Commons Sitting of 22 April 1887

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [April 21] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended—West Lancashire Railway.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Customs and Inland Revenue.*
First Reading—Appellate Jurisdiction.*
Select Committee—Limited Owners (Scotland) * [8], nominated.
Committee—Merchant Shipping Act (1854) Amendment (No. 2) * [184]—R. P.
Third Reading—Metropolitan Open Spaces Act Extension * [214], and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Pier and Harbour * [222].
Report—Local Government* [216.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  WEST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY BILL. (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into consideration."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to move the rejection of this Bill. In opposing it, my complaint is that the machinery of this House should be made use of for the purpose of imposing upon the public a number of shares and bonds in connection with this Railway Company which must be utterly worthless if this Bill is allowed to pass. Owing to my ignorance of the Forms of the House, I unfortunately allowed the second reading of the Bill to pass unchallenged. I am informed that I ought to have opposed the second reading; but I was not aware of the course which it is usual to take in these matters. The Bill has now passed through Committee; but I may add that it passed as an unopposed Bill, and I am afraid that the Committee before whom it went were not placed in possession of the whole of the facts, so that they might have been able to judge properly of the merits of the Bill. Perhaps the House will allow me to say that this Company was incorporated in 1871, with an authorized capital of
    1614
    £1,166,626. This capital has been entirely expended, and the Company are owing something like £130,000 to their bankers. Their capital now consists of 5 per cent Debenture Stock to the extent of £229,126; 5 per cent Debenture Stock, 1884, £111,912; 5 per cent Debenture Stock, 1884, £250,000; 5 per cent First Preference Shares, £232,000; 5 per cent Second Preference Shares, £300,000; Ordinary Shares, £153,760; and there is a floating debt of £168,000. My opposition to the Bill, as I have already stated, is based upon public grounds. I may explain that, being a preference shareholder myself, I suffer personally from the action I am now taking. What I feel is that this House ought not to be made the machinery for passing a Bill through Parliament by which the public must suffer, and in taking shares in regard to which there is not the most remote possibility of any dividend ever being paid. And what is this railway? It is a line of only 11 miles in length, with running powers over 10 miles. In 1886 the sum due from the Company to their bankers was £124,000, and no dividend has been paid upon any of the Debenture Stock for some time. I have been in communication with the solicitor who is acting for the promoters of the Bill, and in a letter received from him very recently he says—
    ''Personally, I only became the adviser of the Company a year ago. I found that they were involved in embarrassments of a serious character, with a floating debt of £168,000. The truth is that the line ought never to have been made at all. The line only extends from South-port to Preston, and there could be no traffic to justify its construction."
    This letter was written to me only yesterday by the solicitor who represents the promoters of the Bill. He admits that the railway ought never to have been constructed, and yet the Company now come to this House with a Bill to impose upon the public an additional amount of capital which must result in absolute loss to those who are unwise enough to furnish it. I feel that it is my duty, as a Member of this honourable House, to protect the interests of the public as far as I possibly can; and I do so on this occasion, although the course I am taking is diametrically opposed to my own interests. The second paragraph of the Circular issued by the promoters of the Bill states that the measure has

    1615
    received the unanimous approval of the preference and ordinary shareholders. Now, Sir, that is not the fact. The preference and ordinary shareholders are, in a measure, bogus shareholders. The shares themselves were issued by a man who had to fly from the country for fraud, and they really mean nothing at all. I am one of the unfortunate preference shareholders; but I oppose the Bill because I desire to put a stop, if possible, to an imposition upon the public by the issue of this extra stock. I may say that I received no intimation that the Company intended to submit this Bill to Parliament, although I am a preferential shareholder. Therefore the statement contained in the second paragraph of the Circular of the promoters is absolutely untrue—namely, that the Bill is unanimously approved of by the preference and ordinary shareholders. It has certainly not been approved by me.
    SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. The hon. Member has stated that he is a preference shareholder in this Company. Therefore he is admittedly interested in the matter from a pecuniary point of view. I want, therefore, to know whether, under the Rules of this House, an hon. Member who has a pecuniary interest in a matter of this kind has a right to use his position as a Member of Parliament to make a Motion for the rejection of the Bill.
    MR. SPEAKER: There can be no doubt that the votes of hon. Members have been frequently disallowed in consequence of their interest in Private Bills; but I am not aware that such disqualification extends so far as to exclude them from taking part in the advocacy of, or opposition to, any particular measure.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I can understand the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) interrupting me. Gentlemen who are in the habit of promoting Railway Companies have many curious duties to perform, and they do not like any interference with their own projects.
    SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I object to the language of the hon. Member. I am not in the habit of promoting Companies, as the hon. Member very well knows.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: On looking through the Stock Exchange
    1616
    Shares Book I find that the hon. Baronet represents no less than 12 different Companies.
    SIR EDWARD WATKIN: Nothing of the kind.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must toll the hon. Member for Stepney that the hon. Baronet was perfectly in Order in calling my attention to a question which, might hereafter arise as to the position of the hon. Member in regard to this Bill.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: Then I will not proceed further with the point I was about to bring before the House. I will only say that, in my opinion, the Committee to whom the Bill was referred have given their decision under an entire misapprehension as to the facts of the case and the merits of the measure. The Bill is promoted for the special purpose of raising a large amount of preferential capital, although the Company are paying no dividend at the present moment upon their existing preference stock; while on the other hand they are owing a large amount of money to their bankers. How can it be possible to find the money in future to pay dividends on the preference capital? In the second paragraph of the Preamble of the Bill the promoters say—
    "Whereas a considerable portion of such debenture stock has been issued and applied for the aforesaid purposes, and the Company are in negotiation with their other creditors to satisfy the outstanding debts and liabilities of the Company which exceed £150,000 by the issue of debenture stock to such creditors at a discount, and it is therefore expedient to increase the amount of the said debenture stock and authorize the issue thereof on such terms and conditions, and at such prices as may be sanctioned by the shareholders of the Company at a general meeting."
    Then they go on to say that—
    "The Company may from time to time create and issue debenture stock for any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole two hundred thousand pounds and such debenture stock and the holders thereof respectively shall be of the same class or description and subject and entitled to the same powers provisions liabilities rights priorities privileges and incidents whatsoever in all respects as if the debenture stock authorized by this Act had formed part of and an addition to the amount of the "West Lancashire Railway (1884) Debenture Stock authorized by The West Lancashire Railway (Capital) Act 1884."
    Well, Sir, I say again that my only motive, in objecting to this Bill, is that the public should not be imposed on by the issue of fresh stock, when there is no likelihood whatever that any dividend

    1617
    will be paid on a future occasion. I hope that hon. Members will see the necessity of joining with me in opposing' the Bill and in preventing it from becoming law. There is only one other matter which I will mention. The hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney) could not have known that the shares of this Company really represented bogus preference and ordinary shares for which no consideration at all has been received, although they figure in the capital account to a large amount. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman had been able to take that matter into consideration he would have placed his veto upon the further progress of the Bill.
    MR. PULESTON: I am sorry to find myself in opposition to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; but I wish to point out that it has always been an established Rule of this House that, unless for some extraordinary reason, the House itself should never interfere with the decision of its Committee after a Bill has passed a second reading, and been relegated to a Committee.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONstated, that the preference and ordinary shares of this Company were bogus shares for which no consideration had been paid, and that that fact was not brought before the Committee.
    MR. PULESTON: I have no interest in this railway either directly or indirectly, nor do I know any Member who has, except the hon. Member who has just told us so. But all the particulars of the Bill which it was necessary to know must have been present in the minds of the Committee, and of the Chairman of Ways and Means in particular, than whom there is no man more careful in sifting out all the facts and circumstances connected with matters of this kind. The Bill now comes before us with the unanimous endorsement of the Committee, and I cannot allow that any sufficient reason has been given by the hon. Member to justify the House in rejecting the Bill at the present stage. The hon. Member has based his objection to the Bill mainly upon his statement, which I cannot assume to be entirely correct that the preference and ordinary shares of this Company are bogus shares.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: Pardon me; what I meant to say was that two-thirds of them were.
    MR. PULESTON: That is certainly not my information. There is, however, no doubt of the fact, and I do not understand the hon. Member to deny it, that every single person connected with this Railway Company, except the hon. Member himself, is in favour of the Bill; and I am given to understand that the Company include some very respectable people, who know very well what they are about in reference to this measure. The principal reason the hon. Member has assigned for moving the rejection of the Bill is that the railway has not paid hitherto, and therefore that it will never pay in future. Now, I think that is the very reason to justify the promoters in bringing forward a Bill of this kind.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: Will the hon. Member pardon me.
    MR. PULESTON: I hope the hon. Member will not interrupt me. The Bill has been introduced in the hope and belief that dividends will be paid when the railway has made further progress, and it will certainly be impossible for it to do that unless it gets this additional capital. If Parliament consents to pass this Bill, it is believed that the line will become a solid and paying concern. It is with that idea that the promoters are seeking to obtain these fresh powers. The rejection of this Bill means, however, a good deal more than that, because it contains many other important provisions of a public nature which it would be unfortunate not to pass. I cannot conceal from myself for a moment, that if the proposal of the hon. Member is accepted, and you have already decided, Sir, as I understand it, and the hon. Member will not be able to vote upon the question himself—if the Motion is agreed to, it will strike a blow at every principle of Private Bill legislation in this House. So far as I understand the matter, it is the Railway Company themselves who come here to seek a remedy for the existing state of things, which, after mature reflection and consideration, and after consultation with the persons interested, they believe will place the railway in a paying position, and make it useful to the country through which it passes. The facts of the case are stated very

    1619
    frankly in the letter from the solicitor to the promoters of the Bill which the hon. Gentleman read. That gentleman says that the line ought never to have been constructed, but that is perfectly consistent with the fresh powers now asked for. These new powers have been rendered necessary, because this undertaking in its inception was promoted without sufficiently mature and proper deliberation. But having sustained these heavy losses, it is almost monstrous to maintain that this House ought not to afford some kind of relief to the unfortunate shareholders and bondholders, who are simply acting with the consent of the persons interested. The Company, in issuing further debenture stock to the amount of £200,000, make provision that it shall not take priority over the existing debenture stock. It will, therefore, interfere in no way with the interest which ought to be paid on the stock held by the hon. Member himself. Under these circumstances, and taking all the facts into consideration, especially bearing in mind the important bearing of such a question upon the general legislation of this House, I hope the House will have no hesitation whatever in refusing to accept the proposition of the hon. Member, but will endorse the decision of the Committee upon the Bill.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I will only add a few words by way of supplement to the observations which have just been made by the hon. Member opposite. I have nothing whatever to do with this railway. I never saw it; but, unfortunately, I have friends who are interested in it, and who certainly desire that the Bill should pass. There are reasons why the measure should pass far beyond those reasons for its rejection which have been stated by the hon. Member opposite. The line cannot be called a bogus line. A line between two such important towns as Preston and Southport, which, has been constructed to serve the entire district of West Lancashire, cannot be called a bogus line. The capital invested in the line amounts to more than £1,100,000. It has been my duty more than once to call the attention of the House to undertakings of this nature. Very frequently, gentlemen, like the hon. Gentleman opposite, are tempted into projects
    1620
    of this kind by misleading prospectuses, and in the end the Companies have to come here to wind up the business. When they come here to wind up, we should, I think, treat them with the consideration they require. The Bill has not only received the general approval of the shareholders, but it was passed at a large public meeting of the shareholders—a fully representative meeting—and passed, I believe, unanimously. I understand that the hon. Member was not present at that meeting.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I was not invited.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I am told that it was a regular Wharncliffe meeting, at which a large number of shareholders were present, and a great number of others represented by proxy. The line has cost a great deal of money, and the shareholders now say—"You must place other securities in front of ours in order to pay off some £160,000 of floating liabilities which will have to be taken up." All that these unfortunate shareholders desire is that they may be placed hereafter in a better position, and they are willing to place new securities in front of their own. No injury can be inflicted upon the securities which the hon. Gentleman opposite holds as a bondholder. Under these circumstances, I trust that the Bill will be passed in its present stage, and the result will be to place the concern, which is already in serious difficulties, in a more advantageous position so far as its own shareholders are concerned.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITMEES (Mr. COURTNEY): I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes in regard to this Bill. The Bill came before me as an unopposed Bill, and, of course, I considered it upon its merits. The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Isaacson) in quite correct in describing the position of this Company as a most unfortunate one. The simple question now raised is whether the proposal made by the Company, and approved by the mass of the shareholders, is the best mode of enabling the Company to escape from its present unfortunate financial position. Upon its own merits, and in consideration of the support it has received, it certainly appeared to deserve the attention of the Committee. The hon. Member for Stepney now asks the House to

    1621
    refuse to ratify the decision to which the Committee upstairs has arrived. The Bill proposes to deal with a floating debt by the issue of preference shares. The hon. Member, as the holder of first preference stock, objects to that arrangement.
    MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: It was not on my own behalf that I spoke, but simply on behalf of the general public. My contention is that the general public ought not to be deluded into advancing money for a concern which will never, in all probability, pay a dividend.
    MR. COURTNEY: No doubt, the holders of preference shares are fully entitled to have their interests respected, but they accept and willingly support this scheme. As a matter of fact, the scheme is promoted entirely in their interest. If the hon. Gentleman objects to it, I must point out to him that he has not been so vigilant as he ought to have been. The Bill itself provides that the preference stock shall be issued with the sanction of three-fourths of the present holders, and I think that should be a sufficient guarantee that nothing will be done which is likely to be detrimental to the interests of the shareholders.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered; to be read the third time.

QUESTIONS.

  GOVERNMENT OF CEYLON—NEUTRALITY IN MATTERS OF RELIGION.
  MR. GEDGEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, in view of the fact that in order to secure the neutrality of the Government of Ceylon in matters of religion, the Church of England in that Island has been recently disestablished, and all grants of public money withdrawn from it, his attention has been called to the following occurrence, as reported in La Mission Catholique of Lyons, of the 18th February last, namely—
  "That certain Delegates so not by the Pope of Rome to Ceylon to announce that British India and Ceylon had been divided into Roman Catholic Dioceses, were conveyed to the shore at Colombo, in the Governor's State barge, with the Standard of the Pope flying at the prow, and the British Flag at the stern; that an Aide-de-camp welcomed the Delegates on the Governor's behalf, and that the band of the
  1622
  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders received them with musical honours at the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St. Lucia;"
  whether this official recognition of the Papal Delegates has the approval of Her Majesty's Government; and, if not, what steps will be taken to signify their disapprobation to the Governor and to prevent similar acts in future; whether he is aware that the present Government of Ceylon has renewed a practice (long since discontinued) of paying large sums of money for the repair of Buddhist Temples, e.g. (as appears in The Colombo Gazette of 10th December, 1886) Rs. 1940 for repairs to Mihintale Dagoba, and Rs. 1300 for repairs to Abhayagirige Dagoba, the money thus expended being taken from taxes which are partly paid by Christians; and also that, at the State reception of the present Governor, in Kandy, the blessing is publicly invoked by Buddhist priests; and, whether these endowments and encouragements of native religion have the approval of Her Majesty's Government; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to prevent their recurrence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): The contributions in aid of the Church of England in Ceylon ceased, except to existing incumbents, from the 1st of July last. I have not any knowledge of the respect alleged to have been shown by the Governor to the Roman Catholic dignitaries; but their loyal prayers for the Queen were reported in an official despatch. In The Ceylon Observer of January 8, 1887, there is an account of the doings at St. Lucia's Cathedral; but no mention is made of the military band which is alleged to have "received them with musical honours." I have not had my attention drawn to the facts alleged by La Mission Catholique of Lyons. Consequently, I have not expressed any opinion on the alleged action of the Governor, nor do I see, at present, that a case has arisen for any interference. My Predecessor in Office approved the expenditure on the second Dagoba mentioned in the Question for purely archaeological reasons; and I have just received the Supplementary Appropriation Ordinance, which includes the sum expended on the firs Dagoba for the same reason. The Governor states that he was advised that

  1623
  delay would probably render1 its ruin inevitable, or only to be averted at great expense, and that the sums expended in each case are only a portion of the cost of the repairs—apparently one-half—the remainder being repaid from private funds. I do not see any good ground for taking a different view from that of my Predecessor, so far as these two cases are concerned. I have received no Report or representations on this subject; but I have seen it stated in a Ceylon newspaper—The Observer of February 15, page 158—that Sir Arthur Gordon had said in the Legislative Council that—
  "There had been no religious rite in the ceremony at Badulla (which would seem to have been the occasion referred to), and that when good wishes were offered to him by any portion of Her Majesty's subjects, he should accept them with satisfaction."
  I see no reason to apprehend that Sir Arthur Gordon has departed from the publicly declared policy of Her Majesty's late Government of adhering strictly in Ceylon, as elsewhere, to the principles of religious equality, and that every consideration possible should be shown to the feelings of all denominations in the Island, whether Christian or otherwise. I would add that I will ask Sir Arthur Gordon for a Report as to any further points upon which the hon. Member desires information.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)— TOWN COMMISSIONERS OF PORTADOWN.
MR. BLANEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What sums have been received by the Town Commissioners of Portadown, or their clerk or representative, Mr. Robert M'Clatchy, on account of contracts for the repair or making of streets or footpaths, or any other work done within the municipal boundaries of Portadown, entered into between them and the Grand Jury of the County Armagh, in each of the years between 1st January, 1877, and 31st December, 1886; what sums of money have been expended by the Town Commissioners of Portadown, in execution of those contracts, in each year since 1st January, 1877; what sums have been paid as law costs during each year since 1st January, 1877; what have been the receipts in each year from the new markets, Portadown, since their erec-
1624
tion, to 31st December, 1886, and the expenditure incurred for their management, during that period, for each year; and, what was the amount of debt due by the Commissioners of Portadown to the Government, and how much to private individuals?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: As the details of this Question are considerable, I am obliged to ask the hon. Member to accept the total figures for the periods named. The total receipts on account of contracts for the 10 years, including £500 due from 1876, amounted to £8,279, and the expenditure was £7,269. The law costs amounted to £312. The receipts of the new markets were £2,618, and the expenses of their management £1,797. The debt due to the Government was £1,623, and to private individuals £2,220.

LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—ATTACK UPON REV. MATHEW MACAULAY, PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER OF CASTLEBLAYNEY.
MR. P. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attack alleged to have been made upon the Rev. Mathew Macaulay, Presbyterian Minister of Castleblayney, and his wife by an Orange drumming party on the 1st of July last on the public highway, the subsequent desecration of his church on 10th July, and the further alleged combination among certain persons to induce certain other persons, members of the Rev. Mr. Macaulay's congregation, to refrain from doing that which they had a right to do—namely, pay him a certain stipend, was reported to the police, and these charges investigated by County Inspector Ireland and Head Constable Gartland; and, whether these alleged offences are included in the Return relating to Agrarian Offences, Ireland, for the year 1886, under the heads "Sacrilege," "Riots and Affrays," "Intimidation," "Attacking Houses," "Injury to Property," "Injury to Place of Worship," "Obstructing Highway," or any other heading; and, if not, will he explain the reason for the omission?
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The occurrences referred to wore carefully investigated by the officers named. The attack alleged to have been made by an Orange drumming party was inquired into at once by the District Inspector; but Mr. Macaulay declined to give the names of those who had interfered with him. On July 11 some persons obtained admission into Mr. Macaulay's church, and some Orange lilies were hung up, and the words "No Home Rule" were placed upon the pulpit. There are, I am informed, no grounds for believing that a combination was entered into by members of the rev. gentleman's congregation to prevent his being paid any portion of his stipend. The proceedings in question were not considered of sufficient gravity to be included in the Outrage Returns for 1886.

LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS—THE EXPERIMENTS AT SOUTH FORELAND.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the attention of the Board of Trade has been called, through the President or otherwise, to Dr. Tyndall's letter to The Times of 7th instant, complaining of the manner in which the recent experiments made by the Trinity House with lighthouse illuminants at South Foreland were conducted; whether statements similar in tendency, and calling for further investigation of the subject, have reached him from other quarters, and appeared in The Glasgow Herald and other newspapers; and, whether, under these circumstances, the Board of Trade will give the matter further and careful consideration?
THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The statements referred to by the hon. Member have been brought under the notice of the Board of Trade. These statements, as far as can be seen, are repetitions of what has been urged before, and upon which a decision has been taken and placed before Parliament in a Return of the whole correspondence which has been circulated early in the present Session. In the present state of the Mercantile Marine Fund, which is not satisfactory, and having regard to the fact that experi-
1626
ments have been carried out so recently at a cost of £9,000, I hesitate to impose on the general body of shipowners an additional burden by suggesting the renewal of experiments which have not been asked for by either the Irish or the Scottish General Lighthouse Authority.

WAR OFFICE—THE ARMY PURCHASE COMMISSION.
COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, who are the Members of the "Army Purchase Commission" who were appointed, when it was resolved to abolish purchase in the Army, to regulate the sums payable to officers of the Army on their retirement from the Service; whether that Commission is intended to be a permanent institution; and, if so, what are the present duties of that Commission; what services its members have been rendering since they disposed of all matters connected with the abolition of purchase; how many sittings they have held, and the dates of those sittings, since 1871; and, what are, and have been, the salaries of the several Commissioners, in addition to any salaries they may already be in receipt of, in respect of any official capacity in which they may be engaged?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The members of the Army Purchase Commission appointed in 1871 were Sir Edward Lugard, Earl De La Warr, and Mr. O'Dowd. The Commission is necessarily temporary, and will expire when the functions entrusted to it cease. Its present duties have reference to the claims of officers under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871. About 2,000 such claims still remain. There are also more than 200 officers of the late Indian Artillery and Engineers whose claims to compensation under the Act of 1874 have to be dealt with. Her Majesty has further committed to the Commission the duty of advising the Secretary of State for War as to the compensation to be awarded to certain officers for loss inflicted on them by new retirement Regulations. The business of the Commissioners is not conducted at formal meetings, but from day to day as may be required. Originally the first Commissioner had £1,500 a-year, the second £750, each with the pay of a General Officer in addition, and Mr. O'Dowd was

1627
allowed £200 a-year as an addition to his salary as Deputy Judge Advocate General. The present Commissioners are only two—Mr. O'Dowd, who is paid as stated above, and Colonel Deedes, who does not receive any addition to his salary as an Assistant Under Secretary of State. Besides the Commissioners, the Secretary (Mr. Wyllie) receives £600 a-year. He was appointed, in July, 1886, for a limited term of five years.

MERCHANT SHIPPING—THE "MARY MARK."
MR. W. F. LAWRENCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the case that the Spanish Government is now willing to submit the matter of the Mary Mark to arbitration; and, whether he can state the terms of the reference?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Yes, Sir; the Spanish Government, while refusing to grant an indemnity to the owners of the vessel, consent to have the matter settled by arbitration, which, was the alternative course proposed to them. The arbitration will be regulated by terms settled between Her Majesty's Government and that of Spain.

TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE PETROLEUM TRADE.
MR. LAFONEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session to regulate the petroleum trade, especially as regards the storage of petroleum in or near London and other large cities?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): It will depend on the course of Public Business whether I am able to introduce a Bill on this subject this Session; and I cannot at present make any definite statement as to the intentions of the Government.

RUSSIA—IMPRISONMENT OF MR. W. J. ROBINSON, A BRITISH SUBJECT.
MR. JOICEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the statement made in The Daily News of the 21st instant, to the effect that William John Robinson,
1628
a British subject, has been detained in prison by the Russian Government for 11 months for infringing its passport regulations, seven months of such detention having elapsed before he was brought to trial, although he offered to find adequate bail for his appearance before the Kieff tribunal; and, if true, whether the Government will request the British Representative at St. Petersburg to endeavour to obtain the immediate release of Mr. Robinson?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): As I stated on March 17, Robinson was arrested for travelling from Kieff to Odessa without a proper passport. He was detained in prison eight months before being sentenced on the 2nd of January last to four months' imprisonment. Her Majesty's Consul General at Odessa has notified the case to Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, who received instructions to inquire and report on the matter, and has now been reminded of it.

EGYPT—ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS— MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD.
MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, the Correspondence relating to Mr. Clifford Lloyd's removal from Egypt, which the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated in the House on July 3rd, 1884, was owing to certain painful differences of opinion between Mr. Lloyd and various high officials, both English and Egyptian?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I must object to lay upon the Table the Correspondence relating to Mr. Clifford Lloyd's return from Egypt. He was not removed, but left it on the expiration of his leave of absence from Ireland, during which he was temporarily employed in Egypt. The "painful differences" mentioned by my Predecessor in no way affected his high character, or detracted from the excellence of his work.

POST OFFICE—CREDITS TO THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS, 1886.
MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General,

1629
Whether he can state the amount which the British Post Office paid or credited to the Australian Governments in 1886, out of the sum collected in the United Kingdom upon letters. &c, for Australia?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The amount which the British Post Office will pay or credit to the Australian Governments in 1886 out of the postage collected in the United Kingdom upon letters, &c, for Australia may be estimated at about £50,500. The exact amount is not known, because all the accounts for the year have not yet been furnished by the Colonies.

POST OFFICE (POSTAL SERVICES)—CONVEYANCE OF THE INDIAN AND AUSTRALIAN MAILS—FOREIGN SUBSIDIES.
MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, What sum was paid the French and Italian Governments for the conveyance of Indian and Australian mails in the years 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, 1885, and 1886 respectively?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The annual payments to the French and Italian Governments for the conveyance of Indian and Australian Mails since 1878 were as follows:—

Year

Payment to France.

Payment to Italy.

£

£

1879

40,605

20,622

1880

44,609

30,162

1881

46,294

31,395

1882

47,964

32,549

1883

49,913

33,926

1884

53,140

40,115

1885

52,922

40,268

1886

54,044

43,840

BUTTER SUBSTITUTES BILL AND OLEOMARGARINE BILL—NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
MR. MACLUREasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, When the Select Committee on the Butter Substitutes Bill and Oleomargarine Bill will be nominated; and, whether the Committee will have power to take evidence as
1630
arranged with the promoters of the Bills?
THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Select Committee on this matter will be nominated forthwith. If the Committee think fit to take evidence, the Board of Trade will have no objection.

INDIA (MADRAS)—SUSPENSION OF MR. CROLE, COLLECTOR OF MADURA.
MR. BUCHANANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the late Secretary of State, the Earl of Kimberley, recalled the suspension of Mr. Crole, Collector of Madura, and ordered the Madras Government to restore him to an office of corresponding rank and emolument to that of which he had been deprived when suspended; whether Viscount Cross further ordered that Mr. Crole's salary for the six months during which he had been suspended should be refunded to him; whether the Madras Government has transferred Mr. Crole from the Executive branch of the Service, in which he has served with distinction for 24 years, to the judicial branch, in which he has no experience and no claim for promotion; and, whether the Judge-ship at Arcot, in which Mr. Crole has been appointed, is inferior in rank and emolument to the Collectorship of Madura held by him before his suspension?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): After Mr. Crole had been suspended for rather more than six months the Earl of Kimberley directed that the supension should then cease, and that Mr. Crole should be employed again—hut not in Madura—as soon as there was a fitting opportunity in an office of corresponding rank and emolument. On further evidence Viscount Cross made the order referred to in the second paragraph of the Question. The Executive and Judicial branches of the Service are parallel, with corresponding rank and emoluments. It rests entirely with the Local Governments to decide in which branch any particular officer shall, for the time being, be employed. I am informed that the Judgeship at Arcot is exactly equivalent in rank and emolument to the Collectorship at Madura.

FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND)—CONSTITUTION AND FUNCTIONS.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked, the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which has been expressed in Scotland with the Fishery Board as at present constituted, and the expiry in 1887 of the term of office of the present Members of the Board, the Government will defer making any new appointments until there has been an opportunity for discussing the functions and constitution of the Board?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 31st ultimo to an almost exactly similar Question. No now appointment to the Scotch Fishery Board will be made until next October, when the term of office of six of the members of the pre-sent Board expires; and there will be ample time for the hon. Member, in the meanwhile, to raise any discussion on the constitution of the Board that he may think necessary.

ADMIRALTY—VACANCIES—CIRCULARS.
MR. O. V. MORGANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, What has been the result of the inquiry promised by him on March 24th, with reference to a statement made by a Mr. Field at a meeting of the Civil Service Supply Association, as to Circulars being sent out in connection with the candidature for the Admiralty Vacancy marked "On Her Majesty's Service," and at the expense of the country; and, if the statement in question has been found to be correct, what steps, if any, have been taken in the matter?
THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The matter has been fully investigated, and it appears that about 25 Circulars were issued improperly. Suitable notice has been taken, and the postage has been recovered. Steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of such an irregularity. The Circulars in question were issued for the purpose of preventing clerks on full pay from becoming Directors of the Civil Service Supply Association.

