Commons Sitting of 16 June 1886

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee Resolutions [June 11] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [June 11] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions [June 11] reported—Ordered—First Reading—Public Works Loans* [288].
Ordered—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*.
First Reading—Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension* [276]; Idiots* [287].
Second Reading—Patriotic Fund* [271]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* [285]; Contagious Diseases (Animals)* [268]; Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Acts Amendment [274]; Revising Barristers (Ireland)* [283]; Westminster Abbey Restoration [284].
Committee—Report—Customs* [276]; Public Works Loans (Tramways Ireland) [259]; Sea Fishing Boats (Scotland) [270]; Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children) [157].
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Goal Mines [92]; Married Women (Maintenance in Case of Desertion) [111], and passed.
Considered as amended—Re-committed—Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Returning Officers' Charges (Scotland) [281].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Poor Law Loans and Relief (Scotland)* [252]; Peterhead Harbour of Refuge* [266], and passed.
Third Reading—Terms of Removal (Scotland)* [187]; Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries [244], and passed.
Re-committed—Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act (1875) Amendment [282], and passed.
Withdrawn—Liquor Traffic (Local Veto) (Scotland) [72]; Glebe Lands (No. 2)* [275].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Fermoy)* [226], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  PARLIAMENTARY VOTERS (IRELAND) —ASSISTANT REVISING BARRISTERS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government have come to any decision on the question of appointing assistant revising barristers at the coming revision of Parliamentary voters; and, whether, in view of the fact that in many constituencies it will be absolutely impossible for the revising barrister without assistance to complete the revision of the voters' lists within the time fixed by Law, and that, in any event, the casting on the county court judges of any considerable share in the work of the revision courts will completely dislocate the ordinary civil and criminal judicial business within their jurisdiction, the Government propose before the end of the Session to introduce legislation on the subject?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): There is a Bill down for second reading to-day to enable the Government to appoint assistant revising barristers in Ireland where necessary. It is our intention to proceed with this Bill, and we hope to pass it into law before the closing of the Session.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (IRELAND)—NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that great inconvenience was

  1629
  occasioned at the last General Election, by a rule of the Board of National Education which prevents National School teachers from acting as presiding officers at polling booths at Parliamentary elections in Ireland, owing to the fact that in remote districts the local teacher was the only suitable person in the locality available for the service in question, and that in consequence presiding officers had to be imported from long distances at considerable trouble and extra expense; and whether, if so, seeing that presiding officers occupy an entirely neutral position as regards political parties, the National Board will cause the rule in question to be relaxed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The existing rule on this subject is to the effect that National School teachers shall not take part in elections except by voting; and it is obviously desirable that the spirit of this rule should not be departed from. At the same time, the point whether a teacher, without meddling in politics or Party work of any kind, might not occupy a neutral executive position at an election, such as that suggested in the Question, is one that is worthy of consideration, and I am informed that it will be before the Board at their next meeting on the 22nd instant.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND)—RAILWAY BRIDGES AT BALLINAMORE AND BALLYCONNELL.
  MR. HENRY CAMPBELL(for Mr. JORDAN) (Clare, W.) asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in reference to the promised elevation of the Railway Bridge over the Canal at Ballinamore, any steps have been taken by the Board of Works in fulfilment of the promise then made; and, if so, whether similar action will be taken in reference to the Bridge on the same line of Railway spanning the Canal at Ballyconnell?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland have issued their certificates, fixing the heights at which the bridges in question are to be built, so as not to interfere with the navigation of the Canal.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—SUB-POST OFFICE AT BAURAVILLA.
  MR. HOOPER(for Mr. GILHOOLY) (Cork, W.) asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in consequence of the inconvenience caused to the people of Bauravilla and its neighbourhood by the Postal arrangements there, a Sub-Post Office will be established in that district?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): In reply to the hon. Member I beg to state that the average number of letters for Bauravilla is shown, on inquiry, to be only about 25 a-week, and the establishment of a Post Office would not be warranted. Even now the Post by which Bauravilla receives its letters is maintained at a heavy loss.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND)—GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY —SIGNALMEN.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the existence of complaints that in signal huts on the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland, in which the regulations of the Board of Trade require that three men each should be employed, so as to give only eight hours' duty to each signalman, it is in some cases the practice of that Company to employ only five men to two signal huts; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the truth of such complaints, so as to put an end to any irregularity which may be found to exist?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND)(who replied) said: The attention of the Board of Trade has not been called to any complaints as to the number of men employed in the signal huts on the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland, and the Board of Trade have no authority to make regulations in such matters. The terms of employment of the men working on the railway are in the hands of the Company, and in no way under the control of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade, have, however, communicated with the Company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, but have received no reply.

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—THE HERRING FISHERY—THE FULL CROWN BRAND.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that the Fishery Board for Scotland has prescribed that full herrings, "about ten inches in length," may receive the Full Crown Brand; and, whether the Board is aware that the average length of Mattie herrings at Fraserburgh, Peterhead, and Aberdeen "is about ten inches;" and, if so, whether prescribing that herrings "about ten inches in length" may receive the Full Crown Brand will not tend to reduce the already low standard of quality of Government branded herrings?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.)regretted to say that he had overlooked the Question on the Notice Paper, and he would not be able to give an answer till another day.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—THE VACANCY.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the vacancy on the Fishery Board for Scotland will be filled up by the appointment of a practical fisherman who commands the confidence of the fishermen; and, if so, what steps the Secretary for Scotland intends to take to ascertain their views?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.)said, the Secretary for Scotland had this matter under his personal care and consideration. It was receiving his best attention, and he hoped that before Parliament separated he would be able to give a definite answer to the Question.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—STOWAWAYS —THE CORK UNION.
  MR. MAURICE HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the complaints made as to the large number of stowaways from Liverpool landed at Queenstown every week from the American liners; whether it is the fact that the number of persons of this character so landed is sometimes so many as five per week, all of whom,
  1632
  being quite destitute, become a charge on the rates of the Cork Poor Law Union; and, whether any means exist whereby the Atlantic Steamship Companies can be prevented from landing stowaways at Queenstown, or compelled to ship them back to Liverpool; and, if not, whether, having regard to the fact that the English Poor Law system protects the local rates in converse cases, the Government propose to take any steps to relieve the ratepayers of the Cork Union from the burden cast upon them by the system referred to?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to this matter by a resolution of the Cork Board of Guardians; but they have no precise information as to the number of cases occurring. It is the fact that the stowaways, if destitute, may become a charge on the rates of Cork Union, and there are no means by which the Steamship Companies can be compelled either to desist from landing them at Queenstown, or to ship them back to Liverpool. The present law regarding the deportation of paupers undoubtedly bears hardly upon Ireland; but I fear this is not a good opportunity for promising legislation on the subject.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [11th June] reported.
  Resolution 1 agreed to.
  (2.) "That a further sum, not exceeding £6,879,764, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)said, he had given his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs Notice that he should propose the reduction of this Vote, on the ground that the House ought to be informed what Sir H. Drummond Wolff and Mukhtar Pasha were doing in Egypt. Since he had sent the Notice, however, a Paper had been issued which gave some information, though not to a very recent date. It only carried the information as to what these gentlemen were doing down to the 22nd of February.

