handbill which had come into his possession. That handbill, he thought, accounted for the very large Petition which his hon. Friend (Mr. Buchanan) had presented from Edinburgh. He really did not wonder that the citizens of Edinburgh, after reading that paper, should wish to sign a Petition against the scheme. The citizens were asked to sign the Petition—
  "To prevent the poor of the City from being robbed, and the free schools closed, for the purpose of providing scholarships and bursaries for the children of the middle and upper classes."
  But, when they looked at the bursaries and scholarships provided, what did they find? That they were expressly restricted to the children of parents who were in such circumstances as to require assistance. With three exceptions, all those bursaries were restricted to the poor. There was nothing said about poverty with regard to the bursaries, amounting to £;500, for Queen's scholars, who were young people preparing to be school teachers. The High School bursaries, again, amounting to £570, had no condition of poverty attached to them; but they were included in the scheme, because the High School was one of those institutions to which George Heriot showed distinct favour. In fact, according to Heriot's will, all the scholars were to be educated and trained there; and, therefore, the Commissioners felt that it was desirable to do something for the High School, in
  1750
  memory of Heriot. His interest in the University the Commissioners had recognized in a similar way; but, with those exceptions, all the bursaries were restricted to the poor. Those exceptions amounted to £1,170 out of a total net income of £21,000. He (Mr. J. A. Campbell) had also to notice a telegram which had been sent to many Members of the House, urging them—
  "To do their very best to oppose the Heriot confiscation scheme."
  He wished to ask, where was the confiscation? A statement which was circulated by the Governors told how the funds were left by George Heriot for the City of Edinburgh; but they were left to that City for a certain purpose—for the purpose of doing good of a certain kind to a certain class of youth. Circumstances had so altered that Heriot's design must be extended —the Governors themselves admitted that—but it was not to be done simply by providing, as the statement said, that the funds—
  "Shall be enjoyed by the greatest possible number of the citizens,"
  but that they shall do the greatest possible educational good to the community of Edinburgh. No scheme had received more careful consideration from the Commissioners. They heard evidence, they published a scheme, they heard objections to it, they gave effect to many of the objections, and then they sent their scheme as altered and completed to the Education Department, where, after full examination, it was approved of. They had sought by this scheme to propose what they believed to be best for the interests of the people of Edinburgh, and most in accordance with the spirit of the founder's intentions; and he trusted the House would not reject it.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he would not at that late hour (2.40) detain the House more than a few moments. He had listened attentively to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), who, he was glad to say, gave the Commissioners credit for having paid great attention to the framing of the scheme. Although he (Mr. Ramsay) was one of those who was responsible for the contents of the scheme, he felt that the people of Edinburgh had reason to be grateful to the

  1751
  Commissioners for having attended so carefully to the interests of the poor, especially in regard to the allocation of the funds. Talk of robbery and confiscation! Terms of that kind were not less applicable than they were to this scheme. Nothing had been taken from the people of Edinburgh. The three Commissioners had all united in considering that the Governing Body should be altered; and though his hon. Friend had not said anything special against the change in the Governing Body, yet those who would take the trouble to read the examination of counsel who were heard before the Commissioners would find that the alteration of the Governing Body was the chief blot in their scheme in the opinion of the present Governors. The reasons which rendered the change necessary were very simple. His hon. Friend had read the opinion of the Chairman of the School Board with reference to the proposal to modify the free schools, and to alter the constitution of the Governing Body. Professor Calderwood had declared it might be a disadvantage; but he feared it was one of those things that were unavoidable where they had popular representation, the citizens being the constituency to whom the Governors were amenable. He feared, however dangerous it might be, there was no escape from it. But if that was all the defence that could be made of the constitution of the Governing Body and against the doing away of these free schools, he thought it was a necessity that the Commission should consider the expediency of keeping up a system of free education alongside of Board Schools maintained at the public expense of the ratepayers, and he concluded that having approved of the Commissioners' appointment Her Majesty would not set aside their appointment now by rejecting their scheme. An hon. Member had said the scheme should be returned to the Commissioners; that they might modify it in view of the opinion of the community. But could the House suppose that seven gentlemen, who had laboured long and without remuneration, would sit again and return a verdict against themselves on the evidence adduced before them, when all parties interested and concerned in this undertaking had already been heard at the greatest possible length? He hoped the result of this discussion
  1752
  would be that the House would stamp with its approval the labour of the Commission.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, it was his duty, in the first place, to ask the House to consider the circumstances under which this scheme came before them. He believed that it came before them with the unanimous recommendation of the Educational Endowments Commission, which was composed of gentlemen in whom he believed the House still placed the greatest possible confidence, and two of whom they had heard speak that evening. The scheme having been framed by them was put before the Education Department, was adopted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mundella), and by him submitted to the Scottish Committee of the Council of Education. The Committee, after considering the matter, as he was informed, in all its details, unanimously agreed to recommend it to Parliament for adoption, and the result was that the scheme was laid on the Table of the House. Personally, therefore, he was not in any way responsible for the scheme; it was the scheme of his Predecessor; but it had been his duty to examine that scheme thoroughly for himself, and to see whether there were any real grounds on which, after such examination, it would become his duty to recommend the House to reject it. Well, it did appear to him, after examination, that there were some details in it of which he should not have approved. But they were matters of detail only, and matters which had they come before him he would have desired to see amended; and he found that there was great difference of opinion in Edinburgh as there might be expected to exist with regard to any other scheme. But there was an almost universal agreement on the part of all who had occasion to inquire into this matter for years past that great changes were necessary in the administration of this Trust, and in particular in altering fundamentally the Governing Body. Having examined the scheme, it certainly seemed to him that there was nothing in it at all inconsistent with an honest intention to carry out so far as possible the original intention of the founder. He saw a great deal in the scheme to commend, and he believed it to be thoroughly calculated to im-