THE NEWSPAPER PRESS—CONVEYANCES OF PARCELS BY TRAINS—THE ALLEGED POST OFFICE ORDER.
MR. PULESTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention had been called to a statement in The Daily News as to an order said to have emanated from the Post Office with respect to the carrying of Press matters by train?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. Raikes): I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the opportunity of answering this Question. The statements contained in the paragraphs to which he has referred appear to have originated in an entire misconception. Press matter is not, in the view of the Post Office—nor, I should think, in that of any persons capable of construing the law—to be regarded as of the nature of a letter. It is much more closely allied to goods. And being regarded as goods, it follows that manuscript for the Pres3 exempts also any covering letter relating to it from the Regulations attaching to other correspondence. It was never contemplated by the recent Circular to interfere with the present system of transmitting Press matter by train; but only to call the attention of the Railway Companies to a practice, which we believe to be increasing, of forwarding ordinary letters under the guise of railway parcels, to the injury of the Revenue.

PARLIAMENT—RULES OF DEBATE—OFFENSIVE IMPUTATIONS ON MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE—MR. DILLON AND THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HAETTNGTON: Sir, I wish, with the permission of the House, to make a very short personal statement with reference to one of a similar character made yesterday by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) when I was unfortunately absent. The hon. Member is reported to have said that on Monday last I stated in this House—
  "That two gentlemen, who were well known and who were acting for months under my (Mr. Dillon's) direction, wont about Ireland counselling assassination, and when I directed his attention to the fact that these gentlemen wore responsible to me and acted under my instructions he repeated the charge, emphasized it, and said that those charges were made in the period to which I refer."

  1633
  And the hon. Member further said—
  "I think I am entitled to ask that he "—that is myself—"shall furnish mo with the particulars of dates, and extracts from speeches, and references to the circumstances to which he alluded, when I shall be able to show that his statement is entirely without foundation."
  Now, Sir, on Monday last I was referring to certain statements which had been made in The Times newspaper. The importance of those statements and the sufficiency of the evidence by which they are supported are matters of opinion, and, undoubtedly, may be questions of argument in this House; but I submit that I was perfectly entitled, as a point of Order, to make reference to the statements which have been published in The Times newspaper; and, further, that I was morally justified, under the circumstances, in making the reference to them that I did. Further, I submit to the House that, having stated what was the source of my information, and what was the authority on which those statements had been made, I was not bound, nor was it in any way necessary for me, to attempt to prove or substantiate the statements which had been made. Had I made the charge entirely upon my own responsibility, the case, it seems to me, would have been altogether different. But, having repeatedly pointed out that I was only referring to the statements which had been made in The Times, it appeared to me, and still appears to me, that there was no responsibility resting on me to prove or substantiate those statements. Now, Sir, the statements I must point out are not in any sense my statements, but statements made on the responsibility of The Times. Neither I nor, as far as I am aware, The Times have made any charge against the hon. Member for East Mayo. What I did was to call attention to certain allegations which have been made in that newspaper. I said—
  "The assertion made in The Times was that of these men I have mentioned some have in speeches advocated assassination and that others have been implicated in conspiracies of murder as well."
  The hon. Member interrupted me and said—
  "I was the chief organizer of the Land League, and these gentlemen acted under me during all the time they were agents of the Association, and I wish to ask the noble Marquess when they made such speeches."
  1634
  I did not, as the hon. Member yesterday stated, repeat or emphasize the charge; but what I proceeded to do was, on the spur of the moment, to give the hon. Member the references he desired. From what the hon. Member is reported to have said yesterday, I infer that he referred especially to the names of two gentlemen who had been acting under him when he was the chief organizer of the Land League. I believe, but am not sure, that he referred only to Boyton and Sheridan. If he refers to other persons, whose names I have mentioned, I shall be able also to give him the references on which I relied. These references are entirely contained in the articles in The Times newspaper. [Cries of "Oh!" and derisive cheers from the Irish Members.] I think I have already indicated that I shall confine myself entirely to the references which are contained in those articles, because it was entirely to those articles that I was referring; and if I were to attempt to substantiate those charges and allegations made in The Times by going outside the references they themselves have made I should be making myself responsible, which I have not done, for the charges themselves. I can give the hon. Member the references in The Times referring to Boyton, and the first of those references is a speech delivered by Boyton on March 5, 1881. The Times article—page 16 of the pamphlet—says—
  "This paid officer of the Constitutional movement said—We have seen plenty of landlords and agents that deserve to be shot at any man's hands. I have always denounced the commission of outrages by night; but meet him in the broad daylight, and if you must blow out his brains blow them out in the daytime.' Mr. Parnell, it is true, repudiated this passage on behalf of his agent. But Mr. Forster utterly rejected Mr. Boyton's words even when endorsed by his principal, and we have already seen reason to doubt the perfect fidelity of Mr. Parnell's reminiscences."
  ME. DILLON: What is the date of that speech?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI have already said that it was delivered on the 5th of March, 1881. There is another reference to another speech, which appears to have been made earlier—namely, in May, 1880—
  "'There was a little story,' observes the same speaker at Dunmanway, County Cork, in May, 1880, 'told by Mr. Parnell, at a meeting in the Rotunda, at the conclusion of his address, to the effect that a certain American gentleman

  1635
  came upon the platform and said—''Parnell, there is 25 dollars, five for bread and 20 for lead." Now that simple little bit of humour has put your hereditary enemy in a great flutter.….I am authorized to tell you here.….that those 20 dollars are perfectly safe, and that.….we are not going to tell Mr. Forster what we are going to do with the 20 dollars that have since swelled into 20,000.'"
  That is the reference made by The Times newspaper to Mr. Boyton. With regard to Sheridan, my reference was to the following extract from a speech of his on the 1st of August, I believe 1880; but I am not absolutely clear whether the date was 1880 or 1881. The passage will be found on page 17 of the pamphlet—
  "On the 1st of August Mr. P. J. Sheridan, the 'chief organizer in Connaught,' urged the people to assert their rights, and if they did not got them through their Members of Parliament, he would ask them to ring out their voices from the muzzles of Minie rifles."
  The references to P. J. Sheridan are not references confined to his speeches. I find on page 26 of The Times pamphlet that an allusion is made to what passed between Captain O'Shea and Mr. Forster in relation to the release of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) from Kilmainham. The Times pamphlet says—
  "Captain O'Shea told Mr. Forster how the 'Constitutional organization' would be adapted to prevent crime. 'The conspiracy (or organization), he said, which had been used to get up Boycotting and outrages will now be used to put them down.' He added that 'Parnell hoped to make use of a certain person and get him back from abroad, as he knew all the details (of conspiracy or agitation) in the West.' That person's name was P. J. Sheridan, Mr. Parnell's sometime colleague on the Central League. He was at this period in disguise, 'coming backwards and forwards from Egan to the outrage-mongers in the West.'"
  The next reference is at page 28 of the same pamphlet, and is connected with the trials which took place. It has reference to the informer Carey, and says—
  "A man named Farrell turned Queen's evidence. Criminals more guilty and deeper in the conspiracy grew uneasy for their necks. Among the prisoners was James Carey, who had been just elected a Town Councillor for Dublin on the recommendation of Mr. William O'Brien, as a candidate 'untrammelled with Castle influence.' This man was suddenly transferred from the dock to the witness table. He appalled the civilized world with the mysteries of iniquity he in part revealed. Carey swore that he had been a Fenian, and that Thomas Brennan, secretary to Mr. Parnell's
  1636
  'Constitutional organization,' had previously filled that same office in the ranks of the Fenian Brotherhood. He swore that in November, 1881, a 'Mr. Walsh,' from the North of England, came over to establish 'a Society that would make history.' This Society was called 'The Irish Invincibles;' its object was 'to remove all tyrants from the country,' and the Park murders and the murderous attacks on Mr. Justice Lawson and Mr. Field were its work. Carey swore that Walsh introduced him to P. J. Sheridan, then disguised as 'the Rev. Father Murphy;' that Sheridan—the 'chief organizer' of the 'Constitutional agitation' in Connaught—stated he 'had been in the country to extend the branches of the Invincibles;' and that on another occasion this colleague and paid officer of Mr. Parnell undertook to see to the despatch of arms to the murderers from London."
  The only other remaining reference to P. J. Sheridan to which I shall call attention is on pages 29 and 30 of the same pamphlet. It is thus—
  "In March a second gang of murderous conspirators, known as the 'Patriotic Brotherhood,' were tried at the Antrim Assizes. It was proved that P. J. Sheridan, 'our great organizer in Mayo,' as the chief local assassin styled him, had taken a principal part in forming this Association—' an Association,' said Mr. Justice Lawson, 'avowedly established for the purpose of committing murder.'"
  Now, Sir, I believe I am correct in saying that it was in reference to Boyton and Sheridan that the hon. Member called on me to give references in support of the allegations to which I have referred. I have done so from the articles in The Times, to which I referred at the time; and I submit, Sir, I have given bvsatisfaction to the hon. Member, and in doing that I have done all that I am called upon to do in reply to the statement which the hon. Member made last night.
  MR. DILLON: I trust I may be permitted to give an answer to the remarks of the noble Marquess. I rise, under somewhat unusual circumstances, to say a few words of personal explanation after the remarks of the noble Marquess. Now, Sir, I do not complain of the conduct of the noble Marquess now. On the contrary, I thank him, because he has given me an opportunity of meeting these charges in a detailed fashion and replying to them; but I am bound to say I cannot understand on what principle he lays down this proposition—that a Gentleman, a Member of this House, and, above all, a Member of this House commanding such widespread attention in the country

  1637
  as the noble Marquess, is entitled to get up in this House and give currency by his speeches to the foulest and most criminal charges against other Members of the House, stating that he considers because he constantly referred to these charges not as made on his own responsibility, but as having appeared in The Times newspaper, that he, therefore, washes his hands of all responsibility for repeating them. I must, at the outset, express my entire dissent from any such proposition. The Times newspaper is one thing, the noble Marquess is another. I have been assailed in The Times newspaper by these articles; and The Times newspaper might have continued to reprint them to the Day of Judgment, and I never should have taken any notice of them. In this wretched publication, which I yesterday saw for the first time, having invested 1d. in it, I read an account of the quotations given by the noble Marquess, and this wretched publication would have gone unnoticed by me for ever unless the statements had been repeated by the noble Marquess as a Member of this House, and one whose character before the country requires that I should take notice of them. I must say that I do not consider it is fair for any Member of this House, and especially for a noble Lord in the position of the noble Marquess, to take that stand and say that he is entitled to repeat the charges, however unfounded and foul they may have been because his contention is that he never looked into the original evidence at all—and, in the course of debate in this House, to repeat those charges, no matter how unfounded, foul, and dishonouring they may be, and to give them the widespread publicity which attaches to every speech made by him. I gladly recognize in the opportunity offered to me by the statement he has made to-night, that the noble Marquess has done everything in his power to make amends. I am perfectly ready now, he having given me the references to the speeches, though I feel considerable difficulty in going into this matter in detail—and yet I do not see that I have a choice—but I am ready now to show that these charges are absolutely and utterly unfounded. The first charge, he stated—and in my own justification for intervening the other night I may point out that when he
  1638
  said that no attack has been made on the Member for East Mayo, but on these two gentlemen, it was well known that in attacking them he was making a personal attack on me, because they acted on my instructions as agents for the League—referred to a speech of Mr. Boyton on the 5th of March, 1881. Mr. Boyton was then acting as my agent. He delivered a speech in the County Kerry, for which he was arrested on the 9th of March and was committed to Kilmainham Gaol, From that hour to this I have not been responsible for anything he did. Therefore, if that was a true reference, no opportunity was ever given to him to account for that speech, for he was arrested a few days afterwards in consequence of having delivered it, and he never afterwards acted as agent for the Land League in Ireland. But I am bound to say, if that is the only reference to Mr. Boyton, that when I did get an opportunity—for I also was arrested and committed to prison at the time he was in Kilmainham—I had never heard of the cause of his arrest until the debate in this House, when Mr. Forster produced a police report of the speech, and read out these very words as a justification of Mr. Boyton's arrest—words which I never heard of until that day. I challenged Mr. Boyton afterwards, and he assured me that he never uttered such words; and the police reports, as the House will agree, have in many cases proved to be grossly and scandalously incorrect, as in the case of the Parnell trial. He told me that the report was grossly and scandalously incorrect. But even if he did use the words, the point I want to make is that I was not responsible for them. He was immediately arrested for making the speech, and was never afterwards an agent of the League, That is one instance of the fairness of these charges. That is the only charge made against Mr. Boyton, except a vague charge about his telling a story of the man in America who was reported to have sent 25 dollars, and to have said that five of them were for bread and 20 for lead. He made some joke about this. I was present, and we all knew what it was he meant. These men were men who belonged to the physical force party in America, as most of our people there did, and it meant that if Mr. Parnell stirred up a conspiracy in Ireland,

  1639
  there were five dollars to go for bread and 20 to supply for overthrowing the Government. The meaning of that was thoroughly well understood. The question of assassination never entered into the matter at all. That disposes of the second charge. I come now to the reference given to Mr. Sheridan. It is to the 1st of August, 1880. On that day Mr. Sheridan made a speech, I believe before he was appointed an agent of the League, advising the people to try to get their demands Constitutionally through Members of Parliament. He said that if they could do that he should be glad, and if they failed, then they should ring out their demands through Minié rifles. Well, under the influence of strong passion, I have said something of the same kind in this House myself. I do not say that it was a wise or a sensible thing; but to say that it is an incitement to assassination is the most base calumny that could be uttered. Mr. Sheridan was known to the people, and had long associated with the physical force party, and the meaning was this—
  "I have now joined the Parliamentary Party, and I call upon you to act with them and try Parliamentary methods, and if you do not succeed I shall advise you to go back to the old physical force party."
  That was the distinct meaning of Mr. Sheridan, and the charge that that was an incitement to assassination is the basest attempt to twist the meaning of words which I have ever heard in my life. The meaning is manifest, and the people thoroughly understood the meaning of it. I am reluctantly obliged, as the noble Marquess went on and gave other references, to follow him. Now, first with regard to the references from this precious penny pamphlet. On page 26 there is reported a conversation with Mr. Forster, relating to what took place between himself and Captain O'Shea. That matter has been fully threshed out in this House half-a-dozen times already, and to bring it forward at this time of day as a fresh charge against the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) or myself is so absurd that I hardly think it worth while to enter into it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI wish to point out that I certainly made no charge against the hon. Member, or
  1640
  against the hon. Member for the City of Cork. The Times made these charges.
  MR. DILLON The Times concludes its articles by saying that, at the time we managed the Land. League, we associated with and used assassins. That is the winding up and conclusion of the whole matter. The statement is that all the executive of the League were in the habit of associating with and using assassins, and it is for that reason that these charges are made against well-known men. The whole basis and superstructure of The Times article rests upon that allegation—that these men acted as our agents. I admit that they did act as our agents. But I say that this is a matter which has been fully dealt with over and over again. Now I come to the reference on page 28, where the noble Marquess read a passage to the effect that—
  "Carey swore that he had been a Fenian, and that Thomas Brennan, secretary to Mr. Parnell's 'Constitutional organization,' had previously filled that same office in the ranks of the Fenian Brotherhood. He swore that in November, 1881, a 'Mr. Walsh,' from the North of England, came over to establish a 'Society that would make history.' This Society was called 'The Irish Invincibles;' its object was to remove all tyrants from the country."
  Now, there are no dates given to this. That is an old trick of The Times. Mr. P. J. Sheridan ceased to have any connection with the Constitutional organization in the first week in April, 1881, when he was arrested and put in Kilmainham Gaol. From that day forward he had no connection with the Constitutional organization, nor with the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and the date to which reference is given—namely, the evidence of Carey—is the month of November, 1881, exactly six months after Mr. Sheridan had ceased to have any connection with the organization of the Land League, and one month after the Constitutional organization had been dissolved. This is the whole theory, and we are to be held responsible to all futurity for the acts of men who were our agents, and who may have adopted other courses after our organization broke up. The next reference is to page 29, and the extract is as follows:—
  "In March a second gang of murderous conspirators, known as the 'Patriotic Brotherhood,' were tried at the Antrim Assizes. It was proved that P. J. Sheridan, 'our great orga-

  1641
  nizer in Mayo,' as the chief local assassin styled him, had taken a principal part in forming-this Association—'an Association,' said Mr. Justice Lawson, 'avowedly established for the purpose of committing murder.' Not only was this murder club organized by one of Mr. Parnell's official 'chief organizers,' but its victims were selected by Mr. Parnell's organization. The Brotherhood kept regular books. 'Under date May 24, 1882,' the Judge noted in his charge, 'there was the entry—"At the request of the Land League, conveyed through Thomas Murphy, men have been worn in specially to kill Mr. Brooke."
  Now, anybody reading that extract would suppose that "our great organizer in Mayo" was the organizer of the Constitutional Association. The organization is stated to have been re-founded in the spring of 1882, six months after Mr. Forster had suppressed the Land League, and after Mr. Sheridan had ceased to act as agent of the League. The Times goes on to say that we pointed out by this organization the persons who were to be assassinated, and that men had been sworn in specially to kill Mr. Brooke. That proves that the whole business was a bogus transaction, because on the 28th of May, 1882, the Land League had ceased to exist for more than six months. I regret that I should have been compelled to take up the time of the House with this statement, and I once more beg to protest against the practice which has arisen in this House of bringing forward charges of this nature, a practice which, if continued, must be destructive of all order and decency of debate.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I put a question to the Government? I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it would be possible to make inquiry and see whether there exists among the records in Dublin Castle any copy of the Crown indictment and depositions of the Crown witnesses in the State trial which took place in Dublin in 1881, and also a copy of the evidence of the Crown witnesses in the trial of the Invincibles, which took place in 1883? I would further ask whether it is possible to produce a copy of the Crown indictment, and the depositions of the Crown witnesses with regard to the Assizes at Antrim, to which attention has been drawn; and whether it would be possible to summarize or produce in extenso these documents, and lay them on the table as a Parliamentary Paper?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In answer to the question of my noble Friend, I have to say that I will communicate at once with the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland, and ascertain whether it is possible to comply with the suggestion he has made.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that he thinks it is possible to lay the depositions before Parliament?
  MR. W. H. SMITHI do not say whether it is possible or right to do so; but I will communicate with the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to Mr. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that he had ascertained that it would be to the convenience of the House that the arrangement with regard to the taking of Supply on Monday next should be departed from, in order that the remaining Resolutions on the Budget might be proceeded with.

ORDERS OF TEE DAY.

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

MARKET RIGHTS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton), in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire as to the extent to which market rights, and rights affacting places where markets are held, are in the hands (1) of public bodies, and (2) of private persons, or bodies of persons. To inquire generally how such rights are exercised, and particularly what accommodation is given in return for charges levied; in what ratio market tolls stand to the value of goods on which they are levied, and how far the regulation of markets by means of bye-laws or otherwise, market rents, stallages, and tolls, and tolls affecting market towns, are restrictive of trade. To report as to the advisability of compelling the transfer of all such rights to local authorities; of prohibiting the

  1643
  farming of tolls and stallages, of prohibiting the placing of restrictions on the sale of goods in a market that may be lawfully sold elsewhere, of providing by means of the incomes from markets or otherwise for the extension of the capital account chargeable to such markets, and for declaring all markets to be free and open,"
  said, he trusted that the Government would be able to accept the Motion, which in no sense raised a Party question. The real object of his Motion was to decrease the cost of food to the poor, to increase the facilities of the poor for obtaining good food at moderate prices, and to encourage the augmentation by increased cultivation, stimulated by early sale, of home food produce. At the present time market rights and tolls in many places had the contrary effect. Whatever might be the result of this Motion, and whatever action the Government might feel compelled to take on this Motion, he desired to acknowledge the courteous consideration which had been given to the subject by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He only proposed, in his speech, to deal with England and Wales; but the terms of his Motion applied to the whole of Great Britain and Ireland, and he trusted that some Scotch and Irish Members would give the House the benefit of their special knowledge. As to Scotland, he was personally without sufficient information, though it was clear that the evil did not now exist in Scotland to the same extent as in the rest of the United Kingdom. There was a Report of a Select Committee on Market Tolls in Ireland in 1826, from which he would read a few lines. The Committee reported that—
  "Many most exorbitant and illegal charges are still made in markets, seaports, and fairs in Ireland, all of the most injurious tendency in checking commerce and industry. Several of these charges appear to your Committee to be so burthensome and oppressive as to produce the most mischievous restraint both on the sale and transit of commodities."
  And they said—
  "Nor are these examples of violation of the general principles of the Common Law the only abuses existing; the Statute Law has been violated in many important particulars."
  And they reported specifically that—
  "The intentions of the Legislature, in exempting from burthen the food of the lower classes of the community, have been defeated."
  He believed that Irish Members sitting
  1644
  near him would be able to state that many of these evils were as bad in Ireland to-day as they were 60 years ago, and this although a Royal Commission, in 1853, had again strongly reported against the same evil. Members from Ireland had sought ineffectually to deal with this by legislation. Bills had been introduced Session after Session into that House by Irish Members, which had been blocked both by Tories and Liberals, and had never even been discussed. The grievance which was, and still is, endured in Ireland is the grievance which now exists in England and Wales. He submitted that a Royal Commission was absolutely necessary in order that the matter might be dealt with in a thorough manner. Neither the House nor the Government had at present sufficient information on which to legislate wisely. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) might say that the Government intended to deal with the evils complained of in a Bill which they were prepared to introduce with regard to local government; but he (Mr. Bradlaugh) understood that such a Bill would only propose to give Local Authorities power to acquire rights. That was not enough, because in many scores of cases the Local Authorities were as bad offenders as private individuals. There were so many instances of the misuse of power by local authorities that it was absolutely necessary that information upon the subject should be obtained by a Royal Commission before it was possible to legislate. In any case it would be necessary to prevent local authorities from farming tolls to private persons. It might also be said by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that his Department carefully revised all the bye-laws of local authorities, and that there could be no fear of such things happening as he (Mr. Bradlaugh) complained of. This was no doubt true; but he would point out that this care had not been exercised at all times, and that there were in force at the present time in different parts bye-laws of a very objectionable character. It was not enough to give the Local Authorities power to purchase; there must be some restriction put upon them as to what they should pay. He was quite prepared to accept the position that where the

  1645
  present local representatives under a charter had held markets, and had done anything for the promotion of trade in a district, they should be compensated. Where the local representatives of the holders of the original charters were simply leeches sucking the vitality of the districts and giving nothing in return, hindering food from reaching the poor, driving the sale of food into "rings," limiting the number of shops, and taxing the local produce that came to market so that it did not pay the people in the neighbourhood to grow it—in such cases the local authorities, on acquiring the market rights, ought not to be permitted to pay the same price for them that they would rightly pay where an owner had done a number of things to promote the convenience of buyers and sellers, and to encourage the trade of the district. He had obtained last year an unopposed Return of market rates and tolls. But it did not include any of the many and some most objectionable markets within the densely populated Metropolitan area; in several cases there was a suggestive deficiency of information; and in others the information given was misleading. At Slaithwaite, in Yorkshire, the Local Board stated in the Parliamentary Return that they held their market rights by prescription, which was the poetical word for "cool, impudent presumption." Over and over again it was said that the gross receipts were "not known." Of course, they were "not known" to anyone but the person who got them. And he was told that in several cases the receivers of the tolls had said that it was not the business of the House of Commons to inquire into the matter, and, therefore, they did not intend to give any information. In reply to the question whether the market was held in a street, the answer "No" was given in many cases, thereby suggesting that some sheltered place was provided, whereas the market was held on an open space known as the market - place, and no shelter of any kind was provided. Originally these market rights had been Prerogatives of the Crown, and grants had been made of them to ladies and gentlemen in recognition of some service rendered to the Crown, the service being deemed a sufficient consideration at the moment, although it was one which in modern
  1646
  times no one would deem worthy of such a recognition. Sometimes the consideration was a valid one. There were charters which were granted for the protection of trade. Often the lord of the manor provided armed men to protect the market and those who attended it; and in connection with it there was a Court for the settlement of disputes which was known as "Pie Powder Court." Although some of the Courts remained in name, all that kind of responsibility ceased centuries ago. The rights granted often included the power to set up a fair or a market in the neighbourhood, and under cover of a right of this kind 300 or 400 hawkers had been prevented entering the district of Rochdale for the purpose of supplying the people with food and vegetables. Home of the charters dated back to the time of Henry I., Henry II., and Henry III. Some of the toll receivers had no charters. If they had had them they had lost them; but they still took the money. In some cases they took it quite illegally; but the local magistrates enforced the claim to the privilege as their predecessors had done. The old law as to market rights, and which is still the enforcible law, is—
  "The King is the solo judge where fairs and markets ought to be kept; and, therefore, it is said that if he grants a market to he kept in such a place, which happens not to be convenient for the country, yet the subjects can go to no other."—[Bacon1 s Abridgment: Title, Fairs and Markets.)
  "If a person hath a right to a fair or market, and another erects a fair or market near his," the charter owner may prevent all sales even by hawkers or shopkeepers, and this "although the new market be holden on a different day." Under this, charter owners in East London had, as against the Great Eastern Railway, been able to do much mischief. The Clerk of the Whitechapel District Board of Works had forwarded him a long statement with respect to the evil effects of the monopoly existing in the Spitalfields Market. He would only trouble the House with one passage from the letter—
  "This Board, having been informed of the Motion which stands in your name for Friday on this subject, have thought that their experience as to Spitalfields Market, which demonstrates how markets of insignificant origin may become very formidable monopolies, may be of some value to you as a matter of information."