  1633
  There was also a despatch from Lord Rosebery dated the 14th of April. In face of the horrible accounts which had come to hand of the sickness and mortality among our troops in Egypt, it was most desirable that the House should know what the two Commissioners were about, whether they had come, or were likely to come, to any conclusion, or whether they were merely dribbling away their time without result. He admitted there was ground for sending Sir H. Drummond Wolff to Egypt, but he thought there had been ample time to arrange to reorganize the Egyptian Army. They now had what was very important—the official confirmation of Lord Rosebery that the British Exchequer was charged at the rate of upwards of £1,000,000 sterling per annum for the extraordinary expenses incurred in Egypt, and though he would not seriously object to the Vote being agreed to, he thought now that the House was about to be broken up, possibly till October, hon. Members were entitled to some more explicit information on the several points connected with the administration of Egypt than had yet been given. It was most important, too, that the constitution of the Egyptian Army should be settled as soon as possible; and there were several other questions on which it was highly desirable that Sir H. Drummond Wolff should report with as little delay as possible.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRYCE)said, it was only a quarter of an hour since he had received at the Foreign Office Notice of the question which his hon. Friend had just raised, and consequently he was hardly prepared to go fully into the numerous questions relating to the administration of Egypt. He did not think that the House would desire that the subject should be treated in an imperfect way, and without having the whole matter put fully and fairly before them. The questions raised were of great gravity and complexity. He desired to remind his hon. Friend that on Friday night the Secretary of State for War had answered some observations he had made on the same subject, but his hon. Friend was not in the House at the time to hear the answer. As regarded Army reorganization, he could
  1634
  assure his hon. Friend that the matter was making progress, and that a good deal of pains tad been bestowed by Sir H. Drummond Wolff and Mukhtar Pasha on the question. The Government could not, however, at present lay any further Papers before the House. It was impossible to do so while communications were constantly passing and while criticisms were being exchanged. He could assure the House that Her Majesty's Government were fully alive to the question, and would push it on with all the care which its importance demanded. As to the health of the troops, he was glad to be able to state that recent Reports from Sir H. Drummond Wolff showed that the mortality had been somewhat exaggerated. The health of the troops was certainly not all that could be desired, but still it was not so bad as had been supposed. With regard to the administration of justice, he could only repeat what he stated a few days ago—that the Government were going through the Papers on the subject with a view to ascertaining whether any of them could be immediately presented. There was no intention that the negotiations between Mukhtar Pasha and Sir H. Drummond Wolff should be indefinitely prolonged.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) "That a sum, not exceeding £5,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the Army Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to call attention to the distinct injustice inflicted upon quartermasters of Militia with regard to their retirement as compared with those of the Regular Army, with whom they were supposed to be on the same footing.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.)said, that the question of these quartermasters had come before him some time ago, and had been before other Secretaries of State for War, who had always given a decision contrary to the desires of the Militia quartermasters. If, however, the hon. Member would lay the details of the case before him he would look into it and carefully consider the matter.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (TRAMWAYS, IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 259.]
  (Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. John Morley.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Amendment of section five of 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 108) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Power of companies to issue paid-up shares) agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Application of Act).
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER) (Wolverhampton, S.) moved, in line 15, to leave out the word "hereafter." The object of the Amendment coupled with a further Amendment which he intended to propose, was to limit the application of the Act to public Companies which had already obtained or should obtain an Order in Council under the Tramways (Ireland) Acts and the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, confirming a presentment of a Grand Jury with respect to a baronial guarantee of payment of dividends on the paid-up capital of the Company to within 12 months of the passing of the Act.
  Question, "That the word 'hereafter' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'within twelve months of the passing of this Act' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question, that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL VETO) (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 72.]
  (Mr. M'Lagan, Dr. Cameron, Mr. Mackintosh, Mr. Noel, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Jacks, Mr. Mark Stewart, Mr. Lacaita, Dr. Clark.)

  SECOND READING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. M'LAGANsaid, that at the present stage of the Session he was unwilling to take any unfair advantage of hon. Members who might be absent by pressing this measure. Considering also that a great many Government Bills were on the Paper, and
  1636
  several of them relating to Scotland, he thought it more prudent, after consultation with his friends and the friends of the Bill, to ask the House that he should be allowed to withdraw the Bill.
  Order discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  RETURNING OFFICERS' CHARGES (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 281.]
  (The Lord Advocate, The Solicitor General for Scotland.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 2, by inserting after the word "and," the words "if necessary."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'if necessary' be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 20, by inserting after the word "be," the words "not more than."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'not more than' be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Other Amendments made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 38, to leave out from the word "For," to the word "sums," in line 45, both inclusive.—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 7, to leave out the words "four guineas," and insert the words "two guineas."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'four guineas' stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.)said, he understood that an hon. Member (Mr. Esslemont) meant to propose an Amendment to throw the expenses of Returning Officers upon the rates, as had been done

  1637
  in respect to England, but the hon. Member was not present.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the subject could be dealt with, on the next stage of the Bill. The Lord Advocate could only proceed with his own Amendments.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.

    PART I.—COUNTIES.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, he had several Amendments to propose on this Bill. As it passed through Committee, the number of 700 was fixed as the minimum number of electors to be served by one Presiding Officer and clerk. Since then he had had representations from one or two exceedingly experienced Returning Officers in Scotland, showing that in certain localities very great inconvenience might arise under this provision. In some parts of Lanarkshire the miners did not come out of the pits till 3 or 4 in the afternoon, and as there would only then be three or four hours available for voting, it was just possible that there might be a block at the polling booths. It would be a great evil if any portion of the electors should be shut out of the polls. He moved that the words "700" should be left out, and "500" inserted.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 18, to leave out "700" for the purpose of inserting "500,"—(The Lord Advocate,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That '700' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. MACFARLANEasked whether, in the event of the Amendment being given effect to, there would be a proportionate reduction in the expenses of each polling station?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)said, he was quite willing to accept the view of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that, in certain exceptional cases, 500 should be the minimum; but he was afraid that if they simply put down 500 that number would be made the rule. He hoped the Lord Advocate would make the matter clear.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, he proposed to guard against the danger suggested by inserting the words "regard being had to the circumstances of each locality."
    MR. JOHN WILSONsaid, that at the meeting which
    1638
    the Scotch Members had with the Lord Advocate, this question was fully discussed, and the conclusion then come to was that 500 was much too small, and that 700 was much more like the proper number. He agreed with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy that the Returning Officer, if this proposal were adopted, would be likely to fix 500 as a general rule, and be thought it would be much better if the Lord Advocate would accept 600.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, that the circumstances of localities varied infinitely. The case the Government desired to meet was that of the Lanarkshire mining districts, in which the miners might come up in thousands two or three hours before the closing of the poll. It had been pointed out to him that, inasmuch as political feeling ran very high, it would be most unfortunate if there was anything like a fight at the polling stations for access during the last hour or half-hour. He could imagine no greater evil than that a number of persons should in this way be debarred from voting.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLpointed out that the provision of the Schedule was not as to where 700 polled, but where there were 700 voters on the roll.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD, speaking as the Representative of a mining constituency in Lanarkshire, expressed his opinion that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. John Wilson) would meet the necessities of the case.
    Mr. J. B. BALFOURsaid, if that were so, he would accept the suggestion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Amendment made in line 18, page 5, by substituting "600" for "700."
    Consequential Amendments made.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would move an Amendment, to the effect that the sum allowed to be charged for the use of a ballot box should be reduced from £1 to 10 s., as had been done on the representation of a practical man (Mr. Cremer) in the case of the English Bill.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 28, to leave out "£1 1s.," in order to

    1639
    insert "10 s.,"—(Sir George Campbell,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That '£1 1s.' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, he would follow the precedent set in the case of the general Bill, and would accept the Amendment accordingly.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Other Amendments made.