  1753
  prove the administration of the Trust, and to remedy the evils which had been discovered. He should, therefore, support the scheme on the Table of the House, and he hoped the House would reject the Motion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, as Chairman of the former Commission which inquired into the Endowment Scheme, he desired to support the views of his hon. Friend who had commended this scheme, and to say a few words in opposition to one or two remarks that had fallen from the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren). The views of the earlier Commission very much agreed with those of the Commissioners who proposed the present scheme. They did not wish to abolish the free schools, but they did what was equivalent to something that was proposed in the scheme; they recommended that payment should be introduced, and that some strict rules should be introduced with reference to the instruction given to the children. In that respect they differed, but in general principles they thoroughly concurred. In no respect did he go more strongly with the opinion of the recent Commission than on the absolute necessity, as a condition of any reform, of some change in the Governing Body; and he must say that the present Governing Body were very unreasonable in their desire to monopolize the administration of this fund. That question had been decided over and over again in Edinburgh, and it was in evidence that it was most undesirable that the Governing Body should consist wholly of municipal authorities. The Commission of 1864 was of the same opinion. The hon. Member for Stafford had said that the free schools were consistent with the principles of the Heriot foundation. He denied that, and in his opinion and in that of all his Colleagues on the Commission it constituted a great deviation from the intentions of the founder. The Trust was left for poor orphans, the children of destitute burgesses; but the words had received a wider application—they had been made applicable to the poor of Edinburgh generally by the institution of free day schools. That took place 50 years ago, and in those times, when there was no public provision for education, there were very good reasons for considering such a proposal as a fair one to which
  1754
  to apply those large funds. He was quite sure that no Parliament of the present day would have come to that conclusion, and now that public funds were provided for education he thought it would be unreasonable to continue the free schools. Then, in regard to the management of the schools, it deviated from the original intention not only in principle, but in effect. It was the conclusion at which the Commission arrived that a very large number of children at the schools were quite able to pay fees —that was the evidence given. Not merely was that the opinion of the Commission, but it was the opinion of the Governing Body themselves, who brought in a scheme proposing to take fees from scholars, which unfortunately, from some technicality, was rejected by the Law Officers of the Crown. He thought the present scheme was well deserving of the support of the House; and after the long controversy that had gone on for 20 years it was high time that they should arrive at a settlement of the question on a fair and liberal interpretation of the terms of the Trust.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, at that late hour he did not intend to detain the House for more than a few minutes. This subject was one which had occupied a great deal of attention, and one on which he should have been glad to have a discussion earlier, so that a real and thorough ventilation of the merits of the scheme might have taken place. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had stated his case with great ability, and had done his best in the interest of his clients. His Successor, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope), had also stated his view of the matter. In one respect only did he disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in his statement. But before alluding to that, he would say that the Commission appointed to deal with the question was as fair and impartial a Commission as could have been selected. The Lord Provost of Edinburgh, who was at one time at the head of the Heriot Governors, was appointed a member of the Commission in order to see that the Heriot Governors were properly dealt with. The Lord Provost of Glasgow was also another member. There was also Lord Shand, who was deservedly esteemed among the most respectable citizens of Edm-