  1647
  Important as was this Report, he preferred to venture to appeal to the hon. Member for Preston, who had just had specially to investigate this matter upstairs, to give the House the benefit of his special knowledge on this subject. The effect of the existence of private market rights was to unduly increase the price of food, to limit in many places the sources of food supply, to throw land out of cultivation, so far as varieties of dairy and market produce were concerned, and to facilitate in hands of private owners, or where the market rights were farmed, the formation of "rings" for keeping up the price of food, and particularly of butchers' meat. In many places the poor had had no opportunity of buying Australian or other imported dead meat as such; but as large quantities were known to have entered the districts, it had, no doubt, been sold as English meat at English prices. In such places as he had described the poor were robbed in consequence of the existence of those rights. The regulations with respect to the sale of perishable food, such as fish and vegetables, and sometimes for the limiting of the number of shops in particular trades, were such that if they were framed with the intention of preventing the poor from buying cheaply they could not have been better devised for that purpose. The existence of these market rights created a class of middlemen, who hindered distribution and rendered it costly. If owners of land looked to their own interest they would prevent toll-keepers from interfering as they did with the sale of produce and consequent cultivation of land, and would thus increase their rents. Market rights, as he had explained, were claimed under charter, or letters patent; nearly all were granted in feudal times in connection with manors under conditions as to population no longer even comparable, and with responsibilities and duties now never performed. The charters were granted for no real service or consideration other than the duty of protecting the traders at the market, of providing sufficient accommodation for buyers and sellers, and of administering justice in connection with the market trade as to quality, weight, and so on. There were three classes of owners of market rights—Cities or boroughs with market charters or claim-
  1648
  ing prescription; private individuals, Tinder charters or alleged prescription, this last being often a species of what in the Colonies would be described as "impudent squatting;" local authorities authorized to establish markets under statutes, these now chiefly governed by the Public Health Act, 1875, Sections 166–168; where local authorities claim to levy market tolls by prescription this claim was clearly unfounded, as the whole of those local authorities must have been instituted since the Public Health Act, 1848, and many since the Local Government Act, 1858. He would take as a sample of many from page 72 of the Return in the case of Slaithwaite. In many cases local authorities had acquired chartered rights, paying heavily for them, thus unduly taxing food of the district to recoup outlay. He agreed that in all cases local authorities ought to acquire and did not object to the toll-owners being paid fully where some consideration was shown in providing market premises; but he did object to 20 years' or 25 years' purchase, or a heavy rent being given where the toll-owner was only a leech. In many cases the local authorities had been compelled to pay enormous prices for the charter rights they acquired. He did not propose to give the Royal Commission any power over contracts which had been completed, but it was necessary to show the House the kind of cases he desired to prevent in future. In 1846 Manchester purchased manorial rights and property at the cost of £200,000. He thought that more than £170,000 represented the value of the manorial rights. Since then Manchester had to pay £359,000 for its own markets. The food of the district had been unduly burdened by the payment of that £170,000. In Bradford the Corporation had acquired on lease from the toll-owners the market rights for a payment of a rent of £5,000 a-year. The markets were held in the streets until the Corporation leased the rights, so that the charter went back to a time when Bradford was a little hamlet. This £5,000 a-year taken from the Corporation was a tax on the food of the poor. In Huddersfield the Return was modestly reticent; but as far as he could learn some £44,000 had been paid for the street right. There were many cases of absolutely illegal assumption of rights and of illegal levy of tolls. He would

  1649
  take as samples from page 91 of the Return, the Nottingham Highway Board at Basford, and from page 64 a Market Committee at Fareham. There were many cases in which the Return lacked frankness on these points. In Ware a private owner was levying tolls. That could not be by prescription or by charter, because the market was established on the 24th of March, 1886. That market was chiefly accessible by a bridge, and there were tolls for the bridge which came into effect only on market days for cattle, sheep, and pigs, and thus the food of the unfortunate people of Ware was doubly burdened. Even in municipal boroughs the markets were very often in private hands. In Rochdale the old market proprietors got a Statute passed in the Reign of George IV., which showed how iniquitous some Private Bill legislation could be. They claimed exclusive rights over the whole of Rochdale, though the borough limits had been since largely extended. There had been taken from every hawker who came within the borough 30s., and some who could not pay it were sent to gaol. One of the hawkers went to a lawyer, who held that the old proprietors had no right to levy such a tax. Then they shut every hawker out of Rochdale, a borough which had set a better example than any town in England, or in the world, in its co-operative endeavours for procuring necessaries of life for its people. At least, the House would be with him in slaying this iniquitous usurpation. He had received from 2,000 to 3,000 letters dealing with this subject, but he would content himself with specifying four instances in which these tolls caused considerable hardship to the population of those particular towns. The towns he would select were Market Dray-ton, Fleetwood, Bridgwater, and Taunton. In the first-mentioned case tolls were charged on all vegetables, though sold in the open streets, and no accommodation was provided. The restrictions were of such a nature that people who were growing agricultural produce and bringing it into the town would not now do so in consequence of the annoyance. The result had been that the trade had fallen into the hands of middlemen. At Fleetwood hawking was forbidden from door to door, and it had been announced that farmers were to be forbidden to sell milk to customers
  1650
  except in the place where they paid toll. At Taunton butchers were not allowed to open shops except on payment of £20; and at Bridgewater they allowed only a certain number of shops connected with particular trades in the town. What was the effect of limiting the number of shops in this way? To heighten the prices of commodities to the poor. Not content with reaping a harvest of this kind, however, the toll-owner, when markets were held in the open streets, robbed the ratepayers in another way. After the cattle market or other market was held there was scavenging to be done at the cost of the ratepayers; the toll-owner escaped. He carried off his tolls in his pocket; there was nothing which could be rated; and the local ratepayers were left to pay for scavenging the streets. How many hundred such cases there were in England and Wales alone was shown by the Return, which was divided into three parts—(1) Municipal boroughs; (2) Improvement Acts and Local Government districts; (3) Rural sanitary districts. In Part 1, 255 Corporations made Returns; of these, in 223 cases, rights belong to Corporation; of these 223, 75 were farmed, and of the total 255, 125 were admittedly held in open street, whilst more were actually so held. In Part 2, 249 markets under local authorities were shown; of these, 161 belonged to private owners, and of the remaining 88, 17 were farmed; 145 of these admittedly held in the open street, the real number so hold being far larger. In Part 3, 206 cases were stated, all in private hands, and mostly held in open street. In any reform of local government which might hereafter be introduced, he trusted that steps would be taken to prevent municipal authorities from farming tolls. The effect of such a remedy as he proposed would be to increase the wage of every wage-receiver without increasing the amount which his employer had to pay him. The value of the wage to the labourer must not be measured by its nominal amount. It was what it would procure of food and other necessaries of life. Cheapen the cost of food as this proposal would, and the value of the wage was augmented. Afford facilities for better food, and the standard of comfort was heightened. He trusted he would receive the support of the Government. There were cries outside for turning so-

  1651
  ciety upside down, because of real grievances pressing on the poor. He had never been a revolutionist in his life, so far as this country was concerned—he had always urged the redressal of wrongs by Parliamentary action; but a crisis was undoubtedly coming, and unless Parliament dealt with these outside clamours and showed that it intended to redress the wrongs which could be redressed, they could not complain if violent men should become prone to use violent language. He would conclude by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. LAWSONin rising to second the Motion, said, he hoped the Government would meet the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) half-way. Rumour went that this matter was to be dealt with in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) which he had in the pigeon-holes of his Office; but he had not the information which would enable him to deal properly with the question. The House had not intuitive knowledge of the question, which was far too big to be included in one or two clauses of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had in view. He was desirous of pointing out to the House that under Acts of Edward I. and Henry VI. there were obligations imposed upon owners of markets which they would not like to see revived to day—these having reference to the taking of outrageous and unreasonable tolls—and that lords of the manor were obliged, as stated in Comyn's Digest, to "witness the sale," which was not a duty they discharged nowadays. The rights granted in olden times were only given in respect of duties performed, and it was perfectly competent for the House to fix their conditions and limitations. He would call the attention of hon. Members to the Report of a Committee which gave valuable information as to the Returns of tolls and customs taken in seaports and markets in Ireland in 1826. That Committee reported that there were many exorbitant and unreasonable charges, which restricted the sale and distribution of commodities, and had a tendency to affect commerce and industry. The Committee recommended that the Court of King's Bench should have the right to determine whether the charges were legal or not,
  1652
  and that those who had rights of this kind should deliver the schedule to the Clerk of the Peace. No legislation succeeded; but in the year 1830 another Committee was appointed, which did not present a Report. There had been no mention of Metropolitan markets; and as a Metropolitan Member he felt very keenly on the subject, because there was no city or town in the Kingdom where there existed a grievance of such magnitude in regard to markets as there was in London. The hon. Member for Northampton had not asked for such a Return. He was generally tender to the privileges of the City of London, and perhaps he did not care to move for a Return by the only method—that of an Address to the Crown. If the Government did not see its way to grant a Commission, he (Mr. Lawson) should ask for a Return of the markets and market rights in the Metropolis in terms similar to those which his hon. Friend had adopted with regard to the municipal boroughs of the country. He complained that in the Return which had been presented to the House only in a few cases had owners given that information which they were required to do. That was not the case in small places only. In Sheffield, for instance, the Duke of Norfolk declined to state by what authority he levied his dues, the gross amount received, and the accommodation he gave for the terms received. But seldom in the case of these municipal boroughs, and hardly ever in the local government districts and rural sanitary districts, was it that the private owners had provided any sort of accommodation for trade in return for the dues they received. They seemed to think they had done their duty in taking their money, and they did not return one penny in the form of capital expenditure. Corporations were almost as bad in some cases. A particular case was that of Walsall, where not only did the Corporation not provide any accommodation, but farmed out the rights to an individual. In the Return presented to Parliament there were very few admissions that markets were held in the open street, for when a thoroughfare bulged a little from the parallel lines it was claimed as a market "place." He alluded to the open street markets in London, over which no one claimed any

  1653
  rights to levy tolls—Hampstead Road, Leather Lane, and the New Cut—and stated there was nothing like uniformity or equality in the levying of tolls throughout the country. It was chaos and confusion from beginning to end. Bath, which had a population of 53,700, had a revenue of £1,051; Exeter, with a population of 47,184, a revenue of £2,518; Cambridge, with a population of 47,150, a revenue of £965, with £522 more from the Corn Exchange; and Swansea, with a population of 50,000, a revenue of £4,000. Three of these towns were in agricultural districts, and the tax upon the people must be a sore incubus on the trade of the localities, and a heavy drag on the resources of the inhabitants. He would ask hon. Members to look into the nature of the powers enjoyed by the City under their charter. Outside the City there were only three markets to which any importance could be attached—Spitalfields, Covent Garden, and the Borough—and, as showing the revenues reaped by the City from their markets, he mentioned that the City Chamberlain's accounts in 1881 put down the gross receipts from the City markets as £150,000. In reference to them, there was the Report of the Commission of 1854, recommending that the charter of the City giving power over these markets should be revoked. He strongly urged the creation of new markets for greater London, on which demand there had been much cry from the platform and much talk in the Press. He maintained that the City Corporation had done everything in its power to obstruct the establishment of markets outside its own boundaries, and that it was impossible to say how much the action of the City Corporation had enhanced the price of food, limited its supply, and in some cases deteriorated its quality. In other capitals markets were in central places where food could be easily distributed to teeming populations, and. why should London wait? He believed if a Royal Commission were appointed it would give greater facilities to the trade of the country, and increase the real means of living to the great masses of the people. In the Metropolitan Board of Works Money Bill of 1881 power was given to the Board to inquire into this matter, and to present Bills; but he believed the Board had never taken any advantage of the powers conferred upon them.
  1654
  He considered that the public representative authority should acquire and retain the rights which at present vested in private individuals under definite conditions for the public welfare. He referred to the virtual blocking up of a fine thoroughfare at Spitalfields in consequence of market rights claimed. The whole question showed how the rights of private and public persons came into collision, and furnished one more argument in proof of the necessity for appointing a Commission. Public markets should be the markets of the public.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying; Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire as to the extent to which market rights, and rights affecting places where markets are held, are in the hands (1) of public bodies, and (2) of private persons, or bodies of persons. To inquire generally how such rights are exercised, and particularly what accommodation is given in return for charges levied; in what ratio market tolls stand to the value of goods on which they are levied, and how far the regulation of markets by means of bye-laws or otherwise, market rents, stallages, and tolls, and tolls affecting market towns, are restrictive of trade. To report as to the advisability of compelling the transfer of all such rights to local authorities; of prohibiting the farming of tolls and stallages, of prohibiting the placing of restrictions on the sale of goods in a market that may be lawfully sold elsewhere, of providing by means of the incomes from markets or otherwise for the extinction of the capital account chargeable to such markets, and for declaring all markets to be free and open,"—(My. Bradlaugh,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HANBURYsaid, the facts laid before them by the hon. Member for Northampton could not but make a deep impression. This was not a Party question, and if the hon. Member went to a Division he should vote with him. Hitherto in this country we had thought solely of production; but there was another important question coming up in connection with food supply, which was as important, and that was distribution. When trade was increasing by leaps and bounds we did not ask whether there were too many middlemen; but things were different now. The question of distribution was particularly im-

  1655
  portant in regard to perishable food. There were now great growing populations in the Provinces to which the hon. Member had referred; but he wished particularly to deal with London. Taking the case of London, how did the markets stand as to vegetable? It was a strange fact that more than half of London was supplied by carts from the districts bordering round London. If they proposed to establish new markets connected with the railways the monopolists of the existing markets would bring their rights into play. He could not see that, under the Motion of the hon. Member, any injury would be done to the rights of property. There were many cases in which no property existed at all, and in which it would be found that rates and tolls were levied without any legal rights. But even where rights did exist it was fairly open to consideration whether the conditions on which the franchises were granted had been fulfilled, and whether the duties which attached to the property were being discharged. The Committee on the Spitalfields Market Bill had before them a gentleman who had made that question a special study—Mr. Stuart Moore—and he held that the holders of the charters were trustees for the public. If they failed in their trust, if they took too much toll, if they did not protect the public, the Crown could step in and the rights granted under a charter could be declared to be forfeited. It was necessary to see what the conditions and duties were in each case, and in many cases it would be found, he believed, that, although the rights had a legal existence, the conditions were not fulfilled. One of the purposes of the charters, undoubtedly, was to preserve and promote free competition; but in London the effect was to maintain "rings," which kept up the price of food. The franchises were granted in some cases for one day a-week; but the exclusive right was claimed for every day of the week. The original duties included generally the administration of justice and the maintenance of the police of the markets; but now these duties were performed at the public cost. Another duty was to keep the markets clean; but this was neglected, and scandalously so, at Covent Garden. When most of these charters were granted, the policy was to limit the expansion of London, the popula-
  1656
  tion of which was then very small; and the vast increase in the population had created an entirely different condition of things. With reference to Spitalfields Market, the hon. Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) had been rather too severe on the City of London. During the inquiry by the Committee, he (Mr. Hanbury) was struck by the extreme fairness with which the Corporation had guarded its rights. Its sole object appeared to have been to preserve a free and open market. The market was in a crowded district, and under the charter, which was 200 years old, the owner claimed a right to prevent anyone starting a market for the wholesale disposal of vegetables within an area of 6 2–3 miles, and also to prevent an overflow market in any of the streets within that area. These rights the owner positively claimed to exercise up to this day. The Committee was asked to establish a market at a distance of three miles, and the owner of Spitalfields Market quoted the charter to prevent this being done, and if the new scheme had not been backed by wealthy supporters the additional market would not have been established. It had been decided by the House of Lords that the Spitalfields charter was valid as against the public, but not as against the City of London. It was doubtful what the market rights were—whether they extended to vegetables, or included fish. The owner was acting under two charters—one of Charles II., applying to two days a-week, and another of James II., applying to three days a-week; but the latter charter was found to be worthless. He believed it would be found that there were many charters of that kind. Here, then, was a charter for two days a-week, under which a monopoly was maintained on all days of the week. The owner admitted that he made differential charges as between one customer and another. He also claimed the right to prevent anyone setting up a rival market under the Common Law; and similar rights were set up in the Provinces. It would not by any means meet the necessities of the case if the Government were to say they would give to municipal corporations the power to purchase these rights, for there were many market towns without corporations, and with local authorities who should not be in-

  1657
  vested with these powers. He was not willing to grant monopolies to municipal corporations, and would rather see free trade in markets. He thought it would be to the interests of the owners of some of these market rights to have them thoroughly looked into by a Committee upstairs, so that definite principles might be laid down for the future as to the way in which these franchises should be dealt with. When the Islington Market Act was passed compensation was granted, but it was refused on the establishment of the Columbia market by Lady Burdett-Coutts. Parliament granted that market in the face of the franchise, without compensation. In 1882 the Riverside Fish Market Bill was passed by the House of Lords and compensation was granted to the owners of the existing franchise; but when the Bill came down to the House of Commons compensation was refused on the ground that there was plenty of room in London for these markets. He contended that it would be very much in the interests of the owners of this class of property that this matter should be thoroughly gone into, so that they might have their rights put upon a well-established principle. He hoped the hon. Member for Northampton would not be satisfied with any concession by the Government which merely proposed to vest these rights in municipal corporations. Rather than that, he hoped he would go to a Division, so that the whole subject might be well threshed out, and that they might have some fixed principle laid down in reference to it. In the interests of property itself he hoped that the Government would have no hesitation in granting the Commission asked for.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that it would not be necessary for him to detain the House at any length after the able speeches of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) and the other hon. Members who had preceded him. He believed if all the hon. Members present were to rise in turn and express their opinions there would be only one opinion amongst them as to the importance of the question before the House. There was no question of more importance to the producer, as well as to the consumer, of this country than the question of distribution of the products of the
  1658
  country. There were towns and districts where the price of agricultural and garden produce was as high as it was simply because there were deficient means of distribution, and as we were likely to be more and more dependent on petty culture—certainly more than formerly—it was important that the produce should be brought within reach of the consumer with the greatest facility, and at as little cost as possible. He hoped, therefore, that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) would rise in his place and concede the Commission asked for by the hon. Member for Northampton. It need not be a large or an expensive Commission, but a Committee of the House would not be of much use, because they could not bring before a Committee the poor consumer or the poor producer, who were the real sufferers. When he (Mr. Mundella) was at the Board of Trade many cases of hardship in reference to these market tolls were brought before him. Was it not a striking thing that in the constituency which he represented, with a population of 300,000, the markets should be entirely in private hands? There was certainly this to be said for the Duke of Norfolk, that he did provide markets, but he declined to give a return of the authority under which he held his market rights, or of the gross receipts or other matters in which he thought they ought to have information. He knew there had been some negotiations for the purchase of his market rights, but the price offered was thought to be insufficient, and the result was that the markets for that great community of Sheffield were left in the hands of a private owner. He did not say that the Government were bound to accept the reference of the hon. Gentleman, or that they should adopt the exact words of his Motion; but there were many questions raised by the Motion that the Government must inquire into, such as "in what ratio market tolls stand to the value of goods on which they are levied." Then it was most important that the question should be considered as to how far such markets should be declared free and open. He contended that in the interests of the producer and the consumer the more the principle of free sale in all the markets of the country was extended the better

  1659
  it would be for the public. He had had cases brought before him at the Board of Trade, where tolls were levied on goods that had come no nearer a market than the railway station. That acted like the French octroi duty, as a deterrent to the bringing of produce to a place where this was possible. In conclusion, he would again express his earnest hope that the Government would grant the Royal Commission asked for.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he entirely concurred in the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mundella) as to the able and clear manner in which the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had brought the matter before the House. In fact, the Government had no reason to take exception to the way in which the matter had been introduced. He also fully agreed that it was not a Party question. He conceived that any proposition which had for its object the cheapening of the food of the people, and especially that of the poorer portions, should not be regarded, and in no way should be dealt with, as more property belonging to and to be settled by any one Party in that House. The Government desired to promote, by all just means, the free exchange of the commodities of the country. Notwithstanding the fact that almost all the markets in the municipal boroughs in England and Wales were in the hands of Corporations, hon. Gentlemen had complained that, even in that case, tolls were levied which were were not defensible, and which interfered very greatly with the free exchange of commodities. Whether that was so or not, one thing was certain—namely, that for ultimate action in this matter, they must look to local authorities; and the Government were of opinion that the solution of the question was to be brought about in that direction. The Government thought that these markets ought to be in the hands of popularly-elected Bodies, who would administer the trusts placed in their hands for the benefit of the community at large, and not for the benefit of individuals. He was bound to say that the Government believed that the hon. Gentleman had made out a primâ facie case for some inquiry; and if the
  1660
  Government could see their way to satisfy the requirements of the case by recommending the House to appoint a Committee they would prefer that course. But, after careful consideration, they thought that an adequate inquiry could not be made by means of a Committee; therefore the Government were prepared to assent to the Royal Commission. He was bound to say that there were some points in the Terms of Reference, which had not been so carefully scrutinized as it was essential they should be, where amendment was necessary; but the hon. Member might rest assured that if he took the action which the Government would recommend him to take, he would find no indisposition on their part to arrange such Terms of Reference as would meet all the requirements of the case. He would suggest that the Motion should be negatived; that the hon. Member should confer with him with the view of arranging some other Terms of Reference; and that the amended Terms, with the Motion, should be put upon the Notice Paper subsequently, and agreed to by the Government.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he would accept the pledge of the Government, and he did so in the same spirit it had been given. Of course, the proposal would apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. He would consent to have the Motion negatived, subject to the arrangement as to Terms of Reference.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—PUBLICATION OF DETAILS IN DIVORCE AND INDECENT CASES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITHwho had the following Notice on the Paper, which he was precluded by the forms of the House from moving:—
  "That this House deplores the evil done to public morals by the publication in the newspapers of the offensive details of divorce cases, and of others of an indecent character, and urges upon the Government the need of strengthening the law against the publication of obscene matter,"
  said: The subject which I desire to bring before the House is one of a painful character, and nothing but a strong sense of public duty would have induced me to take this course; but I have been

  1661
  so deeply impressed by the injury done to public morals by the foul reports of divorce cases which have recently appeared in the public Press that I could not shirk this duty, and I must ask the indulgence of the House for a short time while I draw their attention to so distasteful a subject. I believe I may state with truth that a widespread feeling exists in this country that something must be done to check this evil, and that feeling is shared by the House, as is shown by the fact that fully 260 Members have responded to an appeal to take action in this matter. I may add that shortly before Parliament met a meeting of the magistracy of Liverpool was held, presided over by the Mayor, at which this resolution was carried nem. con.—
  "That this meeting of magistrates sitting at Liverpool, having been specially convened by the Mayor to consider the injury done to the public morals by the publication of detailed reports of divorce cases, is of opinion that it is desirable that the publication of such details should be forbidden by law, and that the same rule should apply to all cases of an indecent character."
  Several meetings of a similar kind were held in other towns to the same effect; indeed, I may say that something like unanimity exists that a check should be put upon the license of a portion of the Press. It is only of late years that this evil has grown to such magnitude; formerly the Press used to prune these reports, so as to deprive them of prurient details; but, of late years, the habit of reporting at great length has suddenly developed, and some of the lower class of papers have even gone so far as to give verbatim reports of the foulest details of vice. The better class of journals for long resisted this vile practice; but, gradually, one could see the growth of the habit even among them, and if we go on at the rate we are doing there will soon be few exceptions to the rule. Last year was the worst for bad divorce cases for many years, and the evil done by the moral pestilence that emanated from our Divorce Court will never be fully known and measured. There were weeks together when the chief matter of the Press, and of private conversation, was the disgusting details of these infamous cases; a malarious fog brooded over the country, poisoning the moral atmosphere like the emanations from a pest-house.
  But what I ask the House chiefly to consider is the effect upon the morals of
  1662
  the young. It is now impossible to keep the newspaper out of the hands of children, and domestic servants; it is part of the daily life of the country. Is there a father in this House who would like his boys and girls to read these abominable cases? I believe there is hardly one who did not use his utmost endeavour to keep them out of their hands; but how vain is it nowadays to hide the newspaper. Our towns are full of revolting placards which thrust this odious knowledge upon everyone. I believe in but few cases can children be kept from this guilty knowledge, and it is impossible for them to get it without their minds being soiled. All moralists, even in heathen countries, have hold that children should be kept innocent in mind as long as possible; but that is virtually impossible now, and probably there never was a time since the world began when children were so widely corrupted by familiarity with vice as in London in this 19th century of Christianity. I will read to the House a letter I have received from one who was formerly a successful head master of a great public school—I refer to Archdeacon Farrar. He writes—
  "I am very glad that you are endeavouring to secure some legal means of suppressing the publication of needless and demoralizing details in divorce cases. No wise man would wish to prevent the publicity which is an effective punishment of guilt; but the deterrent influence of publicity in cases of proved guilt can be perfectly secured without flooding the newspapers with the minutiæ of corrupting narratives. Even Tacitus, the historian of the worst epoch of the Roman Empire, lays down the rule—'Ostendi debent scelera dum puniuntur, abscundi flagitia.' As the head master of a great public school, I found it wholly impossible to limit the perusal of newspapers; and I am sure that every head master in England would tell you that the lengthy and long-continued reports of profligate conduct in the higher ranks of society are fruitful in evil influences upon the minds of the young. The careful supervision over the reading of the young, which is exercised in all Christian homes, is frequently rendered quite nugatory by the licentious matter with which they become familiarized when they are at school."
  I believe this weighty opinion fairly represents that of all the heads of public schools in the country; and it applies almost as much to girls' schools; and I have been told of painful consequences from reading this literature in them. Then the vast number of children that run about our streets become perfectly familiar with every kind of vileness; indeed, often wonder whether the children heathen lands are exposed

  1663
  to such contamination as that vast multitude of poor uncared-for children who run wild about the streets of our great cities.
  And this leads me to say that, accompanying this abuse of the Newspaper Press, there has grown up a fearful amount of depraving literature in this country. A perfect flood of immoral books has come over here of late years from abroad; translations of the bestial novels of Zola, and others of a similar school, are now pouring into this country; and it is almost impossible to enforce the law against such works, while we allow matter equally corrupting to be published by the daily Press without let or hindrance. I fear there are too many tokens that this country is going backward, not forward, in the matter of morality; an insidious laxity is creeping over society; wickedness in high places is condoned in a way that would not have been possible in the earlier years of Her Majesty's Reign. In these matters the descent of a nation is terribly rapid; the severe morality of the Puritans was followed by the profligate times of Charles II., and it looks very much as if England was going through the same process again. I appeal to those who regard the religion and morality of a nation as its highest and noblest possession to do something to check the flood of impure literature which is poisoning the young. If nothing is done to stop it, I believe our course will be rapidly downward, and the end will be that of the great nations of antiquity who perished from their own vices.
  I do not underrate the difficulties of this question. I am aware that this country regards publicity as the chief safeguard of justice, and that it values very highly the liberty of the Press. I do not propose that we should close the Courts of Law when divorce cases are tried. I am fully alive to the importance of branding vice by public exposure, and the Press should be allowed reasonable liberty of reporting; but surely there is some middle course between totally suppressing reports of divorce cases, as they now do in France, and publishing the most prurient details. It will be for the wisdom of this House to draw the line, and I feel sure that a large section of the British Press will rejoice to be freed from the compe-
  1664
  tition of the lower class of papers, which live by pandering to the basest appetites of human nature.
  I am prepared for the objection of some that we want to shield the wealthy and the great. Now, for my own part, I wish to say that instead of shielding them I would rather they were pilloried tenfold more; the conduct of some of the upper classes in this country would disgrace heathendom; they are jeopardizing the order to which they belong; and if many such exposures take place like those of last year the country may be brought to the verge of a social revolution. For my part, I would not move a finger to arrest th9 just indignation of the people from titled profligates; but I am not prepared to let the whole nation be poisoned by the reports of their debauchery. After all, it is more important to protect the morals of 36,000,000 people, of whom 6,000,000 are children at the most impressionable time of life, than to frighten a few hundred wealthy profligates. In this, as in other things, one has to consider the greatest good of the greatest number. No other nation, so far as I know, permits such extended details of divorce cases. In France it is altogether forbidden; and I doubt whether other European countries allow such latitude as we do.
  Let the House further consider the injury done to our good name by the republication of these vile reports all over the world. Some of the worst of these cases were telegraphed to America, the Colonies, and India. They create the impression abroad that we are a most corrupt nation; they tarnish the good name of the country; they are taken too much as samples of average British morality. It is certainly not the way to keep the respect or the affection of the Colonies. But it is in India that the effect is worst. The Native papers there comment on these trials, and assume that their masters have little need to teach them a higher civilization. No one can toll how far they lower the prestige of this country; end, after all, we hold India more by prestige than by force. It is most humiliating for an Englishman abroad to have these odious cases cast up as a reproach upon his nation; he can but hang his head and blush as these hideous records are telegraphed and published week after week.