    PART II.—BURGHS.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR, in moving an Amendment to increase the allowance to the Returning Officer for printing the polling papers from 10 s. to a sum not exceeding £1 per 1,000, said, that, in some cases, printers charged double prices at Election time, on the ground of being much pressed by work. The Returning Officer had sometimes only the briefest notice as to the contest, and there might be difficulty in getting the polling papers printed, unless the Returning Officer could pay the printer's price.
    Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 7, to leave out "10 s.," in order to insert "£1,"—(The Lord Advocate,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That '10 s.' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, the purpose of the Bill was to cut down the fancy prices charged at Election times.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he agreed with that view; but he would point out that, in this case, the candidates could not be materially fleeced; and, in some country places, where there was only one printer, a Returning Officer might be placed in an awkward dilemma.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he concurred in that representation.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That '£1' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment made:—In page 5, line 9, at end, add—"in the case of a new machine; but where an old one is used, 2s. 6d."
    Other Amendments made.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to move that the Bill be re-committed in respect of a New Clause and Schedule; and that it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to provide for the payment of the expenses of Returning Officers out of the rates.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of a, New Clause."—(Mr. Esslemont.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I feel bound to oppose the Motion. I objected very strongly to what was proposed to be done in this direction in the case of the Irish and English Bills, and I hope that the House will again divide on the subject. It is not necessary that the matter should give rise to a long discussion, but I certainly hope that a division will be taken upon it.
    DR. CAMERON: I hope my hon. Friend will press the Motion, because nothing could be worse in view of a settlement of the question than that any difference should be made in the law of Scotland as compared with that of England and Ireland. If the three Bills are to go to "another place" with a provision for the payment of the Returning Officer's expenses in two of them, and omitted in the third, an effort may be made to assimilate the three measures in the wrong direction. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it is not necessary to take up much of the time of the House in arguing the question, but I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esslemont) will press his Motion.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I think it right to say, in support of what has been said by my right hon. Friend, that this is a matter which has been suddenly sprung upon the House and the country when a great majority of Members were absent, and when no one in the country has had a fair and reasonable opportunity of expressing their opinion with regard to so momentous a change. I wish it to be distinctly understood by the ratepayers that the House of Commons, without giving a fair opportunity to the country to express an opinion on the subject, propose to place this heavy charge upon them.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that this proposal has been sprung upon the House and the country. The right hon. Gentleman may speak for himself and that portion of the House with which he is connected; but I altogether deny that it has been sprung upon that portion of the country to which I belong, because if there was any principle adopted by the whole of the Radical Party at the last Election, it certainly was this, that the payment of the expenses of the Returning Officers should be borne by the rates. As to the threat addressed, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) to the ratepayers, I do not suppose that the ratepayers in Scotland are likely to be taken in by any threat of the sort. This is an attempt on the part of Gentlemen opposite to prevent the full expression of public opinion by confining the representation of the constituencies to those who have it in their power to pay heavy Election expenses. I believe that the public opinion upon this question is quite ready to go a great deal further than this proposal, and to include other expenses besides those of the Returning Officers among those which ought to be paid out of the rates. I trust that the House will treat Scotland in the same way it has already treated England; and as this is a Scotch measure, I hope that the English Tories will have the goodness to keep their hands off it.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKE: I think that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has proved a little too much in endeavouring to repudiate the charge which I think is perfectly true—that this matter has been sprung upon the country at a time when the House of Commons is thoroughly incompetent to discuss it. I think it is most unfair to bring forward a proposal of this kind after the announcement of the Dissolution, when hon. Members have practically been driven away from the House. Most of the hon. Members who were competent to discuss a question of this kind are now absent, and I think the hon. Gentleman, if he has proved anything, has proved a good deal too much. He says that it is a principle which is dear to the Liberal and Radical Parties, and that they had made up their minds upon the question before the last Election. If that were so, why should
    1642
    it not have been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session at a time when it could be fairly discussed? If, after the last Election, hon. Members from Scotland came back with a burning desire to make the ratepayers pay their Election expenses, and to secure that they should have very little to pay for themselves, why not have made their proposal to the House before this? It will not be found that anyone on this side of the House is afraid to go back to his constituents and say that he is prepared to resist this proposal for throwing the expenses of the Returning Officers upon the rates. I quite agree that Scotland ought not to be treated differently from England and Ireland, and it is for that reason that I am going to resist the proposal which has been made. I trust that all Three Kingdoms will be treated alike, and the only way to secure that they shall all be treated alike is not to allow a proposal of this nature to be thrust upon Parliament by such a remnant of the House as is now present. My object is to protect the constituencies, and I think the best way to do that is to resist this proposal in every Bill in which it is contained until the feeling of the ratepayers can be fairly impressed upon the matter.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I think the best way to treat the constituencies of the country is to leave them in the hands of their Members. At present, there is a serious complaint that the present heavy charges which attend an Election contest prevent a very large number of the working classes from appealing to the constituencies. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have always been in the habit of endeavouring to win Elections by the use of a long purse. I am not, therefore, surprised that an opposition to this proposal should have come from them. [Cries of "Oh!"] If hon. Gentlemen opposite want illustrations I could furnish them with a good many, but at the present moment they must accept my word that it is so. They have always done all they could to make Parliamentary Elections expensive, whereas we have done all we can to make them cheap. Instead of sending men to this House to take care of the national purse, they have sent men who have made themselves exceedingly free with the national purse. I, therefore, hail

    1643
    with satisfaction and pleasure a movement which I consider to be in the right direction, and one which is, sooner or later, certain to be carried—and that is the placing of the legitimate expenses of Parliamentary Elections upon the rates. The hon. Member who has just addressed the House says that that is a new principle. I altogether deny it. School Boards and Boards of Guardians are already elected upon the same principle, and it ought to be applied to the election of Members of this House. Allow me to use one other argument. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they intend to defeat measures which are brought in for Ireland and Scotland, must recollect that they are putting forward the strongest argument in favour of Home Rule.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I do not wish to trouble the House with any observations upon the merits of the question, but simply to answer a point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Robertson), who denied that this question has been brought on in the House by surprise. If that were not so, how is it that it was not brought forward in an early period of the Session, when it could have been properly discussed? The hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Cossham), if they will study the speeches which the present Prime Minister has made on this subject, will find that since he has expressed himself friendly to the proposal of throwing the Returning Officers' expenses upon the rates, he has stated that it was a question of a polemical and controversial character which ought always to be brought forward by itself, and decided at the time by fair and proper argument in a full House. I myself heard that objection made by the right hon. Gentleman on the 7th of June, 1883, and I have refreshed my memory lately in order to see that I was quite correct in the view I had formed. Well, then, what happened very recently? Only on Monday last the right hon. Gentleman rose in his place, after the defeat of the Government, and stated that no controversial subjects would be supported by the Government, because it was necessary that the constituents should be consulted as soon as possible. I heard him make that statement myself from that very Bench opposite, and then on Friday
    1644
    morning, at 3 o'clock, this question was suddenly sprung upon the House. [Cries of "Oh!"] It was certainly not until Friday morning, at half-past 2, that the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was brought before the House. By one of the greatest abuses of the Forms of the House which I ever witnessed, the hon. Member moved that a Bill should be committed in order that a new principle, which the Prime Minister had declared to be irregular, seeing that it was of a polemical and controversial character, should be included in a measure which practically had nothing at all to do with it. At that time the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary had gone away, and only the Attorney General was left to represent the Government. The only point urged in favour of the proposal was the old, stale, and clap-trap argument which has been used to-day by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Cossham)—that the adoption of the principle will enable worthy men belonging to the working classes to become Members of this House. It is nothing of the sort. Everybody who is acquainted with the works of the late Mr. Cocker knows very well that that portion of the Election expenses which is comprised in the charges of the Returning Officer is comparatively small, and that every man who is worthy of a seat in this House is perfectly able to find the money to pay such expenses. But what I lay most stress upon is that this proposal was brought on at the last moment—at half-past 2 o'clock in the morning. Is that a time for discussing a grave and serious question? I believe that a Committee on Procedure which has been sitting upstairs has come to the conclusion that no questions of importance ought to be discussed in the early hours of the morning; and, if so, how much more ought that principle to be applied to a question of grave moment, which has been brought forward without any notice whatever, and by what I repeat again was one of the greatest abuses of the Forms of the House I have ever known? I have said before that I do not intend to enter into the absolute merits of the question, because I think it is one that ought to be discussed in a more solemn manner, and at a time when all the Members of the House are assembled for the consideration of important public questions. It is not improbable that I myself may not

    1645
    have another opportunity of sitting in this House; but, as an old Member of the House, I have always endeavoured to see that the Forms of the House shall be duly observed, and, therefore, I feel bound to enter my protest against the course which has been taken in reference to this proposal.
    MR. W. A. HUNTER: I hope that hon. Members opposite will not put us to the trouble of dividing on this question. There is a conspicuous absence of Scotch Members on that side of the House. I think that if there were any Scotch Member there to inform them what has occurred in regard to this Bill, they would hardly put the House to the trouble of dividing upon it. As a matter of fact, the subject was discussed at a meeting of the Scotch Members upstairs, and a large majority were of opinion that the expenses of Returning Officers in Parliamentary Elections should be paid out of the rates. That meeting took place about three weeks ago, and since that time, although we have had no opportunity of bringing the question before the House, no fewer than 40 Members have signed a Memorial to the Lord Advocate, requesting him to introduce a change of this character. Therefore, Scotland is in a very different position from England and Wales. We are practically unanimous in Scotland on the subject, and I trust that, under the circumstances, the English Members who now remain in the House will not put us to the trouble of a division.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman opposite was labouring altogether under a delusion when he said that this subject has been sprung upon the House. Three weeks ago a clause, throwing the expenses of the Returning Officers upon the rates, was placed on the Paper; but we were prevented from discussing it because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), at about 1 o'clock in the morning, moved the adjournment of the House, in order to prevent the matter from being discussed on that occasion. We were kept up with similar Motions the other day until 4 o'clock in the morning, when leave was given to bring in the clause. The clause, however, had been down several times, and the question was not raised, as hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think, after the Dis-
    1646
    solution was announced, but it was raised long before, and the matter was discussed on Friday last, or rather on Saturday morning, somewhat exhaustively by several hon. Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, there has been no springing of the matter upon the House at a time when all Parties in it were not represented. On the contrary, when the vote was taken on Saturday morning, all Parties were very fairly represented in this House. There were present a considerable number of Members on this side, a considerable number of Irish Members, and also a considerable number of Conservative Members who had been asked by the Whips to stop here in order to vote upon the clause. The country has made up its mind long ago upon this proposal. An hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head. Will any right hon. Gentleman on that Bench get up and say that he is opposed to the principle of the clause? [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes.] Will any other right hon. Gentleman get up and say that he is opposed to the principle of it? Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are afraid to do that; they do not dare to go before the country and say that they are opposed to this principle. All they do is to shilly-shally with the question, and say that the ratepayers have not had time to discuss the matter. The other day I read an extract from a speech of the late Mr. Fawcett on this subject, in which he pointed out that the cost to a £10 householder would be the price of one glass of beer for three years. It is highly improbable that the ratepayers would object to pay that in order to secure that suitable Representatives should find their way into this august Assembly.
    MR. EVERETT: I certainly do not think that the matter has been sprung upon the House, because I have heard it discussed before, although it may have been pushed to a conclusion rather more rapidly than it would have been had it not been for the circumstances in which we are now placed by the political exigencies of the day. The subject itself is one which has been threshed out as well as any subject before the country; and I do not think there is any ratepayer who objects to pay his share to enable the official expenses of Elections to be charged upon the rates. There is no privilege which an Englishman values