  1755
  burgh, and the whole of the Commissioners had been perfectly unanimous on the scheme. Two previous Commissions had agreed upon the absolute necessity of reforming the Governing Body. He did not want to say one word about past management on that occasion, or raise any question about it; but he did say that the necessity of reform was imperative, and had been absolutely affirmed by every Commission that had considered the question—and there had been four Commissions. Well, when the Commissioners sent in their scheme, the Education Department advertised for objections, and they received the present Lord Provost of Edinburgh, Sir George Harrison, and a deputation from Edinburgh to make their objections to the scheme. What did Sir George Harrison say? He said that nothing could exceed the patience of the Commissioners—that they had heard and reheard them again and again; that they had heard them by counsel, and in every shape, and that they had modified their scheme as much as they possibly could in order to meet their views. Sir George Harrison admitted that; but he also went further, and said—
  "We have presented our scheme to the Commissioners, and they have presented theirs to us. We naturally prefer our own scheme; hut, "he continued," I do not hesitate to say that the scheme of the Commissioners is absolutely preferable to the scheme under which we are now working."
  Those were the statements of Sir George Harrison and the deputation. What did the Education Department do? They did not, as his right hon. Friend (Mr. E. Stanhope) said, pass the scheme; they simply called the Scottish Committee of Council together and placed it before them. The Department made no recommendations. They had the scheme, and as his right hon. Friend behind him knew, the Duke of Argyll, the Earl of Rosebery, the late Lord Advocate (Mr. Balfour), Mr. Baxter, and the whole of the Scottish Committee were present on the occasion. They carefully investigated the scheme, and they came unanimously to their conclusion. They found there were points of detail which might be amended afterwards. It was not difficult to amend one or two small details of the scheme; but it was thought most undesirable, seeing the pains which the Commissioners had taken, that this
  1756
  matter, which had been debated for 20 years, should not be finally settled. The Privy Council came to the unanimous conclusion that it ought to be settled. A new Government had come into Office, and the scheme was on the Table of the House. He was willing to take the responsibility for having assisted the Council to pass the scheme. It seemed to him that in recommending the House to pass the scheme his right hon. Friend had recommended them to do the very best thing that could possibly be done for the people of Edinburgh. A nobler scheme had never been brought before that House; and, although he never suggested a line of it, he said it was of immense value and importance to the City of Edinburgh. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) objected to the closing of the free schools; but he had noticed that they were increasing the free schooling. At present those very schools gave free education to 4,500 children in very bad schools-—in schools which Her Majesty's Inspectors would condemn at least to the extent of one-half of them. Those schools, if the scheme of the Governors were adhered to, would, in several instances, have to be entirely rebuilt, at an enormous expenditure on the capital account, and the Governors would not be able to carry out their scheme, because it would cost too much; so that, instead of giving education to 4,500 children, the Commissioners recommended that the sum of £3,500 a-year should be applied, which, at the rate of 10s. per head, would educate 7,000 children free, instead of 4,500, and that, too, under the best possible conditions. More than that, the children would not be marked as charity children, as was now the case. They would all be in the same schools and would be free from the taunt of being charity children. If free schools, were coming to the front, those who demanded that the vast bulk of this charity should be spent in maintaining free schools were simply robbing the poor. ["Oh !"1 Yes; was it the intention of George Heriot to do that which the State and the rates were going to do? It was to do for the children that which they could not do for themselves; and if hon. Members would compare the two schemes and their advantages, there would not be a moment's hesitation on the subject, and he believed that two

  1757
  years hence his hon. Friend would be thankful to that House for passing this scheme, and that the citizens of Edinburgh would be thankful for it. There would be a large increase of free education in good schools, and a large accession of funds for the purpose of educating the young people of Edinburgh. Was George Heriot's money ever intended to take the place of a Government grant, or was it intended to relieve the rich ratepayers of Edinburgh? Why, the thing was an absurdity. There would be a number of bursaries which would enable poor scholars to go up to the University. He should be glad if he could secure the same advantages for another town about the size of Edinburgh. There would also be a technical schools of the most excellent character, and night schools for commercial and other purposes. He trusted the House would not hesitate to pass the scheme.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes 15; Noes 49: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 246.)

  CROWN LANDS BILL.
  Order for Committee To-morrow, read and discharged.
  Ordered, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to he nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection.
  Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented two clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill,
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE STAFF SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. STUART- WORTLEY, Bill to amend "The Metropolitan Police Staff Superannuation Act, 1875, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STUART-WORTLEY and Sir HENRY HOLLAND.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.