  1665
  I think I am not mistaken in assuming that the House will generally agree with me thus far. It is when we come to the remedy for this, that immense difficulties are encountered. No doubt, the simplest method would be to hear all such cases in camerâ; but that method was rejected when the House established the Divorce Court, and it is not likely to alter its decision now. Then there is the plan of giving the Judges power to prevent the publication of what they consider unfit details of evidence. It is alleged that they possess this power theoretically; but it has practically become obsolete; certain it is that the Judges will not now incur the odium of punishing the Press through contempt of Court, unless under express Act of Parliament. I think I may venture to assert that we cannot look for a remedy to the voluntary action of the Judges. I think the view that will commend itself to the House is that we must strengthen the whole law about obscene publications, and prohibit offenders from pleading in defence that it is the report of a public trial. It is too important and difficult a matter to be dealt with by private Members; and I shall propose that the duty be laid on the Government, and I have good reason to believe that it will respond to the appeal. In conclusion, I would wish to quote from a circular, signed by some of the most illustrious names in England; a circular which exactly expresses our views, with the single exception that we seek to give legislative effect to them, believing that in no other way can they be made operative.
  "We, the undersigned, respectfully suggest to all those who have the control of the daily Press the desirability of some combined action by which they may minimize, if they cannot wholly suppress, the details of divorce cases and criminal trials, such as those which of late have occupied so many columns of the newspapers.
  "We are aware that the fear of publicity is one of the most powerful deterrents to the commission of crime, nor have we the least desire to shelter the misdeeds of offenders because of any position in society which they may occupy.
  "But we have a strong conviction that the necessary publicity could be secured without divulgence of details of a demoralizing character, and we have reason to fear that the full record of incidents in these cases ministers to a diseased appetite, and produces a most unwholesome effect on many minds.
  "We desire further to call attention to the inevitable evils which must result from thus
  1666
  familiarizing' with vice the minds of tens of thousands of young persons of both sexes from whom, in these days, it is impossible to keep the daily newspapers.
  "We do not reflect for one moment on the motives of any who have considered it part of their duty to publish full reports of these trials, but we are sure that a combined effort to keep the pages of newspapers as free as possible from the stain of such impurities would be conducive to the public good."
  This document was signed among others, by the Duke of Westminster, Lord Sol-borne, Archdeacon Farrar, the Eight Hon. W. E. Gladstone, the late Lord Iddesleigh, Professors Huxley and Tyndall, Cardinal Manning, and many others. No words of mine can add to the weight of this appeal. I leave it in the hands of the House, with the full belief that it will act rightly, and do what it can to stop one of the most deadly evils from which this country suffers. I conclude by drawing attention to the Resolution, of which I have given Notice, and which I trust the House will accept.
  MR. EGERTON HUBBARDsaid, if it had been moved he would have seconded the Motion with great pleasure, and thought that no Member of the House was bettor fitted than the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) to bring forward that important but delicate subject. It was not for the House to put upon newspaper proprietors, who were not only public servants, but rivals of each other in business, the duty of striking out of their journals matter which might affect their sale-ability; but he held that, in the interest alike of woman and children, who should be saved the knowledge of unnecessary details, and of public morality generally, and even for the sake of the Press itself, some restriction should be placed on the liberty of publishing the offensive details of divorce cases. It only required the action of the Lord Chancellor and the Government to provide that some proper legal restriction should, with that view, be put upon the Press, without involving the least danger that criminals, however rich or distinguished they were, would be shielded from public criticism, or from the proper consequences of their misdeeds.
  MR. FINLAYsaid, he thought they were all sensible of the advantages of publicity in everything connected with the adminisiration of the

  1667
  law. But those advantages might be bought too dearly, and he had a strong impression that, in some instances, they wore bought too dearly. In that matter it was necessary to make a choice of evils. It was an evil, no doubt, that a case should not be reported. On the other hand, were there not infinitely greater evils which attended the publication of the details of certain cases? The present practice was very anomalous, for in all the cases which might have been determined in the old Ecclesiastical Courts for dealing with matrimonial causes the Court might now order them to be heard in camerâ, whore they could not, with due regard to decency, be heard in public. That power existed in certain cases if they could have been dealt with in the old Ecclesiastical Courts. Why should it not extend to other cases where the very same reasons for its exercise existed? There were certain cases in which it was desirable that nothing should be published beyond, it might be, the formal proceedings in the case, and the judgment of the Court. Of course, it was said by removing publicity they would lessen the punishment of the guilty parties. That might be so; but he was not prepared, in order to make the punishment more severe to one or two persons, to demoralize the whole country. He thought, in the interests of public morality, that the remedy which would prove most effectual, particularly in the interests of the young, would be that the presiding Judge should have the power in every case, whether in the Divorce or any other Court, if having regard to the nature of the offence he thought it expedient, to order that no report whatever of the evidence should be published. He did not believe that any remedy short of that would be effectual, while he would not approve of hearing all cases in camerâ. He would leave the Court open to the public; but the Judge should have power to say that the evidence should not be published at all. He was glad that the subject had been brought under the notice of the House, and he hoped that some course might be adopted to suppress what could not be otherwise regarded than as a great scandal, and that something effective would be done.
  MR. ADDISONsaid, the feeling of the House seemed to be almost unanimous as to the evil; the
  1668
  only question was the remedy. In the interests of the newspapers themselves, it was desirable that a clear rule should be laid down; because it did seem hard upon respectable and ably conducted newspapers that they should be outbidden and undersold by less scrupulous rivals which gave full details of these indecent cases. He could not agree with the suggestion just made, because he believed it would be eminently distasteful and repugnant to the Judges; but if such a power rested in the Judges, it would not touch some of the worst cases, because it was not merely by the publication of evidence that harm had been done. One of the grossest and most scandalous outrages on the public was perpetrated by a newspaper which made comments in connection with a certain matter, and that was done under the pretence of reading a moral lecture; and it was now followed up by indecent stories, which were being published at that moment in one of the well-known evening newspapers. He thought that was a great outrage on public morality. It would be seen, therefore, that action confined to mere reports would not be effective. He had had an opportunity of speaking to several Judges on the subject, and he found that they differed as to their power in these matters. Some held that there was no privilege in publishing indecent reports, while others held that there was a clear privilege. Then, again, he found that some of them considered that they had no power whatever to regulate or forbid the publication of any matter which might occur in Court. Nor had they power to exclude any part of the public from Courts of Justice. However that might be, every decent man and every father of a family was deeply concerned in this matter, that early every morning their houses were not flooded with publications containing filthy and indecent remarks under the pretence of "news." He thought a very simple and short Act of Parliament might be passed, which would render punishable by imprisonment the publication of indecent or obscene matter, whether in the form of evidence given in a Court of Justice as anecdotes, or as sketches of pretended trials. The law as it stood at present was manifestly insufficient to cope with the evil. There was an unanimous feeling in the House that these indecent

  1669
  publications should in some way be stopped, and he thought that might best be done in the manner he suggested.
  MR. LOCKWOODsaid, he did not agree with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Addison). In his opinion prevention was better than cure; but he could not approve of the course recommended by his hon. and learned Friend, because it would involve an inquiry into the whole of the details which had given offence. He hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would accept the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Finlay). He must say he dissented from the notion that the Judges ought not to take responsibility in this matter.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he need hardly say that Her Majesty's Government were entirely in sympathy with the motives which had induced the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) to bring the Motion forward; and they agreed that some alteration, if possible, should be made either in the law, or in its practice, so as to put a stop to what was undoubtedly a monstrous abuse. At the same time, it was an exceedingly difficult question, and the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay) was well worthy of consideration. On the other hand, there were difficulties which must not be lost sight of when dealing with any question of this kind. He must differ a little from the law as laid down by his hon. and learned Friend behind him. The state of the law was that at present any report of a trial, which was in fact an indecent publication, was subject to the law as to indecent publications. It was decided many years ago in the case of "Steele v. Brannan" that it was no answer to a charge of indecent publication to say that it was a report of legal proceedings. This was only another branch of the law which was laid down in the case of The Confessional Unmasked—that, however good the motive was, and however necessary it was that certain practices should be called attention to, these were no defence for an obscene publication. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison), and with everything that had been said as to the monstrous character of the reports which
  1670
  had been published of certain trials within the last 12 months. At the same time, he thought that the conduct of one of the journals, to which attention had been called, in publishing, under the assumed pretence of doing good to public morality, most disgraceful details, a great many of which, if true at all, had been called into existence by the action of the proprietor of the journal itself, was as bad as anything could be; and, in his judgment, it would be a lasting stain on the career of that journal, whatever might be its future. He thought, after all, the responsibility ought to be made to rest, and must rest, upon the Press itself. It was well known to counsel that there occurred in the Divorce Court every day cases of which the details were disgusting, and of which he was thankful to say the Press took no notice whatever. There were, perhaps, half-a-dozen such cases every week in which the publication of the details would lead to an outcry; but he knew that, as a rule, they were not reported. It was an unfortunate circum-stance that, when persons of high position, or of public position, or whose names were in any way before the public, misconducted themselves, and so came before the Court, the papers published the details of the cases. But he thought the first blame rested upon the Press. It could not be said that it was the course of justice that necessitated that step being taken by the Press; but he agreed it was one of those cases in which it was matter for consideration whether prevention was not better than cure. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lockwood) that if responsibility, as was suggested, were to be undertaken by anyone, it would, perhaps, be better that it should be exercised by the Judges than by anyone else. At the same time, it was a step that must be taken with very great care, and after carefully considering the extent to which interference should go, It was well known that in cases of circumstantial evidence the publication of facts in the newspapers had often been the means of obtaining important additional evidence. Therefore, those who had considered the matter carefully thought that, if there were any interference with publicity, care should be taken that justice did not fail through publicity being denied in certain cases.

  1671
  While admitting this, he equally agreed that a rule might be devised whereby the necessary publicity should be obtained without the publication of horrible and prurient details. It had been suggested as an alternative that these eases should be hoard in earnerâ. As a matter of fact, these could be heard in camerâ now. One of the Divorce Acts provided that all divorce cases should be heard in public, unless the Judge otherwise ordered. The matter had been under the consideration of the President of the Court, who felt that it would be a strong step to take to avail himself of the powers of hearing all the cases referred to in camerâ. It might be doubted whether public opinion was yet ripe for such a course to be taken. He could only hope that the conductors of the daily papers, recognizing the unanimous feeling on both sides of the House—which was concurred in by Her Majesty's Government—would feel that they had gone too far, and that, although they might have made a few hundred pounds by the extra sale of papers, it was money that was badly earned. He hoped this expression of opinion in the House of Commons would have the effect of checking the tendency to make money out of the publication of these sensational placards and disgusting reports. He could not say that the law as to indecent publications really required alteration. An offender could be proceeded against summarily under Lord Campbell's Act. The only reason why proceedings had not been taken, at any rate by those now in authority, was that there was the great evil that had just been named that if you took proceedings you again incurred the risk of flooding the papers with the details to which objection was taken. It was a very serious responsibility to advise any such prosecutions. Of course, proceedings could be taken by private individuals; but they ought to be undertaken only in flagrant cases. He trusted the result of the discussion would be that it would be less necessary in the future than in the past to think of taking any action; but if it were necessary, any practical proposal would have the fair and candid support of the Government. At the same time, he could not hold out the hope that at the present time the Government would be justified in saying it was in their power to take any steps
  1672
  for the alteration of the law. He hoped that any necessity for such action would be averted by the effect of this debate upon those concerned.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he felt disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) had not more clearly indicated the line the Government intended to take. There was a very strong feeling throughout the country on this subject. He was, however, rejoiced at the sympathetic feeling expressed on the question from both sides of the House. He thought the only way out of the difficulty was to prohibit the reporting of such cases. A report could be taken by a shorthand writer, which should be furnished to both parties; and, though portions of the evidence might leak out in some quarters, not half the mischief would be done as was the case under the existing system. If reports of divorce cases be withheld from newspapers until the cases were over, it would not be worth while to give details.
  MR. SHIRLEYsaid, he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) quite appreciated the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay). That suggestion was not that these cases should be heard in camerâ. When a case was heard in camerâ, the public were necessarily excluded from hearing the case. But the hon. and learned Member for Inverness desired that the public should be admitted to the hearing of these cases, whether they were divorce trials, cases of indecent assault, charges of rape, or whatever they might happen to be. He quite agreed with the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as he understood it, and he did not think there would be any practical difficulty in carrying it into effect. At the hearing of any case of the kind—divorce, or rape, or indecent assault—in London or at Assizes or Quarter Sessions, before the commencement of the proceedings, the Judge or Court might say—"This is a case in which the details are necessarily of an indecent character, and we shall, therefore, exclude the representatives of the Press altogether." If it were a case of some general interest, probably some person, con-

  1673
  nected with the Press or not, might supply some details to the newspapers; but in such a case the Judge or Court might have the power to summon before the Court the proprietors of such newspapers, and commit them for contempt of Court. Before sitting down, he desired to express his regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General should have gone out of his way to make an attack upon The Pall Mall Gazette. The editor of that journal might have been mistaken in some parts of his conduct; but those who were best able to judge wore agreed that his motives, at all events, were thoroughly pure and patriotic, which was a great deal more than could be said for the proprietors and editors of some of the other journals. He (Mr. Shirley) doubted whether the Government really appreciated the importance with which this subject was regarded by the general public out-side the House. What they wanted was not, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General seemed to think, a mere profitless discussion, but such a change of the law, or such an enforcement of the existing law, as would in future altogether prevent the publication of the disgusting details of indecent cases.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—POLITICAL MEETINGS IN SCHOOLROOMS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. H. GARDNERwho had on the Paper the following Notice of Motion which, by the Rules of the House, he was unable to move:—
  "That this House is of opinion that steps should be at once taken to secure to Parliamentary Candidates the right of holding political meetings on convenient occasions, in all such rooms as belong to schools in receipt of Parliamentary Grants,"
  said, that the object he had in view was to give the rural voters in county constituencies who had now such great power in their hands the opportunity of hearing both sides of the question at Parliamentary Elections. He did not propose that political meetings should be held in schoolrooms when there were other places available for the purpose; but there were villages, hamlets, and out-of-the-way places where the greater number of rural electors resided, and
  1674
  where there was no place of any description in which people could meet. In his own Division there were 80 villages, and in only five of them was there a place in which you could possibly hold a meeting. The majority of his constituents were agricultural labourers not having more than 12 s. a-week, and it was impossible for them to go into towns as the richer electors could do to hear the candidates. He knew of a case in which an agricultural labourer walked seven or eight miles, after a hard day's work, in order to attend a political meeting. It was a great hardship that rural constituents should be put to so much inconvenience when schoolrooms receiving a Parliamentary grant were standing empty. If they refused to lend the schools in villages, the rural elector was denied the opportunity of listening to the political views of the candidate. He would also point out that the refusal for the granting of these schools was principally in the hands of the adherents of one political Party. He had no intention of making any attack on the clergy; but they could not shut their eyes to the fact that one of the lessons of the Election of 1885 was that the rural clergyman had got completely out of touch with his parishioners. In support of this view, he would refer hon. Members to a letter written to The Times on December 10, 1885, by the Bishop of Chichester, who thought that the result of the county poll ought to teach the lesson that the agricultural labourer justly resented his virtual degradation in the Church which was his own. It was, however, to this class that they practically left the regulation of the schools, and it was they who had the power of saying whether they should be used or not. Sometimes when the use of these schools was granted, the concession was surrounded with harassing conditions to the Liberal candidate. In many instances the schools were granted in a very one-sided fashion. They wore granted to the Tory candidate, and utterly denied to the Liberal candidate. As an illustration of the harassing conditions under which the use of schools was permitted, it was a fact that when the question of Disestablishment arose towards the end of the Election of 1885, clergyman laid it down as a condition that the Liberal candidate should not say a word on Dis-

  1675
  establishment, although the Tory candidate had been there before him and had spoken on that subject. He had taken the trouble to glean some information from his hon. Friends in regard to the refusal of the schools. In the Election of 1885 he found that out of 30 counties there had been an absolute refusal of these schools to the Liberal candidate in 24 of them. It might be said, however, that there were alternatives to the use of those schools. Political meetings might be held out-of-doors, in barns, tents, or in chapels. No doubt, this was true; but he reminded those who urged this view that Elections did not always occur in convenient seasons of the year, and that it was not always convenient to farmers to lend the use of their barns. Besides, there was not a large number of farmers who professed the Liberal faith, and when they saw the use of a school in receipt of Government aid refused to the Liberal candidate, they were not likely to be so generous as to offer the use of their barns to their political opponents. It was inconvenient to travel about a county constituency with a large tent, and many persons entertained religious scruples regarding the use of a chapel for secular purposes. They were, therefore, forced to recognize the necessity of using these schools for political meetings, and he held that the State, having granted money in support of these schools, had a right to devote these buildings to any useful purpose it chose. The principal precedent on which he based his case was the 6th section of the Ballot Act, which embodied the principles he had just expressed. He contended that the right of the State by that clause to demand the use of schoolrooms in receipt of Parliamentary grants for polling stations was founded upon the fact that the schools were supported by the money of the taxpayer. There must be some sort of appeal or arbitration when questions arose in regard to the use of the schoolrooms for these purposes. He did not wish the Committee of Privy Council on Education to be the arbitrators in those cases; but as the matter was a purely local one, he should be inclined to put the responsibility on the Local Authorities, to which it was proposed to confide powers connected with the provision of allotments for labourers and other functions. It might
  1676
  be said that the schools ought to be employed for educational purposes only. But he contended that the State, which contributed towards their support, was entitled to insist that they should be used for any other purpose beneficial to the neighbourhood in which they were situated. On the other hand, he asked to what greater educational use could the schools be put than being made to subserve the political education of the newly-enfranchised agricultural labourers? He maintained that it would be unwise and imprudent to place any hindrance in the way of the masses acquiring the instruction which would enable them to form an accurate judgment on the political questions of the day.
  MR. JAMES ELLISsaid, he felt bound to express his approval of, and join in, the recommendation of the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex (Mr. H. Gardner). Representing a largo County Division he (Mr. J. Ellis) could confirm what his hon. Friend had said as to the great inconvenience arising from the refusal of the village schoolroom as a place in which to hold Liberal political meetings. On the other hand, he knew of many cases in which the use of the school was allowed to both political Parties, and where the clergyman of the parish very wisely took the chair alike at Liberal and Conservative meetings, conducing thereby very largely to the orderly character of the meetings; and, though in most cases his political opinions were Conservative, he lost nothing by taking the position. In considering the Education Question, many thought the compromise made by Mr. Forster was made too much in the interest of the Church; but they were willing, for the sake of the education of the people, to subscribe to the schools. In his business connection, he (Mr. J. Ellis) subscribed to five village schools, and was, though a Nonconformist, on the managing committee of two of them. Acting thus, with many others, for the common good, he could not but feel the unfairness of using the school for the convenience of one political section only. In many cases the only choice lay between, holding the meeting in the school or in the large clubroom of the public-house, and to hold a meeting at a public-house was extremely undesirable, He did not

  1677
  believe for a moment there would be any harm in adopting the Resolution. He should like to see all schools which received a Government grant made the recognized meeting place for the villagers when they wished to assemble for any reasonable purpose. He would not have the room given up for entertainments; but it should be a recognized thing that the committee should allow the use of the school as a village hall, instead of compelling the villagers to have recourse to the clubroom of the public-house. He trusted the House would accept the view of his hon. Friend, and he could not believe that anyone would wish that only one side should have the advantage of putting its view forward in the rural districts, nor did he think the Conservative cause would gain by the use of the power by its paritzans of denying the Liberal candidate a hearing.
  BARON DIMSDALEsaid, so far as he knew the schoolhouses were never refused to him or to his opponents. He believed there was no real difficulty; but he was not prepared to interfere with the discretion of the local managers, nor did he accept the principle that schools provided out of the rates for educational purposes could be demanded for any purpose that was required. If they granted that, the privilege would not long be con-fined to Parliamentary Elections, and it would probably lead to endless difficulty.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, his constituency extended 20 miles each way, and on one occasion he proposed to hold a meeting in a village at the extreme point of his Division. The landlord, who bears a name well known and respected in this House, owned the whole village, including the school-house, and he declined to give the use of the school unless he received a guarantee that nothing should be said touching the Disestablishment of the Church of England. He (Sir John Swinburne) declined to give such a guarantee; he was refused the use of the school-house, and he was never able to hold a meeting in that neighbourhood. He could not see why this privilege of using the schools should be denied to either side.
  MR. PICTONsaid, he un-stood that the object of the Motion be-
  1678
  fore the House was to exclude political distinctions as regards the use of the schools. He thought it would be generally admitted that the managers of schools which received grants from the State should give the same advantage to one political Party as they might have given to another. He could not imagine that hon. Members on the other side would object to that view. As to the danger of any disturbance occurring, he thought that objection had been thoroughly met by the argument that inasmuch as the school had been already granted with safety to one political Party there would be no danger if it were used by the other political Party. There was also a further argument against this objection, and that was that if any damage were done to the school a guarantee should be given that the damage should be made good. But if he quite endorsed, from the political point of view, the Resolution moved by his hon. Friend the Member for the Saffron Walden Division of Essex (Mr. H. Gardner), on the other hand, from an educational point of view, he must allow that he felt some difficulty. The Resolution, as it stood, would go so far as to require all managers, including all the school boards, whether in urban or rural districts, to allow the use of their schools for political meetings. Now, it was a literal fact that just in proportion as the buildings were well adapted for school purposes, and furnished to that end, just in that degree were they ill-adapted for public meetings. Take, for instance, the buildings of the School Board for London. If this Resolution were to pass, the buildings of the School Board for London, which were for the most part divided into class rooms, could be utilized for the holding of political meetings. In some of these schools there were central halls, and buildings of this character had been found eminently adapted for public meetings. But, on the other hand, there were schools without central halls, and where that was the case the buildings would not be suitable for political discussions. A largo meeting in suck buildings would be very inconvenient. He confessed, also, there was some difficulty in supporting the Resolution precisely as it stood, because, whether the school was suitable for political meetings or not, the Resolution would compel its use. It had been argued that a discre-

  1679
  tion should be allowed in the granting of the school. But he contended that if the school was to be used for political meetings at all it should be given to one side as well as the other. Any objection against giving a school to the Liberal Party should also be valid against the Conservative Party. There should be fair play to both sides; and so far as that was sought by the Mover of the Resolution he (Mr. Picton) would be prepared to join his hon. Friend in the Division Lobby.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he thought that managers of schools were ill-advised if they refused the use of their schools to both political Parties, and did not treat both equally alike. He had little doubt what the effect of their doing so would be. The school grant did not give a right to control the use of buildings, many of which had been built and were largely supported by private funds. If political meetings were to be regarded as educational, Inspectors would have to attend them to judge of their character. He had been present at many meetings which could not be properly described as having anything educational about them. He knew a village hall which had a licence for dancing and entertainments; it had been built by one political Party for political objects; and was it to be said that because it received a licence from the State it was therefore to be available for all political meetings? He could not admit that educational grants gave the State the right to interfere with anything but the efficient conduct of the school receiving them. There would be an insurmountable difficulty to the working of the Resolution in the appointment of a body to decide what meetings ought to be allowed in a schoolroom. Meetings could not be limited to election times; indeed, political education was carried on between elections rather than at election times, when speakers were apt to indulge in exaggerations which did not promote political education. How was it to be determined what wore or were not political meetings? He looked forward to the time when the Primrose League would he able to demand the use of any public elementary school in the country for holding a concert three times a-week for the purposes of political education. [Laughter.] Well, there was a Ladies'
  1680
  Liberal League, which had signalized itself in a marked manner last night: and was it to be allowed to have a concert three times a-week in all the Church schools? He had attended a large number of meetings, which were partly concerts and partly political meetings, and he did not know whether one political speech constituted a political meeting or not. The position was a sound one that managers must have the entire discretion as to the use that was to be made of school buildings.
  MR. QUILTERsaid, that, during his candidature in Suffolk, he had had to stand hours in the rain because of the refusal of schoolrooms for his meetings. At a village in the centre of the property of the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) the schoolroom had been with difficulty hired from the school board; but the local clergyman refused them the use of the oil lamps, so that they were left in darkness. In another case, a letter was addressed by a clergyman to his opponent, beseeching him to visit a benighted district, and offering him the use of the schoolroom; but when he (Mr. Quilter) applied to the same clergyman for the use of the schoolroom, he received a peremptory refusal, accompanied by the expression of an opinion that the schoolroom should not be used for any Party purposes whatever. Both Parties were not treated with the equality recommended by the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranborne), and in many districts schoolrooms were the only rooms in which meetings could be held.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, it was most inexpedient that the London School Board should be compelled to grant the use of its schoolrooms for political meetings. He said this, as he believed, in agreement with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton). He submitted that voluntary schools were not made public property because they received money from the Government under the system of payment by results. These school buildings had been built with private money, and were maintained by private resources. The disposal of them should be arranged by the founders, their heirs, assigns, or representatives. Those who were left in charge of the buildings might fairly be

  1681
  trusted to exercise their judgment and discretion as to whether public meetings should be held therein or not. But he earnestly deprecated any compulsion being applied to them, which would certainly be distressful and unpopular. It would be unwise to discourage them by such means, because upon their care, vigilance and sympathetic supervision, the success of these institutions depended.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he thought it would be very undesirable to allow schools to become the centres of political work at elections. As an educationalist, he was not in favour of schools being used in any sort of way in connection with politics.
  MR. ILLING WORTHsaid, that the question of the relationship of these schools to the State was settled by the statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. H. Gardner), that Parliament had set them aside during election times for the purposes of the Ballot. What was the fact with regard to public meetings? In every nine cases out of ten these so-called national schools were used for Conservative purposes, and refused to the opposite Party. In towns like Bradford, a Division of which he represented, the school board gave the greatest facilities to all political Parties, and simply made a small charge to cover the expenses involved in allowing the schools to be used for meetings; and now that there had been an extension of the suffrage, there was a new reason why they should insist upon the use of national schoolrooms by all Parties. In the country districts, however, the case was different. In some rural constituencies there were no public rooms except the schools, and the candidate and electors were sometimes forced to meet in the cold outside, on account of the dog-in-the-manger policy of managers. In half the parishes of this country the schools were not available except to one political Party. The land belonged to a comparatively few gentlemen, and they had it in their power to prevent the erection of buildings. Therefore, it was all the more necessary that the schools should be available. He thought his hon. Friend had done the community good service by bringing forward this matter. He (Mr. Illingworth) contended that every school which received a State grant should be equally available to
  1682
  all Parties. The schools were national schools, and that they should not, therefore, be set apart for the use of only one of the political Parties of the State.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid, that, speaking for a large agricultural Division, he begged to give his hearty support to his hon. Friend. It could not be disputed that political meetings in small country parishes were of great educational value, as they led people to discuss public matters.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE)said, that this could be only regarded as an academic discussion, as no Division could be taken on the question. It had been discovered by hon. Members opposite that they were under special disadvantages as regarded meetings in rural districts. He frankly and freely admitted that that was not a circumstance at which he rejoiced. In politics, as in other things, fair play was a jewel, and he did not defend those who allowed the school rooms under their control to be used by one Party, and denied the use of them to another Party. What he objected to in the Resolution, however, was the extreme vagueness of its wording. He thought there were excellent reasons for that vagueness, because the more closely you went into the matter the more dangerous did it appear to make compulsory the granting of schoolrooms for the purpose. The Education Department had interfered very little in this question, except so far as to indicate that schools, at all events, should be neutral ground with regard to politics. Board schools were the property of the ratepayers, and with respect to them the Education Department said it did not rest with the Department to determine for what purposes other than education School Boards might allow the schools to be used; and if any ratepayer objected to what was done, his objection was to be decided by a Court of Law. Voluntary schools, on the other hand, were essentially, and to a great extent, private property; and, therefore, the Education Department did not indicate to the managers what their wishes might be. He had said that the wording of the Resolution was vague. What was the definition of a "Parliamentary candidate?" [An hon. MEMBER: See the Ballot Act.] An hon. Gentleman said it was defined in the

  1683
  Ballot Act. But it was well known that when the Corrupt Practices Act was under discussion, a lawyer of great acumen, the Attorney General of the day, having been challenged again and again as to when, as far as the Penal Clauses of the Act were concerned, a candidature began, could not answer the question; nor was any other legal mind able to answer it. If it was impossible to say when a candidature began, what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Gardner) proposed would lead to all manner of disputes. Nothing could be more unjust to managers than to make those schools the arena of constant Party strife and conflict. Again, how were they to define what "a political meeting" was? A meeting to advocate temperance principles, or a meeting of the Salvation Army, might drift into a political meeting. Then, what on earth was "a convenient occasion?" That would be defined in one way by the candidate, and in another by the school manager. His hon. Friend said that it could be decided by the Local Authority, or by arbitration. It would come, then, to this—that if any lecturer or chance passer-by chose to call himself a candidate, it would be in his power to throw the district into all kinds of strife. The majority of the House would hardly be prepared to accept proposals of that kind. He was sure it was the wish of all Parties that political elections should be conducted as peacefully as possible, and he therefore objected to the Resolution on this ground, if on no other, that it would foment and encourage Party strife. The hon. Gentleman indicated that because Parliamentary grants were given, therefore the buildings were pro tanto, to the amount of the grant, public property. He disputed that proposition poto cœlo. If the hon. Member looked carefully at the discussion which took place on the Ballot Act, he would find that no indication was given by Mr. Forster at that time, that polling at elections should take place in those schools on account of these grants. Parliament, at that time, viewed with extreme jealousy any extension of the use of the schools which could injure the educational purpose for which they were designed. In this connection, he read the 17th clause of the Ballot Act in regard to schools in Ireland, and maintained that the proposal to compulsorily grant the use of voluntary schools for
  1684
  election purposes throughout the year would be inflicting a hardship on the owners of private buildings, many of which stood within private grounds. Therefore, he thought that the proposal in every respect would be a hazardous one and harmful not only to the cause of education, but to the peace and good order of the neighbourhood, and unjust as regarded schools which might be called private buildings.
  SIR UGHTEED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHsaid, that the House would agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his commendation of the moderation with which his hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Gardner) had brought this subject forward. He had made out his case. In many places, the refusal of the schoolroom for the purposes of a meeting prevented the holding of the meeting unless in the open air. If a room was available and suitable for a meeting of one political Party, surely it ought to be equally available and suitable for the opposite Party. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Hart-Dyke) had contended that the hon. Member (Mr. H. Gardner) was not justified in arguing that the fact that schools received grants from the State was a reason why they should be used for public purposes. But Mr. Forster had used words in the House to the effect that it was no more than fair that buildings which were in receipt of grants and supported by the school pence of the locality should be used for certain public purposes for which they might be required. The right hon. Gentleman gave the go-by to the point that these schools were used under the Ballot Act. All they asked was, that the same principle should be recognized in other election purposes. He called attention to the fact that the original proposition of Mr. Forster in 1871, when he first brought in the Ballot Bill, was that it should rest with the managers to say whether or not the school should be used. It was owing to the action of a Member of the present Cabinet, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that the clause was made compulsory. The House of Lords in 1872 struck the words out; and when the Bill came back Mr. Forster proposed to agree with the Lords' Amendment. The right hon. Member for West Bristol, however,

  1685
  protested against that, and succeeded in re-inserting the words. He doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite was, in principle, greatly opposed to the proposal of his hon. Friend; and if a Bill were brought in to carry it into effect, provisions could easily be framed for meeting the objections of detail which had been raised. The right hon. Gentleman had laid down the doctrine that the voluntary schools were private property; but he would hardly be prepared, he (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) thought, to press that doctrine to extreme lengths, particularly after the passing of the Ballot Act. Again, there would be no great practical difficulty in defining who was a candidate. No doubt, if the proposal was adopted, it would be necessary to restrict the use of the school room to bonâ fide public meetings, and not to let it extend to committee meetings. Again, the schoolroom should not be used on evenings when the evening school usually met. And, further, the proposal might be limited to Parliamentary Elections. In towns, where other halls were available for meetings, it would not be necessary to do more than require that if a school were used at all for political meetings, it should open to both sides. When the use of the schoolrooms for the meetings of one side did not interfere with education, surely it was only fair and reasonable that they should be equally available for the meetings of the other side. He would not advocate the proposal if he thought that this use of schools would interfere with their educational usefulness. But believing that such facilities for meetings would promote political education, he should have been glad, if his hon. Friend had been able to go to a Division, to vote with him.
  MR. DE LISLEsaid, that he would like to say a few words upon this subject of using elementary schools for public or Party gatherings. It had been argued by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the public had a right to the use of schools receiving grants for the purpose of holding political meetings, and it was denied that there was any right of private property in such schools. He objected to that view of the matter altogether. There were three distinct categories of schools. The Board Schools, which were public or ratepayers property; the Church schools,
  1686
  which belonged to the Established Church, which was in a very true sense nationalized three centuries ago; but the schools of the Roman Catholics and other Nonconformist Bodies were really their own private property. He knew, from his own knowledge, that the Roman Catholic schools in his district were owned by his own family, and were, in fact, part of their private property. In the same way, the Roman Catholics generally, the Wesleyans, and the Baptist Nonconformists were the owners, the private owners, of their own elementary schools; and therefore they did not stand on the same ground as other schools referred to by the hon. Gentleman who had brought the subject before the House. He (Mr. De Lisle) admitted that the case was somewhat different in regard to the schools of the Established Church, which took up a middle position between the ratepayers' schools and voluntary schools, properly so called. Indeed, those schools were claimed as national property, though there were voluntary Church schools that wore, in reality, private property. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) stated that the managers of denominational schools accepted grants and school fees, and thereby gave up their private rights in their schools. He (Mr. De Lisle) took quite a different view. The Parliamentary grants were made in order that the schools might be kept up to a certain standard of efficiency; and so long as the schools were kept efficient, and did all that the Government Inspectors expected them to do in return for the Parliamentary grant, he maintained that the State had no ground to claim further rights against private property in elementary schools beyond the efficiency stipulated for. Therefore he agreed with his noble Friend (Viscount Cranborne), that the ground set up by hon. Gentlemen opposite was meretricious, because it ignored the rights of property. After long struggles and trying times, the voluntary schools had been got into a state of prosperity, and it would be hard to expect the Nonconformists to give up their rights in such schools. He, for one, should oppose such a proposal as that brought before the House by the hon. Member. The rights of independent bodies, strictly so-called, were ignored in the present Resolution; and

  1687
  he thanked his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Education Department (Sir William Hart-Dyke) for the able way in which he had defended the rights of the voluntary schools.