    1647
    more than the privilege of voting for a Member of Parliament, and the constituencies wish to be able to vote for the men of their choice, irrespective of whether they happen to be rich men or not. I feel certain that the ratepayers of the country will welcome most heartily the passing of this clause, in order that in future they may be able to select the best man as their Representative.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): This matter is one which has engaged the attention of Scotch Members for some time, and about a fortnight or three weeks ago there was a meeting which resulted in the Amendments which have since been introduced into this Bill. A very general opinion was then expressed in favour of this proposal, although there were some doubts as to whether it was quite germane to the Bill. Shortly after that meeting was held I received a Paper or Memorial signed by not fewer than 40 Scotch Members, not being Members of the Government, in favour of the proposal. So that, undoubtedly, there has been a strong expression of opinion on the part of a large majority of the Members from Scotland on the subject. On Friday last a similar Amendment was introduced into the Bill as applicable to England and Ireland, and I think it is quite plain that there should not be a different rule for Scotland. On the contrary, I think this House is almost bound, as a mere corollary, to do the same thing for Scotland as has been done for England and Ireland, especially as there is such a large consensus of opinion in favour of the proposal on the part of the Scotch Members.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) took upon himself to speak of what he called this side of the House, but in reality he was only speaking for a very small section of this side of the House. Now, there is a contingent quite as large as that for which he speaks which is not likely to follow his suggestion, but which will take good care to oppose resolutely anything that emanates from the Conservative Benches. The Conservative Benches represent the old history of the House of Commons, when it was a preserve for the moneyed and privileged classes, and when no reform could be brought about unless something like a revolution was impend-
    1648
    ing. Under the present proposal the electors of every portion of the Kingdom will be able freely and fairly to make a real choice of their Representatives, and they will not be restricted to a selection from among the moneyed classes. Unless it is considered desirable that this House should still continue to represent to a certain degree class privileges, I think it is necessary to give every facility in aid of those who are not in a position to pay heavy Election bills. It is enough for us who represent Ireland to know that on this occasion a great body of those who represent Scotland are practically unanimous. We take that as a sufficient indication of the manner in which we ought to vote.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: It is not very easy to please hon. Gentlemen opposite in this matter. They objected to discuss the proposal at half-past 2 in the morning, and they now seem adverse to deal with it at half-past 2 in the afternoon. The question has been asked again and again, why should this measure or anything like it be pressed forward at this moment? The answer is a very obvious one—namely, because we are on the eve of another General Election, and because this further Election is to occur very shortly after the previous Election. As an hon. Gentleman near me says, it is just possible that a third Election may rapidly follow Election number two. It has been pointed out that these Bills have been before the House for several weeks, and, as the Session is comparatively young, I think the progress which has been made with them is rather remarkable than otherwise. Personally, I am quite prepared to face the wrath, of the ratepayers on the subject. I am quite satisfied that no measure could be more popular among the Liberal Party, however it may be regarded by hon. Members opposite. If this is the last vote it may be in my power to give, I shall always reflect with pleasure that I gave it in favour of the principle contained in this clause.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I only wish to state that this question was fully discussed in Scotland at the last General Election, and the opinion of the electors, as far as I could gather, was decidedly in favour of the proposal now presented. I think that it is most desirable that the expenses of Elections, as far as the candidates are concerned,

    1649
    should be reduced as much as possible, in order that the constituencies may have the fullest choice, and may select the most worthy Representatives whether they are rich men or poor. I have, therefore, great pleasure in supporting the proposal.
    MR. DUCKHAM: I feel that I should not be discharging my duty if I did not express the opinion which I entertain on the subject, and which I have repeatedly expressed both in and out of this House; for this is not the first time that the question of throwing the Election expenses upon the rates has been brought before the House of Commons. Similar arguments to those which have been used by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. Cossham) were used then—namely, that the expenses of School Board elections and of the elections of Poor Law Guardians are thrown upon the rates at present. I do not think that there is any parallel between those cases and the expenses of Parliamentary Elections. We are sent here to discharge the business of the Empire, and that business is by no means confined to the affairs of the ratepayers; and although it may be a matter of consideration whether the expenses of Parliamentary Elections might not be thrown upon the Imperial resources, I certainly fail to see any justification for throwing them upon the rates.
    Question put.
    The House divided:— Ayes 91; Noes 35: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 131.)
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide for the payment of Returning Officers out of the rates.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    New Clause (Returning Officers expenses to be defrayed out of the local rates,)—(Mr. Esslemont,)—broughtup, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to omit Schedule 2.—(Mr. Buchanan.)
    Question proposed, "That Schedule 2 stand part of the Bill."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.)said, there were some other Amendments, but they were not down on the Paper.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Bill has only been re-committed in regard to a new clause, and any further Amendment the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires to propose must be brought up on the Report.
    Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  SEA FISHING BOATS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].— [BILL 270.]
  (The Lord Advocate.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Loan on security of boat).
  On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Amendment made, in page 2, line 17, by leaving out "C." and inserting "B (1)."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Recording of mortgage in register) agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Discharge of mortgage).
  On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Amendments made, in page 2, line 32, by leaving out "receipt," and inserting "discharge;" page 2, line 33, after "attested," by inserting—
  "In the form contained in Schedule B (2) hereto annexed, or as near thereto as circumstances permit."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Right of mortgagee).
  On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Amendments made, in page 3, line 3, after "mortgage," by inserting—
  "Or failing concurrence without payment or consignation of the amount of any prior mortgage;"
  page 3, line 12, after "attested," by inserting—
  "In the form contained in Schedule B (3) hereto annexed, or as near thereto as circumstances permit;"
  page 3, line 12, by leaving out "endorsement," and inserting "transfer endorsed;" page 3, line 18, after "of," by inserting "marriage;" page 3, line 21, by leaving out "written evidence thereof," and inserting "a written, declaration thereof, signed and attested by two witnesses;" page 3, line 32, after "15," by inserting—
  (Definition.)
  "The term 'boat' shall include the gear, sails, and other fittings necessary for the purpose of equipment, but shall not include nets and fishing apparatus."
  Clause, as amended, agreed, to.
  On the Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Amendment made in Schedules, page 4, line 9, by leaving out "and in her appurtenances;" page 4, line 17, in margin, by leaving out "ship," and inserting "boat;" page 4, line 20, after "B," by inserting "(1) Mortgage;" page 4, line 35, by leaving out "and in her appurtenances;" page 5, line 13, in margin, by leaving out "ship," and inserting "boat;" page 9, at end of Schedule B (1.) by inserting—
  (2.) Discharge.
  "Received the sum of in discharge of the written security. Dated at this day of 18.
  A.B.
  C.D. Witness.
  E.F. Witness."
  (3.) Transfer.
  "I [or "we"] in consideration of this day paid to me [or "us"] by hereby transfer to the benefit of the within security. In witness whereof I [or "we"] have hereunto subscribed my [or "our"] name, this day of one thousand eight hundred and, in the presence of [here name and designate the two witnesses].
  A.B.
  C.D. Witness.
  E.F. Witness."
  Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  PETERHEAD HARBOUR OF REFUGE BILL.— [BILL 266.]
  (Mr. R. W. Duff, Mr. Hibbert, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Clause 16 (Power to levy rates).
  ADMIRAL FIELD, in moving an Amendment on the clause, said, that at present it laid down that the Admiralty should not levy rates on any vessel or boat forced to use the harbour as a refuge by "stress of weather." That made a limitation which was most undesirable. Stress of weather was only
  1652
  one of many causes which would induce ships to seek a harbour of refuge. They had to seek a harbour of refuge when leaking heavily; or when there was a mutiny amongst the crew; or from the loss of a spar; or by any accident to the machinery. It was not to be endured, when they were founding a new harbour of refuge on that coast, that there should be the slightest impediment to such vessels seeking refuge in it. Therefore, he proposed to add, after "stress of weather," the words "or other cause."
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 11, after the word "weather," to add the words "or other cause."—(Admiral Field.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. W. DUFF)said, he would accept the Amendment, which he thought would be an improvement to the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Words added.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
  (Mr. Mundella, Mr. Acland.)

  [BILL 244.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had received remonstrances from several Fishery Boards against the manner in which this Bill was being rushed through the House. These Fishery Boards feared that under the Board of Trade the interests of the Freshwater Fisheries would be prejudiced through their being subordinated to the larger interests of the Sea Fisheries. The Bill either went too far or did not go far enough, and it would have been better to have postponed legislation until it could have been undertaken with more deliberation and discussion.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKsaid, he concurred in the remark that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman that the measure did

  1653
  not go far enough. A distinct pledge was given by the President of the Board of Trade early in the Session that there should be a Central Department for dealing with these matters, if he could not see his way to the establishment of a Fishery Board for England and Wales as was proposed by his (Sir Edward Birkbeck's) Bill. That Central Authority, it was promised, should have the control not only of all the fisheries, both inland and sea, but also of the police of the sea—namely, the cruisers. It was also understood that the very important question of statistics should be provided for, and that a practical man should be appointed to the Department who really knew what the wants of the fishermen were. On the occasion of a very important deputation of delegates from all the fishing ports to the Board of Trade, the President distinctly promised the fishermen that there should be established elected Councils at the various fishing ports, who should be in direct communication with the Fishery Department of the Board. It was a matter of great regret that those promises had not been carried out, and great disappointment would be felt by the fishing industry. He feared that the subject had suffered because the President of the Board of Trade had been prevented by ill-health from devoting that amount of attention to it which it would otherwise have received from him. He earnestly hoped that the Government would see their way to withdraw the Bill with a view to its re-introduction in a much better form in another Session.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that as one who had seconded the Resolution when the discussion took place which resulted in this Bill being introduced, he would like to express his regret that the Bill had been brought forward at all, as it did nothing to fulfil the pledges given by the Board of Trade. There did not appear to be any right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench who could explain what the Bill was, and he was afraid the fact of its being passed would only be used as an excuse for delaying larger and more important legislation.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND)explained that the object of the Bill was simply to transfer the jurisdiction over the Salmon Fisheries
  1654
  from the Home Office to the Board of Trade, so as to secure unity of administration over all fisheries.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was in favour of the Bill so far as it went, although, as; his hon. Friend had said, it only carried out part of the pledges given by the Government.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Mundella, Mr. Acland.)

  [BILL 274.] SECOND READING.
  [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [11th June], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Edward Clarke.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment which he had proposed to this Bill. He might say he had been in communication with the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, and he proposed to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the Committee stage should not be taken until Monday next, in order that persons interested in it might be communicated with.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKsaid, he would remind the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill that one of the prominent officers of the Board of Trade gave a distinct pledge to the fishing interest that after the introduction of the Bill there should be a month's delay before the second reading. Though he was in favour of the provisions of the measure, with one exception only, he thought when the House realized the fact that none of these Bills could have been distributed to the fishing interest round the coast till yesterday, they would consider it very unfair indeed that the second reading should

  1655
  be pressed in the way it was being done. There was one very important clause affecting the lives of fishermen, especially in the North Sea—namely, Clause 21, which he hoped the hon. Member in charge of the Bill would take into consideration with a view to its amendment, if not of its withdrawal, because he knew that there were very strong objections entertained to it by fishermen on the East Coast.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)expressed a hope that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth would not press his objection to the Committee stage being taken before Monday, because in that case it would involve the loss of the Bill.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that he should just like to say to the House that this Bill was introduced on the early morning of Friday last. It was put down for second reading—["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not allowed to speak again.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND)explained that the course of events had prevented the Government from carrying out the pledge as to the interval between the first and second reading. The Bill was much desired in Grimsby, Hull, and other Northern and Eastern ports. All the clauses had for some time past been communicated to all who were interested, and their replies had been favourable.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SALE TO CHILDREN) BILL.— [BILL 157.]
(Mr. Conybeare, Mr. Theodore Fry, Mr. Cossham, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Allison, Mr. O. V. Morgan, Mr. Channing.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
VISCOUNT GRIMSTON, in moving that the House do this day three months resolve itself into
1656
the said Committee, said, this Bill was another piece of grandmotherly legislation, and, as usual in such cases, it had overreached itself like vaulting ambition, and had fallen on the other side. The Bill provided that
"Every holder of a licence who sells, or allows any person to sell, any description of intoxicating liquors to any person under the age of thirteen years,"
should be liable to certain penalties. With regard to the immoral consequences attending the sale to children, he contended that they were much more likely to ensue in the case of children over the age of 13 than under that age. Another point that he wished to impress upon the House was, that if the labourer on returning from his work was compelled to go himself to a public-house for the purpose of getting a glass of beer, he would probably meet his friends there, and be induced to remain in the public-house, so that a Bill brought in to encourage temperance would have precisely the opposite result. He hoped on these grounds that the House would agree to his Amendment.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Viscount Grimston,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he was informed that the hon. Member who had made the Motion to go into Committee had authority from the hon. Member for Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) to move that the Order be discharged, and he thought the hon. Member might very well exercise that discretion. He did not wish to weary the House with a discussion on this most ridiculous and tyrannical Bill. He contended that there was no evidence I that children became drunken by being sent for liquor, and he could hardly bring himself to believe that the late Home Secretary, with his experience, I would rise in his place and say that this proposal ought to be carried out. A Bill so wide in its scope as this, and so? very vague with regard to its provisions, ought not to be entertained by the House of Commons at this period of the Session.

1657
He asked for an explanation from the Government as to what course they intended taking with regard to the Bill.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT)said, this alarming Bill, which was so ridiculous and tyrannical, had been for many years, in almost identical words, in operation in Scotland, where it had never produced any mischievous effects. On the contrary, it had been found very beneficial. The Bill was identical with the Scotch Act, except that the word "supply" was used in the latter instead of "sell." He believed that the opponents of the Bill when they learned the facts with regard to Scotland on the second reading were almost ashamed of their opposition, and he thought it was understood that if any alteration were to be made in the Bill it would be by a simple Amendment in Committee. In Scotland it had been held that the word "supply" did not apply to a child going to a public-house to get beer for its parents, but for its own consumption. That was really the whole case, and a simple Amendment in Committee to that effect was all that was required.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that on the second reading the Home Secretary distinctly undertook on the part of the Government to see that proper clauses were inserted to meet the objections urged by those who objected to the Bill as introduced, who had not been shamed out of their opposition as had been suggested. He would like to know whether the Motion to go into Committee had been made with the assent of the hon. Gentleman whose name stood first on the Bill (Mr. Conybeare), because it had been understood that it was not his wish that the Bill should be pressed forward? It was not the case that the Scotch law was identical with this Bill. He believed that there the age was 16 instead of 13, and there were words limiting its operation in that country. He wanted to know whether they were going to punish the publican and leave the parent who sent the child to the public-house scot-free? The publican could not know the age of the child, but the parent did, and it seemed to him a strange thing to introduce legislation to punish, the former, while the latter was not subject to any penalty. While he was desirous of doing everything to promote temperance and of
1658
supporting proper legislation in that direction, it seemed to him that the Bill, as it then stood, would effect no good whatever.
MR. PICTONsaid, he was one of those who opposed the second reading of the Bill; but he must differ from the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down as to the intention of many of those who opposed the Bill. They opposed it because it was supposed that it was intended to prevent a parent sending his child for liquor, but they now understood that the Bill would simply have the effect of forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors to children for their own consumption. He hoped the House would go into Committee on the Bill to amend it in that direction.
MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, that, unlike the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), he was rather friendly to the Bill at first, but thought it unfortunate that parents should be prevented from sending their children to public-houses where liquor was not consumed on the premises. What the House then wanted was something better than that non-possumus and passive attitude of the Government with reference to the Bill. They wanted some assurance that Amendments with the object stated would be promoted, and without that assurance they could not assent to the Bill going on. It had been understood previously that this Bill was not intended to apply to those public-houses where drink was consumed off the premises.
SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEsaid, he intended to oppose the Bill as it stood at present. It was a constant habit for working people to send out their children for the dinner beer.
MR. RITCHIEasked an assurance from the Government that the object of the Bill was only to prevent the supplying of liquor to children for consumption by the children themselves.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): Certainly.
MR. RITCHIEsaid, that if that was their view he would not oppose the going into Committee.
SIR JOHN GORSTwas understood to say that at present it was an offence against the law to sell spirits to any person under the age of 16. He