  ENGLAND—BOYCOTTING AND INTIMIDATION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. NEWNES: Mr. Speaker, as the Government have brought in a measure dealing with Boycotting and intimidation in Ireland, this is a fitting occasion to call attention to the prevalence of these two evils in England. When I asked the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) the other evening, whether he intended to take any steps to put down these evils he said he was not aware that they existed in England at all. If he were in his place to-night, I could assure him that there is scarcely a County Member sitting upon this side of the House who could not give to him instances, almost without number, of Boycotting and intimidation in the rural districts of this country. It is true it is carried on here differently from what it is in Ireland. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes; it is carried on in Ireland openly, and in a declared manner; it is carried on in England, secretly and underhand. ["Hear, hear!"] I may inform hon. Gentlemen opposite who cheer that the effects of Boycotting and intimidation in this country are none the less illegal, none the less immoral, and none the less disastrous to the victims than they are in Ireland. It seems, Sir, as though the art of intimidation in the rural districts of England has, by dint of long practice, been brought to the level of a science. In Ireland, it is clumsily done; it is like the act, easily detected, of a man driven to desperation to commit a crime; but, in England, it is like the adroit, the skilful and secret crime of a practised criminal. [An hon. MEMBER: Bosh!]
  MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
  MR. NEWNESWhen I put a Question the other evening on this subject to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, I had ample evidence of the existence of this village tyranny; but since the Question and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman were made public, I have received what I must describe as shoals of letters from all parts of the country pointing out that
  1688
  Boycotting and intimidation exist. It is done in four manners, and is invariably used for the purpose of carrying into effect the political convictions of hon. Gentlemen who sit on the opposite Benches. The first way in which it is done is to threaten the labouring people with a reduction of wages; the second way, is to threaten loss of employment; the third way, is, in case of shopkeepers, to threaten loss of custom; and the fourth way is to threaten loss of charity at Christmas and other seasons of the year. [Laughter.] Yes; I will give the evidence, first of all, of a gentleman who has a large practice in the centre of an agricultural district in England. This is what he writes to me, and I am willing to show the letters I have received to any Member of Her Majesty's Government who may desire to see them—
  "Boycotting and intimidation is most extensively prevalent in the rural districts of this and neighbouring counties. I say this of my own knowledge, and I have very good authority for saying that the same practices exist throughout the entire district. If an inquiry were made, I am sure an abundant evidence could be produced of the truth of what I am stating. As to Boycotting, I consider it a very serious evil in the rural districts. The village grocers are, in the great majority of cases, Liberal, but since the county franchise was carried they have been severely Boycotted by the local clergymen and landlords and farmers. In some cases, the supplying of blankets, &c, for the local clothing club has been taken away from the village shopkeepers, which is a very great hardship indeed."
  The report goes on to say—
  "That in many parts there are Liberal voters who dare not avow themselves Liberals, and that many men are threatened with loss of employment."
  [Cries of "Where?"] Everywhere! I am not speaking now of individual instances. What I have read represents the state of things right throughout the rural districts of England. [Renewed cries of "Where?"] I have already said "Everywhere in the rural districts." Farmers let it be understood by their men that if they vote Liberal they will not be kept on at work through the winter. ["Where?"] I will give you the evidence. I cannot show the letters that I have, for the simple reason that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) refused to show the letters he had received—for the reason that the letters

  1689
  are in most cases from the poor victims who have been ground down by this relentless tyranny.
  "In one case a farmer was charged with intimidation. The evidence was perfectly clear and conclusive, but the jury would not convict."
  I wonder whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland will recommend that we should change the venue to Dublin. The Voters' Protection Society, formed some time ago, examined into a large number of cases of the very kind I am describing to the House. Though they had 44 good cases, most of them of a very clear character, they only brought five of them before the magistrates; but out of the five cases brought forward, they were only able to obtain punishment in one case. The evidence was ample enough in the other cases; and in the case in which they did obtain punishment, the magistrates censured the accused for having come to an arrangement by which he had to pay a fine. And this is what is added to the report—
  "Could this case have been tried without any political or class prejudice a conviction would, in the opinion of all who heard it, have been assured."
  Now, Sir, I will read an account of something which has taken place in a village in Somersetshire, and which, I believe, has been published in some of the newspapers—
  "The working men voted for the Liberal candidate. Since then the most persistent efforts have been made to break up the working men's club, and because the members would not elect the squire's nominee as secretary, they have been turned out of their premises."
  Another report says that—
  "Many Liberals dare not attend meetings in their own villages, but walk five or six miles to Liberal meetings in another village, where there is no chance of their masters seeing them."
  This is the evidence given by the editor of an influential paper—
  "We will undertake to maintain that for every landlord or agent who suffers by the combination of the tenants and inhabitants of Ireland, there are at least 100 poor people in England who endure cruel hardships from the relentless tyranny of their masters and landlords."
  Now, Sir, many of the charges that have reached me have been brought against members of a society which takes its name from a very favourite flower. It is sad to think that the beautiful primrose, which grows in our woods and hedgerows—an emblem of purity and
  1690
  innocence—is fast becoming a synonym of all that is underhand and oppressive. In conjunction with the modern Tory, it cannot be said—
  "A primrose by the river's brim
  A yellow primrose was to him,
  And it was nothing more."
  It is a great deal more than that. It is a name under which to cajole, and, if that fails, to threaten and to punish. It is a name under which to use pernicious, tyrannical, illegal, and immoral political pressure. We have no objection to the Tories' Habitations and their ruling counsellors, and the rest of their flummery. If they find that the policy embodied in the Tory programme is not sufficiently attractive in itself, there can be no objection to their adding a farce to the play-bill; but, Sir, that farce is rapidly becoming a licence under which to break the law. The flagrant way in which the ladies of the Primrose League broke the law during the recent political contest was most amusing. In some cases, probably, they did not know the extent of their wrong-doing; but in other cases it seemed as though they were put up to fight the battle of the Tory Party against the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act, on the ground that their supposed ignorance of its provisions would excuse them. There has been a great gallantry on the part of the Liberal Party with regard to these ladies; but it is quite certain that if the lady members of the Primrose League had been proceeded against under the Corrupt Practices Act, many of them would now be working out sentences of imprisonment. Although there has been great forbearance in the past, there is, I contend, a very angry feeling springing up which will, in course of time, recoil not only on the dames of the Primrose League, but on the Conservative Party. I will only give one or two instances of the way in which the dames of the Primrose League do their political work. Here is one letter I have received—
  "On going past a dairyman's I saw Liberal bills displayed. On passing again, later in the day, I saw the bills had been removed, although portions still adhered. I asked why they had been removed. He said that shortly after he put them up he was waited on by a member of the Primrose League, who was a customer of his, and told that unless he took the Bills down within two hours he need not call again with his milk."
  That is not to be taken merely for what

  1691
  in itself it is worth; but it is to be taken as representing the action of the dames of the Primrose League throughout the entire country. Here is another letter—
  "Will you be good enough, in consequence of the system of Boycotting and intimidation practised by the Tories on Liberal tradesmen, to withhold my name as I am one of the victims."
  Well, Sir, large numbers of the poor people in the rural districts are honest and earnest men, strong in their political convictions, but they have been driven in many cases, for the sake of themselves and their families, to sacrifice their political freedom. Some surprise has been expressed at the difference between the Liberal vote in the counties at the Election in 1885 and at that in 1886. That difference has been attributed to the unpopularity of Home Rule; but I assure the House that a large amount of it was due not to the people in the agricultural districts being unwilling to give the Irish people the management of their own affairs, not to an unwillingness on their part to support the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), but to the fact that between the two Elections the people had to pass through a long and a hard winter, during which they were subjected to an amount of paltry tyranny and oppression which was a disgrace to the Tory Party and a scandal to the country. When the franchise was extended to the rural districts it was intended that the poor man should give his vote as freely as the rich man; but it seems to be the opinion of many employers of labour in rural districts that when they buy a man's labour they also buy his vote, and if he refuse to give it to them it is an act of impertinence and insubordination. Well, Sir, I have brought this question before the House in order that these practices may be exposed, in order that public opinion may be brought to condemn them, and in order that persons may know that if they use their positions for the purpose of trampling upon the political freedom of England they are guilty of an act which every honest man will treat with disgust and contempt.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am not surprised, Sir, that hon. Members on the other side of the
  1692
  House should receive with cheers and laughter, and other well-known signs of incredulity, the strange but true facts that have been placed before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for the New market Division of Cambridge (Mr. Newnes). The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), in his sublime ignorance of everything that tells against his own side, assured us the other day that he knew nothing of these practices. Well, perhaps that might arise from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman represents the Strand, and not a County Division. We, who do represent County Divisions, do know something of the tyranny—[Laughter.] I do not know what there is to laugh at. I represent a County Division, and I have suffered from the effects of this tyranny and intimidation, and I have long wanted an opportunity of placing some of these facts before the House. I am glad that such an opportunity is afforded me this evening. I can conceive no better occasion when a matter of this sort should be brought before the attention of the House of Commons than the eve of the great struggle—which I suppose will commence next week—on the question of putting down Boycotting in Ireland. It is not for us now to argue the question whether Boycotting can be put down by legislation or not; I am content to rely upon the opinion expressed by the Leader of the Tory Party. But I do say that, considering the evidence we have of what is going on to-day in England, it will be a scandalous thing if, when you are bringing in a most drastic measure to put down Boycotting in Ireland, you refuse to take notice of what is being done at your own doors by Members of your own Party. Boycotting in this country is an engine of oppression. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) stated the other day it was used in wantonness in this country. It is a weapon of oppression in this country used by the powerful and the rich, and the people who call themselves religious persons, and autocratic squires, for the purpose of crushing down, and ruining, and driving into starvation and misery the poor creatures dependent upon them; and that is an infinitely greater crime in the opinion of every honest man, I am sure, than the Boycotting in Ireland,

  1693
  which is used not out of wantonness, not for the purpose of oppression, but in self-defence, for the purpose of defending those who have been suffering from a great tyranny at the hands of their landlords for generations past. That is the distinction between Boycotting in this country and Boycotting in Ireland. Here it is a fashionable expedient for carrying Primrose Knights into Parliament; in Ireland it is the expedient of men driven to desperation by misery and ruin which the rack-renting landlords have brought upon them. Now, I can give one or two instances which have come under my own notice—and I am perfectly willing to show the letters and documents relating to these matters to anyone who desires to see them. I have received letters, and not a few of them—just as the hon. Member who introduced this Motion has received—referring to and describing the miserable tactics resorted to by gentlemanly Tories, who are not too proud to sail into power and place by means of the votes they have extorted from poor people. One letter which I received the other day was from an agricultural labourer in the County of Kent, and I am willing, as I have already said, to show that letter to any hon. Gentleman. The letter was sent to me simply in order to bring to my attention what the humble writer no doubt thought was a grievance in connection with the administration of the school in his own parish, and yet he had to wind up his letter—
  "I dare not give you my name, because if it should transpire I should be turned out of my employment immediately."
  I have a letter from a gentleman resident at Bournemouth, where I attended a public meeting not long ago. My informant tells me I am perfectly at liberty to mention the facts, which are simply these—that he has been turned out of a public office, of which he has been in the enjoyment for a number of years, simply and avowedly because he happened to be a Liberal instead of a Tory. Again, I have received information of a case of another unfortunate man. This is certainly not a case of a political complexion; but it is not impertinent to the question, because it shows how miserably dependent upon their employers many thousands of honest working men are. A working man at Bedminster, Somersetshire, was not
  1694
  only turned out of employment, because he was summoned to give evidence in connection with a colliery accident, but he was practically Boycotted throughout the county in which he sought his livelihood. Word was passed round the ring of employers that this man should not be employed at any of the collieries.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to give mo the name of the man? I will communicate with the hon. Member privately. I have reason to believe I know the circumstances of the case, and I think I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman in regard to it.
  MR. CONYBEAERI will speak to the hon. Gentleman about the case subsequently. I shall be happy to show him the letter I have received. It is the letter which I used the other day in my own constituency; I read a portion of it, and, so far as I am aware, there is nothing to conceal about it. Now, I may refer to a case, which was mentioned to me the other evening, at Sunningdale, in Berkshire. I am bound to say, however, that the only evidence which has come to me is the combined testimony of a large number of persons at a public meeting—I do not state the facts of my own absolute knowledge. But I will mention the names, because my view is that it is only by holding up to the unpopularity which public opinion can bring to bear on these people that you can cause them to desist from indulging in this detestable system of tyranny and oppression. I am told that Captain Walter, of Wokingham, who, I fancy, is connected with the Mr. Walter who has a large interest in The Times newspaper, Boycotted a tradesman at Wokingham, and deliberately wont, or sent, about requesting or persuading others not to have any dealings with this tradesman simply because he was on the Liberal instead of on the Tory side. I give the statement as it was given to me and corroborated at a public meeting at which I was speaking a few nights ago. In regard to tradesmen, I wish every tradesman who is Boycotted would adopt the course I have urged my own constituents to follow, and which I urge every tradesman who is Boycotted to follow—the advice I give to a tradesman is, that whether he is Boycotted by Mrs. So-and-so or Lady This or the Duchess of That, no matter how

  1695
  high in degree the tyrants are, he should place a largo placard over his shop or place of business stating—"I am Boycotted by Mr. or Mrs. So-and-so, because I have the courage of my opinions, and am a Radical." I believe that if the people had the sense to do that, and expose, as it were, in the pillory of the opinion of every passer-by the contemptible meanness of the aristocratic swells who resorted to these dodges—dodges which make one's blood tingle with indignation—I believe we should very soon find that Boycotting would come to an end. Now, with respect to another form of Boycotting mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the New market Division of Cambridge—namely, Boycotting in connection with charities—I could give instances occurring in my own constituency. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend, and many other hon. Gentlemen, could give instances of assistance at Christmas time in the way of doles, or of blankets and soup, and the various other necessaries which are distributed to the poor at that season of the year, being denied by squires, and even by parsons, to some of the usual recipients, simply and solely because they have had the courage to vote for either the Radical or the Liberal candidate. The other day I attended a meeting with Mr. Whiteley, a gentleman who contested the Ashford Division of Kent at the General Election in 1885. I am sorry the hon. Member for that Division (Mr. Pomfret) is not present, because I think he would be able to throw some light on the subject. Now, I am assured by Mr. Whiteley that Boycotting was rife in every part of the Ashford Division, and was pursued to an extraordinary and cruel extent. The hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject mentioned the Voters' Protection Committee, which took up some of the cases which occurred in the Election of 1885; and he mentioned that only five cases had been brought before the Courts, and that out of these five in only one had a conviction been obtained. He gave the true reason why no conviction could be obtained. You cannot get magistrates, who, in this country are supposed to be above all these petty considerations, to do their duty. You cannot get them to behave more honestly in this country than they are sometimes said to do in Ireland, and you cannot
  1696
  get juries in this country to respect their oaths when the juries are composed of farmers and employers, and a charge is brought against one of themselves. I make that charge deliberately, and it is capable of proof. You are so shocked with the demoralization of the jury system in Ireland, that, forsooth, you must do away with it altogether, and bring Irish prisoners over here to be tried; but I maintain you had better look to what is happening in your own neighbourhoods. It would be as well to pluck the beam out of your own eye before you try to extract the mote out of the Irish eye. If it is necessary to bring Irish prisoners over here to secure a fair trial, I certainly think it is necessary to send our poor, unfortunate agricultural labourers out of this country if they are to meet with anything like justice when their cases are brought to the front. But I was pointing out to the House that only five cases were brought to the test of trial out of some 44 mentioned by my hon. Friend. The reason of this was the same which we have heard so much of on the other side of the House in respect to those cases which, we are told, cannot be made amenable to the law in Ireland. You cannot get evidence. The poor people over here are so intimidated that they dare not come forward to give evidence. It is not the Moonlighter here, it is not the Nationalist, but it is the parson, and the squire, and the Primrose Dame, these noble lords and ladies, these people who are supposed to be the advisers, the instructors, and the friends of the poor, who are guilty of the detestable system of Boycotting and intimidation. There is not only intimidation, but there is corruption as well. I will not, however, trouble the House with any specimens of the corruption which takes place, I will reserve them for some other occasion. Sir, it is not only, as we know, because people happen unfortunately to hold Radical or Liberal opinions that they are Boycotted; but it does frequently happen that people are Boycotted in this country on account of their religious persuasion. It is a notorious fact that the most noble the Marquess of Salisbury himself Boycotted the Dissenters of Hatfield, and prevented them getting a convenient spot on which to build a chapel. That is only one instance I can give you more instances of the tyranny practised

  1697
  upon the Dissenters. In my own constituency the hardest terms have been exacted when they have wanted a bit of land on which to build a chapel. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for the Newmarket Division has stated, that Liberals in country districts dare not attend meetings in their own neighbourhoods. If they want to listen to Liberals they have frequently to go miles away. In Berkshire I was told of many instances of this kind, and also of instances were men refrained from exercising their rights of citizenship from fear of being found out, and of being dismissed from their employment. Another case in the same district came under my notice of the peculiar tactics employed by the Primrose dames; these ladies who are so anxious to see their husbands Members of the House of Commons could not let poor agricultural labourers alone even on Sunday; could not leave them to eat their Sunday's dinner undisturbed; but must, between the Divine Services in the morning and afternoon, when they knew they would catch the labouring men and their families at dinner, go to their houses and solicit their votes. Now, I think, if they had no respect for men, at any rate, they might have some little respect for the Sabbath. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad hon. Members opposite agree with me, and I only ask them when they attend their own meetings of the Primrose Habitations to enforce the lesson which they believe in here upon those with whom they consort out of doors. These are not the only specimens of tyranny of the same kind. There has been a vast amount of tyranny in connection with this Jubilee business. Hon. Members may not think so, but many pennies have been wrung from the poor people under threats of coercion. [Cries of "Where?"] Well, I have letters which I shall be happy to show any Member who likes to see them. I have a letter from an unfortunate seaman complaining—[Cries of "Read!" and Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Give us a Committee of Inquiry.] I have letters from soldiers and sailors, and when I brought this matter before the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope), they, of course, were able to give very emphatic
  1698
  denials to the statements. [Cheers.] Yes, we all know the value of official denials. The noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman have always been able to assume a great air of incredulity concerning these things, and it is not easy for an hon. Member to bring out all the evidence he possesses in the form of a question to Ministers. I support the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). Give us a Committee of Inquiry into these allegations; give us a Royal Commission, and we will give you evidence; and I challenge hon. Members opposite—I challenge every upright and honourable Englishman—and I believe some of the Tories are upright and honourable—I challenge Members of Her Majesty's Government, if they believe in their case, if they believe that our complaints are unfounded, to meet the charge like men, and be willing to have the matter sifted to the bottom. What do we find? Detestable charges have been brought against hon. Members sitting here, and the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) has had the bad taste to suggest that the indictments and depositions used in prosecutions long since disposed of either by their having been withdrawn or by the acquittal of the prisoners, should be worked up and published as a Parliamentary Paper, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) is quite willing to assent to such an infamous piece of partizanship as that. If you are so anxious to probe that matter to the bottom, if you are so willing to go to any expense in the endeavour to bolster up the detestable charges which have been made against the Irish Members, why should you not be prepared to accept our challenge, and to agree to an inquiry into the specific charges which we have brought against yourselves? [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes, I have given specific instances, and my hon. Friend has also given specific instances, and we say that if you believe that you are perfectly safe against charges of this kind you have nothing to fear. If you believe that what we assert does not exist, if you are not afraid to meet the charges, then let us have a searching inquiry to show how utterly prejudiced we on this side of the House are to believe these old wives'

  1699
  tales which every post brings to us from one part of the country or another. We shall see whether Her Majesty's Government will accept the challenge. All I can say is that I am not afraid of the test of inquiry by a Committee or a Commission; we can bring evidence to prove what we have stated, and we have no reason to fear the result. Then there is one other case of intimidation which is, I believe, a direct infringement of the Acts relating to Parliamentary Elections, and that is—and here, again, I have evidence of the fact which I state—that on many occasions, on some occasions, at any rate, in the last Election you had Tories going to the polling booths and distinctly informing the ignorant voters that the Ballot was not secret, and that, however they voted their employers would know how they voted. This occurred in my own district. [Cries of"Name!"] I am prepared to give the names of the persons if Her Majesty's Government will give me a Committee before whom I can bring the facts.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: Allow me to point out that the hon. Gentleman has the remedy in his own hands. What he states is distinctly illegal.
  MR. CONYBEAERI am aware it is distinctly illegal. I am aware that Members of the Tory Party are frequently guilty of illegal acts, and I have already explained the reason why we cannot bring things home, and that is because of the tyranny and intimidation which has existed and which is equal to what you allege is existing in Ireland. We maintain that in every County of England the intimidation is such as to prevent the unfortunate victims of Tory oppression giving evidence. We have taken up 44 cases, and we have only been able to bring five cases to the test of a trial, and out of these five cases we could only get a conviction in one. [Cheers.] Well, you should wait before you cheer, and know what was the evidence placed before the tribunals. I did not know that this Motion was likely to come on to-night or I should have taken care to have in my pockets documents which I could have quoted to the House. I will add that I did not intend to refer to these matters on this occasion, because I had intended, and I had hoped, to have had
  1700
  an opportunity of mentioning these things in connection with the Coercion Bill when it next comes on. Now, Sir, I have, at any rate, made a strong case. [Cries of"No, no!"] Oh, I do not for one moment suppose that what we have said has had the slightest impression on the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think it would be worth while to try and make any impression upon them, but I am glad we have had this opportunity of placing it on record that we have evidence of malpractices which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stepney Division of the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Isaacson) admits to be illegal, and that we have challenged you to receive the evidence which we pledge ourselves to place before a suitable tribunal, such as a Select Committee of this House. I say again, and I say before the whole country—and I hope we shall be able to reach the country—I say that, if you do not choose to accept the challenge which we have given to you, if you do not choose to clear yourselves of the charges which we bring against you as Members of the Tory Party and as Members of the Primrose League, I have not the slightest doubt as to what the verdict of the country will be, and that if we are driven to the necessity of doing it, I do not despair of being able to form such an Anti-Boycotting Association as will make very short work of the Primrose League.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I must confess it is a matter of surprise to me that no Member of the Tory Party, and especially no Member of the Government, has thought it right to get up to answer the speeches that have been made upon this subject. I am the more surprised at this conduct on the part of the Tory Party in view of the canons of political criticism which the Leaders of that Party have recently laid down. Very serious charges have been made against the Tory Party—[Laughter]—very grave charges have been made against the Tory Party, and the modern canon of Tory political criticism is, that when a charge is made, it is not for the accuser to substantiate the charge, but for the accused to prove its falsehood. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that canon of political criticism, but I think the Tory Party ought to be logical and consistent. If they think that the mere

  1701
  statement of a charge necessitates a defence, I want to know why they have skulked and remained silent to-night while grave charges of intimidation and Boycotting and illegality have been brought against them by hon. Members of this House? I may say J was astonished at the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite—astonished and edified. They began by trying to drown the charges with shouts of derision, and then, when the charges became grave and serious, they became silent and ashamed. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, I correct the expression—partly silent and partially ashamed, which is about as far as I can expect Members of the Tory Party to go. Now, I have had the opportunity of going up and down the country, and of hearing a good deal about Boycotting. I said, in the course of a debate last Session, that there was more Boycotting in one county in England by the Primrose League than there is in all the 32 counties of Ireland put together. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] That is a statement of the truth of which I am firmly convinced. It is a statement which you doubt. Well, bring my statement and your doubt to the test of investigation by a Committee of this House. It is all nonsense for you to shout denial of these charges across the floor of the House. You are afraid of investigation. The country will judge that you have allowed judgment to go against you by default, because you have no answer to the charges, of the truth of which you are convinced. Now, Mr. Speaker, this intimidation takes very many forms. The artizan is Boycotted. The agricultural labourer is Boycotted. The shopkeeper is Boycotted. The Dissenting clergyman is Boycotted. During the Election of 1866 there were several counties in this country in which the agricultural voters were canvassed by the squire and his agent. I see an hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for South Northants (Sir Rainald Knightley), who, I was told, canvassed some of the labourers in his constituency—some of the labourers in his own employ—and I maintain that the canvassing of a labourer by his squire is simply a euphemistic term for intimidation. In other constituencies labourers were kept by their employers in the fields until after 8 o'clock on the day of election in order that they could
  1702
  not have an opportunity of recording their votes. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Am I not to mention these facts? I am intimately acquainted with them. I am ready to prove, if the Government have the courage to bring these charges to the test of examination, another form of Boycotting as regards artizans. I have been told of cases where colliers have been dismissed from their employment because they were supposed to be Liberals, and then when they have gone from colliery to colliery to find work they have been refused it, and all because the word "Boycott them" had been sent round by a Tory employer. Why, in some constituencies in this country where there are large numbers of workmen under Tory employers, Liberal candidates and their friends are earnestly begged not to come near the streets in which the labourers live, lest the labourers should be suspected of an intention to vote Liberal, and should thus run the risk of being Boycotted. I know of several cases of this kind. In one constituency I drove up to the door of a poor voter. I went into the first room in the house I came to. I could not find the man there, and, with that freedom which people allow themselves at election times, I searched the house through, but could not find him. When the election was over I got a letter from him, in which he told me he heard a car driving up, that he had voted for justice to Ireland, but that he was afraid when he heard the car driving up the street that one of his employers was coining to visit him, and that because he did not want to be betrayed either into a lie or into a statement which might endanger his employment, he left the house by the back door. These are things going on all over England; going on wherever an election takes place, and the hon. Gentlemen opposite know that this is so as well as I do. There is the Boycotting of Dissenting clergymen. I have here a letter received by a Member of this House. This hon. Gentleman bought a certain estate, and thereupon a member of the Primitive Methodist Body wrote to him, asking him if he would allow a Methodist chapel and school to be erected on the estate. Why was this letter written? Because the gentleman who formerly owned the estate was a