1659
asked whether it was the intention of the Government simply to extend the law with regard to spirits to all intoxicating liquors, and to modify the Bill so as to provide that the prohibition should only extend to consumption of liquor by the child?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that the Government intended in Committee to introduce provisions to that effect.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Sale of liquors to children to be illegal).
MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: Having taken charge of the Bill for my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), I wish to move in this clause to substitute the word "serves" for the word "sells." The effect would be to impose the penalty upon the person who serves the child with liquor, and not to restrict it to the person who sells it.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, leave out the word "sells," and insert "serves."—(Mr. Cossham.)
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I should like to know from the Attorney General what the effect of this Amendment would be?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): The word used in the Scotch Act is "supplies," and I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that the use of that word is understood to apply only to the case of persons who knowingly supply. I think the word "supplies" would be better either than "sells" or "serves." In order to prevent the penalty from attaching to the holder of a licence who innocently supplies intoxicating liquor to a child under 13, I propose to amend the clause so that it shall run in this way—
"Every holder of a licence who shall knowingly supply, or shall allow any person to supply, any description of intoxicating liquors to any person under the age of thirteen years," &c.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I move that the words "knowingly supplies" be inserted.
Question, "That the words 'knowingly supplies' be there inserted," put, and agreed, to.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I have to move the insertion, after the word "supplies," of the words "for his or her own consumption." I have some doubt whether, considering some of the decisions which have been given, the word "supplies" will be sufficient, and I think my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General should propose the insertion of some additional words to make the matter clear.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend would come in better in line 2 of the clause, after the second word "supply." The Government have no objection to the Amendment.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Perhaps the Amendment would come in better in line 10. The clause would then run—
"Every holder of a licence who supplies, or allows any person to supply, any description of intoxicating liquors to any person under the age of thirteen years, for his or her own consumption."
CAPTAIN VERNEY: I wish to propose an Amendment which would come before that, in line 9—namely, the insertion of the word "apparently." The clause would then read—"apparently under the age of thirteen."
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The object of the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be covered by the word "knowingly."
MR. BRODRICK: I desire to move an Amendment to the words "thirteen years." I think that is too high a limit. I think 10 years will be quite high enough. There are a considerable number of objections to the age of 13. It is a very doubtful age, and I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he thinks that 10 years would not be a proper limit? It is better to take some age which would be I more likely to be known for purposes of this kind than the age of 13. I will, therefore, ask the Government to accept the age of 10 years.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, to omit "thirteen," and insert "ten."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): I do not know what the hon. Member really calls a tender age. At the age of 13 a child ought to be at school. No doubt, in many instances they are not, but they ought to be. If it is good for them to drink they can drink under the supervision and control of their parents; but they certainly ought not to be allowed to obtain it on their own account.
MR. F. S. POWELL: I hope that the age of 13 will be retained. I think that age is the most suitable.
MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: If the age were reduced to 10 years, I think it would entirely destroy the value of the Bill. Personally, I should prefer to see it raised to 16, as it is in Scotland. Certainly, as a considerable part of the value of the Bill has been taken out of it by the action of the Government, I do not see why the Committee should not raise the age to 16.
CAPTAIN VERNEY: I shall certainly support any proposal to raise the age to 16. It seems absurd to limit it to 13, and I should like to know what hon. Member of this House would allow his own children to drink at the age of 13, or to be allowed to purchase spirits or other intoxicating liquors on his own account. I am satisfied that no hon. Member would desire a child of his own even to enter a public-house at that early age for the purpose of purchasing intoxicating liquors of any sort.
MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid that some of these children do indulge in intoxicating liquors at a much earlier age than that. I do not know that a boy of 12 is the worse for drinking a glass of beer. But I have no objection to withdraw the Amendment, if the sense of the Committee is opposed to the change.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after the words "thirteen years," to insert "for his or her own consumption."—(Sir Richard Webster.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
CAPTAIN VERNEY: I beg to move that "16"be substituted for "13."
THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY): The hon. and gallant Member is too late.
CAPTAIN VERNEY: Cannot I move the substitution of the age of 16?
THE CHAIRMAN: Not now. The words "thirteen years" have already been agreed to.
Question put, and agreed to.
Question proposed, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. DUNCOMBE: I have an Amendment to move in line 10, after the word "years," to insert—
"Unless such person applies to be served with the sanction, and at the bidding, of those under whose control he or she may be living."
My object in moving this is to meet cases in which children may be sent in a bonâ fide manner to fetch beer. I am not quite sure, however, whether that object is not met by the Amendment which the Government have inserted.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, it is.
MR. DUNCOMBE: Then I shall not move the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 2 (Legal proceedings to follow Licensing Acts, 1872–1874) agreed to.
Clause 3 (Extent of Act).
MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), to add to the clause—" and Ireland." The object of the Amendment is to exclude Ireland from the operation of the Bill.
Amendment proposed, in page 3, to add "and Ireland."—(Mr. Cossham.)
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I should certainly feel it my duty to protest against the inclusion of Ireland in the Bill. I remember the discussion which took place some time ago in reference to the measure, and it was then generally understood that it was to be applied to England and Wales only. The conditions of the trade in Ireland are entirely different from those which exist in England, Scotland, and Wales.
SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE: I understand that Scotland is excluded because that country is already provided for; but as Ireland is not provided for, and as there are cer-

1663
tainly children of tender age in that country, I fail to see why the Bill should not be made applicable to Ireland. I should like to know on what principle the proposal to exclude Ireland is made?
MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I think the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Connor) must have misunderstood the Amendment. The clause, as it stands, excludes Scotland, but not Ireland, and the object of the Amendment is to exclude Ireland also.
SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I should like some Member of Her Majesty's Government to explain why, if the Bill is promoted on the principles of temperance, and it is desirable that English children under the age of 13 years should not be allowed to obtain liquor for their own consumption, and if they do get it that the landlord who supplies it should be liable to prosecution—why it is not equally desirable that children in Ireland should be protected in the same manner?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): The only reason is that the English Members, by a large majority, are in favour of the Bill, and wish it to be applied to England, while a considerable proportion of the Irish Members do not wish to see it applied to their country.
MR. BRODRICK: I think if the right hon. Gentleman will examine the Division Lists, he will find that the majority in favour of the Bill comprised a considerable number of Irish Members. The majority of English Members present voted against the Bill. I protest against legislation being undertaken for England which is not equally good for Ireland. If there is any case for sending children to the public-house it is in England, where the majority of the people are beer drinkers, while in Ireland, where very little beer is drunk, there is no such necessity. I shall certainly take a division in favour of the inclusion of Ireland in the provisions of the Bill.
MR. RITCHIE: I should like to remind the Committee that the circumstances of the case have now been entirely altered. I can understand why the Irish Members should object to the measure being extended to Ireland if it had remained in
1664
its original shape, and applied to a child who was simply sent to fetch the dinner beer. But surely no Irish Member can object to children being prevented from being supplied with beer for their own consumption. It seems to be forgotten that the Bill is only to affect the selling of drink to children for their own consumption. The objection which originally applied to the Bill certainly does not apply now, and I cannot understand why any Irish Member should raise an objection to it.
MR. HASLETT: As an Irish Member I should certainly protest strongly against the exclusion of Ireland from the operation of the Bill.
MR. LIONEL COHEN: If the principle of locality is to arise, I know many parts of England in which the principle of the Bill will be inoperative, because the evil which it is intended to remedy does not exist, and, as a matter of justice, I think the Bill ought to be applied to Ireland as well as to England and Wales.
SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE: If Ireland is not added the Bill will probably slip through both Houses of Parliament, whereas if Ireland is added we shall probably hear much more about it. Therefore, I think the reason the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given is not a sound reason for the omission of Ireland.
SIR JOHN GORST: I have such a high opinion of the Irish Members that I really cannot believe that hon. Gentlemen who represent Ireland can object to the Bill as it now stands. They may very reasonably have had an objection to it as it went into Committee; but now that it has been altered and simply inflicts penalties on the holders of licences who supply intoxicating liquor to children of tender years, for their own consumption, I cannot believe that hon. Gentlemen who represent Ireland can object to it as I understand its provisions now. In this House I have always advocated equal laws for England, Ireland, and Scotland; and I should be very sorry if one of the last measures we are to pass in the present Parliament is one which is to extend beneficial provisions to the people of England from all share of which the Irish people are to be excluded.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Allow me to remind hon. Members that there may exist a difference of opinion among Irish Members on this question as well as among English or Scotch Members. I do not know what the general body of the Irish Members may be inclined to say in regard to this matter; but if the decision rested with me personally I should feel bound to give it in this instance in favour of temperance, and on behalf of the protection of children. I cannot understand why anyone who is not connected with the publicans' interest should object to the prevention of the sale of intoxicating drink for their own consumption to children under 13, whether in Ireland or in England. I, for one, certainly propose to oppose the Amendment in the interests of the children of Ireland.
MR. SEXTON: I presume that the Bill has been brought forward for Ireland because it is understood that some social need for it exists. I do not believe that any such need exists for it in Ireland; but I must say that I am not in favour of publicans anywhere being allowed to sell drink for their own consumption to children of tender years. I shall, therefore, oppose the Motion for the exclusion of Ireland.
MR. DAWSON: I understood that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer supported the Amendment was that he believed a majority of the Irish Members were against the Bill; but the right hon. Gentlemen seems now to be discarded by those whom he was so anxious to please. The right hon. Gentleman made a somewhat remarkable proposition. Although he was convinced in his own mind that a certain course of action was right in itself, still, if a majority did not agree with him, he was ready to withdraw his own opinions and adopt it. That certainly seems to me to be a singular method of carrying on the legislation of this country. I should have thought that the Government would be convinced that that which is right for England would be right also for Ireland. For myself, I hope that the Bill will be extended to Ireland, because I believe that there is no measure which should be carried for one part of the Kingdom only, and not for the whole of it.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: When I proposed that the provisions of this Bill should not be extended to Ireland I was not aware that the measure had undergone important alterations. I did so because I knew from personal experience that in Ireland a Bill of this kind, as originally introduced, was unnecessary, superfluous, and absurd. For that reason alone I opposed its extension to Ireland. The administration of the law in Ireland in regard to the evils which the measure proposes to remedy is perfectly satisfactory, because it may be readily understood that the police avail themselves of every opportunity they can obtain of persecuting the publican and his trade, and I was apprehensive that this provision might afford them increased opportunities for carrying on that persecution. I may say that the only case in which a child is ever sent to the public-house in Ireland, either for spirits or beer, is in a case of emergency, when a person really sick requires it. There is no such institution in Ireland as dinner beer, and children are never sent to the public-house to obtain that article of luxury. The same observation applies to supper beer. The people of Ireland never eat suppers. But I find that the Bill has been modified in certain important particulars. When I entered the House I was not aware that those modifications had been made. I now find that the evil grappled with is the supply of a child with intoxicating liquor for his or her own consumption. It is, therefore, quite clear to me that the reason for my opposition to the measure as it originally stood has been removed; and, therefore, I shall not insist on the exclusion of Ireland from the provisions of the Bill.
MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: After the discussion which has taken place I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
Clause 4 (Short title) agreed to.
Clause 5 (Commencement of Act).
SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE: This clause provides that the Act shall come into operation on the day that it is passed. I think that such

1667
a change of the law ought scarcely to be brought into operation instantly. Some little time ought to be given so that the trade should have an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the provisions of the Act. I will therefore move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "day of the passing thereof," in order to insert "the 1st of January, 1887."
Amendment proposed, in line 19, leave out "day of the passing thereof," and insert "1st of January, 1887.—(Sir Trevor Lawrence.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): I think the date suggested by the hon. Member is much too distant. I would suggest the 31st of July, 1886.
SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE: I am quite agreeable.
Question put, and agreed to.
Question, "That the words '31st of July, 1886,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Preamble.
MR. EDWARD CLARKE: The Preamble recites that—
"Whereas it is expedient to protect young children against the immoral consequences resulting from their being permitted or compelled to purchase intoxicating liquors."
I think the words "or compelled" are quite unnecessary and should be left out, and after the words "intoxicating liquors" there ought to be inserted "for their own consumption." I will therefore move to omit the words "or compelled."
Question, "That the words 'or compelled' stand part of the Preamble," put, and negatived.
MR. EDWARD CLARKE: I now propose to insert, after "intoxicating liquors," the words "for their own consumption."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): I cannot accept that Amendment.
MR. EDWARD CLARKE: This is not the operative part of the Bill, but only recites the principle, and I think it puts it in connection with the real pro-
1668
visions of the measure. I certainly think that some such words are required.
VISCOUNT GRIMSTON: Unless these words are inserted, I take it that it would be impossible to send a child even for his parents' beer.
SIR CHARLES RUSSELL: I think the words as they stand in the Preamble are quite sufficient.
MR. EDWARD CLARKE: I do not think the hon. and learned Attorney General can have followed the words of the Preamble, because they really prevent the children from doing what the operative provisions of the Bill allow.
Question, "That the words 'for their own consumption' be there inserted,"—(Mr. E. Clarke,)—put, and agreed to.
Preamble, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 282.]
(Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Chance.)

THIRD READING.
Order for Third Reading read.
Bill re-committed in respect of a New Clause.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to move the insertion of the following clause:—
"Where a returning officer has, pursuant to the provisions of the principal Act, required security to be given for the charges payable in respect of an election, he shall, on being paid the charges under this section, forthwith pay back to the person or persons entitled to same the sum or sums which have been deposited with him as such security."
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I strongly protest against this clause; but before giving practical effect to my opposition I will wait until the Bill has reached its next stage.
Question, "That the new Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Schedule 2.
MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was advisable that the Committee should reconsider the decision which the House had arrived at a few

1669
nights ago, and by which an alteration of the law was effected, throwing the cost of the Returning Officer's charges on the rates. The Bill, when originally introduced, never contemplated any such alteration of the law. Whatever the opinion of individual Members might be as to the desirableness of carrying out this alteration, he thought there would be but one opinion that such an alteration ought only to be carried out after thorough deliberation by the House. No such deliberation had been exercised in this case, and he now moved that the 2nd Schedule be omitted.
Amendment proposed to omit Schedule 2.—(Mr. Ritchie.)
Question proposed, "That Schedule 2 stand part of the Bill."
MR. CHANCEobserved that a great deal of time had been spent on this question, and he believed there was a considerable agreement on both sides of the House with respect to it. He hoped the House would not agree to the Amendment. It had received the support of Her Majesty's Government, and was not by any means a new principle. Mr. Fawcett, in 1874, introduced a Bill similar in its character to the present measure.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, he must deny that there was any agreement on both sides of the House on this question. If this provision was allowed to pass, Her Majesty's Government must take the sole responsibility of its passing. He had always been in the main favourable to the principle of the constituency paying the necessary expenses of the election; but he never dreamt of suggesting that that principle should be hastily adopted by Parliament in its expiring days. The persons most affected by this proposed change in the law had had no opportunity of expressing their opinions on the matter. It was desirable that the ratepayers should have an opportunity of considering the question, and Parliament should wait until it had a clear statement on the part of the ratepayers that they were willing to accept the burden.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he believed that the Government would not feel their responsibility in this matter overwhelming. On a question of Order, he asked whether, having passed Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of
1670
the Bill, it was now competent for an hon. Member to move to omit this Schedule? If the Schedule were omitted and nothing proposed in substitution, the Bill would be reduced to an absurdity.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, there was nothing contrary to Order in moving the omission of the Schedule, because another Schedule might be brought up in substitution, or if the Schedule was struck out consequential changes might be made in the portions of the Bill to which the hon. Member called attention.
SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEsaid, that if the country was going to be, as seemed probable, subjected to the trouble of elections closely following one another, a heavy burden would be thrown on the ratepayers. He protested against this provision passing into law in the closing days of an expiring Parliament.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 65: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 132.)
Bill read the third time, and passed.