  1703
  Tory who refused the people the privilege of erecting a place in which they might worship God as they liked. And as my hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) stated, the fact is undeniable—it has been published the world over—that the present Prime Minister (The Marquess of Salisbury) has over and over again, in the narrowest and meanest spirit of intolerance, refused to allow the Dissenters of his district to have any land on which to build a place of worship. [Cries of "No, no!"] You say "No!" Will you allow us to bring the matter before a Committee of this House? Well, then there is another form of intolerance—there is Boycotting in the shape of bribery, and this is mainly carried on by clergymen of the Established Church. How does this Boycotting take place? There are in every parish certain poor and dependent persons, and charitable people, many of them Tories, many of them members of the Church of England, get up subscriptions for the purpose of relieving these poor and dependent persons. Tory clergymen are often intrusted with the disbursement of these subscriptions; and does not everybody know that the amount of charity to poor voters is altogether dependent upon whether they vote Tory? [Cries of "No, no!"] I have been told on high authority that denials across the floor of the House of Commons are not disproof. I know this statement to be true. Well, Sir, I am asked for cases. My hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall has mentioned the case of Captain Walter, of Wokingham. I will give another case. A friend of mine stood as a Liberal Home Ruler for a constituency at the last Election. His father was a shopkeeper, and a man who had kept accounts with him for 30 years closed them because he happened to take up the cry of Home Rule and Justice to Ireland. Well, now, there is another form of Boycotting—Boycotting by refusal of the use of halls and schools for meetings. That subject has already been dealt with, and I will not refer to it further. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) is not in his place, because I wish to point out that one of the most important Boycotting
  1704
  institutions in this country are the bookstalls of Messrs. W. H. Smith and Sons. I have often said in this House that I would take an opportunity of calling attention to the monopoly thus enjoyed on the railways of this country by that firm. I hold that as railways are monopolies, sanctioned by the Legislature, we have a right of control over all their proceedings, over all their contracts, and even their bookstalls, and I say that if that question is ever raised in this House I shall be able to prove that the firm of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury Boycotts all the Liberal literature of this country. [Cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen cry "No, no!" They will excuse me if I say I know a little more about literature than they do. It has been my unfortunate lot to contribute a little to literature, and I happen to know a little about the subject. I repeat my statement that the firm of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury Boycotts all the Liberal literature of this country, whether it takes the shape of newspapers, periodicals, or books; and, on the other hand, it advertises, promulgates, encourages in every form it can, the Tory literature of this country.
  MR. DE LISLE: Allow me to say that I purchased a copy of The Pall Mall Gazette to-day at one of the bookstalls.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORI cannot congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his interruption. His interruptions usually help his opponents, and are damaging to his own case. I hope his perusal of the solitary copy of The Pall Mall Gazette is the beginning of that process of enlightenment of which he has been largely in need. It is no part of my case against W. H. Smith and Sons that they do not allow a single copy of Liberal papers to be sold upon their bookstalls. My case is this—that they push Tory literature in every form they can; and I think those who are acquainted with the sale of literature know how much the trade is responsible for its success or failure. If hon. Gentlemen had to make their living by literature they would know a little more about the subject, and would not be so bland in their treatment of the question. I say that Liberal literature is, so far as possible, suppressed and Boycotted on,

  1705
  Smith's bookstalls, and Tory literature pushed in every way. If you go down to the bookstalls now you find that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is not ashamed to allow to be exposed, and to be sold as largely as possible on his bookstalls, a facsimile of a letter which an hon. Member of this House has declared publicly to be a vile forgery. Have we not come to a pretty pass in British politics when political opponents endeavour in every way they can to promulgate and sell in face of statements in this House facsimiles of letters which are forged! We have given a challenge to the Government and to the Party opposite. Will they accept it? Will they consent to a Select Committee, or to a Royal Commission, or to any form of public inquiry by which our charges can be brought to the test of investigation? There is silence on those Benches; hon. Gentlemen opposite are too discreet. Now, Sir, there is Boycotting of colliers, shopkeepers, and labourers. In several constituencies in which I have addressed meetings during the last six months, I have asked this question publicly—"Is it true of your constituency, as of others, that shopkeepers have been told that if they vote Liberal their business will be withdrawn?" And cries of affirmation have come from all parts of the room. Are these statements not true? [Cries of "Yes!"] Then, will you not submit them to the test of inquiry, supposing these statements to be true? And hon. Gentlemen opposite know that they are true. I ask, is there no necessity for a clause like this, that any person may be prosecuted before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction "who shall take part in any criminal conspiracy to compel or induce any person not to deal with, work for, or hire any person or persons in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation?" Why, Sir, in every county of England, in almost every constituency of England, there are members of the Tory Party and Primrose League who are endeavouring to induce persons not to deal with, or to work for, or to hire certain persons in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation, because these persons have had the courage of their political opinions. Is there no necessity in this country for a clause against dangerous associations? I maintain that the Primrose League is
  1706
  one vast, strictly organized, and highly developed system of Boycotting. Hon. Gentlemen are mistaken if they think they are going to get rid of this question by laughing it out of court. We shall recur to this question, we shall bring it before the notice of the country, we shall press it home against the Party opposite; and I am sure that by whatever cajolery and the use of the noble art of political profligacy the Party opposite may endeavour to maintain their position, the people of this country will eventually take strong action against the efforts to prevent men exercising those rights of citizenship which have been given to them by Parliament.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: The hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) has preferred several charges of intimidation and Boycotting against Members of the Conservative Party. He mentioned one case the facts of which I think I know very well. It was a case where some miners lost their employment for a time owing to their taking part in an inquiry following an accident. All but one of these men have now returned to their employment, and are in full work, some at the pit in question, and others at another place. The hon. Member for Camborne has not been able to give me the name of the employer, but I think he is a gentleman I know. He is a most generous and kind-hearted man; he has taken all the men who applied back into employment; he is a Liberal in politics, and I have every reason to believe voted against me in the 1885 Election.
  MR. CONYBEAREI only referred to one man who had been discharged because he had given evidence at an inquiry relating to an accident. I did not know the employer was a Liberal, though if I had it would have made no difference. I was only showing what intimidation is practised in the country.
  MR. LLEWELLYNI am not aware that the men were refused employment. I certainly know that those who live in my Division were taken back into employment immediately they applied to be so.
  MR. HANDEL COSSIIAM: I wish to intervene, for a few moments, in this debate, which is one of great importance, and one to which I hope the House will be willing to listen.

  1707
  Quite sure I am of this, that having given the labouring classes the franchise it is our duty to protect them in the exercise of it. The Ballot Act was passed with that object, and anything like intimidation, or anything like a threat to influence people by unrighteous means, is a violation of the principle of the Ballot Act. In that we all agree. I have spent a long life amongst the working classes of this country, and I am here to say that the amount of intimidation, the number of threats to turn men out of work, in order to prevent them exercising their privileges of citizenship in a right way, is such that it is time for this House to take notice of it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not get rid of this question by attempting to laugh it out of court. We are determined to bring the matter before the country, and to bring it forward in such a way as to prevent a recurrence of these improper practices. My hon. Friends have not overstated the gravity of these evils. I know cases of farmers who have not been allowed to retain possession of their farms because they are Liberals. I know Nonconformists who have been prevented erecting places of worship by Tory squires. My hon. Friend the Member for the Newmarket Division of Cambridge (Mr. Newnes) has done great service to the country by bringing this question before the House. I did not expect that the debate on this subject would have been reached to-night, or I should have taken the trouble to have brought specific cases, which I can cite by the dozen, of intimidation. But sufficient cases have already been cited to cause the House of Commons to take action. I have been watching this evening to see whether hon. Gentlemen who wax eloquent in reference to the evils of Boycotting in Ireland will do so in reference to the same evil in England. The great principles of right have no geographical boundaries. What is wrong in Ireland is wrong in England; and I am persuaded that while there is one case of Boycotting in Ireland, there are 10 or 20 in England. The time has come when this matter must be dealt with. We have given the masses of the country the franchise, and they must be protected in its exercise. I hope the Tory Party will consent to a Committee of Inquiry. If they will, I pledge myself to bring forward such cases as will make
  1708
  the Committee feel that we have not brought the matter up too soon.
  MR. CHANNING: I have not the slightest wish to prolong this debate; but, in last winter's Session, I had myself a Motion on the Paper on the subject of intimidation in English counties. The case has been stated with great force by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, though his remarks have been received with derision by hon. Members opposite. We have been repeatedly challenged during this debate to produce specific instances. It is not difficult to produce a great many instances to show that undue influence has been exercised, and that the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act have been virtually set at naught. It may be familiar to Ministers and to hon. Gentlemen opposite, that, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James)—who now co-operates with them politically, and whose advice they ought to be ready to take—introduced his first Bill dealing with corrupt practices in 1882, he felt so strongly the danger of cases of undue influence being dealt with unfairly by benches of magistrates, that he proposed that cases of this kind should be referred to the Superior Court. This proposal, we ought to remember, was made before the franchise was extended to the humbler classes in the counties. Well, Sir, as we have been challenged to produce specific instances, I think I am justified in mentioning a case which occurred in the county I have the honour to represent; it shows very clearly how cases of undue influence are dealt with when they come before magistrates. Now, in South Northamptonshire three men were distinctly threatened with being turned out of their employment if they voted for the Liberal candidate. After the Election, it was supposed that these men had voted for the Liberal candidate, and they were turned out of their employment. The Committee to which reference has been made, the Committee for the Protection of Voters, took up the case, and it was brought before the magistrates. Now, what occurred with regard to that case? The very day before the case was brought before the Bench there was a great Conservative banquet, and at that banquet there were present—I believe I am correct in saying—three of the magistrates who sat on

  1709
  the Bench the next day to try the case. There was also present at the banquet the agent or representative of the owner of the farm from which the men were turned away, and there was also present the clerk to the magistrates. The case was brought before the Bench and dismissed, although eight credible witnesses, including the three men turned out of employment, swore that the intimidation alleged had been practised. Owing to the action of the Committee for the Protection of Voters, the case was brought before the Grand Jury of the county. It is notorious—it has been stated over and over again in the Press, and one or other of the Tory Members for Northamptonshire will contradict me if I am wrong—the noble Lord the Member for North Northamptonshire is, I am glad to say, in his place, and can point out if these statements are not correct—it has been stated that the evidence of the witnesses was given in the same form before the Grand Jury, and was unshaken by the cross-examination to which the men were subjected; and yet the case was dismissed by the Grand Jury, in the same way that it was dismissed by the magistrates—namely, by a strict Party vote.
  MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I beg to call your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
  House counted; and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. CHANNINGresumed: I am glad, Sir, that the attempt to Boycott this debate has not succeeded. Now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to my own Division of Northamptonshire, I was credibly informed that at the first Election at which I was a candidate—the Election of 1885—one firm, who employ a large number of men, required their men to pass through the office before the day of election, and that each man was warned not to vote for me. Whether they did or not, I suppose my majority of upwards of 2,000 votes gives some indication, Then, Sir, I may mention a distinct case of threatening in another county Division, and it seemed to me, when I heard the facts from the people who were subject to the threat, to be a case which certainly came very nearly, if not quite, within the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act. The man was a rate collector, who was a Liberal and
  1710
  had the courage of his convictions, and had put Liberal bills in his windows. The Conservative candidate for the Division, who was a landowner within that Division, and a magistrate for the county, paid him a visit, and drew attention to the exhibition of the bills. To this man he, being a magistrate for the county, said—"I will throw difficulties in the way of your being appointed rate collector again." Perhaps I may refer to a case of what may be called local government intimidation, which was placed in my hands only a few days ago. A quarrel occurred in a parish of Northamptonshire between the vicar and the schoolmaster. Into the merits of the quarrel I do not care to enter. But I may mention that, some time ago, the schoolmaster received a present from some of the children in the school. When it became known in the village that he was to be dismissed, a Memorial in favour of his retention was signed by 89 householders, amongst whom were the parents of 100 of the 114 children in attendance at the school. At the meeting of the managers, before whom this Memorial was brought by some of the friends of the schoolmaster, they positively refused to have it read, and, by a majority of one, they dismissed the schoolmaster. Into the merits of the dismissal I do not enter at all; but I wish to draw the attention of the House, as we have been challenged to give specific instances, to what has followed on the dismissal of the schoolmaster. As I have stated, a largo number of the householders in the parish expressed their approval of the schoolmaster, and wished him to be retained. The decision having been arrived at, there was a general expression of opinion that it would be better for the parish to have a school board. I may quote from a letter which has been placed in my hands. It states that it was thought better that a school board should be formed for the parish, and several landlords threatened their tenants that, should a school board be formed, their rents would be raised, and that threat seems to have forced some of the parishioners to keep silence, contrary to their conscientious convictions. In one case, a landlord went to one of his tenants and said, "John I understand there is"—[Laughter.] I do not think this is a laughing matter.

  1711
  I do not consider that attempting to deprive humble men of their means of livelihood is a matter which should evoke laughter from anybody on the other side of the House. At any rate, this is what the landlord said—"John, I understand there is to be a meeting for the purpose of getting a school board. I have come to tell you that, if you vote for the adoption of a school board, I shall give you notice to leave your house." [Interruption.]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. Gentleman has used an expression that he knows to be out of Order. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Who?]
  MR. CHANNING: Two-thirds of the cottagers have already received notice to quit or pay higher rent, and most of these are Liberals. Well, Sir, we have been challenged to produce specific instances, and, I venture to say, I have laid one or two before the House. I will only add this one further point, that I was recently in Dorsetshire, a county which is peculiarly subject to landlord influences, and I was there informed by credible witnesses that the labourers are so intimidated, that they do not dare to purchase Liberal papers openly or to have them seen in their houses. I am credibly informed that Liberal papers are placed for them in holes and corners of the hedges, and behind trees. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh at that fact, but I do not see why they should do so, or why the evidence that I, as a fairly impartial man, submit should not be received. I have not declaimed against the Primrose League, nor have I denounced the Tory-Party in impatient or extravagant terms. I have endeavoured to lay facts before the House, in answer to distinct challenges from the opposite side. Reference has been made to meetings at which labourers are afraid to show their opinions, or display any party feeling. I can distinctly testify to cases in a village in Northamptonshire—to meetings. At one of these, representatives of the landlords were not present, but at the other there were a number of servants from the "big house" in attendance, or standing round. I can testify myself to the fact, that, in the first case, where no representatives of the landlords were present, the labourers who attended displayed their Liberal sentiments, whilst, in the other case, they obviously
  1712
  concealed their sentiments and views. I thank the House for having allowed me to make this statement, and I hope hon. Members on the other side, instead of meeting with contemptuous ridicule and equally contemptuous silence, these replies to their challenges, will make some endeavour to answer and refute the charges I have brought against them.
  MR. JACOBY: We have heard a great deal during recent debates of hon. Members having a special mandate from their constituencies. If I have had a special mandate from my constituency it certainly is with regard to this Boycotting system known as the Primrose League. I wish to approach the question with moderation, believing that our cause is good enough not to require the use of any violent phrases. I know several specific cases of Boycotting by the League in my Division, Here is one. A man who was employed in a foundry for 40 years expressed political views in favour of myself. He was a very active partizan; but very shortly after the Election he was sent about his business. That is one specific case. Another case to which I would refer occurred shortly after the last Election. A number of colliers were going up in the cage, and when they had just started from the bottom of the pit one of them cried out, "Three cheers for Jacoby!" One of the managers happened to hear of it, and immediately ordered the cage to be lowered. The cage was lowered, and the unfortunate victim of this system—who was good enough to cheer me as the Representative of the Constituency—was asked to give his name. The man who had cheered refused to acknowledge himself, and thereupon the manager said that unless the name of the transgressor was announced, he should discharge all the colliers in the cage. Upon this the collier in question gave his name, and he was discharged then and there. But perhaps one of the most ingenious cases of the working of the Primrose League occurred in the case of the schoolmaster in one of the villages in my Division. There were a few Radicals there, but it was very difficult, owing to the tyranny of the League, to know who were Radicals and who were Tories; so the national schoolmaster in that village made each child write a

  1713
  political essay, and by those means endeavoured to find what were the politics of the parents. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen cry "Oh, oh!" but I can assure the House that this specific charge can be proved before a Committee, if a Committe of Inquiry is appointed. I do not wish to take up the time of the House any further. I am thankful to hon. Members for having, on the very first occasion on which I have had the honour to address the House, received me with such great kindness. I only hope in all seriousness—I believe hon. Gentlemen on the other side are in their heart of hearts in favour of fair play—and I venture to hope that they will not hesitate to cause a searching inquiry into these grave questions of intimidation which have been stated to the House. I trust they will not hesitate to enable this stigma to be removed if the charges are not true, to enable those who are at fault to prove the emptiness of the allegations if they are not correct.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: Mr. Speaker—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken, and has, therefore, exhausted his right.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum not exceeding £211,300, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888."
  SIR EDWARD REED: I presume it is not the intention of the Government to proceed with this Vote to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): No, Sir; I shall not proceed with the Navy Votes at this time of night (12.35).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Motion agreed, to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT (1854) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 184.]
  (Mr. King, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Mr. Lacaita, Mr. White, Mr. Puleston, Lord Claud Hamilton, Admiral Field, Mr. Bond.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th April.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title).
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, to leave out the word "pilots."—(Mr. King.)
  Question proposed, ''That the word 'pilots' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. C. T. D. ACLAND: I do hope the Government will not sanction this Bill. I cannot describe the Bill in any other terms than that it is a pure piece of Protection. The object of the measure is to prevent foreign masters and mates from dispensing with the service of English pilots. I do not intend to take up much of the time of the Committee in discussing the matter; but I desire to say that the object of our Pilotage Laws is simply the preservation of ships, and not the employment of pilots; and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry De Worms) must be well aware that the sole effect of this Bill will be not to strengthen these laws, but to do away with the privilege that owners of ships have of allowing such masters and mates as they employ, though they may happen to be foreigners, who have certificates of competence as pilots in our waters, to navigate their vessels without their being compelled to employ English pilots. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that he answered a Question to that effect a few days ago, and stated that the total number of foreigners who possess certificates for navigating the waters of the United Kingdom is 35, of which I think only five are now in operation. I am not quite sure as to the particular number in operation; but I know that 35 is the total number of certificates of the description I have described which have been issued to foreigners. Of course, the argument used against my contention is that by granting certificates to foreigners we are enabling those foreigners, or we may enable them, to come to our shores and

  1715
  become familiar with our waters, and thus secure knowledge which may be extremely prejudicial to us in times of war or emergency. But I should like to know bow much knowledge is given to a pilot by granting him a certificate of competency. The knowledge of these men may be just the same whether they receive a certificate or not, and a knowledge of our waters could be used by foreign seamen in the event of lamentable occurrences, such as the outbreak of war. In such an event, you may depend upon it, foreign countries are not going to trouble themselves about such matters as our laws relating to pilots. The object of this Bill is to prevent, as far as it goes, the employment of foreign pilots on any ships entering British ports, and the extent to which we have suffered up till now by the present entirely open system is, as I say, that only 35 certificates have been granted in all our ports. The only country in which we have reciprocal privileges is Sweden; but even that reciprocity cannot be carried on if this Bill passes, because this measure will finally shut the door to every foreign country, even those which may be willing to concede to us the privilege we at present concede to them. It seems to me there is no other description for this Bill than that it is a piece of Protection in the teeth of the policy of this country for the past 40 years. The Board of Trade in itself cannot be willing that this Bill should be passed in the face of the policy they have maintained up till now. I cannot believe the Government are going to accede to it. I certainly shall divide the Committee against the Bill, and I beg, Sir, to move that you do now leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. G. T. D. Acland.)
  MR. KING: I will not trouble the Committee with more than a few remarks. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken appears to think that he settles the question by giving the Bill a bad name. It is a custom hon. Members have on the other side of the House. But I venture to put this measure forward on an entirely different basis. I may say I am one of the most earnest Free Traders in the House, and I submit this Bill involves no principle
  1716
  of Protection. Protection has nothing whatever to do with the matter. This is simply an attempt on my part, and on the part of those who are acting with me in this matter, to secure, so far as the Government are concerned, that they will not allow a state of things to continue prejudicial to British labour, and in favour of foreign labour. The hon. Member states that there are only five licences to foreigners in existence at the present moment. [Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND: NO; 35.] Well, that is a very small matter, and I would point out that it is proposed to amend the clauses of the Bill so as to provide that those 35 holders of licences shall not be interfered with, and that the clauses in regard to the granting of certificates to foreigners shall only apply to the future. The Bill will affect fresh licences, and not those already granted. It will not affect those who hold licences at the present time; and I venture to say that it is a very proper measure for the Committee to pass.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. King) seems hardly to understand the provisions of his own Bill; because, so far as I understand it, all the licences given to foreigners, as ordinary licences, do expire at the end of the year, and these licences that are particularly in question will not be renewed even if the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Birkbeck) is accepted. I confess that the Amendments placed on the Paper to the Bill by the hon. Baronet will very much mitigate the original severity of the measure; but even after those Amendments, the Bill will stand, in my mind, exactly in its hideous nakedness as regards principle. There are certain ports that are well known where compulsory pilots are employed. This Bill lays down the principle of the protection of the English pilot against the foreign pilot being employed. It is entirely a matter of Protection for the English pilot, providing that the foreign pilot shall not be introduced against him. The same question has been raised in America. The question at stake on this occasion is exactly that discussed in America, with reference to Chinese labour. It is the question we have frequently heard raised in this country with regard to Irish labour. The object of the Bill is simply to pro-

  1717
  tect an already privileged interest, and to make compulsory pilotage still more compulsory, and to prevent in free ports pilots being employed being citizens of foreign countries. What is the state of the case at this moment? Why, one of the most important steamship lines visiting this country is the Zealand Company. That Company already has four steamers to provide for the three running, and they have three crews. They are about to have seven vessels, so as to keep up a night and day service, and they will have six crews. In every one of these crews there is a Dutch pilot who is acquainted with the difficult navigation of the Thames, and by this Bill you are going to compel this Company to dispense with those Dutch pilots, and to take in their place English pilots. As was said by a high authority on one occasion, pilots exist for the sake of ships, and not ships for the sake of pilots. These Dutch ships are of Clyde build, and it is obviously to our interest to encourage trade with these foreign countries, and to encourage trade with their ports as well as our own shipbuilding. If they choose to employ their own pilots who know our waters rather than to carry English pilots, surely it is to the interest of the trade of this country that the greatest possible facilities should be given to them for carrying on their trade in the mode most convenient to themselves. This Bill seems to be an utterly retrograde movement. As to the question of accepting this Bill as a protection to the country in time of war, I would point out that, either with or without the Bill, it would be impossible for foreign pilots to take undue advantage of any knowledge they might possess. So far as the Thames is concerned—and the conditions of other ports and waters are very similar—English pilots, when the weather was at all hazy and the buoys were up, would be unable to navigate it. Hon. Members opposite must bear in mind that we are not going to depend upon foreign pilots. And then, again, with regard to the question of protecting the country against emergency, it must be remembered that a great number of foreign seamen know our waters as well as we do ourselves. The effect of passing this Bill will be to put up a bar to Free Trade, and, therefore, I hope the Government will not allow it to pass. Even with the Amend-
  1718
  ments which the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck) proposes, it would deprive all foreigners who have got licences of the power of acting as pilots at the end of the current year. If the Committee chooses to go on with the consideration of this Bill—and I do not think it will—I shall suggest, when the proper time comes, an Amendment to enable foreigners at present holders of certificates of competency to continue to hold their licences.
  MR. PULESTON: What is the position of pilots in this country? Let us consider what it really is. Hon. Members talk about doing away with Chinese cheap labour in America, and so forth; but I would point out that America is on an entirely different footing to us, and, apart from the question of cheap labour, I advocate the Bill on the higher ground of protection of life at sea.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: These foreign pilots are all examined and licensed.
  MR. PULESTON: Yes; but you cannot have as efficient a body of men for the navigation of English waters as English pilots. Why should you allow foreign pilots to come and interfere with English pilots? Why should you allow foreigners to come from ports which your own pilots are not allowed to navigate? It is for the strongest of all reasons—namely, the protection of life at sea—that I advocate this Bill. If you allow that the pilots of this country are, as a rule, capable of navigating vessels, and of doing what we see they are doing—and I suppose a better class of men never existed in this country or any other than our British pilots—I think you should confine yourselves to the service of these men. It is all very well to say that foreign pilots have passed examinations; but there will be no English pilots to be examined in a short time, if we curtail their business and make it useless for them to fit themselves for the work of piloting. I think the present system bears very hardly upon these men. I do not think the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease) intended any slur upon our pilots when he said there was not one of them who could navigate the Thames.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: What I said was that the navigation of the Thames was so difficult that even our own pilots cannot bring a vessel up the river in

  1719
  hazy weather when the buoys are up.
  MR. PULESTON: Does the hon. Baronet mean to say that foreigners could do it?
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: No. My argument was this—that in time of war, when you pull up the buoys, you would be perfectly safe against foreign pilots acquainted with the navigation of the river, simply because they would not be able to navigate any more than your own pilots.
  MR. CRAIG: It is a surprising thing that not one of the Gentlemen who have spoken in favour of the Bill has ventured to explain its meaning. I will tell the House what its meaning is. In the year 1854 the Merchant Shipping Act was passed, a clause of which provided that every master or mate who should apply to the pilotage authority of any district in the Kingdom might, by passing an examination, obtain a certificate of competency, which, for the short space of 12 months, would allow him to pilot a particular ship or ships for the same owners in British waters. That privilege has been conferred since the year 1854. Well, by this Bill, which the hon. Member for Central Hull (Mr. King) tells us is not a Protectionist measure, it is sought to go back on the policy which this country has deliberately adopted for the last 30 or 40 years—to reverse that policy in the most extraordinary manner. I will tell the Committee why this Bill was not blocked. On the 28th of January a Bill was introduced into the House bearing a title almost identical with that of this Bill except as to one feature. It was called the "Merchant Shipping Act (1854) Amendment Bill." That, I say, was introduced on the 28th January. It was put down for second reading on the 15th of June. On the 28th of February a second Bill was introduced, with the heading "To be substituted for the Bill already delivered," and it was intituled the "Merchant Shipping Act (1854) Amendment (No. 2) Bill."
  MR. KING: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent the matter. There was a printer's error in this matter, and the Bill that the hon. Member speaks of was the No. 1 Bill.
  MR. CRAIG: I accept the explanation of the hon. Member; but I was only stating the reason why the "Merchant
  1720
  Shipping Act (1854) Amendment (No. 2) Bill" was not blocked. The reason was that it was thought to be the same Bill as that which was brought forward a month earlier. I have said that not one Gentleman who is responsible for this Bill—that is to say, whose name is on the back of it—has ventured to explain its provisions. When we come to the question of policy, we shall find that we shall reverse the Free Trade principles that this country and both sides of the House have adopted for the last 30 or 40 years. By this Bill we shall go back upon that policy, because we shall declare that no foreigners shall have the privileges continued which they have enjoyed for the last 30 or 40 years. I maintain that it was due to this Committee that those who bring forward such a Bill as this, and those on the Front Ministerial Bench who justify, or attempt to justify, the measure, and who have connived at its introduction, should say something in support of its principle.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The word the hon. Member has used is not a complimentary one. I appeal to the Chairman.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Craig.
  MR. CRAIG: I would say sympathize with the Bill, if the hon. Gentleman objects to the word "connive." That the Government sympathize with the Bill, I take it from the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), who said that the Government made a practice of blocking all measures with which they did not agree. The fact that they did not block this one shows that they did not disagree with it. Can that be taken as an indication or not? I think it is due to the Committee that in connection with an important measure of this kind, which involves a reversal of that which has been our national policy for the last 30 or 40 years, and a policy under which we have invited and welcomed to our shores foreign brains, energy, intellect, and industry—I think it is due to us that this Bill should have been explained. It has never been explained to the Committee why this great privilege, which has been granted to foreign shipowners for 32 years, of making their masters

  1721
  and mates responsible pilots of their ships if they prove their competence to navigate in our waters, should be withdrawn. The effect of a Bill like this, if passed, will be to stir up Protectionist reactionaries on the Continent, and put a weapon in their hands which will be used with fatal force against the interests of this country. Your compensation will be that you will have the sorry satisfaction of preventing 35 competent masters and mates from piloting their ships as they have done hitherto in our waters. That is only a small portion of the question. [Cries of " Oh, oh!"] "Oh!" you say. I go further. I do not think you know what the Bill means. [ Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, I do not want to convince you all. I want to convince those hon. Gentlemen who say they do not wish to return to the practice of Protection. The first point I would put before them is this—that the certificates of these masters and mates are only valid for one year, and they are limited strictly for use in the ship or ships of the owner who employs them. What harm can there be in these certificates being used under such conditions by foreigners? I spoke to a gentleman the other day about this Bill. He said—"My father in 1805 would often pilot his own vessel when coming out of the Baltic, and on one occasion he met a British Fleet after the buoys and beacons had been taken up, who asked him to pilot them down to a certain place. He said he could do so, and he did so." He was a foreigner there. There are three clauses of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 which will be affected by this Bill. Clause 342 gives powers to the Board of Trade. It says that if any pilotage authority whose duty it is to examine any master or mate—the word "foreign" does not occur in the original Act—who applies under that Act for examination, refuses to grant an examination, he shall have an appeal to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade shall examine him and give him a certificate if he be competent. I understood the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade to tell us the other night that out of 35 certificates which had been granted under Section 340 of the Act of 1854, 30 were at this moment in abeyance—I think he used the word "suspended"—were suspended until he saw, or the Board of
  1722
  Trade saw, what the House would do with this Bill. I want to know where the Board of Trade obtained that suspensory power? It may have suspensory power, but it is not in the Act of 1854, which imposed upon them the duty of doing that which any Pilotage Board might neglect to do. It is not only in connection with pilots that we have this outcry about foreigners. We have had it already in our large ports with reference to the employment of foreign seamen; and I declare to the Committee, with perfect knowledge of what I am stating, that in the years 1873–4–5, if we had not been able to employ foreign seamen, many of our ships would not have been able to go to sea. It is well known that wages at our ironworks and at our collieries, and in other branches of labour, were so high and remunerative that a great many English seamen preferred to stop on shore to going to sea, and it is also well known that their places could not have been filled up unless we had had recourse to those excellent sailors whom we obtained from Scandinavia. Then, when the coal and iron trade is dull again, we have an outcry against the employment of foreign seamen. "Send them back, and do not employ them," they say.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I understand, Sir, that the Motion before the Committee is that you do leave the Chair, which is the same as a Motion that you do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I understand that it is out of Order to discuss the substance of a Bill upon such a Motion. I wish to ask, therefore, whether the hon. Member is not out of Order in the observations he is making?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Motion to report Progress refers to subsequent proceedings; but the Motion for the Chairman to leave the Chair is one directed at the Bill itself, and is one which, if passed, would kill the measure altogether.
  MR. CRAIG: I was about to say that under the Act of 1854 not only could masters and mates apply to be pilots of their own ships, but foreign seamen and masters could go further, and apply to be licensed as masters; and many foreigners have availed themselves of the privilege with great advantage to our shipping. I know the truth of what

  1723
  I am saying. I have known foreigners who commanded British vessels, and who performed their duties admirably, and were selected for the posts because they knew certain waters betters than British sailors. There is a cry that foreign seamen should be withdrawn from English ships. What will be the result if you pass this Bill? It will be but the beginning of an insidious attempt to turn back the tide of progress and furnish reactionaries in this country with a weapon by which the cry of Reciprocity and Retaliation will be intensified and increased. I am astonished at this Bill being brought forward, when I remember what a large amount of foreign immigration there is in this country. I am astonished at this Bill being introduced when I look at these Benches and at the Benches opposite, and when I remember the great support we have received on both sides from hon. Gentlemen whose families were foreigners a generation ago. I am delighted to see foreigners, or the descendants of foreigners, in this House. I welcome them here, and delight to see them come here, and give us the benefit of their intelligence and of their great industry. I delight to see their children take part in our affairs like ourselves; and I am astonished that on the Benches opposite should be found men to give this Bill support. I submit that before a measure of this kind is passed it requires fuller and freer discussion; and I trust that in the words of the Motion you, Sir, will leave the Chair.
  SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Craig) who has just sat down has appealed to hon. Members whose names are on the back of the Bill to explain its provisions. I feel that the hon. Gentleman has not looked at the Notices on the Paper with reference to the Bill—I mean the Amendments. There are several that stand in my own name, and if they are accepted the Bill will be reduced to a very short measure, particularly under the fourth Amendment. I would wish to represent to the Committee that, if these Amendments are adopted, this Bill will not be in conflict necessarily with existing Treaties with Foreign Powers. I believe I am right in saying that these Amendments have met with the approval of the Law
  1724
  Officers of the Government, as well as of the Foreign Office; and I think those hon. Members who have already spoken have entirely forgotten the fact that England is the first Maritime Nation in the world, having 5,000 pilots around her coasts, every one of them engaged in protecting oar shipping trade, and doing much on behalf of the preservation of life. I think hon. Members have ignored that fact—those hon. Members who wish to place the shipping of the country in the hands of less capable men than our own pilots. [Cries of ''No, no!"] Yes; much less capable men than our own pilots, of whom the nation has always been proud, and of whom I hope we shall always continue to be proud. I think that hon. Members have forgotten that at the present time that any sailing vessel or steamer plying from a British port is compelled, on entering a foreign port, with the exception of those of Sweden, to take a foreign pilot. I quote simply the case of the Great Eastern Railway Company's steamers which go over to Holland. They have to employ permanently Dutch pilots to take their steamers into the Dutch ports. And why should not the Dutch Government, or the owners of Dutch steamers trading with England, do what we do, and on entering English ports, and in bringing vessels out of English ports, employ English pilots? It is simply nothing but reciprocity and fair play as between nation and nation. I have mentioned that there is only Sweden that permits English masters to take English vessels into its ports; and Sweden, as a matter of fact, is the only country in the world which grants us fair reciprocity. With regard to the question of life saving, the Committee will agree with me that, as Chairman of the Lifeboat Institute, no one can wish to do more in the interests of saving life at sea as the head of that Institution. It has been proved, beyond doubt, that British pilots are the most capable pilots in the whole world, and best able to take charge of vessels bound to our ports; and I do not see why hon. Members opposite should wish to discourage these brave men when there are thousands of them who have done their utmost for the whole trade of the world; and I do not see why hon. Members should wish to hand over to foreign masters and mates, who are less

  1725
  capable than our own these great shipping interests, instead of insisting on keeping them in the hands of our people. As I have already said, if these Amendments are carried out, the Bill will be a very short one indeed; and I think it is only fair play, as between nation and nation, that the principle of the measure should be adopted. We do not wish—I myself, and I am sure my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill does not wish—to raise any foreign complication, or to be unjust to any foreign nation. We simply seek for common justice as between nation and nation.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): I rise for the purpose of correcting an error into which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has fallen. I understood him to say that it was compulsory on the Board of Trade, under the clause he quoted, to grant certificates. If he will refer to the clause, he will see that the Board of Trade may grant certificates.
  MR. CRAIG: No; it means "shall."
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: No; it is "may."
  MR. M. J. KENNY: This discussion is somewhat unfortunate at the present time. I certainly am disposed to give fair consideration to the proposal that is made to extend legitimate protection to British pilots. I have been in communication with a good many of the Irish pilots on this question, and they have requested me to support a proposal to inquire into their case. I understand that a proposal has been submitted to the Government to appoint a Select Committee on the subject—to refer the matter to the consideration of a Select Committee. In face of that request—which I myself signed—we are called upon to consider this Bill, and it is undoubtedly the fact that the case for the measure has not been submitted to the Committee. I would not, at the present moment, undertake to say whether the Bill is a good or a bad one. It is one of those measures which, I think, even in this Committee, would give rise to considerable discussion, and which, after consideration, should be reasonably amended. But, so far as we have gone, we are in this position—we are asked right off to pass a Bill which the Committee practically knows very little
  1726
  about—which no Member of the Committee who is not connected with the Mercantile Marine, or who is not intimately acquainted with maritime subjects, can be expected to understand. It is a very small and short measure, and that fact may be advanced in favour of its being pushed rapidly through the House. But, as a matter of fact, these small Bills are always the most dangerous. Some of them contain most pernicious principles, and, on account of their very smallness, are sometimes adopted without due precautions being taken as to their real meaning. It would be a most inconvenient thing for the Committee to pass the Bill through hurriedly, and then to be asked, in a Session or two, to repeal its provisions. The present Government, as I understand, is a Government of examination and inquiry. I am surprised that they have been able to make up their minds so rapidly with regard to this Bill. On the part of hon. Gentlemen who sit around me, I would say we are quite prepared to enter into the consideration of this question, so far as it affects some of the Irish pilots; but we think it only reasonable that the wishes of hon. Gentlemen on this side, representing English public opinion, should be consulted. The reason I said that the discussion was unfortunate at the present time is this. According to your ruling, Sir, if the Motion that you do leave the Chair is carried, the Bill is killed, and it will not be possible to have an inquiry into its proposal pending the final vote; whereas if, at an earlier stage, it had been decided, to refer the subject to a Select Committee, we should have had an opportunity of inquiring into the matter, the Committee might have reported in favour of the main lines of the Bill, and we should have had it carried through and passed this Session. Owing to the course the supporters of the Bill have taken, if we go on with it now the probability is that the House will be led to reject it in toto. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, may be the House will not reject it; but, speaking for myself, I must say that if the supporters of the measure insist upon its being carried right off, I shall vote in favour of its rejection—that is to say, I shall vote for the Motion now before the Committee. At the same time, if it had been proposed to refer the matter to a Select

  1727
  Committee I should have voted in favour of it.
  MR. WHITE: I should not have risen in this debate if it had not been that I represent a pilot constituency, and take a great interest in their welfare. I believe most heartily in their grievance, remembering that they have had to serve their apprenticeship to piloting, and that, to a certain extent, their living is taken away from them by the provisions of the Act of 1854, which enables foreign pilots to pilot vessels in English waters. A great deal has been said by hon. Members opposite about this proposal being a return to Protection. Hon. Gentlemen opposite look upon Protection as a crime. If it is, the fiscal policy of other nations is criminal. I deny that it is a crime; but I am as real a Free Trader as anyone in this House, and on the principles of Free Trade I support this Bill. Whilst we are Free Traders, we cannot hide from ourselves that every other nation in the world is exactly the reverse; and it seems to me to be an anomaly that the captain of a foreign ship should be able to obtain a certificate to pilot his ship in British waters, and that yet, at the same time, the country from which he hails should not permit him to take his ship back again into his native waters, compelling him to take a pilot on board the moment he enters them. The cry of Protection that is raised about this Bill is absurd. One would think that some enormous imposts were about to be levied upon imports by the simple act of compelling every foreign ship to take an English pilot on board in English pilotage waters. Why, Sir, the fact is that the expense of doing so only amounts to a few pounds per ship. The ship, or rather its owner, has to pay so much, acccording to the draught of water—some £18 or £20, which, when distributed over valuable cargoes, amounts to a mere trifle. It is hard, I say, that English pilots who have served their time should be put in needless competition with men who have not done so. For these reasons I beg to support the Bill.
  MR. HALDANE: The opposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle - upon - Tyne (Mr. Craig) to this Bill has been based upon the allegation that it infringes the principles of Free Trade. I oppose
  1728
  this Bill not merely because it infringes the principles of Free Trade, but because it does more—it proposes to inflict a great injustice upon certain owners and masters of foreign ships by taking away from them a right which they have enjoyed since 1854. By the law of this country certain ports have this peculiarity—that no ship can enter them except under the charge of a pilot. The law is one the policy of which has long been recognized as exceptionable. It is objectionable on many grounds, and its principle is one which is likely to receive reconsideration before long at the hands of the Legislature. Recognizing its injustice and hardship, Mr. Cardwell introduced a Bill, I think in 1853, which became law the next year, and which is now known as the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. That Act got rid of the anomaly under which certain ports were in the position that ships could not enter them except under the charge of pilots. That Act enabled masters and mates of any ship, whether British or foreign, to get rid of the gross hardship of having to take a pilot on board in cases where it was wholly unnecessary, by permitting them to obtain certificates of their competency to pilot the ship themselves. They were thus enabled to avoid the expense of taking a pilot on board. It is, I think, Section 340 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, which relieves masters and mates of certain ships from tins hardship which the law imposed upon them. The relief was granted, to masters and mates of all ships, whether British or foreign. Now, one of the objects of the present Bill is to repeal that section which relieves foreign masters and mates from that gross hardship, and to confine the exemption to the case of British masters and men. I think that this is a proposition which does something more than infringe the principles of Free Trade. It really contemplates an act of great injustice, and an act which would not be tolerated if it were considered and understood in all its fulness throughout the country. Now, it is suggested that the Amendments which are proposed to be made in Committee on this Bill make the matter different. I do not see they do in the slightest degree. Instead of amending certain specific sections, they propose to make a wholesale alteration on the whole

  1729
  law—to exempt from that beneficial principle which I have mentioned in Mr. Cardwell's Act foreign masters and mates only. Believing this Bill to contemplate a very great injustice, believing it to contemplate not only such an injustice, but to depart from what has been the uniform practice of the Board of Trade for 30 years, and adhering strictly and rigidly to the principles of Free Trade, I shall do all I can to prevent the passing of this measure.
  MR. BIGGAR: I should like to know from the Government whether or not it is their intention to allow a Bill to pass through this House which only affects 35 persons? We hear a great deal about obstruction; but really, if the British Parliament is to countenance the bringing in of Bills which only affect every 35 of the population of these Kingdoms, we shall require, not one Parliament, but a very vast number of Parliaments, to transact our Business. What has taken place in regard to this Bill is certainly a justification for the wholesale blocking of Bills. This Bill was not blocked simply because hon. Gentlemen did not understand what its real purport was; but now, when the Bill is explained, we find it is of an exceedingly mischievous nature. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) has suggested that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee If the supporters of the Bill agree to the adoption of that suggestion, I do not think the Committee would do well to waste any more time over it; but if, on the other hand, the supporters of the Bill refuse to send it to a Select Committee, I think the only course open to the opponents of the Bill is to use every power they possess to prevent any further progress being made with it tonight. I appeal to whoever represents the Government on the present occasion to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend. If the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) were here, I would appeal to him whether or not he, as Leader of the Government and of the House, would allow the time of the Committee to be occupied by a squabble over a trumpery thing of this sort, which, if not mischievous, certainly cannot have any substantial beneficial effect?
  MR. BRYCE: I confess to a feeling of some surprise that no
  1730
  Member of the Government has given us an opinion on this Bill. I hoped that when the hon. Gentleman the (Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry Do Worms) rose, he would, as representing the Department which is most seriously affected, give us the opinion of the Government in regard to the Bill; but he did nothing of the kind. What we have heard of the Bill is not calculated to increase our confidence in it. Two arguments have been advanced in its favour. One of these is that it will lead to the protection of life and property at sea. Now, there is not the slightest allegation that these 35 persons to whom certificates have been given are less competent to take ships up rivers than the British masters and mates; therefore, there is no ground for supposing that life and property will be any safer if the Bill passes than if it is rejected. I must remind the Committee that if it be true that British pilots are any better than the persons who have obtained these certificates from the Board of Trade, the owners of foreign vessels will have every possible incentive to employ British pilots. It is to the interest of the owners of foreign vessels that their vessels should be taken safely into port, and therefore it is natural they will only employ competent pilots. That part of the case breaks down completely, and there is nothing whatever in the remarks of the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Puleston) which, to my mind, goes to support the Bill. The other argument advanced in favour of the Bill is that used by the hon. Baronet the Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck), and he spoke much more to the real merits of the Bill; in fact, he let the cat out of the bag. The hon. Baronet admitted that this is a measure for Reciprocity—that it is a mask intended to conceal the hateful features of Protection. He really avowed that this is a measure of Protection. He said the object of the Bill is to compel foreign countries to do for our pilots what we have hitherto done for theirs—to do for British masters of vessels entering foreign ports what the English law hag hitherto allowed to be done for foreign masters and mates of foreign vessels. In other words, this is a sort of declaration of war against foreign masters and mates, in order to induce their countries to do the same thing as we have hitherto

  1731
  done. Does the hon. Baronet really suppose that petty retaliations of this kind, applying to 35 persona only, will have the slightest affect on any foreign country? Does he think it worth while, for the sake of so small a number of persons, to alter the law, to depart from the policy which this country has followed for years, to supply a precedent for future movements in the same direction, and to show what I must call a petty and trivial spirit on the part of a great country like this, a spirit which has been a stranger to all our recent legislation? I cannot help thinking, Sir, that although this is a very small matter in itself—it only affects 35 persons—the principle involved is not a small one. The principle does deserve the attention of the Committee, and unless we hear some better reasons from the Government in favour of this Bill I hope the Committee will reject it. I say nothing about the legal question which my hon. Friend the Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) has discussed; but I am bound to say I am not satisfied, on the ground of Commercial Treaties, that the Bill is not objectionable. I had hoped we should have hoard something upon the point from some of the Members of the Government who have considered the question. The hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Birkbeck) seems to have entertained some apprehension, because he said this is not seriously in conflict with existing Treaties. It ought not to be adopted if it is in even the smallest conflict with existing Treaties. I speak not without some hesitation, because we have not heard the views of the Government. I hope they will not only tell us what the legal question is, but also give us their views as to the policy of the change, and explain whether, if they do press the Bill, they think a change should be made in our commercial relations with other countries.
  THE ATTOENEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): Hon. Gentlemen opposite attach a great deal of importance to this Bill, and therefore they will, no doubt, hear a few words from me. I will deal, in the first place, with the last point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce)—namely, the effect of the Bill upon Treaties. As I understand the matter, it stands in this way. We do not propose that the
  1732
  owners of foreign vessels shall in any way lose the privilege of having their vessels piloted in ports by a master or mate who is a British subject. I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Craig) will, if he looks carefully through the Bill, acknowledge that all that is now proposed is that in future no pilot certificate should be granted to any person other than a British subject. There is not one word about the master or mate of a foreign ship. The person certificated may be a master or mate of a foreign ship; the question is whether he is a British subject. Some time ago an Amendment to this Bill was put on the Paper extending the Bill so as to exclude British subjects who are masters or mates of foreign ships. Now, with regard to the question of Treaty rights, the only provision which could in any way have infringed such rights would have been a provision excluding from certificates masters or mates of foreign ships. As regards the 35 men who have had certificates granted to them, I think there aught to be no objection to their continuing to hold them. If a man has at present the privilege of an English pilot certificate, he should be allowed to continue to use it. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen has been in communication with those who had to consider this matter when the last Government was in Office; but I think it will be found, on inquiry, that the opinion was very strongly held by the late Law Officers that it was not competent, as the existing law stands, to grant certificates to foreign subjects. When the hon. Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) says that it is intended by this Bill to withhold this privilege from foreigners as distinguished from British subjects, and to revert to an old state of affairs, I think he cannot have had his attention called to the circumstances which led to the passing of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. At the time of the passing of that Act it was considered a hardship that in the case of a ship, particularly a British vessel, constantly trading with a particular port—say a vessel belonging to Hull, and constantly running in and out of that port—the master of such a vessel should be obliged to take a pilot on board, when the master might know the port almost as well as the pilot.

  1733
  Now it does seem to me, and those who have considered this matter, that there may be serious objections to the authorities being compelled, or to there being a practice, to grant pilotage certificates to those who are not British subjects. If the master or mate of a ship trading constantly—say, between Hull and Sweden—is competent to pilot the ship, and is a British subject, let him receive a certificate; but to say that certificates are to be granted to persons who are not British subjects is going beyond the question. It is not a question of protecting British pilots. As a matter of fact, we get under Treaties no reciprocity in this matter. Foreign nations—with the exception, possibly, of Sweden—give to us no similar privileges. This is not, as has been said, a question of Protection. It is simply a question whether, in dealing with the pilotage in our own country, it is not a reasonable and proper thing not to grant pilot certificates to foreigners.
  MR. PICTON: I wish that the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) had been more satisfactory. He tells us that he is not quite certain. I do not profess to know much about such matters; but I presume that if Sweden will not be interfered with by this Bill other nations may demand the same treatment. We are now actually legislating in the dark, because we do not know whether the Bill will run counter to one foreign Treaty, which would necessarily involve other foreign nations. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has said that there is no question of Protection involved in this Bill; but I maintain that the principle of Free Trade is that every in this country has a right to employ in his business whomever he chooses. Here are certain men who are guaranteed by our own authority to be competent pilots; but this Bill says—"You shall not employ these men; or, if you do, you must do so at your peril." Is this not Protection? It is Protection of one kind of commodity against another. Skilled labour is, after all, in some sense, a commodity, and you wish to compel the shipowners of this country to employ one kind of commodity and not another. Why are hon. Gentlemen opposite so anxious about this little Bill, affecting only 35 persons alto-
  1734
  gether? They wish to insert the thin edge of the wedge, and are anxious to go back to the constituencies and say—"We have, at least, done something." Once adopt this principle, and I do not see why they should not carry it any length. According to one hon. Gentleman opposite, this is intended to secure the employment of natives instead of foreigners. Why not bring in Bills to prevent the employment in this country of foreign, carpenters and masons? This is the old principle of Protection; and I do most earnestly protest against the adoption of this Bill at this hour of the night (2.45), when the larger portion of the Committee cannot possibly be aware of the serious question that is involved.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the issue of these certificates has been suspended by the Board of Trade?
  BARON HENEY DE WORMS: Yes.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: Then what necessity is there for this Bill, if the Board of Trade has power to refuse the issue of these certificates?
  BARON HENEY DE WORMS: I believe the Board of Trade has perfect power; but, in view of conflicting opinions on the part of high legal authorities, it was thought better to have the matter thoroughly cleared up; and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Mr. King) produced this Bill.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: I hope the House will not go on with the Bill further. I can easily understand that hon. Members are not aware of the full significance of the measure; and the fact that we have reached the Committee stage without discussion of its principles is an additional and overwhelming reason, it seems to me, why there should be no attempt to force it on to-night. At the outset I did not understand the bearings of the Bill, but thought that the proposal was a small and innocent one. I have great respect for the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General on legal matters; but, when we come to a proposal for the reversal of a well-settled national principle, I am not prepared to accept him as an infallible guide. The hon. Gentleman opposite asserted that the object of this Bill is to insure Reciprocity, or, rather, he ar-

  1735
  gued in its support that because foreign countries do not give certain privileges to British captains and mates, we are entitled to say that these privileges shall not be given by us to foreigners. As I understand the argument of those who support the Bill, they say its object is really to enforce the principle of Reciprocity on this pilotage question; but I think it is rather the principle of retaliation that it seeks to enforce. The principle of Reciprocity will not really apply, because there is only one foreign country which treats British pilots in the same fair and liberal manner as we treat foreign pilots. If that is so, it is clear that, practically speaking, all foreign ships under foreign captains and mates are to be deprived of the privilege which, up to the present, they have been granted by this country; and when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General says to us that foreign ships may still come here, but must have British captains and mates on board, qualified for the work of piloting, we understand that that makes a small distinction; but we do not see that it seriously affects the principle we are discussing. That is a subterfuge on his part. I see no limit to the arguments of those who support this Bill. I see no limit to the operation of the principle they desire us to support in passing this Bill. The number of pilots who will be affected by the measure is a mere bagatelle; but the principle the Bill assails is an important one. We are amazed that the Government should support the Bill—that they should give countenance to Protection in the veiled fashion they have done to-night; and we are surprised to hear the Secretary to the Board of Trade represent that the Department, on behalf of which he speaks, has an initiatory power in regard to the issue of licences to foreign pilots, and that they have power to act compulsorily, as he has told us to-night that they have acted.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: The Law Officers of the late Government held exactly the views of the present Board of Trade. I feel obliged to tell the hon. Gentleman that, as it is within my own knowledge.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: The hon. Gentleman is not going to take his whole guidance on this question from the Law Officers of the late Government, when
  1736
  he has the Attorney General of the present Government on his own side. I insist that it would be an unwise and undesirable thing for us, at this time of night, to take up a Bill of this character, about which the country knows nothing, and will know nothing. I would point out to the promoters of this Bill that they will lose nothing by putting off the consideration of the measure. The Session is not far advanced. The Attorney General says the interests of the men who will be affected by this Bill will be protected; but the interests of these 35 foreign pilots, who hold certificates for navigating in English waters, is a mere bagatelle compared with the great principle involved in this question. If we pass this Bill foreign nations will be entitled to say—"Here is a palpable proof that the British nation are abandoning their principles of Free Trade." ["No, no!"] I am astonished at that interruption. If hon. Gentlemen had listened to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen whose names are on the back of the Bill, they would have heard them tell us that this is "retaliation." I say that is Protection, and I therefore say—How can hon. Members deny that I am stating what is strictly accurate when I declare that foreign countries will use those words? How can the Representatives of the Government hold themselves justified in allowing a Bill of this immense importance—a Bill which may have an international operation—to go forward at 2 o'clock in the morning. I think we may well ask, Sir, that you do now leave the Chair.
  MR. H. S. WRIGHT: The argument that seems to be principally used by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House is this—that because we have been acting wrongly towards British seamen for the last 32 years, therefore we are to continue doing so. We ought to be able to appeal to Irish Members and to Scotch Members, as well as to English Members, not to continue a system which is eminently unfair to British seamen. There is no doubt whatever that the more chance we give foreigners to go up and down our rivers, and to enter our harbours, the better they will be able to act against us in time of war. But, apart from this question of danger in time of war, I maintain that we should be incurring less risk of collisions in our

  1737
  crowded harbours and rivers if served by pilots who have lived in or about British ports all their lives than by foreign mates or captains, who may have obtained pilots' certificates for British waters.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I think there are one or two points on which we ought to press for a distinct answer from the Government. The hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade in this House (Baron Henry De Worms) stated that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Mr. King), who introduced this Bill, was acting practically under the instructions of the late Law Officers of the Crown. Now, I want to know whether or not we are to take it as a charge against the late Government, that they intended to bring in, or, at any rate, to support, a Protectionist Bill of this kind? ["No, no!"] That is the charge made against the late Government—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is travelling from the Question before the Committee in entering into that matter.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I did not intend to pursue the point, Mr. Courtney, but merely to state that that was the charge distinctly made by a Member of the present Government against the late Government. ["No, no!"] Well, we will wait for further information on the subject. The same Member of the Government who brought this charge against Her Majesty's late Advisers seems to admit his share in a distinct piece of illegality. He tells us that 30, out of 35, pilots have been suspended—that is to say, that their certificates have not been renewed. He has been challenged as to whether the Board of Trade has power, under the existing law, to refuse to renew a certificate, and he frankly tells us that it is a moot point.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Nothing of the sort. That does not convey what I expressed. If the hon. Member will take the trouble to read the 342nd clause of the Act of 1852, he will find that the granting or renewing of certificates to foreign masters and mates is purely optional.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the legality of refusing to renew certificates is a moot point.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Nothing of the kind.
  MR. CONYBEARE: He said that the Legal Authorities are in conflict on an important point, and that it was in consequence of that conflict that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Hull had brought in this Bill to settle the matter.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Nothing of the kind. I did not say a word of it.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Certainly you did, and hon. Gentlemen near me corroborate my recollection. I do not wonder that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not recollect what they say—it is, perhaps, convenient for them not to; for we have had the most amusing theories from them as to what is Protection and what is not. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Hull started by declaring that no one was a stronger Free Trader than he was himself, and in order to give us a clear insight into what he meant by Free Trade he said he was averse to allowing foreign labour to interfere with British labour, and that the object of the Bill was to prevent that interference. Well, what in the world is that but Protection, pure and unadulterated? Every other hon. Member who has spoken in favour of the Bill has used the words "fair play," "justice," "unfair to Englishmen," and a variety of similar expressions. "Fair play" is the constant cry of the Protectionist Party, and in permitting that little expression to escape them hon. Members have let the cat out of the bag. The hon. and learned Attorney General has also made a candid confession. He has admitted, in answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Launceston (Mr. C. T. D. Acland), that he is not perfectly certain yet whether the state of International Law with respect to Sweden is as has been stated on his side of the House. If the Members of the Government—if the Law Officers of the Crown who ought to know these things—on an important question like this, affecting international right, tell us that they do not know what the state of the law is, we have a right to ask them to find out the law, and declare it to us, before they take this leap in the dark. It is a monstrous thing for us to legislate on a matter like this, the Law Officers of the Crown not knowing whether or not they

  1739
  are right in the view of the law on which the Government are acting.
  SIR EICHAED WEBSTER: I object to those words being attributed to me. What I said was that I was not certain whether treaty rights with Sweden on this subject existed. I have since ascertained that, as there are no compulsory rights as to Sweden, this question does not arise. Therefore, what I said as to treaty rights is correct.
  MR. CONYBEARE: His words were he was "not certain" as to the point raised by my hon. Friend. I am glad he has been able to satisfy himself on the point now, and, of course, I accept his assurance in perfect good faith. Another argument the same hon. and learned Gentleman used was to the effect, as I understood him, that the law, as it exists, is not intended to give a privilege to foreigners. He argued, therefore, or I understood him to argue, that this Bill will not be a return to Protection. But if the law does not actually give privileges to foreigners, or if it does not intend to give privileges to foreigners, it does not refuse those privileges to foreigners; but I understand it is now proposed to take away privileges enjoyed by foreigners without giving them any compensation whatever. It appears to me that these arguments of the hon. and learned Attorney General do not hold water any more than the others. The hon. Baronet the Member for East Norfolk (Sir Edward Birkbeck) said that if his Amendments are accepted the Bill will become a simple matter—it will be reduced to one clause. He seemed to think that a good reason why there should be an end of our discussion, and why the Bill should be allowed to pass. My view is that his one clause will be worse than the whole three he eliminates from the Bill. He said we should not want to place our shipping in the hands of less capable men than our own pilots. I want to know how the foreigners, to whom we have granted certificates of competency, are less capable men than our own pilots, seeing that they have passed the same examination, and received the same certificates, that are granted to our own seamen? This is an attempt to throw dust in our eyes. The hon. Baronet knows that the same argument would apply in other cases. On this side of the House it has been said that if this Bill is passed its prin-
  1740
  ciple will be extended—that it will be introducing the thin end of the wedge of Protection, and that we do not know where it will end. If you once begin to eliminate foreigners, you will have to eliminate them from this House. There is more than one foreigner on the Conservative side. They will all have to go. ["Oh, oh!" and cries of "Order!"] Well, I am not making a charge—I do not wish to be personal. I will not refer to Members of the Government, or to the Tory Party; but I would say that if you introduce the principle of the elimination of foreigners, we shall have the right to apply it in an extended form. We shall have a right to get rid of the numerous brood of pauper Princes who emigrate over here from Germany. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes. I was down at Sheerness the other day, and I found there, commanding as Admiral of the Dockyard, the Prince of Leiningen; and we have in Dublin, as Commander of the Army in Ireland, Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not adhering strictly to the principle of this Bill.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The Bill, Sir, affects a principle of such vast magnitude that we do not know how far it will go. I was only pointing out to hon. Gentlemen opposite, how substantially this principle they are laying down may apply to them. I did not see that my observation was so much out of Order.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I rise to Order. Has the hon. Gentleman the right to make these observations?
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have already submitted to the Chairman, and was only adding an observation on the matter. It appears to me that the observations that have been advanced on this side of the House are, at any rate, of sufficient weight to render it absolutely impossible that we can proceed with the consideration of the Bill at this hour. As has been already pointed out, if the character of this measure had been known earlier it would have been blocked. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Hull, as to this being a No. 2 Bill substituted for a Bill previously delivered. If this is the original Bill with a clerical alteration in it—
  MR. KING: I said nothing of the sort.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I must say, hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House have a singular facility for saying things in such a way that no one can under-stand them. If this is not the same Bill as that originally delivered, it is a pity it was not put down for the same day as the original Bill.
  MR. KING: I can only say what was done—I cannot give intelligence to enable a simple explanation to be understood. I have said that this is a different Bill.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I am satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's explanation; but I did not understand the matter correctly before. No doubt the misunderstanding was owing to my own obtuseness.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: Hon. Members opposite, as I understand, contend that the Board of Trade have the power to grant or withhold these certificates. In that opinion they are supported both by the present and the late Law Officers of the Crown; and it is said that this Bill is brought forward to make clear the law on the point. Do I understand that to be the case? [Mr. KING: Yes.] It is to make the position of the Board of Trade absolutely plain. I would point out, therefore, to the Secretary to the Board of Trade and the hon. and learned Attorney General that the Bill does nothing of the kind. The Board of Trade now claim to enjoy an option; but if we pass this Bill we shall deprive them of that option. It limits and contracts their power, and prevents them from giving certificates of competency to these foreign pilots, even though they may be willing to do so.
  MR. JOICEY: I regret I was not in my place when the Bill came on. I have a very strong objection to it. The practice has been to create a certain number of certificates of efficiency, and I understand the object of the Bill is to prevent that practice being continued. In my opinion, this is simply the thin end of the wedge. In all our ports there has been an agitation amongst sailors to prevent, if possible, the employment of foreign seamen on board our ships; and I think that, if once we give way on this question, it will certainly encourage that agitation amongst the sailors. I cannot think that the shipowners of
  1742
  this country are yet prepared, at all events, to say that no foreign sailors shall be employed on board their ships. I cannot see how we can carry on our merchant service at the present moment without foreign seamen. I am not, therefore, prepared to support this measure. Many of the arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite in support of this measure might, with equal force, be used against the system of employing foreign sailors in our ships. If we passed this measure, we should certainly have retaliation on the part of foreign Governments, which would go a great deal further than this Bill. I am anxious to further the employment of Britons, in place of foreigners, where they can be employed; but if we introduce the principle contained in this Bill, where will it end? Are we to say that Englishmen are to be employed in every position in which we, at present, employ foreigners? Are you to say that no foreign clerks are to be employed in commercial offices? ["Oh, oh!"] Well, the principle is exactly the same. It is simply one of Protection; and if you give protection to English pilots, I cannot see how you can justly withhold it from English clerks. On these grounds I oppose the Bill. It is a step in the direction of compelling our shipowners to employ only English sailors, and our commercial men to employ English clerks.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches can hardly be aware that at this moment we are building nearly all the steamers that are being used all over the world, and that the passing of this Bill would have a most irritating effect upon foreigners, particularly upon those for whom we build the ships. It would irritate them on a point on which they are most sensitive. We should immediately have new shipbuilding yards started, probably with Government subsidies, in the Scheldt at Antwerp, at Rotterdam, and at Hamburg. We should have competition subsidized by foreign Governments in retaliation for the shutting out of foreigners. I do not think any Bill so insignificant could be j introduced which would lead to such disastrous results to our building yards. Once we begin to prevent the employ-

  1743
  merit of foreigners in any capacity whatever—either as pilots or as seamen, or as officers in our ships—it will stop not only the use of British ships and the employment of British captains, but the building of foreign ships in British ports. If I understand this Bill aright—and I have no doubt the Law Officers of the Crown will inform us whether it is the case or not—if it passes, the mate or any other officer of an English ship, if he happens to be an alien or a foreigner, will be unable to obtain a certificate to bring that ship into an English port. Very likely the foreign officer of an English ship may know the English port he desires to go into a great deal better than he knows any port in his own country. I do not think any Bill could be introduced which would be more mischievous or of greater detriment to our shipbuilding interests on the Clyde, at Belfast, in the Tyne, in the Mersey, or at any of our large building ports than this measure. A more short-sighted measure could scarcely be drafted, and I sincerely hope Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their decision in the matter. I do not think the effect of the Bill has been carefully considered. If it had been, I cannot believe that the measure would have been pressed forward in this way.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I desire to say just a word or two with the view of removing some misapprehension which seems to exist on this matter. I expect foreigners will continue to get ships built in our yards, as they will be able to get them better and cheaper here than anywhere else. I do not think they would come to us now if they could get ships built as well and as cheap elsewhere. When hon. Gentlemen talk about interfering with the employment of foreign sailors, I would reply that that is not a case in point at all. I should like to tell the House why there is a difficulty in regard to this question of pilots, and why the certificates of these foreigners are suspended. It was because the Law Officers of the late Government advised that, in their opinion, it was not competent to grant certificates to masters and mates of foreign ships because they were not masters and mates within the meaning of the Act of 1854. Why? Because the Merchant
  1744
  Shipping Act has about 180 clauses imposing the most strict conditions on the masters and mates of British ships in point of discipline and education, and laying down all sorts of regulations to which the masters and mates of foreign ships are not subjected. Therefore, the late Law Officers held that masters and mates of foreign ships were not masters and mates within the meaning of the Act of 1854. It is intended by the Bill that certificates should not be issued to such masters and mates in future; but it would be an apparent injustice to deprive of their certificates those masters and mates who have enjoyed them for so many years; therefore, I understand the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill intends to introduce in it words which will save the privileges of foreign masters and mates who hold British certificates. I may say, from my knowledge of where the shoe pinches with foreign countries, that that will remove the objections that have been entertained by more than one country in respect of this Bill—for instance, the steamers that come up from Flushing to the Thames. They have hitherto been piloted by their own masters, and by the words my hon. Friend proposes to introduce into the Bill that privilege will continue, and will altogether remove the objection of the Netherlands Company, and will save that Company, as I have heard, £12,000 a-year in pilotage dues.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: When the present masters who hold the certificates die, will the new masters receive them?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Certainly not, unless they are British subjects. With very few exceptions the Reciprocity Clauses given in the provisions dealing with foreign pilots give this country nothing at all. Sweden does not insist on pilotage dues; but Norway does not allow a ship to enter her ports without a Norwegian pilot. With the exception of Sweden, Denmark, and Italy, where there are open ports, Marseilles in France, and certain open ports in Australia, there are no foreign ports British ships can enter without paying pilotage dues; whilst we, on the contrary, have thrown our ports open to the Navies of the world. It is proposed that the same obligation shall rest on foreign ships as rests on British ships, and that they

  1745
  shall have either to take a local pilot or to have among their officers a British subject holding a certificate of privilege to pilot them. It is quite evident that there is considerable misconception in respect of the reasons why the certificates of foreign pilots in England have been suspended, and I think it is an important consideration for the Committee. There is no proposal to limit the employment of foreign seamen on board of our vessels. But it is felt, not unnaturally, that foreign mercantile officers do not stand on the same footing as our own before the law, because we impose on our own severe tests and qualifications.
  MR. MURPHY: Mr. Courtney, I have listened with considerable interest to the whole of this debate, and I must say that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergus-son) has, by his speech, left my mind more confused upon the subject than it was before he spoke. That may, of course, probably be owing to my dulness of comprehension. I was always under the impression that this was a disabling Bill, curtailing some rights that had already existed or were supposed to exist; but, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, it is a Bill intended to extend certain privileges. I beg to remind hon. Gentlemen of the reply given by the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry De Worms) to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny). My hon. Friend asked whether, at present, there is power to withhold these certificates; and. whether, as a matter of fact, they are not withheld; and the hon. Gentleman (Baron Henry De Worms) answered in the affirmative, and added that there was some doubt on the subject, and it was proposed to clear the point up, which object would be attained by this Bill. He says that this opinion was given in the time of the Law Officers of the late Government; but I did not understand him to say whether the Board of Trade acted upon that opinion while the late Government was in Office. If the Government consider that they should support the decision come to by the Department, I wonder they have not brought in a Bill themselves. I wonder
  1746
  they have allowed a private Member to bring in a Bill to support the action of a Government Department. I have no doubt that the Government imagine there is a certain amount of odium attached to anything tainted with Protection, and that, therefore, they did not care to take such a Bill as this into their own hands. Disguise this question as you will, no matter what sophistry you use, this is Protection pure and simple—it is Protection as Protection is understood, and cannot by any possibility be disguised. You have only to extend the principle underlying this Bill to prevent the employment of foreign sailors or to prevent the employment of foreign clerks in this country. I shall vote against this Bill, because I believe it will be fraught with the utmost danger to the interests of this country, and to the principles upon which the trade of this country is founded.
  MR. C. T. D. ACLAND: Mr. Courtney, I think I am entitled to a definite answer from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade, as to whether he really does support the policy embodied in this Bill? I do not think it has been made at all clear that it is only in consequence of the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown given last year that the Board of Trade are now prepared to support a Bill really narrowing instead of enlarging their power.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I think I made my views upon this Bill perfectly clear. The reason why the late Law Officers did not carry out the suggestion was that their Government went out of Office.
  MR. DILLON: It is perfectly clear now why the Government abstained, as long as they possibly could, from taking part in the discussion upon this Bill. We have just listened to a remarkable speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson). What did he say? Drawing a distinction between the action and the policy of England and that of other nations, he said—"We have thrown our ports open to the Navies of the world." Are we to be told that the people of England are now going to turn their backs on that policy? Because that is what the statement of the right hon. Baronet amounted

  1747
  to. He said—"We have thrown our ports open to the Navies of the world;" and the inevitable conclusion to be arrived at is, that now restrictions are to be placed upon the freedom of the ports of England because foreign nations have not imitated the example of England. Why has England thrown her portsopen? Because she thought it would pay. And I should like to know whether we are to be told to-day that the experiences of free and open ports is a bad thing? The proposition is manifestly absurd. It is quite evident to me that this Bill has been introduced in the interest of some extremely narrow clique, and that it is a measure which would inevitably lead to bad feeling between England and foreign nations, and would unquestionably, if it were passed at this hour of the night (2.25), be repealed in the course of a year or two.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR(who was met by cries of "Divide!") said: I wish to give both the Government and hon. Gentlemen who cry "Divide!" clear notice that some of us are determined to oppose this Bill far beyond the present Motion. I shall use the Forms of the House to postpone the consideration of this measure until the House is full, and the Press and the country can thoroughly understand the provisions of the Bill. Nothing has made me so strong against this Bill as the speeches delivered from the Treasury Bench. One very remarkable argument was advanced by an hon. Gentleman opposite.' He said that—
  "Foreign pilots are allowed to gain a knowledge of our ports and our rivers which would he most perilous to us in time of war."
  Does the hon. Gentleman seriously put before an Assembly of reasonable men an argument like that in favour of a Bill of this kind? The hon. Gentleman had better go to school and learn something about the art of war; because if the hon. Gentleman knew anything about the art of war, he would know very well that in the pigeon-holes of all the War and Naval Offices of any Power which might come into any conflict with us there are perfectly clear and accurate maps of every single river and port in this country. Do hon. Gentlemen seriously think that foreign countries would be prevented from making war on this country because of the want of knowledge?
  1748
  I never heard a more grotesque or childish argument. What is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson)? The right hon. Gentleman was under the impression that his speech would have the effect of facilitating the progress of the Bill by removing misapprehension. I can only assure the right hon. Gentleman that his removal of any misapprehension with regard to the Bill will seriously impede the progress of the Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman made a confession with almost infantine frankness. He mentioned the Flushing Company, the masters of which would continue to have power of piloting their own vessels, and he said if they exercised the power they would be saved £12,000 a-year. Well, but the right hon. Gentleman has just established our whole case. That means that this Bill will fine the Flushing Company £12,000 a-year. What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He said that the present holders of these certificates would have their rights respected; but when the question was interjected, from this side of the House, whether their successors would have the same rights, the right hon. Gentleman answered in the negative, and the consequence is that the escape of the Flushing Company from a fine of £12,000 a-year depends on the longevity of the existing masters.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain what I meant to say. Of course, under the Bill, masters who have not previously held certificates will not secure them; but a Dutch steamer may be free of pilotage up the Thames, if it has a British officer holding a certificate on board.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOE: I wonder for what purpose the right hon. Gentleman got up to correct my statement, because his explanation, instead of being a contradiction, is a confirmation of my statement. Of course, a Flushing steamer would have the right to employ a British pilot. If the Dutch Company would oblige us by not employing a master of its own nationality, but of our nationality, it would escape the fine you desire to put upon it. That is to say, while we, on the one hand, are putting a penal enactment against the Dutch masters, the Dutch masters are obliging us in

  1749
  return by adopting the penal enactment against themselves, and employing a British master. A more grotesque proposition I never heard. We are fighting for a principle in this matter. I do not care what exceptions the Government may make. I do not care what vested rights they may respect. We mean to fight this matter, whether it refers to one man or to 10 men, or whether it refers to one class of men or to another class of men. We mean to fight it as a question of principle, and as a most dangerous interference with the best and beneficent traditions of the commercial policy of this country. I imagine hon. Gentlemen opposite have never read the history of the Navigation Laws of this country. Under the old Navigation Laws, the principle which is small in this Bill was represented in every part of our commerce. It was impossible under those laws to have any but English sailors and any but English masters, and the great and gigantic increase of our commerce dates from the abolition of those laws, and the abolition of all the miserable, narrow, bigoted, and reactionary principles embodied in those laws. Why, the country would be up in arms if they knew the principles of this Bill. What did the Government say in regard to this Bill? The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry De Worms) is a Liverpool Representative. At the last Election in Liverpool the cry was raised, not by me, but by some persons against the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), because of the action of the Government in regard to the mails. What was his defence? He said the Government had a right, on the principles of Free Trade, to get their work done by anybody, provided it was done with economy and efficiency, and in that the right hon. Gentleman was quite right. Although I was a bitter opponent of the right hon. Gentleman, I entirely sympathized with the doctrine he laid down in this matter. He said it was a degradation of politics to be raising the question of foreign and native labour on a question of that kind. Now, another Member of the Government, also a Member for Liverpool (Baron Henry De Worms) gets up and reverses this process, and now adopts that doctrine of favour shown
  1750
  to native over foreign labour, which his superior and his Colleague repudiated as the degradation of politics. I quite agree with an hon. Friend of mine, who has said that if you start this principle you cannot stop at pilots. Why do you give native pilots advantages over foreign pilots, and refuse to give native clerks advantages over German clerks? Thousands of clerks in London complain, and I sympathize with them to a very great extent, that their wages are reduced by the incursion into the country of German clerks, who are able to work for smaller wages, because they are able to live on more frugal diet. Will not the English clerks, if this Bill passes, have a perfectly unanswerable case in favour of giving them preference over German clerks? Unquestionably, the same principle which gives a preference to native pilots should give a preference to native clerks. Does anyone in his senses suppose that other nations will not retaliate upon us for conduct like this? There are no men in the world who have more to fear from the system of Protection to native over foreign labour than Englishmen. There is scarcely a country in the world where English capital is not employed, where Englishmen are not employed, where Englishmen do not superintend great commercial enterprizes. Under this Bill you prevent a German master piloting his own vessel. Suppose Germans say they will no longer have gasworks which are kept up by Englishmen. Suppose the Spanish people were to refuse to allow the mines of Spain to be entirely worked by English capital. I say that this is a monstrous principle, a principle not only reactionary in regard to England, but in regard to the whole world. I do not know what the idea of hon. Gentlemen opposite may be in regard to the future; but my idea of the future is that nations should be joined together in the bonds of sympathy and open to all. ["Oh!"] I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not care for bonds of sympathy, and I ought to apologize for mentioning them before Gentlemen of the Party opposite; but, unfortunately, the Party opposite plays a large part in the world's history. My idea of the future is evidently not such as that of some other hon. Gentlemen. Let every nation devote its labour to that which is

  1751
  best able to produce good results, and let the labour of all nations go to the commonwealth.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: Before we go to a Division I should like some further explanations from Her Majesty's Government, I see my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) in his place. Now I have a great deal of faith in his advice and in his sound common sense, and I appeal to him to use his good offices with his Colleagues to induce them to agree to this Motion, in order that the consideration of the measure may be postponed to a more opportune occasion. I confess I am alarmed by the last speech delivered from the Treasury Bench. Why, the heresy is spreading. In the first place, we had it from the Secretary to the Board of Trade that this would be retaliation. Now it has cropped up in a more dangerous form. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) has put, in the most naked form, the adoption of this principle of retaliation. He points to the fact that we do not receive the same consideration from other nations which we show to them. I hope that there is a determination on this side of the House, however, to stand by the decision taken up. It is impossible that this Bill can be allowed to go forth. It is a reversal, in most important respects, of the well-established principles of the country. The Bill has not been discussed as to its principle; and I hope, at any rate, we shall receive an assurance that some time will be allowed for the consideration of the principle involved in the Bill.
  MR. DILLWYN: I certainly support the appeal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Illingworth), and hope the Government will listen to us, and allow us to report Progress. When this Bill was brought on by the Member for Central Hull (Mr. King) it appeared a very small and insignificant matter. We certainly did not expect to find that it embodied such an important principle as we now find it to contain. Not very long before the consideration of the Bill came on, the hon. Member for Hull himself moved that the House be counted, and at that time the Benches opposite were absolutely empty. My hon. Friend the Member for the Launceston Division of Cornwall (Mr. C. T. D. Acland) called
  1752
  attention to the nature of the Bill, pointing out that what was really involved was not a small question, but the very large question of Protection, and the progress of the debate has clearly shown he was justified in that assumption. I appeal to Her Majesty's Government whether it is a reasonable request that so large and important a question as Protection should be discussed at 20 minutes to 3 o'clock in the morning, after there has been an attempt made by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to count the House, and when there is not a Cabinet Minister present? I hardly know who to appeal to. Certainly, this is a question which ought not to be discussed in the absence of the Leader of the House, or, at all events, of some Member of the Cabinet. I trust we shall now be allowed to report Progress.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST): That is exactly what lion. Gentlemen on these Benches wish to do. If the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Acland's) Motion is defeated we will allow Progress to be reported.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I understand that, when the captains of the Flushing Company die, that Company will be fined £12,000 a-year. Will the Government say whether I understand the position correctly?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to put us to the trouble of a Division. [Sir ROBERT FOWLER: Yes.] I was not speaking to the hon. Gentleman the late Lord Mayor of London, but to the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst), who made an offer just now which, as I understand it, is that the Government will agree to report Progress. What is the advantage of putting us to the trouble of a Division when, immediately afterwards, the Government will agree to the alternative method of postponement? I would suggest that the Motion "That the Chairman leave the Chair," which, of course, if carried, would be fatal to the Bill, be withdrawn.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I think there is very little difference between us. We are agreed that the present Motion is to be defeated. If that is done, the Government will agree to the Motion to report Progress.
  MR. BRYCE: There is some objection to the course suggested. We consider that this Bill must be debated, and debated before a full House. We hope to extract still more information from the Government. We hope to get definite answers upon points which they have not yet cleared up, and which we do not care to go into now. I think it is reasonable that my hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) should be allowed to withdraw his Motion that you, Sir, leave the Chair. [Cries of "No, no!"] If hon. Gentlemen will be kind enough to hear me out, they can express their dissent afterwards. I think it is reasonable that my hon. Friend should be allowed to withdraw his Motion, and that Progress should then be reported. The adoption of such a course will not prejudice the case at all.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem anxious to go to a Division in order to prove their majority. Some of us do not doubt their majority. We have discussed this question in a very quiet and amicable spirit—the Bill has its merits and its demerits—and I do not see much use in going to a Division upon a Motion which can be withdrawn.
  MR. C. T. D. ACLAND: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. ["No, no!"]
  MR. JOICEY: Many Members of the House who are shipowners are away. Surely this is a Bill which ought not to be discussed in their absence. This is a very important matter—it concerns the whole shipping interest; and I feel sure there are many shipowners absent from the opposite Benches who will go against the Bill. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite have a majority to-night, it is improbable they will have a majority when the Bill comes on again.
  MR. DILLON: We know what the object of the Government is; but I do not believe that their defeating the Motion before the Committee will have the smallest effect on the future vote which will be given on this Bill. I suppose a Division is to be forced on simply to gratify hon. Members who have sat here for all these hours in order to pass the Bill. That does not seem to me a fair way of carrying on a battle of this kind. ["Oh!"] No; it does not. There is not the smallest doubt that not one Member in 10 in
  1754
  this House had the slightest notion that this Bill was coming on to-night. It is not usual, when it is discovered that there is a strong opposition to a Bill, to insist on forcing on a Division, with a view of getting what looks like an advantage in a declaration in favour of the principle of that Bill. If hon. Members had been in a more reasonable spirit—["Oh, oh!"] Well, it is preposterous to think that we are going to allow this Bill to pass, when we know that, by taking the proper means to secure its being discussed in a full House, we shall be able to test its principle fully, and probably be able to defeat it. Hon. Members, if they had been reasonable, would have got home, and would have enabled us to get home, two hours ago. They should have known, from experience, that it is legitimate and usual for the opponents of a Bill to take this well-known method of preventing a Bill of this kind, which comes on unexpectedly, from being pressed on in a thin and almost deserted House. Everyone expected that the House would be counted out to-night; consequently, a great many Members of influence left. No doubt they would have remained had they dreamed of the possibility of this measure coming on.
  MR. BIGGAR: I should like to say one word to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who seem anxious to have a very late Sitting, and to inconvenience the great body of hon. Members present. I would point out that the course they are taking always tells more against the majority than the minority. If 40 Members on this side, and 80 on the opposite side, have been put to inconvenience, the inconvenience has been greater there than here. I always like to have a few points in my favour, and if I were hon. Gentlemen opposite I should not like to gamble when the points are two to one against me. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to reflect that they will be inconvenienced a great deal more, and still in the same proportion, by wasting further time on this precious Bill. So far as I am personally concerned, I have not suffered much inconvenience. I had rather a long sleep on the Benches, and am quite prepared to go into the Division Lobby. I think, however, that as the matter is in our favour, so far as the point of inconvenience is concerned, hon. Members

  1755
  opposite would do well to allow the Committee stage of the Bill to be postponed.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will think me reasonable and earnest in my desire to get the House out of a difficulty. It must be obvious to them that this Motion, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair" cannot be withdrawn. ["Why?"] Because there are a considerable number of Members on this side who will not allow it to be withdrawn. Hon. Members are perfectly aware that one single Member can prevent a Motion being withdrawn. I am appealing to the reason of hon. Members opposite. It must be quite obvious to them that there is more than one person on this side who will not permit the withdrawal of the Motion. It must, therefore, be disposed of by a Division. If hon. Gentlemen wish to avoid a Division, they can do so by not challenging the Chairman's decision, if he says "The Noes have it." If they do not challenge him, then the "Noes" will have it, and the Motion will fall to the ground, and Progress can then be reported.
  MR. CONYBEARE: If the Chairman should say, "The Ayes have it," are we to take it that his decision will not be challenged? [Cries of "Divide!"] If you are so anxious to have a Division, do not forget that we have good memories on this side of the House, and that it is just possible that, on another occasion, we may have more than one Division.
  MR. MURPHY: The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir John Gorst) pointed out to hon. Members on this side of the House that if only one Member on the other side challenges a Division, a Division will have to be taken. I would suggest to him that he should use his influence with the supporters of the Government to get them to assent unanimously to the withdrawal of the Motion.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 60.
  The Tellers reported the Numbers as Ayes 35; Noes 60:—
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to a point of Order before the Tellers leave the Table. I wish to ask if the return they have made includes the vote of the
  1756
  hon. Gentleman representing the South-Eastern Division of Lancashire (Mr. Maclure), who was in the Lobby, and was not allowed to pass through? I see the hon. Gentleman now entering the House from behind the Chair.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The matter must be explained before the Tellers retire.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR, rising: [An hon. MEMBER: Sit with your hat on.] I understand I must address you, Mr. Courtney, seated, with my hat on. I desire to inform you that the hon. Member to whom I have referred entered the "Aye" Lobby; that, as he was about to pass through, one of the Gentlemen connected with the Party opposite prevented him from doing so in the ordinary way, and compelled him to go back, and now I see he has entered the House from behind the Chair. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether he should not be required to pass through the-Lobby in the ordinary way, and then ask to have his vote removed from the "Ayes," on the ground that he has voted in the wrong Lobby? I ask the Tellers if the statement I have made is not correct?
  THE CHAIRMAN (to Mr. MACLURE): The hon. Gentleman will please come to the Table.
  MR. MACLUREaccordingly came to the Table.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Was the hon. Member in the House when the Question was put?
  MR. MACLUREmade no reply.
  An hon. MEMBER: Yes.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Was the hon. Member in the House?
  MR. MACLURE: No, Sir.
  THE CHAIRMAN: In the Lobby?
  MR. MACLURE: Yes.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Then he must be counted in the Lobby in which he was.
  The ASSISTANT CLERK made a communication to the Chairman.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am told my declaration is wrong. The hon. Gentleman was in the Lobby, and not in the House, and did not hear the Question put.
  MR. MACLURE: No; I did not hear the Question put.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Then the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to vote.
  The Numbers were then declared from the Chair, as reported by the Tellers, viz.:—Aye3 35; Noes 60: Majority 25.—(Div. List, No. 94.)
  The following is the Entry in the Votes:—
  The Tellers reported the Numbers as Ayes 35, Noes 60;—
  Notice taken that Mr. Maclure, Member for the N. E. Division of Lancashire, had been in the Division Lobby with the Ayes, but had not Voted:—
  Whereupon the Chairman directed the honourable Member to come to the Table:—
  Mr. Maclure, having come to the Table, stated that he had been in the Lobby, and had not heard the Question put:—
  The Chairman thereupon informed the honourable Member that he was not entitled to vote:—
  And declared the Numbers as reported by the Tellers, viz., Ayes 35, Noes 60.
  MR. M. J. KENNY: On the point of Order I wish to say—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The point of Order is settled.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREA-SURY (Mr. JACKSON): I beg to move, Sir, that you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Jackson,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
  Resolution [April 21] reported, and agreed to: Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Jackson.

  LIMITED OWNERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Select Committee on Limited Owners (Scotland) Bill nominated of,—Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Elton, Sir Herbert Maxwell, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. M'Lagan, Mr. Mark Stewart, Mr. Chance, and Mr. Haldane.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Haldane.)
  House adjourned at Three o'clock till Monday next.