COAL MINES BILL.— [BILL 92.]
(Sir Richard Cross, Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Mr. Forwood.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 11th June.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Repeal of part of s. 18 of 35 and 36 Vict. c. 78) agreed to.
Clause 2 (Attendance at inquest of relatives of deceased person).
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: The clause provides that where an inquest is held it "shall be lawful for the husband, wife, child, or other near relative" of the deceased to attend in person or by agent, and to examine any witness, subject to the order of the Coroner. I propose to leave out the words "husband, child, or other near," and to substitute the word "any."
Question, "That the words 'husband, child, or other near' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Question, "That the word 'any' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 (Formal investigation as to explosion or accident).
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that in regard to this clause he was prepared to accept the clause as drafted in the Government Bill.
Question, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Clause 4 (Appointment of an assessor to coroner) agreed to.
Clause 5 (Short titles and construction of Acts) agreed to.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. BROADHURST)THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. BROADHURST) (Birmingham, Bordesley) moved a new clause in substitution of Clause 3.
Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

MARRIED WOMEN (MAINTENANCE IN CASE OF DESERTION) BILL.— [BILL 111.]
(Mr. Pulley, Mr. Thomas Blake, Mr. Winterbotham, Mr. Warmington.)

COMMITTEE.
Further Proceeding on going into Committee [19th May] resumed.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Wife may summon husband for desertion).
MR. WARMINGTON: The clause, as it stands, provides that where a married woman is deserted by her husband, it shall be lawful for her to summon him before the justices, who, if satisfied that he is able wholly or in part to maintain his wife and family, may order that the wife shall be no longer bound to cohabit with her husband, and that such order shall have the force and effect of a decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty. I propose to amend the clause by leaving out that portion which provides that the order of the justices shall have the effect of a decree of separation on the ground of cruelty.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, leave out from "order" to "pro-
1672
vide," in line 18 inclusive.—(Mr. Warmington.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. WARMINGTON MR. WARMINGTON moved, in page 2, to omit the words—
"That the legal custody of any children of the marriage under the age of 10 years shall in the discretion of the Court or magistrate be given to the wife."
Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
MR. WARMINGTON MR. WARMINGTON moved, in the same sub-section, in lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words "or for the custody of the children by the wife."
Question, "That those words stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
MR. WARMINGTON MR. WARMINGTON moved, in line 11, to strike out the words "or for the custody of the children."
Amendment agreed to.
MR. WARMINGTON MR. WARMINGTON moved, in line 15, to leave out the words—
"And provided also that all orders made under this Act shall be subject to appeal to the Probate and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice."
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I should like to have some assurance from the hon. and learned Attorney General that the clause, as it has been altered, is satisfactory.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): I have carefully considered the Amendments proposed by the hon. Gentleman, and I am satisfied with them. The objectionable parts of the Bill have been entirely excised; and, as it stands now, it simply provides a direct civil remedy for maintenance in case of desertion. My right hon. Friend is aware that the present law of subsistence is unsatisfactory. This Bill gives a more direct remedy.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 2 (Summons, how granted) agreed to.
Clause 3 (Short title) agreed to.
MR. WARMINGTON: I now propose to insert the following clause after Clause 1:—

1673
"From and after the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for any child, if of the age of ten years, and for any adult person on behalf and as next friend of any child whom his or her father is bound to maintain, to summon such father before any two justices in petty sessions, or any stipendiary magistrate, and thereupon such justices or magistrate, if satisfied that such father, being able wholly or in part to maintain such child, has wilfully refused or neglected so to do, may order that such, father shall pay to such person or persons who shall be named in such order as the person to receive the same, and who shall be willing to undertake to apply the moneys to be received under such order in or towards the proper maintenance of such child (so far as the monies to be received under such order shall extend), such weekly sum as the court or magistrate may consider to be in accordance with the means of such father and with any other means available for the maintenance of such child.
"Any order made under this section shall be enforceable and enforced in the manner mentioned in section one of this Act, and may from time to time be raised in the manner mentioned in such section, upon proof that the means of the father or child have been altered in amount since the original order or any subsequent order raising it shall have been made."
This clause is intended to place the law in regard to children who are deserted by their father upon the same footing as that which applies to the case of a married woman deserted by her husband, and it provides for the issue of a summons against the father and the enforcement of the order of the Court.
Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I should like to have the opinion of the Attorney General in regard to this clause.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): The clause simply applies, in the case of a child who is deserted by its father, the same provisions which are applied to a wife deserted by her husband. I have no objection to it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported, with an amended Title; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY RESTORATION BILL.— [BILL 284.]
(Mr. Secretary Childers, Mr. Henry S. Fowler.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to give authority to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make grants out of funds under their control for the restoration of Westminster Abbey.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the principle of the Bill, because Westminster Abbey was a structure in which Nonconformists took as much interest as Episcopalians. He thought it strange, however, that the repair and maintenance of the Abbey should be imposed upon an Ecclesiastical Body such as the Dean and Chapter, which could not have much experience in such matters. The Dean and Chapter were, no doubt, admirably constituted for the discharge of their ecclesiastical duties; but they were no better qualified for the maintenance of the Abbey than others that might be named. He thought it would be much more reasonable if the care and maintenance of the Abbey should be placed—like the Scottish churches—in the hands of Her Majesty's Board of Works. What, however, he new asked for was information respecting the present system in force; who was responsible for the repairs ordered; whether an architect or a builder was called in; whether there was a permanent appointment of the architect and builder; or whether the work required to be done was carried out in sections, or whether fresh contracts were taken; and if the House of Commons was made acquainted, from time to time, with the progress of the restoration? The Dean and Chapter, he saw, were, according to the Bill, to report to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the amount of money they had spent. He thought it strange that one Ecclesiastical Body should be called upon to report to another Ecclesiastical Body, in reference to a matter of this nature; and, so far as he was concerned, he did not think that the thing was altogether on a satisfactory footing.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Nottingham could hardly be serious in making the suggestion that the Treasury should add to its

1675
other duties the charge of the ecclesiastical buildings. It must be quite clear to the hon. Member that the Dean and Chapter were responsible, and to as high authority as Parliament itself—the public opinion of this country—for the maintenance of the Abbey, which was an ornament not only dear to them as an ecclesiastical building, but which was also of great value and dear to the whole country. An arrangement was made some time ago between the Dean and Chapter and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the appropriation of certain funds for the purpose of restoring and maintaining the fabric of the Abbey; but those funds had proved altogether insufficient, and they now came, not to ask for a grant from Parliament, but that authority should be given to the Commissioners to make an advance out of funds which came into their hands for the maintenance and restoration of the edifice. The advance would be secured on the estates of the Dean and Chapter, and only that day he had received a letter from the Dean stating how sadly the repairs were needed.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he was far more disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Carvell Williams) than with the right hon. Gentleman. It was not now for the first time that he stated that the sooner the cathedral churches of this country were out of the hands of the Deans and Chapters the better. There was hardly a cathedral church in England which had not been seriously damaged by the Deans and Chapters acting on the advice of church architects. He would not object to the second reading of the Bill provided he had an assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury that the money to be advanced by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be expended on nothing whatever but the necessary repairs, and that no restoration would be carried out. No church had suffered more than Westminster Abbey. The late Dean was a worthy man, but he was not well instructed in art, and he fell under the dominion of the late Sir Gilbert Scott, and the carrying out of certain ideas and crotchets ran away with all the funds which ought to have been expended in proper repairs. He saw in the Bill that the money was to be spent on "substantial repairs, restorations,
1676
and improvements." It was not desirable that the church architects should be allowed to alter any of the main features of the building according to their fancies. Such were the vast powers vested in the Dean and Chapter that if they thought fit they might pull down the magnificent western tower. He hoped he should obtain an assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury that the word "restorations" would be struck out.
MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that the Bill did not in any way interfere with the custodians of the Abbey, who were the Dean and Chapter. But a letter had been received from the Dean in which he said that this was no question of ornamentation or beautifying the exterior, but simply to prevent it from coming down, and that it was for that and nothing else the funds were required. He would not himself object to see the word "restorations" omitted. The sole object of the Bill was to give £10,000 simply and solely for repairs.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

QUESTION.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary to the Treasury what would be the Business taken to-morrow?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that he should to-morrow move the second reading of the Appropriation Bill. On that his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Sir Lyon Playfair) would make his statement on education. The Appropriation Bill would then be proceeded with, and subsequently other Government Business having relation to financial and other matters and entitled to precedence on Thursday.

WAYS AND MEANS.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Resolution [11th June] reported, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That leave he given to bring in a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand eight

  1677
  hundred and eighty seven, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and that Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Henry H. Fowler do prepare and bring it in.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock.