Commons Sitting of 17 April 1888

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—First Report—Army Estimates [No. 120].
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (Special Report).
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Metropolitan Board of Works (Theatres, &c.), put off.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Queen Anne's Bounty* [211].
Second Reading—Local Government (England and. Wales) [182] [Fourth Night], debate further adjourned; Access to Mountains (Scotland) [103]; Liquor Traffic (Local Veto (Scotland) [106]; Fishing in Rivers [152]; Distress for Rent (Dublin) [159]; Stipendiary Magistrates (Pensions) [92], negatived; Steam Engines and Boilers [137],
put off; Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act (1886) Amendment (No. 2) [162], put off;
Partnership [206], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Glebe Lands * [180].
Withdrawn—Architects' Registration [81].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Metropolitan Commons (Farnborough) * [192]; Metropolitan Commons (Chislehurst and St. Paul's Cray) * [193]; Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) * [194].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (THEATRES, &c.) BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, that in bringing forward this Bill on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he would remind the House that it was essentially a continuation measure of the powers already given to the Metropolitan Board. At the time those powers were granted they were tentative. They were powers granted in response to a Report brought up by a Committee of the House whose recommendations were embodied in the Bill of 1878. Those powers referred, in the first place, to existing theatres; and, in the second place, to theatres which had to be built. In both cases the powers which were granted were only with regard to one certificate, and left out entirely the question of supervision which was necessary whenever any alteration was made in a theatre. It had since come to the knowledge of the Metropolitan Board of Works, in carry
    1464
    ing out the Act during the past nine years, that many theatres, which, in old times, had received a certificate from the Board, had been entirely altered, and altered in a manner which was not conducive to the public safety. The Bill, as it was now introduced by the Metropolitan Board, contained a provision that the Board should have power to enter the theatres, to examine them, and lay down such conditions as were necessary for the public safety. Those powers, however, could not be exercised arbitrarily, because there was a clause in the Bill providing arbitration wherever there was a difference between the proprietors of the theatre and the Metropolitan Board of Works. The opponents of the Bill had drawn up a manifesto which consisted of extracts from the report of a deputation to the Home Secretary last year, and the principal fault they found with the Board was that the powers now proposed to be conferred by the Bill had already been exceeded, and that requisitions had been made on the theatre proprietors which were not justified. Now that statement was absolutely false; because 98 per cent of the requisitions made upon the theatre and music-hall proprietors, both old and new, had been confirmed, and out of six appeals from theatre owners only 16 out of 93 requisitions made by the Board had been unconfirmed, while only 11 out of 105 requisitions made in regard to music halls were unconfirmed. One of the principal reasons why Parliament handed over to the Metropolitan Board the charge of theatres was to be found in the Report of a Committee which sat upon the subject, and it was because the Board had at its disposal a staff of officers who were accustomed to building, and because they had been made the authority for supervising the buildings erected in London. It was, therefore, thought that they were for those reasons the proper persons to have charge of the theatres as well. The present Bill could only be objected to by those theatre proprietors who had the intention of not carrying out their duty to the public by making alterations after they had received a certificate from the Board. He might refer to the Grand Theatre, which was burned down as lately as last December. On inquiry into that disaster, and on referring to the original plans under which

    1465
    the certificate of the Board was granted, it was found that a most serious alteration had been made after the certificate of the Board had been granted, and that a dwelling house had been constructed in the very centre of the theatre—namely, out of the smoking foyer in the front, and that bedrooms had been built over it as well. In the case of the Comedy Theatre two new houses had been added to the frontage of the theatre, and incorporated with it. In addition, they were built in an improper manner, without the walls which were necessary for preventing a fire from spreading from the stage to that part of the theatre set apart as the auditorium. He thought these were sufficient reasons why the Bill proposed by the Metropolitan Board should receive the assent of the House, and be referred to a Select Committee. One of the allegations of the opponents of the Bill was that during the nine years the Board had had charge of the theatres they had not overtaken the work they were called upon to do. As a matter of fact there had been, including old and new theatres, music halls, and places of entertainment, each covering an area of over 500 square feet, which was the minimum the Board could take action upon, a total of some 458 licensed upon inspection, in regard to which plans and elevations had been made by the Board. He thought that if the Metropolitan Board of Works were to be disestablished, as they were told, under another Bill now before the House, that still the Board would not be doing its duty if it were to relegate into futurity any provisions for the safety of the public which it felt necessary to carry out. As he understood from the newspapers that it was the intention of the Government to confide those duties to a future County Council, he would only say that he felt he should have done his duty in the interests of the safety of the public by pressing this Bill to a Division, so that those who declined either to bring in a Bill on the subject themselves, or to allow the Bill to go forward, should bear the blame of any catastrophe which might take place. He begged, therefore, to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Tatton Egerton.)
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving the rejection of the Bill introduced by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and he did so on the ground that, quite irrespective of the question how long the Metropolitan Board of Works was to remain in existence, it was most improper to be entrusted with the charge of the safety of the public in our theatres. When the Board asked for further powers, it was desirable for the House to look back to the powers they already possessed. In 1878 the Board obtained the powers with regard to the Metropolitan theatres which had been referred to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Egerton), but for four years—and he had already called the attention of the House to the fact—down to 1881, the Board made no movement at all. It was not until after the question was brought prominently before the House that the Board began to stir, and at that time the Home Secretary, who was then the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), stated officially that the Board had ample powers and everything that was necessary in regard to the supervision and safety of theatres. That answer was repeated year after year by the Chairman of the Board, the late Member for the Hornsey Division of Middlesex. The Metropolitan Board now maintained that they had not had sufficient powers in the past. Certainly they had not done their duty, for after the lapse of nine years, during which they maintained that they had ample powers, they now came to the House of Commons declaring that their powers were inadequate, and asking for the extension of them. The persons who were interested in the theatres and music halls in the Metropolis comprised a very numerous body, and represented a capital of between £2,000,000 and. £3,000,000 in the Metropolis alone, besides directly giving employment to 150,000 people, independent of those who were indirectly employed. These gentlemen were altogether opposed to the action of the Metropolitan Board. They did not object to inspection. On the contrary, they invited it; but they objected to the way in which it was carried on by the Metropolitan Board. They were quite willing that the Home Secretary, or any authority he might appoint, should

    1467
    inspect their theatres and carry out whatever alteration might be considered right and safe in the interests of the public. But they wanted the system to be carried out on steady and consistent lines year after year, and not to be conducted in the arbitrary and whimsical manner which had been adopted under the Metropolitan Board, so that it could never be known what was required to be done. One year a Committee of the Metropolitan Board went round to inspect the theatres and give instructions that certain alterations should be made, and when those alterations had been made, perhaps at the cost of thousands of pounds to the lessees and managers, three years afterwards another Committee was appointed that went round the theatres and said that all that had been done was wrong, and required such and such other alterations to be made, the result being that the lessees never knew whore they were, or what they had to do. Another question to which the proprietors of theatres objected was the loss of time involved. Owing to the red tape system of the Board, plans were lodged with them for many months without eliciting an answer. Lastly, it had been elicited by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the official appointed by the Board to look after these matters was the very official who was always applying to the theatrical managers for orders for admission, with an indication that unless he received boxes and orders, the work which the Board had power to do, and which was under his management, would be pressed forward. On all these grounds, he did not think that the Board was the proper authority to be entrusted with increased powers, and he, therefore, begged to move the rejection of the Bill.
    MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment. So far as the result of inquiry went, it was plain that the Metropolitan Board of Works had made a muddle and a mess of the inspection of the theatres of the Metropolis. Up to the present moment, a considerable amount of extra expense had been thrown upon the proprietors of theatres, and there was a possibility, if this Bill passed, that the rates of admission in some of the East End districts
    1468
    would be considerably increased. He also objected to any proposal for placing further powers in the hands of a moribund body like the Metropolitan Board of Works, who, no doubt, would muddle this matter as they had muddled many others.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    COLONEL HUGHESsaid, that as that occasion seemed to be seized by some hon. Members as an opportunity of throwing stones at the Metropolitan Board of Works, and as that was the constant practice of some Members who were opposed to the Board, he thought it would be in better taste, seeing that the Board was to be put upon its trial, that no observations should be made on either side meanwhile to prejudice the case. He was one of those who believed that the opening inquiry would redound to the credit of the Metropolitan Board, and that those who had made allegations against it would find that they had been misinformed. However, the immediate question before the House was whether additional powers should be given to the Metropolitan Board, for the continuous inspection of theatres, so that the Board might know that the arrangements they had sanctioned were being faithfully carried out from year to year. The best answer to the objection which had been raised with regard to giving additional powers to the Board was this—that before the Bill came into operation, or, at any rate, its operation could be deferred, a new body would have been created, and therefore the objection was a very frivolous one, that the Board were not the proper persons to have the charge of the theatres, seeing that in the course of another 12 months the Council of the County of London would have all the powers of the Board transferred to them, and would then be the authority to be entrusted with the control of all matters of this kind. If the additional powers sought by the Metropolitan Board were vested in the Home Secretary the Board would be very glad indeed to get rid of a very troublesome part of their work; but he understood that that responsibility was declined by

    1469
    the right hon. Gentleman, who thought, and probably rightly thought, that it would be better to leave it to the proposed new authority which was to represent the County of London in the future. He asked the House to consider the matter from that point of view. The Metropolitan Board, on various grounds, were desirous of leaving the law affecting the Metropolis in such a state that their successors would have the greatest possible assistance from it in discharging their duty. Experience, however, had shown the Metropolitan Board that their present powers were not sufficient. He could only claim for the Metropolitan hoard that there had been no serious disaster in the theatres since this jurisdiction had been given to them, and it was only for the purpose of making the jurisdiction more complete that the Bill had been introduced. When the proper time came the County Council would take over the duties of the Board, and he hoped that the unjust suspicion which seemed to prevail among certain persons as to the action of the Board would be removed. He begged to support the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down had expounded the extraordinary doctrine that when the Metropolitan Board brought in a Bill for further powers, it was bad taste on the part of the House to consider the matter of public notoriety. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knew very well that not only was an investigation now going on with regard to the Metropolitan Board of Works, but that, to a great extent, that investigation was deemed necessary on account of their action in reference to Metropolitan theatres. The hon. and gallant Member said that in all probability the Board would disappear in the course of 12 months. If that were so, why did the Board waste the money of the ratepayers in bringing in a Bill which was only to be in operation for a year? He hoped the Home Secretary would meet the question by distinctly stating that the Government objected to the provisions of the Bill. It had been intimated that, under the powers already vested in the Metropolitan Board, the officers of that body were always running about for orders for the theatres, and it had been proved that the whole Metropolitan Board of Works was a greedy, cadging body.
    MR. TATTON EGERTONrose to Order. He asked if it was competent for the hon. Member to speak of a public body as a "greedy, cadging body?"
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would withdraw the term, and say that the Board were the reverse. It was the habit of one Committee of the Board to visit the theatres and propose a series of alterations. Another Committee came in shortly afterwards, and altogether reversed the decision of their predecessors, requiring fresh alterations to be made. He would not say that the managers of theatres were ruined by this action, because they had a profitable business; but they were put to great annoyance and expense. He trusted that the matter would not be entrusted to the new County Council that was about to be called into existence. Instead of being the best authority, he was afraid that it would be almost as bad as the Metropolitan Board. He hoped the Home Secretary would have the courage to take over to the Home Office the power of looking into the condition of the theatres in regard to fires, and he believed that would be a change which would be satisfactory to the Metropolitan Members, and also to the public.
    MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, he looked upon the question purely from a public point of view. Prior to 1858, the duty of protecting the safety of the public visiting the theatres from the consequences of fire was vested practically in the Lord Chamberlain. Parliament in its wisdom passed an Act, in 1878, transferring the duty to the Metropolitan Board of Works; and, notwithstanding the attack made on the Metropolitan Board by the purist Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), he (Mr. Webster) asserted that the Board had done its duty to the Metropolis and to the people who frequented the theatres honourably, faithfully, strictly, and well. If an inquiry were to take place, he believed that that would be found strictly true. The Bill now before the House simply gave the Board continuance powers. At the present time they had power to inspect theatres and see that they were so constructed as to give security to life against fire; but they had no power to go in from year to year, and see that the theatres were in the same condition as

    1471
    they had been left. It was in the power of the Board to go down to the theatres now and to see that the passages and exits were in proper order; but, after having given their certificate, they had no further power to assert that everything had been kept in the same condition. That was an improper state of affairs, and ought not to be continued. All the Metropolitan Board asked was to have more continuance powers, so that they might, from time to time, inspect the theatres in the interest of the public. It was stated that the Metropolitan Board would cease to exist. It might, or it might not. In all probability it would; but the new County Council would have so many duties to discharge that it would have no time to go into the question of the protection of life in the theatres from fire. Therefore, the Metropolitan Board desired to place in the hands of the new Council the best Act of Parliament they could, and he could not believe that the House of Commons would say that it was undesirable to protect the public safety, either in the theatres of the Metropolis or elsewhere. The hon. Member for the Uxbridge Division of Middlesex (Mr. Dixon-Hartland), who moved the rejection of the Bill, and who appeared to have taken charge of all questions relating either to the rating of Londoners, or any matter in which Londoners were primarily interested, either in the administration of their local concerns or the protection of their lives and properties from the ravages of fire, presumed to know more about these questions than the Metropolitan Board and all the other authorities in London. Perhaps the hon. Member might not be aware that Petitions had come to the Metropolitan Board in favour of the Bill from various Local Boards in the Metropolis.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, he desired to say a few words on the Bill. He could not help regarding it as somewhat unnecessary under the circumstances. It was introduced on behalf of the Metropolitan Board of Works; but they did not know whether the proposals in the Local Government Bill with regard to London would be adopted or not. If they were, the existing powers of the Metropolitan Board would be
    1472
    transferred to the new Council. The hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. R. G. Webster) had a little under-stated the existing powers of the Board. He did not say that those powers were sufficient for the protection of theatres—probably they were not—but they were more extensive than the powers in the hands of any authority in the Provinces. The Act of 1878 gave the Metropolitan Board power to point out what works ought to be carried out in the structure of new theatres, and also to point out, within reasonable limits, what alteration should be made in old theatres. But the Board had also power, under the Act of 1882, to see that doors and exits were properly constructed. The greater theatres were in a much better condition as to safety and protection than theatres elsewhere; and whatever urgency there was in the matter with regard to the Metropolis, there was more urgency with reference to the Provinces. As had been pointed out, the Local Government Bill proposed to transfer the powers of the Metropolitan Board to the new Council of the County of London. Perhaps, under the circumstances, the best course would be to wait and see how the Local Government Bill went on; but it might not be impossible before the Bill left the House to introduce clauses in that part of it which related to the new Council of the County of London in regard to the inspection of theatres. But, be that as it might, the present moment seemed to him to be inopportune for giving further powers to what he might call a moribund body, which would probably never have an opportunity of putting those powers into force.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 144: Majority 126.—(Div. List, No. 71.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—NEWPORT COUNTY COURT —INSUFFICIENT AND DEFECTIVE ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the First Com

  1473
  missioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the statements contained in a Memorial sent to the Judge of the County Court at Newport, Monmouthshire, by the barristers practising there and 70 Solicitors, as to the insufficient and defective accommodation provided for the sittings of the Court, and for the offices; and, what steps he will take to provide a proper Court and offices?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): My attention has, from time to time, been called to the insufficient accommodation afforded in the County Court referred to, which is held on a lease expiring at Christmas, 1889. With the view of meeting the difficulty temporarily, it was arranged in January, 1886, that the sittings of the Court should be transferred to the new Town Hall, which had then just been completed, and to the use of which, and also of the building erected and used by the County Justices, the Government were entitled for County Court purposes under the provisions of the Act 13 & 14 Vict., c. 61, s. 24. Ample accommodation is afforded in these buildings for all the County Court business, but the transfer has never been carried out; because the Local Authorities appear to have been unable to make arrangements for the occupation of the Town Hall on two consecutive days in those weeks in which the County Court sits. Such arrangements are found possible in other towns where the County Court business is larger than at Newport; and I have recently informed the Memorialists, who have prayed for improved accommodation, that I must look to the Local Authorities to afford every possible facility to the Government in making arrangements which are primarily for the benefit of the town without entailing unnecessary expenditure on National Funds.

  FISHERIES (SCOTLAND)—APPLECROSS BAY.
  DR. R. MACDONALDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the placing of numerous posts, with iron hooks attached, by Lord Middleton, in Applecross Bay, was in accordance with 29 Geo. II., c. 22, s. 1, which, inter alia, enacts that—
  "If any person or persons whatsoever shall obstruct or hinder any person or persons from
  1474
  fishing in moonlight nights, or at any other time whatsoever, in all or any or in any part of the said seas, &c., such person shall for every such offence respectively forfeit the sum of £100 sterling;"
  whether it is his intention to prosecute Lord Middleton for the above penalties; and, whether he is aware that, since attention has been drawn to the subject, Lord Middleton has begun to remove the obstruction referred to therein?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I cannot give any answer as to the legality or illegality of acts done upon a bare statement in a Question, and without knowledge of the particulars. I have already informed the hon. Member that no persons have fished, or attempted to fish, in the place referred to, and it follows that no person has been obstructed or hindered. I answer the last paragraph in the negative.
  DR. CAMERONasked, whether the Lord Advocate would cause inquiry to be made to ascertain whether the facts were as stated in the Question?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: The Act to which my hon. Friend refers is an Act to prohibit any person from obstructing or hindering a person from fishing. I have stated that, as a matter of fact, no person has been obstructed or hindered; and therefore I do not see any cause for an inquiry.

  BURMAH—DISARMAMENT OF THE BURMESE.
  MR. ALLISONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Burmah correspondent of The Times, on the 9th instant, that the recent policy of disarming the Burmese population has been a lamentable mistake; whether the policy is being still pursued; and whether any papers will be laid upon the Table of the House in reference to the subject, and the grounds on which it was adopted?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST) (Chatham): The Secretary of State for India has seen the statements alluded to in the Question. The official documents received from India do not, however, bear out the description of the policy of dis

  1475
  armament and its results given by The Times correspondent. The Secretary of State has no reason to think that the action of the Chief Commissioner has been mistaken, or to interfere with its continuance. The Secretary of State does not see any present necessity for laying Papers on the subject before the House; but I shall be glad to show them to the hon. Member.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ALLEGED OUTRAGE BY A POLICE CONSTABLE AT PORTUMNA.
  MR. H. J. WILSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on Tuesday, 3rd April, 1888, Constable Courteney (or Coatenay), of Ballyshrule Barrack, near Portumna, killed, or caused the death of, a cow belonging to Andrew Keane, of Bally-glass; whether the constable was found in the cowshed with the dying cow; whether he paid the owner £6 as compensation and hush-money on Thursday 5th April; whether at places where this constable has been on "protection duty" a sheep and a horse have died mysteriously by violence; and, whether, on the unsupported evidence of this constable, six young men in the district of Portumna were recently imprisoned for alleged intimidation, while two others only escaped punishment by establishing an alibi, though he had sworn positively against them also? He wished also to add to the Question a paragraph which had been struck out after he had handed it in. It was, whether if this Constable Courteney had not been caught redhanded causing the death of the cow, this death of the cow would have appeared as an agragrian outrage?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The latter part of the Question was struk out by myself as being irregular.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I will content myself with dealing with the Question on the Paper. The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that the constable referred to, in a state of drunkenness, entered the cowhouse and lay down. The owner subsequently entered and charged the constable with killing a cow which was lying dead there. The constable thereupon offered him £6 compensation, and subsequently paid it
  1476
  to him. The district inspector, however, reports that the sergeant in charge of the station inspected some 36 hours after-wards the carcase of the cow, and found it in a state of decomposition, and from its condition considered it could not have been killed by the constable as alleged, and the general impression among the people in the district carries out this view. There does not appear to be any ground for the allegation that while the constable was on protection duty in other places a horse and a sheep died mysteriously by violence. As regards the last paragraph, six men were convicted, not on the unsupported evidence of the constable, but on the testimony of four constables, this man being one. In the case of one only of the two men who were acquitted did this constable give evidence.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the sergeant reports that the appearance of the cow when it was only one day dead precluded the idea that it had been killed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: So I understand?

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—JUDICIAL RENTS—RETURNS.
  MR. CAREWasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will grant the Returns asked for by the hon. Member for North Meath (Mr. Mahony), one relating to Judicial Rents in Ireland and the other to the population of Poor Law Electoral Divisions?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Departments concerned report that it would not be practicable to furnish the Returns referred to without a serious interruption of their public business. I therefore regret I cannot undertake to consent to their being called for.

  THE TRUCK LAW—THE RHYMNEY IRON COMPANY.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether breaches of the Truck Law by the Rhymney Iron Company have, during the past two months, been reported to the local Factory Inspector and to the Government, and what action has been, or will be,

  1477
  taken therein; whether the Rhymney Company has been several times prosecuted for similar offences, and on what occasions; and, whether the same Company was specially reported against by the Commission on Truck 20 years since?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; complaints have been made, and are now the subject of inquiry. I am not prepared to say at present whether it will be possible to procure legal evidence, or what action will be taken. The Rhymney Iron Company have been twice prosecuted for offences under the Truck Act, in 1885 and 1886. An account of the proceedings of this Company is appended to the Report of the Royal Commission on Truck of 1871.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— HOLYHEAD HARBOUR—THE PLATTERS ROCKS.
  MR. LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the facts contained in the Memorial presented to the Board of Trade by the Holyhead Local Board in July last, showing the great necessity, in the interest of shipping generally, as well as for the safety of the Holyhead steamers, that the Platters Rocks in the harbour be removed, are correct; whether the Government received a Memorial from the Incorporated Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool, in support of the above-mentioned Memorial, stating that they had consulted the principal Shipping and Underwriting Associations of that port, and found that they all agree that the removal of the rocks in question would be greatly increasing the harbour of refuge accommodation, and prevent the loss of many lives and much valuable property; whether the Government received a similar Memorial from the Committee of Lloyd's, as well as from several other influential Bodies, to the same effect; and, whether the Government, if not prepared to have the rocks removed, intend to have one of the other two schemes, that have been for years under the consideration of the Government, carried out—namely, either to build over the Platters, leaving entrance on each side to the inner harbour, or to run a pier from the Salt Island on the rocks?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Board of Trade have received the various Memorials referred to by the hon. Member on the subject of the removal of the Platters Rocks; but I am not prepared, within the limits of a reply, to express an opinion on all the statements which have been made therein. Neither of the schemes referred to by the hon. Member in the last paragraph of his Question has for some years been under the consideration of the Board of Trade; but they appear to have been suggested under different circumstances before part of the present breakwater was made.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL— LEGISLATION.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, When he proposes to introduce the Technical Instruction Bill?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): I hope to introduce the Technical Instruction Bill so soon as substantial progress has been made with the Local Government Bill.

  ARMY—HARWICH HARBOUR—CLOSING ENTRANCE DURING RIFLE PRACTICE ON LANDGUARD COMMON.
  COLONEL ANSTRUTHERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the War Office intend closing the entrance to Harwich Harbour during rifle practice on Landguard Common; and, whether such a step is taken with the consent and advice of the Board of Trade and of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): No, Sir; I understand that there is no such intention.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has authorized the War Office to close the deep water channel into Harwich Harbour?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Board of Trade, after holding a local inquiry, gave, on the 29th of October last, the consent required by the Artillery and Rifle Ranges Act, 1885, to the bye-laws which the Secretary of State for War

  1479
  had made. The bye-laws will not prevent vessels entering and leaving Harwich Harbour passing through the range, as they provide that firing is to cease during the passage of vessels.

  SCOTLAND—THE IMPRISONED TIREE CROFTERS.
  DR. R. MACDONALDasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the three imprisoned Tiree crofters were persuaded by the Edinburgh Prison authorities to sign a document acknowledging the illegality of their actions, and promising, if the Lord Advocate would recommend a commutation of their sentence, to go home at once to Tiree, and not to attend any public meetings in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Greenock, or elsewhere, nor to encourage in any way those who attack the administration of the Law; and, whether the said document was explained to them, before they appended their signatures, in their own language—Gaelic.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities): I do not believe that the Prison Authorities interfered in this matter at all, and I never had any communication with them on the subject. A gentleman connected with benevolent Societies in Glasgow came to Edinburgh and visited the prisoners; and then wrote to me as the result of what he described as a "long and interesting conversation," that they asked him "strongly to say on their behalf" that—
  "If they are let out of prison now, and allowed to go home in peace, that they will always prove themselves the most law-abiding and very best friends of law and order in Tiree."
  This was the very first communication received on the subject. I directed a reply to be sent, in which it was stated that—
  "The Lord Advocate was not prepared to take any step that may tend to alter the course of law, if, as on a former occasion, those who have broken it are to be received and fêted as innocent persons on the Royal prerogative of mercy being extended to them."
  I received a reply from the same gentleman—a document written in his hand-writing, and signed by the prisoners, containing, inter alia, the statements referred to in the Question. The gentleman in the covering letter stated that the paper had been drawn by himself,
  1480
  and "carefully considered" by the prisoners. A letter to him from the prisoners' solicitor was also enclosed, indicating that they were in communication on the subject.

  SCOTLAND—THE CROFTERS' COMMISSION—SITTING AT GAIRLOCH.
  DR. R. MACDONALDasked the Lord Advocate, If it is true, as reported in The Scottish Highlander of this week, that the first cases to be heard at the opening of the Land Court at Gairloch, on Monday morning next, refer to crofters resident at a distance of 16 to 18 miles from the place where the Court is to be held; and, if so, whether some arrangement could be made by which cases near the Court were taken at the beginning of the sitting, so that reasonable facilities might be given to people who have to travel such long distances to put in an appearance later on in the day?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD), in reply, said, the greatest distance crofters had to come for the Court yesterday was eight miles—six by road, and two by boat—not 16 or 18, as stated by The Scottish Highlander. All those cited appeared in good time, made no complaint of inconvenience, gave their evidence, and were free to return home before 4 o'clock, and would reach home long before darkness set in.

  PROVIDENT ASSOCIATION OF LONDON (LIMITED).
  DR. CLARKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that a Company, calling itself the Provident Association of London (Limited), carrying on business which has been described by the Managing Director as that of both an Insurance Association and a Building Society, offers to the representatives of deceased members, beneficial advantages to which living members are not entitled, under the Rules of the Association; whether a Company carrying on business of this nature is required, under the provisions of "The Insurance Companies Act, 1870," to deposit with the Accountant General the sum of £20,000; and, whether this Company has complied with this provision of the Statute?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I am informed that the Memorandum and Articles of the Company referred to by the hon. Member were first produced at the Office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies on the 29th of April, 1884; but were referred back for the Objects Clause to be so amended as to make it quite clear that life insurance was not included. This was done, the words added to the Memorandum being—
  "Provided that nothing herein contained shall authorize the Company to grant annuities or assurance on human life."
  With this amendment the registration was allowed without the deposit of the £20,000 being made. I further understand that, since the date of registration, nothing is known of the Company, except that the Registrar has received regularly the Annual Returns, and has filed a copy of one immaterial Special Resolution. If any facts are brought under the notice of the Board of Trade, showing that the business of life assurance is being carried on by the Company, I will direct that further inquiry be made as regards the position of the Company under the Act referred to.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE BARROW DRAINAGE WORKS.
  MR. MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the plans proposed by the Government Engineer for the Barrow Drainage Works have now been condemned as unsuitable, and if, in consequence, the Bill to enable the project to be carried out, for which Parliamentary Notices were published last November, will have to be abandoned; what were the superior qualifications of the engineer and his principal assistants, who have been employed on the Barrow and Shannon Drainage Schemes, which made their appointments necessary or desirable, to the exclusion of engineers resident in Ireland, who had for many years made a special study of the improvement of those Rivers; and, what do the Government now propose with regard to the carrying out of those important National works?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The hon. Member appears to be under a
  1482
  misapprehension as to the plan that has been prepared for dealing with the matter. It will be brought before the House as soon as the condition of Public Business admits of it. As regards the officers employed, the chief engineer is an Irishman by descent, and was selected for the special experience acquired by him when engaged on extensive hydraulic works in South Africa. All his engineering assistants are Irishmen, who were selected with a due regard to their qualifications.

  PRISON REGULATIONS (IRELAND) —RULE 24.
  MR. MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Prison Rules provide (Rule 24) that—
  "During the whole of his sentence, when it does not exceed one month, and during one month of his sentence when it exceeds one month, a convicted criminal prisoner shall have to lie on a plank bed;"
  but that by industry and good conduct he may—
  "Earn a gradual remission of this requirement after the expiration of one month;"
  whether it is the invariable practice in Ireland to require that the first month of any term of imprisonment shall be spent on the plank bed; whether this practice deprives the prisoner of the possibility of earning any remission of the plank bed punishment which the Rule contemplates; whether, in case of imprisonment for longer terms than one month, the plank bed requirement will be postponed till after the first month to give the prisoner an opportunity of earning the remission provided by the Rule; whether a man named Corny, lately discharged from Kilmainham Prison, spent three months on the plank bed during a single imprisonment; whether it is a common practice in Irish prisons to punish with longer terms of plank bed than one month; and, whether there is any Law or Rule for such punishments; and, if not, will they be put a stop to? He called the attention of the Chief Secretary specially to paragraph 5 of the Question.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The reply to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. The practice does deprive the prisoner from earning any re-

  1483
  mission during the first month; no such remission, however, is contemplated in the Rule. The Prisons Board have no power to adopt the course suggested in the 4th paragraph. A prisoner named Corny spent some 74 nights on the plank bed; but this was due to his misconduct. In Ireland the plank bed is only continued beyond a month in cases of misconduct; whereas in England, under a similar Rule, the plank bed, as a general practice, is continued beyond a month until remission is earned by industry and good conduct.
  MR. MURPHY: Have the Irish Prisons Board power to order the plank bed beyond the first month? Is not their power restricted to putting a prisoner on bread and water?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I understand they have power to order the plank bed.

  PRISON REGULATIONS (IRELAND)— RULE 105.
  MR. MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Prison Regulations (Rule 105) provide that the surgeon may, in case of danger or difficulty, call in medical assistance; whether there is anything in the Rules to limit the discretion of the surgeon in selecting the medical assistance he will call in; whether a Circular has been sent from the Irish Prisons Board to Governors of gaols, requiring them to submit a list of names of medical practitioners whom they may consider suitable in their districts for the purpose of being called in consultation; and, whether the Prisons Board are justified in attempting to fetter the discretion of the prison surgeons in this matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Rule is as stated, and a Circular has been issued as mentioned. The appointment of Medical Officers of Prisons requires the sanction of the authorities; and it seems to me to be certainly within the spirit of the Rules that some effective control should be exercised as to the selection of consulting physicians.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—ENCROACHMENTS ON WASTE AND COMMON LANDS.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMSasked the President of the
  1484
  Local Government Board, Whether he will insert in the Local Government Bill provisions for giving to the District Councils power, by summary proceedings before Justices, to prevent encroachments on waste and common lands?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): There is nothing in the Local Government Bill which will interfere with powers of the nature of those referred to being conferred hereafter upon District Councils; but, for the reasons which I have more than once mentioned in the House, the Government are unwilling to insert provisions in the Bill for an amendment of the law, however desirable the amendment may be, which are not essential for the purposes of the Bill.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSION SITTINGS IN CO. TYRONE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Tyrone Sub-Commission, announced to commence its sittings on the 1st of May next, will be confined to the hearing of fair rent applications from the Unions of Omagh, Castlederg, Strabane, Gortin, Irvinestown, and Enniskillen; whether the entire Division of South Tyrone, embracing the baronies of Middle and Lower Dungannon, and Closher, will be excluded by this arrangement; and, when cases from this large agricultural district are likely to be heard?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me that the sitting of the Sub-Commission in County Tyrone, which will commence on the 1st of May, will be confined to cases from the Unions named in the first part of the Question. The Sub-Commission will take up cases from the other Unions of the county in June next.

  STATE OF IRELAND—REFUSING TO SELL BREAD TO EMERGENCY MEN.
  MR. FLYNN(for Mr. J. O'CONNOR)asked the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Michael Russell, Thomas Connors, and Miss Connors, were in January this year convicted of conspiracy for refusing to sell bread to Emergency men, and sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment;

  1485
  whether, on appeal to the County Court, Judge Wall agreed to state a case for a Superior Court, and afterwards refused to state it; whether warrants for the arrest of the accused were issued on the 1st of February; whether they were not arrested until the 15th of March, when the Superior Courts had closed their sittings, and when it was then impossible for the prisoners' solicitor to apply for writ of habeas corpus, as he had announced his intention of doing on the refusal of the County Court Judge to state a case; and, whether he will state the cause of the delay in executing the warrant?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Question of the hon. Member. Michael Russell, Thomas Connors, and Jane Connors were convicted and sentenced for conspiring to refuse to sell, as stated in the Question. They appealed; and the County Court Judge affirmed the sentences on Russell and Thomas Connors, and allowed the case against Jane Connors to stand over to next Quarter Sessions. The County Court Judge, on being asked to state a case, said he would look into the matter and see if he had power to do so. He did subsequently refuse to state a case. The announcement of the County Court Judge's decision was not made known until some days after the 1st of February. The issue of the warrants was then referred to the Resident Magistrates, who originally tried the case, and when they were signed their execution was carried out as soon as practicable. The Divisional Magistrate states that the prisoners' solicitor did not announce his intention of applying for a writ of habeas corpus. The prisoners' case, however, was in no way prejudiced; inasmuch as although the regular sittings of the Courts had terminated, a vacation Judge has always been accessible, who would have full jurisdiction to hear such an application.

  POST OFFICE (ENGLAND AND WALES) —ROBBERY AT THE CHARTERHOUSE STREET POST OFFICE.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If any investigation has taken place as to the robbery at the Charterhouse Street Post
  1486
  Office; and, how the police, when a hole existed in the shutters and the gas was alight, could have allowed a large safe to be removed and a meal enjoyed in the office?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have received a Report from the Commissioner of Police as to this robbery; and he informs me that there is no shutter at this Post Office, but a boarding so high that only a tall man can see over it, and there is no hole in it. The safe was removed by the thieves from the front office into the back, and the meal was enjoyed not in view of the street, but down in the basement. My hon. Friend must bear in mind that it is impossible for a constable on his beat to keep observation on one house; but the practice of keeping gas alight and having holes in the shutters is of great aid to the police.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF MAIN ROADS.
  MR. LEAKEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the fact that under Clause 15, section 2, of the Local Government Bill, a County District retaining under its own care the maintenance and repair of main roads within the district, will only be entitled to receive from the County Council one-half the cost of such maintenance and repair under "The Highways and Locomotive Act, 1878," and will lose the present grant in aid from the Exchequer; and, whether, inasmuch as such an enactment will tend to throw the maintenance and repair of main roads entirely on County Councils, and discourage that local, and in great part voluntary, superintendence which is so essential to efficient work and economical expenditure, he will so amend Clause 15, that a County District wishing to retain the charge of its own main roads shall not be in a worse financial position than are the present Local Authorities in similar circumstances?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE), in reply, said, the contributions from County Councils would be based, not on one-half the expenditure, but on the total expenditure on account of the maintenance of county roads.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—LICENSING DIVISIONS.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will have any objection to reduce the numbers stated in Clause 10, section 2, of the Local Government Bill from 50,000 to 45,000 as regards the boroughs or urban districts to be constituted by the County Councils as separate Licensing Divisions, in order that the nine boroughs specially affected in that respect may not be excluded; and, whether he will take into special consideration the question of boroughs—such as Great Yarmouth, Wigan, Hastings, and Barrow—which were in 1881 under 50,000, but are now about 50,000 or above it, and will recognize the unfairness of tacking on neighbouring villages to such boroughs to form Licensing Districts?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I am afraid I can only say that if, when the clause referred to in the Local Government Bill is reached in Committee, an Amendment is moved to the effect of that suggested, the Government will be prepared to give the proposal their consideration.

  THE FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—THE WHEEL TAX.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can see his way to relieve the fishing industry, which is at the present time in distress, as well as the agricultural interest, of the proposed Wheel Tax, the fishing carts being in most cases necessarily, owing to the rough nature of their work, over 10 cwt., and a very large number of extra carts being only employed for a small portion of the year in the height of the fishing season for rapid loading and unloading?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, he could not undertake to relieve the fishing industry from the Wheel Tax. No person would be obliged to pay the tax for more vehicles than he possessed horses. The weight of the carts would be a matter for consideration.

  PARKS (METROPOLIS)—ST. JAMES'S PARK.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is with his sanction that grass is being laid down along portions of the side of the Lake in St. James's Park, and railings are being erected, whereby children are debarred from their accustomed access to the water; and, whether it is intended to extend this process so as entirely to exclude for the future children from having access to the Lake?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET), in reply, said, it was true that grass was being substituted for the unsightly flints which lined a portion of the Lake, and that railings were being put up to protect the grass whilst it was growing. So far as the railings had the effect of keeping the children away from what the hon. Member termed their "accustomed access to the water," he thought it would be a good thing, as he did not know what they wanted to have access to the water for, except to fall in.
  MR. S. SMITHpointed out that children were in the habit of sailing boats in the Lake.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he believed that the railings would not go all round the water.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF MAIN ROADS.
  MR. CALEB WRIGHTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in the case of an Urban Authority which claims to retain the powers and duties of maintaining and repairing a main road within the district of such Authority, will the County Council contribute the full annual amount, based on the average of three years' expenditure on the road previous to the passing of the Act, or only pay the amount now contributed under the Highways Amendment Act of 1878, which is only one-half?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The contribution of the County Council in the case referred to will be based not on one-half of the expenditure in respect of the maintenance of the road prior to the passing of the Act, but on the total ex-

  1489
  penditure on account of the maintenance of the road.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—POSTAL ACCOMMODATION AT CARLOW.
  MR. CAREWasked the Postmaster General, What is the reason of the delay in providing better accommodation for the post office business at Carlow; whether representations have been made by the Town Commissioners and traders of the town to the effect that the present post office building is wholly unsuited to the requirements of the district; and, whether those representations have been admitted by the Inspector of the Post Office; and, if so, when steps will be taken to provide increased accommodation?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET)said, the Postmaster General, who was on a Committee, had asked him to answer the Question. It was true that representations had been re-received from Carlow as to the need of better accommodation for the post office business in that town. It had not been possible as yet to complete inquiries; but no time would be lost in doing so, and in coming to a decision on the subject.
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it has not already taken about a year to get to the present state of the negotiations; and whether it always takes a year to complete the purchase of a site?
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he was not in a position to admit that.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT—THE MEDICAL STAFF CORPS.
  DR. CLARKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the new General Order restricting the enlistment of men for the Medical Staff Corps to three years Army and nine years Reserve service has been considered or approved of by the Director General; and, whether he has considered that the result of the new Regulations may be, that the men of the Corps will scarcely have become skilled in their nursing duties as orderlies when they will be removed and replaced by raw, unskilled men?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE):
  1490
  Every Army Order is issued on the responsibility of the Secretary of State, after consultation with his professional advisers. The importance of having a large reserve of trained men of the Medical Staff Corps available in war time is so great that the disadvantage of a somewhat curtailed training must be faced.

  SCOTLAND—THE CROFTERS' COMMISSION—REDUCTION OF RENTS.
  DR. CLARKasked time Lord Advocate, Whether he has seen the statement in The Scottish Leader of 13th April, that the Crofters' Commission has reduced the rents of Lord Lovat's crofters from £995 to £689, although Lord Lovat reduced the same rents about 18 months ago from £1,202 to £995; and, whether the statement is accurate?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): I have not seen the statement, and have not as yet any official Report to enable me to say whether it is accurate.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE GRANT FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE INDOOR POOR.
  SIR TINDAL ROBERTSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, under the provisions of the Local Government Bill, the proposed grant of 4d. per head per day towards the maintenance of the indoor poor will be a permanent yearly grant, or whether the grant will be distributed by the Board for one year only after the election of the County Councils, and will then be discontinued; and, whether, under the Bill, the grants in aid with respect to lunatics in asylums and the salaries of parochial medical officers and teachers in workhouse schools will be withdrawn?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): The Local Government Bill contemplates that the payment at the rate of 4d. per head per day in respect of the maintenance of indoor paupers shall be paid annually, and not only during the first year after the constitution of the County Councils. The grants which have hitherto been paid by the Government in respect of pauper lunatics in

  1491
  asylums, and salaries of Poor Law medical officers and teachers in Poor Law schools, will, under the Bill, be paid by the County Councils out of the funds raised by the Licence Duties in their counties.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked, whether the County Council would have the power to raise or lower this payment in respect of the maintenance of indoor paupers?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—REMOVAL OF DR. C. RONAYNE, OF YOUGHAL, FROM THE COMMISSION OF THE PEACE.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the statement in the public prints—namely, that Dr. Charles Ronayne, of Youghal, has been removed from the Commission of the Peace, is true; and, if so, whether he would state the grounds on which the Lord Chancellor has acted in this matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I understand it is the case that the Gentleman referred to has been removed from the Commission of the Peace. The grounds on which the Lord Chancellor acted seem to be fully set forth in the correspondence which I observe has appeared in the Daily Press.
  MR. CLANCY: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to be courteous enough to state the grounds upon which the removal was effected.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the matter did not rest with him, but with the Lord Chancellor. He would, however, if the hon. Gentleman desired, ask the Lord Chancellor if there was anything to add, or which could be added?
  MR. CLANCY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Dr. Ronayne was not removed from the Commission of the Peace simply for issuing a proclamation enjoining the preservation of the peace at a public meeting?
  [No reply.]

  INLAND REVENUE—AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR LICENCES FOR THE SALE OF SPIRITS, &c.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the Secretary to
  1492
  the Treasury, What amount was received in the Metropolis during the last financial year for licences for the sale of spirits, wine, and beer; and, what amount was received for establishment licences?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY) (Wigton) (who replied)said, the information that could be furnished at present would be imperfect; and it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to wait until more accurate figures could be furnished.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I think it would be well that we should have information upon these points as soon as possible. I wish now to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether having regard to the general desire for the fullest information as to the financial aspect of his proposal, he will lay upon the Table a Return showing the amounts paid for existing licences and the taxation proposed to be transferred to each county; secondly, the amounts of the Treasury grants paid to each county; thirdly, the proportion of the Probate Duty which it is estimated each county will receive on the basis of its indoor pauperism; fourthly, the estimated amount expended in respect of main roads; and, fifthly, the general county expenditure to which the whole county will be assessable. If the right hon. Gentleman will give the information it will save time and be of great service.
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE)asked the right hon. Gentleman to place Notice of the Questions upon the Paper.

  AGRICULTTTRAL DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.
  MR. NORTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can give the House any further information with regard to the formation of the new Department of Agriculture?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): A Bill to create the now Department is in draft, and is receiving the careful consideration of the Government. I hope it will be in our power to introduce it very shortly.

  LAND IMPROVEMENTS (IRELAND).
  MR. MURPHYasked the First Lord of the Treasury,

  1493
  Whether he is aware that the promotion of drainage schemes and kindred land improvements under existing legislation is almost at a standstill in Ireland in consequence of the Report of the Royal Commission for Public Works, and the expectation that fresh legislation on this subject will be introduced by the Government; and, whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to proceed with legislation in this direction in the present Session, or at all; and, if not, will an authoritative announcement to that effect be given to put an end to the present state of uncertainty?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am not aware that the promotion of drainage schemes and kindred land improvements is at a standstill in Ireland at the present moment. The subject has not been brought under my notice. One of the Bills in question, as a result of the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works, is now practically ready; but the hon. Gentleman is aware that there are other Irish measures before the House; and the Government do not think it right to introduce these Drainage Bills until some progress has been made with other Irish legislation, and there is a reasonable prospect of our being able to carry these Bills through the House without unnecessary delay.
  MR. MURPHY: Am I to understand that there is some prospect of carrying measures of this kind this Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: We certainly hope and intend to do so.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) — GRIEVANCES OF THE NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR,asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government are prepared to furnish means to the Administration in Ireland to deal with the grievances of the National school teachers?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government are not prepared to ask Parliament for increased Votes for the remuneration of Irish National school teachers. Any increase should come from local and not from Imperial sources.

  LIMITED LIABILITY LAW AMENDMENT—LEGISLATION.
  MR. J. M. MACLEANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now state when the Bill of the Government for the Amendment of the Law of Limited Liability will be introduced in the House of Lords?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It is not possible to state any particular date; it will be introduced as soon as possible.

  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND)—BREAK —WATER AT MUTTON ISLAND, CO. GALWAY—EMPLOYMENT OF CONVICTS.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government intend to take early steps to locate convicts at Galway for the purpose of connecting Mutton Island with the main land, as recommended by the Committee of which Lord Cross was a member?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The proposal to construct a breakwater from Mutton Island was considered by the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works, and they reported that the large expenditure of public money which such a scheme would involve should be postponed in favour of the many more urgent demands upon the public purse which exist. Under these circumstances, the Government are not prepared to take any early steps in the matter.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES)— LEGISLATION.
  MR. KENYONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, How he intends to carry out his promise of furthering a Bill for the Promotion of Intermediate Education in Wales during the present Session?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): By the introduction of a Bill at a later period should opportunity be afforded.
  MR. KENYON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the action taken by one of his Colleagues last night in opposing the second reading of a Bill dealing with the subject was in furtherance of his pledge to legislate on it?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought the course to which the hon. Member referred was consistent with the duty which the Government owed to the House. The Bills involved questions of such great importance that they ought not to be passed without a debate on the second reading.
  MR. KENYON: Am I to understand—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  EXCISE DUTIES (LOCAL PURPOSES) BILL.
  MR. CAUSTONinquired when the Van and Wheel Tax Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members, and when the second reading would be taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he was not prepared to state the day when the second reading of the Bill would be taken, for that would depend on the progress of the Local Government Bill, with which it was connected. The hon. Member knew that it could not be taken at the same time as the Budget, as it was a proposal for the future relief of rates, and not a matter of Imperial finance. He hoped that the Bill would be in the hands of Members in two or three days; but he had purposely delayed it in order to consider many of the modifications in the tax that had been suggested by hon. Members.

  GERMANY—HEALTH OF HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY.
  MR. HOWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice, Whether he can relieve the general anxiety by giving a more recent and more favourable report of the condition of the health of the German Emperor than that which appeared in the newspapers of this morning?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I have seen a telegram sent on authority from Berlin to-day, which states that the Emperor passed a somewhat better night; but there is no doubt that his Majesty's condition gives ground for grave anxiety, and commands deep sympathy with his family and people.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether his attention has been directed to the following extract from a statement made by an untried prisoner in Galway Gaol:—
  "I was driven the whole distance from Loughrea to Galway, 18 miles, and arrived at the gaol about 8 o'clock on Saturday night. On my arrival I delivered up everything that I thought they would want to take from me, including a crucifix and medal joined together by a chain. I was ushered into a small cell, seven feet by five, was stripped naked by two warders and searched. They found a medal of the Confraternity of the Sacred Heart, and an Agnus Dei in my waistcoat pocket, which they were about to take away from me; but I remonstrated with them, and asked them did not they know what they represented? The Governor, who was present at the time, said he did not know what they were; but ordered them to be handed back to me. The Governor then left. I then proceeded to put on my clothes, and found that my suspenders had been taken away from me. My frieze overcoat had also been taken from outside the cell. I asked for the coat, and was told that I could not get it. I then rushed outside for the coat, and succeeded in getting hold of it, and was in the act of putting it on, and had my arms partly into the sleeves, when I was seized violently by both warders. However, I succeeded in getting my arms into the coat—"
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not know what private Notice the hon. Member has given to the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but it is obviously impossible that he can answer a detailed Question of this kind without full Notice; and, therefore, the hon. Member had better put it upon the Paper in the ordinary way.
  MR. CLANCY: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I will then ask, whether the attention of the Chief Secretary has been directed to this subject, and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the truth of the allegations; whether, if he finds them to be true, he will take suitable action to punish the authors of such illegalities, and prevent their recurrence in future; and, whether he considers the perpetration of such illegalities necessary for the maintenance of the unity of the Unionist Party?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The first

  1497
  Notice I had of the Question was on entering the House this afternoon.
  MR. CLANCY: Then I beg to give Notice that I will ask this Question tomorrow at the sitting of the House.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOT AT MITCHELSTOWN IN SEPTEMBER LAST.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which he had given him private Notice, Whether the Government would grant an investigation into the disturbances at Mitchelstown in September last, at which Members of the House, priests, and newspaper reporters would have an opportunity of giving evidence as to what occurred? He also asked, whether it was to be understood, from the reply given to the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) on the previous evening, that the Chief Secretary contemplated the production of any Papers with regard to the results of the inquiry already held; and, if so, what Papers would be produced?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have not received Notice of this Question either; but I think I can answer the hon. Gentleman without Notice. The inquiry referred to is one of a Departmental character, and was held for Departmental purposes. I do not propose to hold any other inquiry. With regard to the question of publishing parts of that inquiry, which I understand was the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), I am considering whether this would be possible.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—ARREST OF MR. W. O'BRIEN, M.P.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked, Whether the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland could give the House the exact terms of the warrant upon which the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) had been arrested; also, whether warrants had been issued against other persons, or arrests made, for taking part in the alleged illegal meeting on the 8th of this month in a proclaimed district; and, if so, against whom?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am
  1498
  afraid I have not got the warrant here, as I did not receive Notice; but I gave the substance of it to the House yesterday. If my memory serves me aright, the hon. Member was arrested for inciting to, and taking part in, an unlawful assembly. I think that is accurate.

  STATE-AIDED COLONIZATION.
  MR. SETON-KARR,who had a Motion upon the Paper upon this subject for discussion at the Evening Sitting, asked, Whether, as the Motion was to be postponed, the Government would give a pledge to supply a subsequent opportunity for the discussion of the question?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I think my hon. Friend has exercised a wise discretion in postponing his Motion, as the Government could not give him a complete answer this evening. An opportunity will be given him on the Estimates, or in some other way, to invite the House to grapple with and express an opinion upon this subject.
  MR. SETON-KARRasked for a more definite answer from the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will undertake that the hon. Member shall have an opportunity.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he would take care to bring forward the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Amendment Bill at an hour that would permit of the principle of the Bill being discussed?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that the time at which the Bill would come on must depend upon the arrangements made by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House; but he had no doubt it would be brought up at a time that would afford hon. Members an opportunity for discussing it.
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask, whether that time will be within five minutes of the hour of adjournment?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 182.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Long.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 182.]

    SECOND READING.
    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [FOURTH NIGHT.]
    Order road, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question 12th April "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. CAINE: Sir, viewing this Bill as a whole I can only add my voice to the chorus of general approval which has been given to it by almost every speaker who has taken part in the debate. I also desire to follow their example, and not to discuss at any length the principles of the Bill, but rather those provisions of it under which I take exception. There are three main provisions of the measure of which I disapprove. I do not think I can vote for the provision in favour of selecting members of the County Council as aldermen are selected now in the Town Councils, because I think the time has gone by when any Board such as it is proposed to establish should be otherwise than directly elected, and not selected by any system whatever. Therefore, I object to the provisions which relate to selected members. I also object to the provisions which deal with the police, and I shall be prepared to support any well-devised Amendment to get rid of the proposal which gives a jurisdiction over the police, in order to place the management of that body under the sole control of the County Council. My great objection, however, is to the licensing provisions and the Licensing Clauses of the Bill. My first two objections have already undergone considerable discussion, and I propose, therefore, to deal at once with the Licensing Question, in which for a great number of years I have taken a special and a particular interest. These provisions seem to be threefold. First, they transfer the licensing authority from the magistrates, as at present constituted, to the new County Council to be elected
    1500
    by the ratepayers. Now, it seems to me, that that transfer is a natural sequence of the Bill, because if the entire administration of the country is to be handed over to the new County Council, the administration of the Licensing Laws and the power to deal with finances under the Licensing Laws should also be transferred to the new body. If the proposals end there, I should have great pleasure in supporting them. The change of the Local Authority is, I think, an improvement rather than otherwise, in as much as it hands over a question of such vital importance to the people of this country to the ratepayers in touch with their Representatives, instead of leaving it in the hands of an irresponsible body of men, of whom, however, I wish it to be understood that I have nothing disrespectful to say. But the Bill goes further—one of the clauses proposes to give to the County Council power to refuse to renew public—house licences. This proviso appears to me to be entirely unnecessary, because such a power exists in the present licensing authority, and would, of course, exist in the licensing authority that is set up in its place. I therefore think it would be wise to omit that clause altogether, as it is absolutely unnecessary. Then the Bill goes on to give to the new Councils power to close public-houses on Sunday. This is carrying out the idea which has been expressed from both of the Front Benches of this House. I have no great objection to urge against it, except that this House has more than once affirmed, by large majorities, the principle of Sunday Closing over the whole of the United Kingdom; and temperance reformers prefer to watch until they can get what they have been aiming at for many years—namely, the entire closing of public-houses on Sunday. There is, however, a fourth proposal which is a most serious one—I refer to the Compensation Clauses of the Bill. Whatever boon is given to temperance reformers is entirely cancelled by the monstrous proposal to create and compensate an entirely new vested interest which is to be entitled to compensation. I shall be glad if the House will examine this proposal a little more closely. In the first place, there is one attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Mr. Ritchie) to meet the injustice which un-

    1501
    doubtedly prevails to the people who suffer from the existence of public-houses, and who have no power to resist the creation of new public-houses. The right hon. Gentleman proposes in the Bill to bring such questions within touch of the people; but his proposals are limited in two ways—first, by the Compensation Clause, and, secondly, by certain transfers of revenue to the County Council. I fully recognize the serious character of the opposition which has been brought against another view of the Compensation Clause by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), with whom on most points I act heartily in concert. In the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend yesterday, he referred to the proposal to transfer the revenue derived from public-house licences to the County Council. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "It has been objected, in the first place, that the transfer of the licences from the Imperial to the Local Authority would give the latter an interest in a traffic which is injurious and objectionable."
    I certainly hold that opinion. The right hon. Gentleman then goes on to say—
    "I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and those who think with him, have not really the courage of their opinions and sufficient faith in their cause when they put forward such an argument. If this traffic is, as they say, an evil traffic, if to get rid of it is an advantage to the district concerned, if they are satisfied that they at once convince the majority in many districts of these facts, and probably, in the long run, the majority in all districts, why should they be afraid of these clauses?"
    I should like to tell my right hon. Friend and the House why we are afraid of these clauses. These clauses give an interest in the retention of public-houses, in consequence of the transfer of the revenue derived from licences. I think it is quite enough for us to have to deal with the interest of the ratepayers in this House; but if we are to add to the difficulty, our work will be greatly increased, and, in my opinion, there is no necessity whatever for this transfer of the licence revenue. The same amount might easily be given from other sources without creating this embarrassment and establishing a palpable injustice. In those particular sober communities, where they have already limited the number of public-houses and
    1502
    the proportion of public-houses to the population is much smaller than any other districts, they are, by the Bill, fined for their sobriety, and a premium is given for districts which have been most lax in granting licences, and where, consequently, there are more paupers. In one town which I know very well there has been a large increase of pauperism, owing to this laxity, and additional burdens have been laid upon the rates. In districts where the people have been most sober, where great moral and Christian sentiments are strongest, in districts that are most anxious to reduce the facilities for the sale of intoxicating liquors, in endeavouring to give effect to their wishes the people find themselves face to face with a heavy money loss. It is proposed by the Bill to hand over the revenue derived from public-house licences to the County Councils; and, secondly, to pay compensation. We have heard a good deal of the £300,000 which it is said would be forthcoming for the County Councils from this revenue being made over to them and rendered available for the payment of compensation. I understood, from the gesture of assent which the President of the Local Government Board gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, that he consented to devote this revenue to the compensation of publicans whose licences may not be renewed. But how far is that sum likely to go, and is it for the publicans and the ratepayers to find the necessary sum to compensate the owners of public-houses which the County Councils, in touch with the people, refuse a renewal of the licence? I will venture to give a few instances which have come under my notice in regard to this question of compensation to publicans. About seven years ago, in a mining district, a small six-roomed house with a quarter of an acre of land was put up to auction. A firm with which I am connected bid up to £390, and then stopped; the property was sold for £400. In the following year it required a licence, and when four years later minerals were discovered under the house, it was purchased by my firm, who let down the soil upon which it stood. The manner in which the compensation was awarded is precisely the same as that which it is proposed to award com-

    1503
    pensation under this Bill. The question was referred to arbitration, and the result was that the value was assessed at £2,200 for the six-roomed house, owing to the fact that the owner had secured a licence. The house was not in a village itself, but half-a-mile from a village, so that £1,800 appears to be the value attached to a country public-house. Let me give another case, an instance of a suburban public-house outside the metropolis. In 1884, a house at Woodford was sold for £800. It is now carried on as a public-house under the name of the Railway Bell; the occupier of the house, who was also the owner, died in 1886, and in 1887 the house was sold by auction as a licensed public-house and fetched £8,800, and therefore the value of a suburban public-house licence not in London, for Woodford is in Essex, some miles from London, is £8,000. Let me give another case of a public-house situated in London itself, which it was found necessary to pull down. The case went for arbitration and the owner of the public-house was fortunate enough to secure the services of my hon. and learned Friend opposite the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke), so that no one can be surprised that he got the fullest amount the jury could possibly award. In that case the difference between the value of the house as a dwelling-house and as a licensed house was no less than £38,000.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE) (Plymouth): There was no case of that kind in which I was concerned. There was, I believe, a transaction in which £38,000 was paid, not as the difference between the value of a licensed house and a dwelling-house, but as the value of the whole property.
    MR. CAINE: Then I will lot the case go; but I will give another instance -which occurred last year in which the difference between the value of an ordinary house and a licensed house was assessed at £32,000. Therefore if the House will accept these figures, it will be seen that £1,800 is the value of a country public-house licence, £8,000 of a suburban, and £32,000 for a gin palace. I suppose for the sake of argument we exclude the London gin palace, and take the probable value of public-houses throughout the country in the
    1504
    same way as the value of a licensed village public-house and suburban public-house. It will be found that the average compensation to be given under the arbitration clauses of this Bill throughout the country will be nearer £5,000 than any other sum. Let me take the case of my own constituency, Barrow-in-Furness. Suppose that it is proposed to reduce the number of public-houses there by 30. There are there 53 public. houses, 16 beer-houses, and 50 licenced shops, or 119 in all. What I want to emphasize is, that whatever compensation is going to be given for the suppression of the licensed public-houses will come almost entirely out of the pockets of the ratepayers, and that this ear-mark revenue of which we hear so much will be ridiculously insufficient. Taking the average licensed public houses in Barrow, and placing the compensation at £2,000 for each, as the difference between the value of a licensed house and an ordinary house, if 30 are suppressed there will be a loss to the revenue derived from licence duties of about £600 per annum. That alone would be a distinct consideration to the ratepayers, and here is where my objection to the Licensing Clauses of the Bill comes in. We should have to persuade the ratepayers, before they get rid of the evil of establishing public-houses, to a loss of revenue amounting to £600 a-year. The average payment per house in the county is £17 18 s., and the beer-houses £3 10 s. But the question of compensation also comes in, and if 30 houses are to be bought on the basis of a village public-house in the neighbourhood of Barrow, the total amount paid in the shape of compensation will be something like £60,000. To provide compensation for the abolition of a single public-house in Barrow-in-Furness, the licensing authority would have to save £240 a year for nine or ten years, for that is just the amount which the earmarked increase of 20 per cent would produce annually. It is therefore abundantly clear that the publicans must be compensated out of the pockets of the ratepayers, and the question, as it is called, of compensation from the publicans themselves may be entirely dismissed from consideration. And now let me refer for a moment to some of the arguments brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birming-

    1505
    ham. The Government have endeavoured to create a vested interest, the burden of which must fall on the public. My right hon. Friend made a remarkable statement upon the existence of a vested interest. He said that the highest Local Authorities had been consulted by more than one Government, and that their opinion was that there was an undoubted vested interest in a licence. He also told us that he had drafted a Bill of his own when he was President of the Local Government Board. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is not in his place, because I should like to ask him if he consulted his own Law Officers at the time, and what their opinion was. One of those Law Officers—the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James)—is in the House now, and I hope he will give an answer to the question as to what his opinion was in regard to this vested interest. There is another distinguished Law Officer sitting in another part of the House, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell). I wish to know if the right hon. Member for West Birmingham put into his Bill any clauses which provided compensation for the publicans; and, if so, what they were? I think the answer to that question will be a valuable contribution to the discussion. I should also like to know whether the present Law Officers of the Crown are prepared to declare that there is an undoubted vested interest in a licence? If they are prepared so to declare, why is a clause introduced into the Bill to create that which already exists? I have always understood that the great, if not the sole, object of legislation is to make provisions which do not already exist. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham also told the Temperance Reformers that the principle of Local Option will be accepted and practically applied under this Bill, and he said that under the Bill the majority of the inhabitants of any licensing district will elect representatives to the County Council, which has the power to do away with every licence in the district if it thought fit. What would it cost the ratepayers of Barrow-in-Furness to get rid of the whole of their licensed public-houses? The cost would make that an impossibility; but
    1506
    let us consider how the principle of Local Option, if it be accepted, is to be applied under this Bill. I always warned my hon. Friend the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), when he has brought forward from time to time his general Resolution in regard to Local Option, that when he came within real touch of the House, he would find that a great many Members had voted with him who did not intend what he himself intended by Local Option. Those of us, however, who have studied the question, know what we mean by it. What we want is that the ratepayers of any given district should have placed in their hands the power to protect themselves efficiently against having public-houses thrust upon them against their will by the licensing authority. That is my definition of Local Option. How is Local Option going to be applied under this Bill? In the first place, let me take the example of my own constituency. I am afraid that, as the Bill stands, Barrow-in-Furness may be deprived of the separate right of licensing; because, under the Bill, it will become a portion of a licensing district only. Suppose the people of Barrow declared their wish to reduce the number of public-houses by one-half, or wish to elect a Prohibitionist candidate to advocate the suppression of public-houses altogether, that would be an expression of opinion on the part of the ratepayers that, as far as their opinion goes, it is in favour of the principle of Local Option. But the member whom they send to the County Council will be associated with six representatives from other districts, so that he will have to face six other representatives, all of whom, from anything we know, may be elected in the publican's interest. For instance, if his borough is in Lancashire, one of the representatives may be a Liverpool man in favour of that heresy which has brought about so much drunkenness in Liverpool-the heresy of free licensing. Under these circumstances, we should not know where we are. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham says that the Bill practically gives Local Option; but, as a matter of fact, it only gives a particular district a ninth voice in deciding what shall be done in regard to its own district. I have already referred to Sunday Closing. We believe that the House of Commons

    1507
    is absolutely prepared to close public-houses on Sunday. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham contended that no fresh vested interest can arise under the Bill. That is perfectly true; but there is nothing in that, for there are already as many licences in existence as the trade can carry, as they can be removed from one on to the other, so as to last for all time. My right hon. Friend also says that compensation is fixed on a fair and moderate basis, to be paid out of the pockets of the publicans themselves. I am certainly astonished that my right hon. Friend should make such a statement as that, in the face of what he would have discovered if he had gone through a single sum of division and subtraction. I have already shown how insufficient the ear-mark revenue will be to provide compensation. My right hon. Friend says the publicans are conducting a legal traffic, over which the Legislature has, to a certain extent, thrown its shield and protection. I absolutely deny that legislation has thrown its shield and protection over the public-house. The express intention of all the Bills which have been passed by this House in regard to the sale of intoxicating liquors has been to throw the shield and protection of the Legislature over the people, and not over the public-house. What is the public-house? It is created for the benefit of the public, and the contention of the law is that he is the servant of the public, and for that purpose he gets his public-house licence for one year and no longer. That is the vested interest of which they say so much. Why has he to come up every year to get the licence renewed? It is because the State knows it is a dangerous trade, and it has retained in every Statute which has been passed the right to revise that trade, to restrict it, and, in my judgment, the right to prohibit it. The publican is required to come up at the end of 12 months to show that he is as respectable a man as he was when he began. It is a great delusion to suppose that any man may be a publican. I know an instance where money was subscribed to start a man in a public-house, but it was found that he had been convicted of felony, and therefore could not hold a licence. He could start a grocer's shop, and was good enough to have a seat in this
    1508
    House, but he was not good enough to be entrusted with a licence that would enable him to carry on a dangerous trade. The whole licensing legislation of this country has been to interpose a shield and protection between the people and those who are engaged in a dangerous trade. What is the reason why a policeman can walk into a public-house at any time and see what is going on? He cannot walk into any other business place, and the reason why he can enter a public-house is because it is recognized as a trade which creates crime; that it is a poverty-creating trade; and, furthermore, it is placed under the supervision of the police because it is a dangerous trade. The object of the Licensing Laws of the country has not been to throw a shield and protection over a legal trade, but over the people; and it is because the proposals of the Government and the present Bill are reactionary, and contrary to the principle on which all legislation right along the line has hitherto proceeded, that I intend to give them my uncompromising opposition. Let me compare the compensation under this Bill with that which was proposed 16 or 17 years ago by Mr. Bruce, now Lord Aberdare. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham said that the Temperance Reformers were responsible for the defeat of Mr. Bruce's Bill. But that idea is altogether fallacious. I was one of the Temperance Party which he says opposed the Bill, and secured its rejection. He added that in his opinion they had made a great mistake. I should quite agree with my right hon. Friend if that were true, and that they did make a great mistake; but it is altogether incorrect to suppose that the Temperance Reformers secured the rejection of the Bill. I myself at that time called one of the largest meetings ever held in Liverpool, at which a resolution was unanimously passed, calling on this House to give a second reading to the Bill, and a meeting of the United Kingdom Alliance expressed its approval on the second reading. Their opposition to Mr. Bruce's Bill was no more than that which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham himself offers to the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is in favour of the second reading of the Bill; but he has told the House that he does not

    1509
    intend to support the proposals contained in it in regard to the police. We supported Mr. Bruce's Bill, and were prepared to vote for the second reading; but, at the same time, we declared our objection to the Compensation Clauses. Therefore, the Temperance Reformers were no more opposed to the second reading of Mr. Bruce's Bill than my right hon. Friend is now opposed to the present Bill. Let me look at the effect of the Compensation Clauses in the Bill of 17 years ago. They proposed that every publican's licence of whatever description should be continued annually, subject, of course, to good behaviour, until the General Licensing Sessions held after the expiration of 10 years from the commencement of that Act, and should absolutely determine at the end of such Sessions. Compensation was no more recognized then than now. It was only recognized as a matter of expediency, with a desire to get the Bill through in some way or other. The compensation was put at 10 years' lease of the licence, and after that the vested interest ceased, and there was only to be one licence for every 1,000 inhabitants. The offer made to the Temperance Reformers 17 years, ago as compared with that offered to them to-day, was generous in the extreme. I did my best to get Mr. Bruce's Bill passed, but I had not much influence at the time, and my action was confined to Liverpool. If the Bill had passed, the vested interest of the publican would have disappeared at the end of 10 years. In Mr. Bruce's Bill we saw finality; where is finality under this Bill? The thing is to go on for ever. A 10 years' lease was given in Mr. Bruce's Bill in consequence of the growth of temperance sentiment, and the effect of the measure was to create a competition between public-house proprietors as to which of them should be bought up. Under the present Bill, whenever it is necessary to fix compensation, the authorities will have to go back to 1888 in order to find out what the value of a public licence was in that year. I cannot imagine that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board intends to persevere with the Compensation Clauses of the Bill. I understood him to say, in the speech he made yesterday, that the Church of England Temperance
    1510
    Society have passed resolutions in favour of his Compensation Clauses.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): Allow me to explain. What I said was that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Manchester (Sir William Houldsworth) was a prominent member of that society, and he had expressed his approval of the general principle of the Bill in reference to licences.
    MR. CAINE: I should like to read the resolution which was passed by the Church of England Society, and which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Manchester. It is as follows:—
    "That this Committee does not recognize any vested interest in a licence, and, consequently, any right to compensation on its withdrawal. That the only equitable claim to compensation would be for money laid out, loss sustained, and disturbance of a tenant. That in no case could it agree to compensation being made a first charge on the rates as proposed in the Bill. That the above equitable claim would properly be met by an increased percentage on the licence duties as proposed by the Bill, and the application of a certain portion of the licence duties to that purpose, such application being a first charge on these duties."
    I cannot understand how anybody moving a resolution of that nature can support the clauses in the present Bill, in which 99 per cent of the compensation is to be drawn out of the pockets of the ratepayers, and not out of the pockets of the publicans at all. On the contrary, I regard it as a strong condemnation of the Compensation Clauses of the Bill. There is one other point I should like to refer to before I sit down. Under the Bill boroughs with a population of less than 50,000 will lose their individual licensing powers. I have a list of places here which, according to the Census of 1881, had a population of less than 50,000 people, but all of which now have a population of more than 50,000, and represent a population altogether of nearly 500,000. On behalf of the people of those boroughs who are interested in temperance reformation, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep for them their power of licensing, without being complicated with eight other members of the County Council who would have to vote upon it.
    MR. RITCHIE: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman; but there

    1511
    seems to be a little misunderstanding upon this point, which I should like to explain. It does not necessarily follow that by the Bill boroughs under 50,000 will not be Licensing Authorities within themselves; because it is possible that they may have six representatives in the County Council, and, therefore, be capable of being licensing divisions.
    MR. CAINE: I will not pursue the matter further, except to say that, according to the Bill, boroughs under 50,000 people are not to have a separate licensing jurisdiction. Among the towns which had a population of less than 50,000 in 1881 who have now more than 50,000 are Great Yarmouth, a municipal borough; Tottenham, a local board district; Barrow, a petty sessional division co-equal with the area of the Bill; Wigan, a quarter sessions borough; Hanley, a municipal borough; Merthyr Tydvil, a local board district; Devonport, a municipal borough; and York, also a municipal borough. All these boroughs at the last Census had populations between 45,000 and 50,000. But I have got no figures except in regard to the boroughs of Wigan and Barrow. The population of those boroughs is now much beyond 50,000, and has probably reached 55,000. At the time the Census was taken, the population of Wigan was greatly diminished by a strike among the miners, which caused many hundreds of families to leave the town, and brought down the population by many thousands. This is clearly proved by the fact that there were 1,300 empty houses at the time the Census was taken, representing, at least, a population of 7,000. I think it is unfair to impose upon these boroughs, which have now a population of more than 50,000, disabilities and want of authority simply because, seven years previous to the introduction of this Bill, they contained a less population than 50,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) has asked me to press the case of his own constituency upon the President of the Local Government Board. I hope something will be done for the boroughs I have mentioned, in order to secure for them the right of dealing with the question of licensing in their own way. I think the facts I have brought before the House completely demolish the contention of my right hon. Friend the Member for
    1512
    West Birmingham and the President of the Local Government Board, that there is any appreciable amount of compensation to be got out of the publicans themselves. I shall certainly give my uncompromising opposition to the so-called Compensation Clauses of the Bill. I think the Government would act wisely by withdrawing them altogether, leaving the whole licensing to be dealt with by separate legislation. I must warn the right hon. Gentleman that if he persists in wedging a Licensing Bill into a Local Government Bill, it will be the duty of the Temperance Reformers to move a considerable number of Amendments in an endeavour to improve that Licensing Bill, and he must expect a considerable number of evenings to be devoted to discussing a question which a large number of Members believe to be of paramount importance to the welfare of the country, and to resisting proposals which they believe will build up a solid wall between them and the accomplishment of the object of the Temperance Reformers that they will never be able to break down.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE) (Plymouth): Sir, there is in one respect, at all events, an agreeable contrast between the speech which we have just heard and that delivered last night by the hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), because the hon. Baronet attacked Her Majesty's Government very bitterly upon the licensing proposals they now make, and said that the shame of those proposals must rest on them, and he wound up by alleging that the policy embodied in the Licensing Clauses was never exceeded in the meanness of its conception, the injustice of its scope, or the cruelty it inflicted on the industrial classes. The hon. Member who has just sat down, who is equally entitled to claim to be an ardent supporter of the temperance cause, has, on the other hand, dealt fairly with the proposals of the Government, and recognized that in the Licensing Clauses of the Bill there is a real attempt to deal with a difficulty that has baffled Parliament for many years past. I do not propose to enter into all the details of the speech which has just been delivered. No doubt some points of detail have been raised by my hon. Friend which could most properly be treated in

    1513
    Committee, and which are matters of fair discussion and argument. The point referred to by the hon. Gentleman as to the numerical limit of population of towns which are to be allowed to remain licensing areas is one that may very well be dealt with in that way; but, taking the Licensing Clauses as a whole, the Government has proposed them deliberately and carefully, with a regard, on the one hand, to that which it believes to be fair and right to the interest of those engaged in that trade; and, on the other hand, to the desire which Parliament has expressed very often that there should in some way be given to the people themselves a power of dealing in their localities with the granting of licences. I wish to show how the Government has tried to deal with the various difficulties that have arisen in connection with this matter. But first I will answer the challenge which has been thrown out by my hon. Friend who has just spoken as to the opinions of those who are responsible for advising the Government on matters of law in regard to any vested interests on the part of the licensed victuallers. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was Home Secretary I expressed the opinion which I now repeat, and which represents the advice on which the Government has acted and is prepared to act. It is that under the Licensing Statutes Justices are not justified in refusing to renew a public-house licence simply upon the ground that there is no need for it, or that there are too many public-houses in the neighbourhood.
    MR. R. T. REID: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman state under what Act of Parliament that power exists?
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: My hon. and learned Friend does not usually find it necessary to interrupt in the middle of a speech to put such a question. I should not have made such a statement if I had not been prepared to go into the matter. I listened last night with great interest to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cumberland, who argued against the idea that there was a vested right or interest on the part of those licensed to keep public-houses. The hon. Baronet founded his proposition chiefly on a sentence which he quoted, and which I myself have seen
    1514
    quoted in a number of temperance publications; and he said that Mr. Justice Field, in the Court of Queen's Bench, in the month of November, 1882, stated that the Legislature recognized no vested interest at all in any holder of the licence. I have seen that sentence before in inverted commas, and the hon. Baronet quoted it last night. The case referred to was dealt with by Mr. Justice Field, and decided in the Queen's Bench in November, 1882. In the first place, I have carefully gone through the five different reports of the decision, and the judgment in the case, and in no one of the reports will the sentence which the hon. Baronet quoted to the House last night be found. In the next place, the decision was not a decision on this point at all, but on a different Act of Parliament. Anybody who refers to any of the reports of the case will find that the Judges laid great stress upon the words of the Act which had quite recently been passed, and upon which they were called to put judicial construction. The Act related to beer dealers and retail licences. The words inserted in that Act were these—
    "Notwithstanding anything in Section 8 of the Wine and Beerhouse Act of 1869, or in any other Act now in force, the licensing justices shall be at liberty, in their free and unqualified discretion, either to refuse the certificate for the sale of beer,"
    and so on, or to grant the same. Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Stephen had to deal with the case in question under the Act of 1882, and having before them the words, "in their free and unqualified discretion," said that those words indicated exactly what they stated—namely, that there was to be no suggestion of any kind as to the limit of their unqualified discretion. That is being quoted in every circular sent out by the United Kingdom Alliance and other temperance bodies; but I am afraid that the hon. Baronet has been misled into attributing to Mr. Justice Field an expression which that learned Judge never used. So much for the authority which the hon. Baronet quoted last night. The question now before us arises on the Act of 1828, as dealt with in the Acts of 1872 and 1874. The Act of 1872 established a clear distinction between the granting of a new licence and the renewal of an old licence. The words of the Act were that where a

    1515
    licensed person applied for renewal—(1.) he need not attend at the annual licensing meeting unless required by the Justices. In ordinary cases, licences which are upon the register are to be renewed as a matter of course. Not only need not the licensed person attend unless required, but (2.) the Justices are not to entertain an objection unless written notice of intention to oppose has been served upon the licensed person seven days previous to the meeting; and (3.) the Justices are not to receive evidence except on oath. Those were the provisions in the Act of 1872. The Act of 1874 went still further, and provided that the notice to the licensed person to attend, without the service of which the Justices had no right to entertain an objection at all, could only be given to the licensed person on some ground personal to himself. The state of things stands thus. Suppose the Justices were to make up their minds before the Licensing Sessions were held that they would not grant a renewal of any of the licences, the Court of Queen's Bench would interfere on a mandamus and compel them to deal with the licences separately, and they cannot refuse any licence to a person already licensed unless they call the person before them. The Act of 1874 said—
    "Whereas by Section 12 of the principal Act it is enacted that a licensed person applying for a renewal of his licence need not attend in person at the general annual licensing meeting unless he is required by the Licensing Justices so to attend, be it enacted that such requisition shall not be made save for some special cause personal to the licensed person to whom such requisition is sent."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman held that the words "some special cause personal to the licensed person" meant "personal misconduct"—on the part of the licencee?
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: Sir, in my opinion, the words, "some special cause personal to the licensed person," would mean some cause such as personal misconduct, or the permission of conduct in the house which could be made a subject of complaint against himself. It is impossible to contend that if there were 50 licences and the Justices came to the conclusion that 48 were sufficient, notice to the other two to attend would be for a special cause personal to them.
    1516
    I say that, taking these Statutes altogether, it is not competent to the magistrates to refuse the renewal of licences which have been previously granted except on some special cause personal to the holder of the licence. The hon. Baronet last night asked whether any lawyer would venture to contend that there was a vested interest in licensed premises? I answer that there is, and I believe that the Acts, properly read, do give to the licensed victualler a vested interest in the continuous enjoyment of his licence. The condition of the property, moreover, I should think, was a personal cause, as the licensed person had to keep it in good order. At Common Law anybody who chose had a right to keep a public-house. There have been restrictions imposed by Statute, partly for the sake of good order and partly for the benefit of the Revenue; and ever since the time of Henry VII., when the provisions were first introduced with regard to the power of the Justices to license, this trade has always been considered and dealt with by the Legislature as a lawful trade. I submit to the House that it would be impossible for the Legislature, with any fairness and honesty, substantially to confiscate the property of a very large number of persons carrying on a lawful trade without giving compensation. It has never been suggested or maintained by any responsible Leader or Party in the House that that course would be a fair course. But, Sir, this is not a mere question of legal right, upon which lawyers may, and very likely will, differ. It is also a question of what is fair and just. It ought to be borne in mind that, besides publicans' licences, there are beer-houses, which were licensed before the 1st of May, 1869. It is impossible to contend that the owners of these beer-houses have not a vested interest, for the magistrates have no power of refusing a renewal of such licences, except on four specified grounds. When this question is being considered there is also another class of licences that ought to be borne in mind—namely, provisional licences, granted in respect of premises not already erected. By the Act passed in 1872 these most salutary licences were provided for. Before that, speculative persons used to take corner plots and build houses in

    1517
    the hope of getting a licence when the houses were completed, and used to go on applying year after year, till at last, out of sheer pity, a licence was not unfrequently granted. Since the passing of that Act, however, very few houses have been built as a matter of speculation, and in the mere hope of getting a licence. Now, the custom is to apply for a provisional licence, which is granted upon the plans being submitted to the magistrates, and it is confirmed when a certificate is presented to the magistrates signed by the architect and testifying that the building has been completed according to the plans. Can anyone say that it would be fair or honest that when a man had gone to the expense of building a house according to plans approved by the magistrates the licence should, after a year or two, be taken away without compensation? There is a deliberate invitation by Parliament to people before they build public-houses to go and consult the magistrates as to the position of the houses and the arrangements they propose to make, and an implied pledge is given that they will be continued in the enjoyment of these premises. The very illustrations given by the hon. Member for Barrow in regard to the value of licences show how unfair it would be to cancel them without compensation. It would be outrageous that a man who has purchased a licensed house and paid many thousand pounds upon the generally prevailing idea as to the right to a continuance of a licence, and its value based upon that right, should suddenly find himself mulcted in £8,000 or £9,000, by being deprived of the licence which he bought. I do not think that is a policy which would be likely to be accepted by the House, and I do not know of any person occupying a prominent position in any Government who has supported it. It has always been hoped that this question would be, in some way or other, dealt with in a Local Government Bill when brought in. The suggestion of the temperance reformers has always been that, there not being an elected body to grant licences, it was desirable occasionally to have a plébiscite on the subject to enable the ratepayers to say whether they would have any more licences granted in the district. The whole question has always been beset with difficulties, and no one
    1518
    has ever defined the area in which each plébiscite should take place. So long as the Justices were the Licensing Authority there was, perhaps, a scintilla of reason at the back of the appeal that an occasional plébiscite should be taken; but if the House should find itself fortunate enough to be able to deal with the whole question of Local Government, and if it should establish for the purpose County Councils, which will be directly elected by the people to represent them in local matters, it would be sheer absurdity to have an occasional plébiscite of the people to say whether they disagree with the Board they themselves have elected. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) are both, I am glad to say, of opinion that this question ought to be dealt with by the Local Government Authority. The hon. Member for Barrow said he hoped the Government would abandon the proposals in regard to licensing, except those transferring the licensing authority from the Justices to the County Council. But the mere transfer of authority, without safeguards, from the Justices to the local Governing Body would do a great injustice, against which I have been and am now protesting. The Justices are bound by the law to which I have referred, and they have to deal with persons to whom they or their predecessors had given a privilege, and over the exercise of which privilege it is their duty to watch. But if the power were transferred from the Justices, who are governed by these Acts of Parliament, and have to exercise judicial functions, and who would be compelled by a mandamus to deal with each separate case, and not make a rule to govern a set of cases—if these Justices are to be replaced by an elected Body without judicial functions, but with absolute capacity to deal with the matter just as it liked, and if no provision were made for compensation, we should have done the mischief of handing over the interests of those who had embarked in a lawful trade to the tender mercies of a chance majority in any particular district in any particular year. Suppose that absolute authority were handed over to the local Governing Body without any check upon the cancelling of licences, and this power

    1519
    were to be largely used, great agitation and excitement would prevail. We might have all the houses in a particular district shut up at a particular time by a Local Authority, with the smallest amount of real knowledge of the wants of the neighbourhood, or consideration for the wishes of the minority of the people. What would be the result? I venture to say it would be quite intolerable. It would be difficult even to keep public order where the public-houses were shut up in this way, unless the sense of the people was very strongly in favour of such a step, in which case such a drastic measure would be quite unnecessary, as the public-houses would be starved out. In ordinary cases the inevitable result would be that a club would start up in almost every public-house that had been closed, and the wishes of the people would be strong enough to prevent any adequate check being placed upon the multiplication of clubs. I think the question of clubs is, after all, most important. A very poor service, indeed, would be done by the Temperance Party to the cause they had so long and ardently advocated, if, by a despotic act, they succeeded in shutting up the whole of the public-houses in a particular district, unless they had previously prepared themselves to deal with the difficult question of clubs. Then it is necessary, I submit, to make some provision with regard to compensation. The hon. Baronet, no doubt, remembers the year 1880. It was an epoch in the temperance agitation, which had been going on for many years before that. Before 1880 there had been almost from year to year a proposal of a definite character put before the House of Commons. The Permissive Prohibitory Bill provided that a certain majority should have the power of closing public-houses altogether. That Bill was before the House with varying fortunes for a considerable number of years before 1880, but it was killed in 1880, when the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) declared that though the Bill had received large support, he did not know five Members who really believed in its provisions and desired to support it. There was in those days a weakness in regard to the second reading, and many Members voted in its favour who would have voted against it if they thought it was
    1520
    likely to pass. After the Election of 1880 there came a Parliament of temperance proclivities, and the hon. Baronet opposite enjoyed his golden hour. The Resolution which was rejected by 100 votes in March, 1880, was carried by a substantial majority three mouths later; but in the hour of his triumph the hon. Baronet heard the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) complaining that in the Resolution the question of equitable compensation found no place.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: The House passed it, though.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: Yes, Sir; if the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian voted for the Resolution, he voted for it with that reservation, and it was accepted by other Members of the House, with the knowledge that in the mind of him who would be the chief authority in that Parliament the question of compensation was closely and inextricably connected with the question of putting an end to the liquor traffic. Five years passed and nothing was done, and from 1880 until the present time no one had ventured to bring forward a positive proposal for introducing Local Option in the sense in which the hon. Baronet uses that expression. I appeal to the hon. Baronet to look back upon that history, and say if it is fair for him to attack the Government in the terms he used the previous night for attempting to deal with the matter? It has been complained that licences are dealt with by an authority irresponsible to the people. The Government says—"Let them be dealt with by an authority created by the people, and directly responsible to the people." There has been a very ardent combat over this question of compensation. Reference has been made in the debate to the defeat of the Bill of 1871, and the hon. Member who spoke last repudiated the idea that the temperance advocates in the House had defeated that Bill. The hon. Member is justified in Ins repudiation, because the temperance advocates in this House have never defeated anything except a Liberal Government. All those abstract Resolutions, which may mean anything or nothing, and which half-a-dozen different people interpret in half-a-dozen different ways, are all very

    1521
    well; but as soon as the question of compensation was approached, it was always found that among those who knew most about the circumstances of the case there was a unanimous opinion that some provision with regard to compensation must be made. The Bill of 1871 proposed to give compensation in the shape of a fixed tenure of 10 years.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: That was withdrawn.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I am aware of that; but I do not know how the hon. Baronet and his Friends can reconcile this with a profession of no compensation. Yet it is now put as an alternative suggestion from the other side—as something better than that which the Government now proposes. Surely, Sir, the hon. Baronet and his Friends could not accept that suggestion. Every week of every year they are making speeches in which they declare that it is an intolerable grievance that there should be so many public-houses as now exist, and if they consented that all these public-houses should continue for another 10 years, they would be guilty of something very like an infringement of the great principle which is the basis of their agitation. Well, they may not be able to accept a proposal of that kind; but that is no reason why they should not accept the proposal of the Government. The Government propose that, after the passing of the Bill, no new interest should be created in a licensed house. As to the existing houses, in respect of which, according to all equitable considerations, a vested interest does exist, surely the fairest thing is to say that there shall be an additional tax upon those who are carrying on the business, and that when a public-house is put an end to, compensation shall be paid in respect of it out of that tax or from the general funds of the county. The hon. Member for Barrow seems to have a very feeble faith in the principles which he advocates. He warned the House not to accept the proposals of the Government, on the ground that the tax on licences would constitute an overwhelming temptation for localities, and that these would be prepared to favour the existence of licensed houses, in order not to lose the contributions derived from them for the relief of local burdens. That is a very
    1522
    feeble faith indeed. I have always thought the hon. Baronet and his Friends bad an unlimited belief in their own power to convert the people. I am not going to minimize the evils of excessive drinking. I know too much of the effects of excessive drinking upon the classes low down in the social scale; but, as far as the great majority of the working classes are concerned, I believe if we took an assembly of men, as numerous as that which the House of Commons contains, and these men were met together at a Trade Congress or a Trade Association of any kind, we should find at least as strong a repugnance on the part of them, as a body, to excess in intoxicating drinks as we find among Members of this House. I believe it is in that direction that the true work of the hon. Baronet lies, and if he can but succeed in spreading that feeling still more widely there will soon be no ground at all for hesitating to award compensation to the publicans. If the public-houses ceased to be used by the people they would cease to be valuable property, and it would become possible to deal with the publicans on very easy terms. If the great temperance associations had confined themselves to the propagation of the principle of abstinence, and had not indulged so much in the Christian virtue of finding fault with other people, the attainment of this condition of things would be still nearer than it is. There are some other matters which have been referred to, but which will more properly be dealt with in Committee. I hope I have shown the House, at all events, that the Government have dealt with this question with an honest desire to put an end to a controversy which has affected, and sometimes determined, political struggles for 20 years, without any really satisfactory result in legislation. Stopping with the passing of this Bill the creation of any new interest, making arrangements whereby partly, if not wholly, from the contributions of the trade itself, compensation shall be paid when the property is taken away without any fault on the part of the man who had enjoyed it, I hope it will be found on consideration that the proposals of the Government are fair and reasonable proposals, and that the House may well accept them as the solution and termination of a very difficult controversy.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, it was to be regretted that the debate on such a large measure as this should have a tendency to run largely in the direction of discussion of the Licensing Clauses. He was, however, himself about to err in that direction in following some of the remarks which had been made that day on both sides of the House; and he submitted that it was not altogether unimportant that the House should consider those clauses very carefully, with a view, if possible, of arriving at some definite conclusion which would lead them to a solution of the question. The present supplied golden opportunities which ought not to be lost. Governments were not fond of dealing with this question; it was not once in 20 years that a Government would be found which would undertake the responsibility of dealing with a subject involving such large interests, and which was surrounded by difficulties of no ordinary character. The chief objection which he had heard urged to the Licence Clauses of the Bill coming from the Temperance Party was on the ground of compensation. That had been ably dealt with by the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke), whom he was utterly unable to follow in the clearness and lucidity of his exposition; but there were one or two considerations connected with the question of compensation, and the amount of compensation, whatever it might be, that had not been dealt with in the debate, one or two of which, without labouring them, he should like to indicate to the House. The contention was that there was absolutely no right or title to the renewal of a licence. Now, if there was absolutely no such right, what was the meaning of the appeal to Quarter Sessions? If the Justices had in the first instance an absolutely unfettered power to terminate licences at the end of a year, what was meant by providing an appeal from their decision to Quarter Sessions? Again, how did hon. Members reconcile their contention with the justice of the practice to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, whereby a person applying for a licence was called upon to bring up his plans to the Licensing Authority and make alterations in them at their suggestion? Could it be contended for a moment that the Legislature contemplated that magis
    1524
    trates should insist upon expensive buildings and great improvements to property, intending to terminate the licence at the end of the year, or holding that they had absolute right to do so without any cause?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I never said "without any cause."
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, he would come to the word "cause" directly. He meant, of course, misbehaviour or misconduct. A provision of a very recent Act referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman said a licence holder might obtain a renewal unless some complaint was made against him. Surely that meant that unless there was complaint of something personal the licence should be granted. Again, the Legislature provided that certain offences should be endorsed on the licence, but it provided also that after five years of continuous good behaviour those endorsements should be wiped out. Was not that a proof that the person licensed should, after five years, hold a clean licence? It implied that the licence should be under a sort of cloud for five years, after which time the endorsement was to be wiped out. How had all the rest of the world looked upon these licences? They had certainly not looked upon them as likely to terminate at the end of the year. In the case of public-houses large fines had been taken by landowners and even by large public bodies for leases, and contracts had been made for large expenditure on property. Was it dealing fairly between man and man that one party should take a heavy fine and insist upon a large expenditure with the intention of holding that at the end of a year, without misconduct on the part of the licence holder, the money expended on the property should be absolutely lost? Again, in the case of licensed houses being purchased under Act of Parliament by Railway Companies and other bodies, had anyone ever heard that it was seriously contended that the licences should not be renewed except for misconduct? Besides the legal grounds which the Solicitor General had stated, this matter rested upon universal practice. Now, if it were true that licences were terminable at the end of each year, how was it that in all the cases which had occurred in this century one could hardly put his finger upon a single case in which the licence

    1525
    was terminated except on the ground of misconduct? It might be asked whether there were any judicial decisions upon this point? The reason why they were unable to refer to decisions in the English Courts was because the appeals had rarely gone beyond Quarter Sessions; but the case of Clitheroe had been brought before the Judges in Dublin, who held that there was no justification for taking away the licence on the ground that there were too many licensed houses in the district. He would leave the legal aspect of the matter altogether, and say that there was a claim for compensation resting on the sense of what was equitable and just. The licensed victualler had a property, and to take it away without compensation was something very like confiscation. If the House were to give large powers of closing public-houses without compensation, had it been considered how such a power would work? He did not believe it would be possible to work such a provision at all, because it would break down when it came to the question of personal application. In the case put by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine), what would the neighbourhood think of the justice of closing 30 public-houses without compensation, ruining the holders, and leaving the other 130 in the full enjoyment of their position and doing a better trade? The upshot of this would be that it would be found impossible to close the houses, because the sense of justice of the community would rebel against it. The hon. Member had referred to the Bill introduced by Mr. Bruce. But Mr. Bruce did not say that licence holders had no interest; he proposed to give them, in the way of compensation, 10 years' grace, at the end of which time the houses might be closed without any claim at all. His hon. Friend had expressed a preference for that plan. But let the House consider what it meant. If they gave seven, 10, or some number of years, after which no claim should be made, there would be an acknowledgment of some claim to compensation. In that case they seemed to be arming the licensed victualler with a tenfold power to claim compensation, because they were estimating it by a term of years. But what sort of agitation would be got up if, 10 years hence, it was certain that the licence holders
    1526
    would be deprived of their property without any fair compensation. He ventured to say, looking at the enormous interest involved, that at the close of that period there would be such an agitation that no other political question would get a hearing, and which would be disastrous to the Temperance Party in its results, and to the Government which attempted to carry out the operation. He desired to call the attention of those who so vehemently opposed this proposal to some of the things which were said by Mr. Bruce and by others against the attempt to deal harshly with this question. He remembered one passage quoted. It was a very instructive quotation. It referred to a town where large works were established, and the owners of those works being in possession of the land, and desiring the benefit of their workmen, wished to prohibit altogether the establishment of any licensed house on their land. They did prohibit it, but with what result? That the state of things was worse than if they had left it alone. If he remembered the figures aright, there was in the district at the time a population of 1,900, and there were 17 houses known to be selling illicit drink of one sort or another. The proprietors of the works being themselves the owners of the land, and having great power over it, made every effort to got rid of this state of things; but they found that as fast as they closed one of the houses another sprung up in another direction. The illustration might be multiplied a hundred fold. It always would be the case. If they went beyond what the feeling of the population was there would be a reaction, and, instead of getting a regulated sale of liquor for houses which the police could inspect and control, they would get houses without any regulation at all, and they would get a state of things in connection with the liquor trade very much worse than what it was at the present time. Surely the House might take a lesson from the successes of the past as well as from its failures. Would anyone in the House say that the state of things in regard to temperance in England was not better now than when Mr. Bruce introduced his Bill in 1871? He did not think anybody would get up and assert that. All of them were conversant with the immense improvement.

    1527
    They could hardly run their eyes over any newspaper without being aware of that. If they looked at the reports on the conduct of the population, say on a Bank Holiday, or on a great festival, they noticed expressions of opinion on all sides that the conduct of the people in this matter was rapidly improving. But the improvement was not the result of any Act of Parliament for the closing of public-houses; but it was the result of a better state of feeling amongst the people themselves. Many causes had contributed to the improved state of things—education, better homes, better means of enjoyment, and he did not doubt the efforts of many good men who had devoted their lives to the cause. But these men did not seem to have any faith in their own success. This improved state of things had been brought about, by influences which were all working for good, and solid good. Surely they had had enough experience of the failure of repressive legislation. The case he had quoted just now might be multiplied many times over. What he submitted was that intentions, however good they might be, could not be pleaded by Parliament in bar of condemnation if, shutting their eyes to the history of the past, and absolutely regardless of the consequences which inevitably followed, they took a false step in going beyond that which could be borne by the habits of the people at the time. He now desired to refer for a few minutes to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie). He desired to acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to act in a spirit of justice to the trade with which he (Mr. Whitbread) was connected. He acknowledged that frankly, and if he made any criticisms upon the scheme of the Bill, he really made them with a view of endeavouring to remove some of the friction which he was sure would attend the working of it, and not with a view of really controverting the principles which it laid down. Now, if the object of the Bill, or if the object of those who were called the Temperance Party, was really to reduce the number of licences, let them consider for a minute how that could be done most certainly, and with least opposition. The proposal had been made more than once, and it was re-
    1528
    peated last night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), that the 20 per cent increase of the licence duty should be set apart to form a fund for the compensation of licence holders. He approved of that proposal entirely. He thought the increased duty should be set apart, but that it should be set apart so that the Local Authority could not use it for any other purpose; that it should be absolutely used for that purpose, and that purpose alone. He thought that at the same time, as they were making provision for extinguishing licences by compensation, it would be absurd, on the other hand, to be creating new licences, and Local Authorities should not be allowed to touch this fund for any other purposes or to grant a new licence in a district until the licensed houses in that district became less in proportion to the population than it should be according to some reasonable scale which could be agreed upon by the House. That scale, of course, would have to be different in rural and urban districts, and there would have to be a distinct scale for the City of London, owing to the enormous number of people who daily went in and out, and who needed refreshment during the time they were there. He should say that the value of the licence when it was bought should be the present value, and not the value as laid down in the right hon. Gentleman's Bill—namely, the value at the time of the passing of the Bill. He hoped he understood the idea the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind when he made that proposal; it was that the value of the licence would go up. But surely the proposal was a premium upon bad management of houses, because a man might have given £5,000 for a licence just before the passing of the Bill, and might manage it so badly that the value might run down rapidly to £1,000. If the Local Authorities wanted to get rid of that house, they would be compelled to give the pre-existing value of £5,000. It would end, of course, in the Local Authorities never consenting to buy up such a house, although it might be the very one they wanted to get rid of. Local Authorities would, of course, be able to grant occasional licences for fairs and race meetings, and things of that sort. Then it would be said at

    1529
    once there was no provision for the growth of towns. He should propose to provide for that by the existing law—by granting a little greater power than was now possessed by the magistrates. He would suggest that the authorities might be able to transfer a licence from one house to another house within the district if such a transference were on all hands desirable.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had not exactly caught the hon. Gentleman's suggestion as to what should be regarded as the value of the licence.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, his suggestion was that the value should be the value at the time the compensation was granted. He thought they would have enormous difficulty in arriving, say 20 years hence, at what was the value of the house at the passing of the Bill. Now, his hon. Friend the Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine) said it was absurd to propose to set aside the extra duty for compensation purposes, because the amount of the fund would be so small that it would do nothing. He was obliged to differ very much indeed from his hon. Friend on that subject, and he would here say at once that the estimate his hon. Friend gave of the value of licensed houses was exaggerated beyond all possibility. He could not understand where his hon. Friend got his figures from. All he could say was, that if the figures represented the hon. Gentleman's ideas of the value of licensed houses, licensed victuallers would like to have him on a jury which was called upon to assess the value of their houses. The hon. Gentleman arrived at his figures in a very extraordinary way. First of all he gave them a description of what he called a village house, which was established in the district of a mine with which he was connected, and which rose from the value of £400 as a dwelling house to £2,200 as a licensed house. What gave the House this increased value? The very same thing which gave the value to the mine. It was industry which created that value. It was the large number of persons drawn to the district, and he did not suppose that the value of the house when it was licensed as compared with the value when it was bought as a dwelling house was any greater than the value of the land when mineral was found in it as
    1530
    compared with the agricultural value of the land. His hon. Friend said it was a fair example of the village house. He (Mr. Whitbread) asserted that it was absurdly beyond the fair average value of village houses. Then the hon. Gentleman gave them the value of the suburban licensed house at £8,000. He had no doubt there were many suburban houses of the value of £8,000 and more, but he absolutely denied that that was anything like the average value. The hon Gentleman abandoned the case of the Liverpool Street house; he abandoned that on an explanation from the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke). Then the hon. Member took them to a house at Knightsbridge, and said that the value of the licence there was £30,000. It was possible that that might be the case, but that was not an average case. If £30,000 was the value of the licence, surely that was an argument which could be used against his hon. Friend. Did not that show him that if people were prepared to invest such enormous sums in licensed houses they must believe that they had some claim beyond a mere annual claim? Then his hon. Friend said the average value of licensed houses all over the country was £5,000. Having some knowledge of the subject, he (Mr. Whitbread) was bound to say that that was exaggerated—it was exaggerated beyond all bounds. He did not believe that that was the average value of full licences in the Metropolis, where things were dearer than anywhere else. The hon. Member said that this fund would do little or nothing owing to this enormous value. He would tell the hon. Member why it would do a good deal. It would do a good deal for the very reason that, although the average value of houses might be high, those which would be compensated first would be of very low value. One of the most certain things connected with this trade was this—that bad trade was a poor trade. A man who was doing a good and legitimate trade would not risk his property and licence for the sake of encouraging drunkenness. It was the houses that could not live which were driven to courses which must be condemned, and the tenants of such houses would be only too glad to get out if they could get compensation of any kind. Those were the houses which would be first compensated. Then he submitted

    1531
    to the judgment of the House that what they wanted to aim at was the reduction of the number of licences, and he was not prepared to say that there were not too many licences—he thought that in the country generally there were too many licences. But when Mr. Bruce introduced his Bill he estimated the number of licensed victuallers and beer-house keepers at one in 182 of the whole population. Mr. Bruce then separated London from the Provinces and he showed that there were one in 300 of the population in London and one in 150 of the population in the Provinces. He (Mr. Whitbread) was sorry they had not got a Return which would throw some light on the subject now, because he was convinced if they had they would prove that they had arrived at a very different state of things. But still he agreed that it would be a good thing to further diminish the number of licences if that could be done with justice to the holders. But what he thought they did want was not a sudden and arbitrary and harsh and violent reduction, but a gradual reduction that could be effected without much opposition. There was great danger in going too fast. If they proceeded too fast in the matter of reductions other houses would spring up; some of them thinly disguised as clubs, and some not disguised at all. If more money were wanted than this 20 per cent he had a suggestion to make by which the difficulty might be met. If power were given to raise money on the security of half that fund, he thought they would get a large crop of licences extinguished by that means first, and they would have a fund to go gradually on with afterwards. They might ask, and ask with some justice, that a further portion of the licence duty should be allocated for this purpose. They would have justice on their side in making this claim, for the reason that this scheme of reducing houses by purchase was proposed to Mr. Bruce in 1871. It was proposed then that they should put a tax on the licences in order to form a compensation fund. They had reason to believe that Mr. Bruce lent not an unwilling ear to that proposal; but the opposition to the Bill of that day had reached such a pitch, that the Government felt themselves compelled to withdraw the measure. If that scheme had been adopted, if that op-
    1532
    portunity had not been lost, he asserted, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that the decrease in the number of licences would have been such as to bring it within any scale that would at that time have been laid down by Parliament. They had lost the last 18 years in that respect, and he hoped they would not lose the 18 years which would follow this. These opportunities did not come very often. Then he would only say that if the idea of a purchase fund was not adopted generally by the whole country, he thought that the licence holders in the Metropolis, or in the County of London as defined by the Bill, should be treated differently from those in the Provinces. They thought they had some claim, both owing to the large population of London and also to the interests concerned, to be heard. They thought, also, that the peculiarities under which licences were held in London, differing as they did in the main from the way in which they were held in the country, gave them a claim to separate treatment. It was a fact that in London the bulk of the houses—he should say certainly three-fourths of them—were not held by brewers, but were held by the licence holders themselves. That might make the difference between the applicability of any scheme to London and to the country. At the same time he did not see the difference himself, but it was a fact. There was another consideration. In London, licences changed hands with extraordinary rapidity, and there was always an open market for the purchase of licences. He was confident that he was within the mark in stating that, on the average, licences in the Metropolis changed hands every five years. He thought that he would be right in saying they changed hands every four years; he was convinced they changed hands, certainly, every five years. The result was that there had always been a perfectly open market. A house could not be run up against the Local Authorities. The Local Authorities would only have to employ their broker, just as the Government employed a broker to buy Consols, and no one could tell who he was buying for. No one would have to give one shilling more than the real market value at the time. There would be no need for them to give a fancy price in order to get possession. Now, this scheme did something

    1533
    both for the advocates of temperance and for the trade itself. It, first of all, took away from the Local Authorities any temptation to do nothing. There was a temptation for the Local Authorities, as the clause was drawn in the Bill, to use the money for the purpose of the rates, and not to embark in any system of buying out licensed houses. It also took away the charge that this compensation would be wrung from the rates imposed upon the people, because it would come from the new fund—a fund belonging in no way to the ratepayer. This was a new tax for the purpose of a new fund, coupled in the Bill with the promise of compensation. If they came to compensate licence holders out of the rates, he very much feared the effect of the agitation which would immediately arise. He thought the ratepayer would be told that it was unjust, in the last degree, to ask him to compensate the holder of any one of these houses. He thought the friction would be immense, and that the result would be that nothing would be done towards diminishing the number of licences. He thought the scheme he had sketched did offer a means, not as rapid as sonic wished, of reducing without friction the number of licensed houses in the country. It offered, on the other hand, to the trade this consideration—that it would put the extra tax to be placed on them by the Bill in a position where it could only be used for their own compensation. It would not be allowed to go into the common stock. He thought the scheme would also put the trade in this position—that their compensation would be secured. It would put their compensation in a place where it would stand. He was not too confident that if it was placed directly upon the rates in the way proposed by the Bill there might not be some risk at some future time of legislation overtaking them and leaving them without anything at all. He thanked the House very earnestly for giving him its close attention to the dry details of a plan of this sort. He again said to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) that the suggestions he had made to him were made with a view of carrying out what he believed to be the object the right hon. Gentleman had at heart. He had not made them in any sense of complaining of the amount of compensation,
    1534
    or of the vast powers that were given to the County Councils, or of anything of that sort. His object had been, if he possibly could, to suggest something that might reduce the acrimony with which this question had been fought, so long as no compensation was proposed. If they could do anything to remove that acrimony, it would be a very great benefit to both Parties in the House, because the question had assumed proportions that made it overshadow almost every other political question. He believed that if they could remove one of the chief obstacles to a peaceful and self-working solution of the question—a fair compensation coming, not from the the rates, but from the extra tax on the licensed victuallers themselves—they would do much to facilitate the working of the measure, and to achieve that which both sides of the House desired to see—namely, that there should only be so many licensed houses in the country as were really wanted by the people, and that there should be a living for those who were licensed. There were many other topics in the Bill which he should like to have touched upon, but he was too sensible of the indulgence the House had granted him on this subject to weary them at any further length.
    MR. MILVAINsaid, the question of the transference of licensing from the magistrates to the new Licensing Authorities had been so fully dealt with by the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) that it would not be fair in him to occupy the time of the House longer upon that subject, except to say that the principle which had been acted upon for many years was that when a person, whose character was always the subject of inquiry before he obtained a licence, had obtained a licence and invested his money in a public-house, there must be something against his personal character before the renewal of his licence could be refused. He hoped it would not be considered he used a strong term when he said it would be inequitable and unjust were it otherwise; it would certainly be striking a blow at the stability of private property, for which there was no precedent in past legislation. He was glad that the principle of vested interests in licences, other than the licences granted under the Beer House

    1535
    and Retail Wine and Spirit Act of 1869, were about to be recognized in this Bill, which he hoped would become an Act. There was another proposal in the Bill to which not much attention had as yet been paid, and that was the proposal relating to the closing of public-houses upon Good Friday, Christmas Day, and Sunday. He had always been of opinion that the closing of public-houses on Sundays and on holidays would not be attended with the good results the Temperance Party had in view; and he might say at once that in speaking upon this measure he had the same object in view as the Temperance Party themselves—that was to say, the moral welfare of the people. But if public-houses in large boroughs and populous districts were closed on Sundays, did those who advocated the closing of such houses not think, or had they not learnt from experience, that those whom they desired to force by Act of Parliament to be sober would provide themselves on the Saturday night with not only the necessary amount of drink to be consumed on the Sunday, but take care that they procured more than they wanted, and more than they would otherwise drink upon the Sunday? It certainly would not be desirable that there should be private drinking in private houses, if only for the sake of the bad example to wives and children, who might not otherwise be tempted into such evil practices. He thought that, if they might draw or gain any knowledge from experience, that had practically been the result of closing public-houses, where they had been already closed by Act of Parliament, on Sundays. He referred to Wales and to Scotland. He was told that in parts of Scotland there was a notice put up in public-house windows upon the Saturday night to "Remember the Sabbath Day." He was told that in Wales, in order to defeat an unpopular Act, the publicans drove a roaring trade upon the Sunday by not only selling drink at their doors to bonâ fide travellers, but also by keeping traps by which they might exchange traffic with their neighbours, and thus constitute people bonâ fide travellers. That was the kind of thing which took place in Wales and Scotland. But if they referred to statistics, if statistics were to be relied upon at all, they found that in the boroughs of Wales,
    1536
    where, of course, the greatest amount of Sunday drinking took place, there was as much Sunday drunkenness as there was in similar boroughs in England and if they turned to similar boroughs in Scotland, they found that the convictions for Sunday drunkenness in Scotland were largely in excess of the convictions for like offences in either England or Wales. He went further, and asserted that if they took the whole of the population of all the boroughs in England, and compared it with the whole of the population of the boroughs in Wales, they would find that the convictions for Sunday drunkenness were practically identical; but if they added the population of Wales and Scotland together, they would find that the convictions for Sunday drunkenness in Wales and Scotland, where Sunday Closing was in operation, were greatly in excess, per 1,000 of the population, of the convictions for Sunday drunkenness in England. But this was purely incidental, and it was, perhaps, not proper for him to mention it; he only did so in view of the provision of the Bill to delegate to County Councils the closing of public-houses within the county or specified parts of the county. In this measure the Government had great difficulties to deal with. They had this difficulty at any rate—that they had succeeded in pleasing neither the Temperance Party nor the licensed victuallers. Speaking for himself, he certainly congratulated the Government on having delegated to the County Authorities this very grave question. It was a grave question, it was one of great importance, and ought to be approached in the most serious manner, affecting, as it undoubtedly did, the vested interests of those who had put their money into the trade and the personal privileges of the people. What would be the effect if the Sunday Closing Question was left in the hands of Parliament? He could not help thinking that Parliament would in time be obliged to pass a Sunday Closing Act if things went on at the present rate. He did not say so because he believed the majority of the people in the country desired it or believed in its desirability, but because candidates were too flabby; they had not got sufficient stamina and backbone to say to those to whom they applied for election what they really

    1537
    thought, or to state what were the Constitutional aspects of this very important question. There was too much of the endeavour to nullify or cancel the influence of the organization, peculiar in itself, as having for its first motive the moral welfare of the people under the name of temperance, but having as its second string a powerful political agency, and that was the reason that, as time went on, if this matter was not delegated to the Local Councils, they would have candidates seeking the representation of the people, and saying, as he regretted to say he had heard them say—"Why should I refuse to accede to the views of a section of the people; it will not hurt me; if they like it, well, then let them have it." He maintained that was an entirely wrong view to take, for reasons with which he would deal presently. Now, what would be the result of delegating this question to Local Councils? He was told by a Petition which he received the other day from some temperance association that it was inadvisable that the question should be delegated to Local Councils, because the Councillors would not be elected upon the direct issue, but upon a general issue. That was exactly his ground for saying that that was practically what happened now in the case of the election of Members of Parliament. If the question were dealt with by Parliament and public-houses were closed by Act of Parliament, what difficulties would have to be encountered in endeavouring to repeal that Act of Parliament? It could not be done. But if this matter were referred to a Local Council to determine, if the first election of Councillors was not upon this direct issue, and if the Council took upon them to either close public-houses or to refuse to renew licences to licensed houses, it might be depended upon that the next election of Councillors, whether it be after three years, or whether it be in pursuance of the principle that one-third of the Councillors should be elected every year, would be conducted upon that direct issue. That was the reason he advised licensed victuallers to readily accept the proposal to delegate this matter to the Local Councils. There was another subject he should like to have recognized in connection with Sunday closing of public-houses. He noticed that, in connection with the authority which was given to the Local Councils
    1538
    to exercise their discretion in refusing to renew licences, an appeal was given from the part affected and from an adjoining licensing division affected by the refusal. Let him point out what would be the effect of closing public-houses in a specified area of the county. Did the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) not think that there ought to be the same facilities of appeal afforded to the area affected by the closing of public-houses and the area adjoining the closed area? It must be perfectly apparent to the House, as well as to the right hon. Gentleman, that if public-houses were closed in a specified area of a county, the outside of that area would be immediately affected by the incursion of those who wished to drink upon Sundays. People would betake themselves from the closed areas to the adjoining areas which were not closed, so he thought the same facilities for appealing to the County Council before public-houses were closed ought to be afforded to the adjoining areas. But there was another question beyond that, and it was a question of compensation. He knew it would be said that if public-houses were closed on Sundays by County Councils, publicans need only take out six-day licences, and thus no compensation would be required. But if that argument was used it was applicable at the present time. Those who wished to act upon Sabbatarian principles could close their public-houses on Sundays and could take out a six-day licence now. The reason why men did not take out six-day licences now was that if they did they would drive their trade away to other public-houses who took out seven-day licences. The recognition in the Bill of the bonâ fide traveller would render the same argument applicable to the state of circumstances created by the Bill. Upon the question of compensation for closing public-houses he might quote a very strong example. In 1886 a Bill was passed through the House of Commons closing public-houses on Sundays in the County of Durham. That Bill went up to the House of Lords, and it passed a first and second reading there. After it had passed the second reading in the Upper House, a public-house on the Northumberland side of the Tyne, which had been put up for auction in the previous year, was again put up, and the auctioneer, while

    1539
    engaged in selling the house, commented upon the great advantage that would accrue to the house in consequence of the Durham Sunday Closing Act. The house went up in value, in consequence of the expectation that the Durham Sunday Closing Bill would come into operation, to the extent of between 30 and 40 per cent. He did not think it required a very great mind to grasp the fact that if a house in a non-closed area went up in value to the extent of 30 or 40 per cent, similar house in a closed area would be depreciated in exactly the same proportion. He thought that while they lived in the luxury of the present day, they entirely forgot the lot of the honest hardworking man. They entirely forgot that he was locked up possibly in his one room, with his wife and his family. They entirely forgot that he possibly might desire occasionally to get away from his house to where he could meet his fellows and converse with them on subjects of mutual interest between them. They entirely forgot that the well-conducted public-house was the club of the working man; and he (Mr. Milvain) thought that if power were given to the County Councils to close public-houses, the same jurisdiction ought to be extended to them to close clubs whether they were bogus clubs or clubs to which hon. Members of the House of Commons resorted. Numbers of clubs were perfectly certain to spring up the moment public-houses were closed, and he thought if there was one thing more than another which made the law respected and obeyed in this country, it was the equality of its application. What he had maintained, and what he should continue to maintain, was that if the County Councils had not the same power to close the clubs as they had to close the public-houses, the law was inequitable in its application, and there would be a new departure in legislation which had never been recognized or sanctioned before, and that was legislation distinguishing the masses from the classes. He knew there had been legislation of an official nature dealing with the masses in their capacity as workmen, but there had been no legislation of a social nature distinguishing them from the classes. What he wanted to see was equality in the law and equality in the application of the
    1540
    law. He did not wish to say any more. He had always taken an interest in this question of Sunday closing, and the more closely he examined it, the more difficult he felt it to be to deal with it; but he was sure of this, that unless it was dealt with in the equitable spirit he had described, it ought not to be dealt with at all.
    MR. CHILDERS: I believe I have heard almost everything that has been said during the course of this debate, and in rising to speak for a very short time I think I ought to say that I do not propose to repeat, if I can avoid it, any part of the arguments which have been used by hon. Members on whichever side of the House they may sit. I am anxious to give to the House a few remarks, in which I shall, as far as I can, call attention to certain points in connection with this Bill which have not hitherto been dealt with. I hope on that understanding I may receive the attention of some Members of the House who, like myself, have for many years taken a great deal of interest in this question. There is a remark that felt from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General to which I think I ought to call attention at the beginning. I do not propose to present any argument on the subject of licensing, either as to the powers proposed to be transferred from the Justices to the Councils, or to those subsidiary questions of which we heard so much during the course of the debate. But I think the House should notice what was elicited by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), that is to say, the precise ground upon which the Government rest their proposal for compensation for loss of licences. It is a very interesting question, and, as such, I think the House should clearly understand the ground the Government has taken, because, to a certain extent, it is a new one. The legal technical ground laid down by the Solicitor General is, it would appear, the foundation of the view adopted by the President of the Local Government Board. The ground upon which the Government rest their case for compensation for the loss of licences is mainly a clause in the Act of 1874, which provides that the Justices, in giving notice to a licensee that his attendance is required on the occasion of

    1541
    his applying for the renewal of his licence, shall set forth the cause, personal to him, why the question of the loss of his licence is in debate. Now, that clause was moved by Sir Charles Dilke on the occasion of the Bill of 1874 being reported. It was not in the Bill as introduced by the Government at all, and it must have been based upon grounds of which we have no trace in Hansard—where it is only said that Sir Charles Dilke moved to add it to the Bill. I wish merely to point out upon what a very slender foundation the Government, according to the Solicitor General, had been advised to base their compensation proposals. I will now pass away altogether from the question of licensing. There are one or two remarks in connection with what was debated yesterday to which I should here like to refer. The hon. Member the Chairman of Ways and Means, to whose most eloquent and brilliant speech the whole of us attended with the greatest possible interest—though, after all, I do not think, in spite of his eloquence, he persuaded any very large number of the House—rested his objection to the proposed constitution of the Council because they are not to be elected according to a particular machinery which does not prevail in respect to elections to this House. He had urged this plan in the discussion of the last Reform Act, and I do not think from the very small support with which it was received then or has been received since, that it is likely to be popular. Therefore, in dealing with my hon. Friend's present suggestion, I think we may assume that it is outside practical politics. I am very sorry for it. My hon. Friend supported his proposal, as I have said with very great eloquence; but you require to persuade as well as to be eloquent, and I do not think anyone will dispute what I say—namely, that of those who listened to my right hon. Friend only a very small proportion were persuaded by the arguments he laid before us. But there was another speech yesterday to which I feel bound to refer. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) followed my hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, and in the course of his speech he brought forward some very cogent arguments against certain of the proposals of the present Bill. But what I could not understand was what gadfly
    1542
    stung my right hon. Friend so that he should have felt it to be his duty to introduce into the discussion what every hon. Member up to this time on either side of the House had been careful to avoid—namely, irritating Party politics having nothing whatever to do with the present Bill. My right hon. Friend may have had his own reasons for introducing that language; but I think the House will agree with me that there is nothing as to which the Government feel more anxious, as to which this Bench has been more anxious, and as to which the whole House has been more anxious, than that this question should be discussed, if possible, altogether outside ordinary Party politics and considerations, and that each clause, each proposal, should stand or fall on its own merits. My right hon. Friend felt it to be his duty—and I am sorry to see he is not hero at this moment—in the course of his remarks to give us a piece of history. He said—
    "Three years ago it was my duty to prepare a Bill upon this subject. It was never completed or submitted to the House, because the Government of the day thought it right to throw aside that measure, with all the other items of the programme upon which they had been elected, in order to take up a new programme upon which the country had not been consulted."
    Well, my right hon. Friend, I presume, alluded to the Bill which he prepared, or which he found prepared, and which he, to some extent, altered in 1886—the Bill which was practically prepared by Sir Charles Dilke and other Members (myself included) of the Cabinet in 1885, and which my right hon. Friend found in the pigeon holes of the Local Government Board. But what was the position of my right hon. Friend in 1886? He had joined a Government the object of which was in the most formal manner declared to be to seek a solution of the Home Rule Question other than coercion. That was the object for which my right hon. Friend joined the Government of the day, and I cannot conceive why he should have suggested as he did yesterday, that his Bill was to have been the main Bill of the Session, but that it was pushed aside for another on the subject of Ireland. But I will venture to quote a sentence from a very well known speech by a Member whose authority he will not dispute, which exactly shows which was considered the

    1543
    more important measure between English County Government and Irish Home
    and the one to be brought forward first. The words are these:—
    "The question of the extension of Local Government is another subject which is even of greater importance. It is a National question as well as a parochial question; and the pacification of Ireland depends on the concession to Ireland of the right to govern itself in the matter of its purely domestic business."
    Now, that I take from a speech on the subject of Local Government, delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) himself, on, I think, the 17th of June, 1885; so that, if it is necessary to answer the remark of my hon. Friend that his Bill was put aside, I answer him in his own words, whether he adheres to them or not at the present time. But, passing from those two speeches, I think the House will agree with me in this, that there is no measure of greater magnitude that either has been or can be proposed to Parliament at the present time than this Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. Not very long ago—I think in the year 1884—I ventured to say, on the approaching introduction of the Bills for reducing the County Franchise and for the redistribution of representation, that those two measures, taken in connection with the Bill which must follow for establishing Local Government upon a popular basis, would form together the greatest administrative and representative change which had taken place in England since 1688. I was very much attacked for that language, and I was told that I was representing the policy of the then Government, or those that might succeed them, in introducing these measures, as a revolutionary policy. Well, Sir, have we not heard during the course of the present debate from the Friends of the Bill themselves that this measure is introducing a great revolution? I think we may take it for granted that, however much some parts of this Bill may be approved of here or approved of there, or disapproved of here and disapproved of there, the Bill, as a whole, will enact a greater reform and a more revolutionary change in our local administration than any measure which has been brought forward for years past or which has ever been likely to receive the approval of
    1544
    this House. Under these circumstances, what, to my mind, is of the first importance is that if we are going to make so great a change as this—a change which even its own authors say is revolutionary—we ought to spare no effort to do it thoroughly. It is of no use at all making a great change of this sort if we leave half of the work undone. That never has been the policy of wise legislators when so enormous a transformation of powers and authority has been brought before the Legislature. Sir, what happens if you do not make the thing thorough? There is no doubt of this, that public attention does not remain fixed upon a particular political subject for any great length of time. As it is, it has taken us 25 years to reach the point of the introduction of this Bill since the question of Local Government began to be agitated in Parliament and the country. I think I am right in saying that it was about 1862 or 1863 that the question first became prominent in the public mind; so that we have taken 25 years to get the question up to the point of a Government—a strong Government—making proposals on the subject. I think that if we let the occasion pass now for making the measure as complete as the time of Parliament during this Session will allow, we shall have the further consequential charges also of great magnitude relegated to some uncertain period; and probably we shall have to wait another 25 years before the measure is made perfect. Let me give the House an illustration of what I mean. I remember something like 17 or 18 years ago there was a great agitation in the country in favour of the reform of our military and naval system. That agitation reached its height about the year 1869 or 1870; and very great changes were made in our military and naval system—changes of great importance, changes very much resisted at the time, but which were carried through the influence of a strong Government. They were, however, far from perfect, and much more was required in the same direction. Now, I say that from that time till two years ago it was impossible in this House to obtain any attention to the question of Army and Navy reform. I had the duty for some years of being responsible to this House for the Army; and what are the facts? Why, that except upon

    1545
    questions of vested interests the House would not attend to any proposals for Army reform, and practically the same statement might be made with respect to naval reform. Fortunately, these subjects are now well to the front, and with the assistance of Committees and Royal Commissions now sitting, a great deal of good will, I hope, be done. But it is perfectly clear that, unless you take advantage of public feeling being strongly in the direction of some great change like this, and unless, whilst you are about it, you carry out that change thoroughly, next year or the year after the whole matter will be forgotten, and it will be impossible to get up the steam of imaginative expression, so as to carry further changes. This has been the policy of our great neighbour, France, in connection with this particular subject of Local Government. I do not know whether the House is aware that for some years during the present century, and up to the time of the Franco-German War, the state of affairs as regarded Local Government in France wanted reforming—a great deal has been left undone. After 1870 an opportunity for carrying out great changes, however, occurred, and chiefly under the guidance of M. Waddington, who is now the French Ambassador in this country, the whole question of French Local Government received a most thorough sifting and inquiry, and a great measure was passed reforming it in all its details—a more comprehensive and elaborate measure even than the one now before this House. The whole Local Government of France, whatever this party or that party may say of any particular provision, was put into a thoroughly satisfactory state. I do hope, therefore, that we shall not leave the thing alone now, and that, so far as we can go on the basis of the present Bill, we shall do our best to make the measure complete, and not trust to future Sessions and Acts of Parliament for doing so. May I say a word or two as to the changes which, I think, ought to be introduced now? A good deal has been said about the impossibility of dealing with the parish in this Bill, and, of course, of dealing with the Union, which consists of a number of parishes. I am ready to admit that the difficulties
    1546
    with respect to parishes are very great, and that there are a great number of parishes that would have to be combined or dealt with in some such way if we take in hand a thorough reform of the parish divisions and of the parish functions. And so with respect to Poor Law Union. But I would make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, which I think, perhaps, would be of some value. He has got now before him, or will have in a short time, the Report of the Boundary Commissioners; at any rate, he will have all of them before the end of the Session. When he has these Reports he will be possessed of the greater part of the materials for re arranging the Union boundaries, which present, no doubt, one of the great difficulties of this matter. Now, what I would suggest to him is this, that in the present Bill he should insert what would not be a very long or a very difficult clause, a clause not merely enabling but requiring the new Councils within a certain time—probably six or nine months would be sufficient after they have got into working order—to prepare schemes for the re-arrangement of the Poor Law Unions upon the basis of the District Council Divisions which will be created under this Bill. In some cases the Unions would be coterminous with the Council districts, and, in some cases, they would embrace two or more Council districts. There may be cases where the district should be divided, though outside the Metropolis I am not sure that there would be many; but if the right hon. Gentleman would introduce a clause requiring the County Council to deal with this re-division within a limited time, the back of the difficulty would be broken. There should be two additional provisions, one that where Unions overlap county boundaries, the two Councils should be compelled to confer and to act; the other, that if they fail or neglect their duty, it should be the province of the Local Government Board to perform it for them. The result would be that we should have within a reasonable time complete schemes for bringing the Poor Law machinery into harmony with the new county machinery, and upon these complete schemes the Government would be able to act. I hope I have made

    1547
    myself clear to the right hon. Gentleman. Well, that appears to be one of the omissions in the Bill.
    MR. RITCHIEwas understood to observe that provision was made for the point referred to in the Bill.
    MR. CHILDERS: The right hon. Gentleman says that these powers are to be granted; but they should be obligations as well as powers imposed upon County Councils by Statute, and not left to the option or caprice of each county. Then, with regard to education, I quite agree that it would have been impossible to have brought the school districts in every case within the provisions of this Bill—I mean the school board districts. That was out of the question; but I think it is very much to be regretted that directly and absolutely under this Bill the charge of intermediate education should not be given to the County Councils, and also that the County Councils are not given by the Bill responsibility for supervising the school boards, instead of leaving them, as they were now, directly under the control of the Education Committee of the Privy Council. I know there is a power in the Bill under which certain official duties can be transferred to the County Councils; but I think we ought to have gone further than that, and that the Bill should lay down distinctly what function should be transferred from the Central Departments. The thing, I think, might have been done easily, and by not more than two or three clauses in the Bill. Then there is another fault in the arrangements of the Bill, to which I think the right hon. Gentleman has already had his attention called. The right hon. Gentleman proposed originally that only a limited number of counties of towns should be created by the Bill—towns, most of them, of 200,000 or 300,000 population. I understand, though I do not think he stated it, and therefore I may be wrong, that he is going now to fix the limit at 100,000 inhabitants—that he proposes that all boroughs of 100,000 inhabitants should be counties for the purposes of this Bill.
    MR. RITCHIE: A hundred thousand in 1881.
    MR. CHILDERS: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to put the limit lower. One hundred thousand is too high. You will choke the municipal life of a great portion of this country if
    1548
    you leave many flourishing towns of less than 100,000 inhabitants in quasi subservience to the counties. I would, therefore, strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman to see whether he cannot find a line very much lower than 100,000. My own suggestion would be more like 40,000. Thus he should get over that other difficulty as to licensing in boroughs which he explained to the House today, but as to which I am afraid, unless something of the kind is done, there will be still greater complications than he has now, depending on the accident whether in the County Council the borough has six representatives or not. On the subject of the control of the police, I heard with great regret, with many other hon. Members last night, the sentence in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman when, in answer to an appeal to retain over the police the authority of the magistrates, he used these words, which I took down at the time—
    "By giving the appointment of the Chief Constable to the magistrates, we give them practically control over the police."
    But that is exactly what the House does not want; it does not want the magistrates to have practical control over the police. The magistrates' duties in connection with keeping order directly in connection with the police are understood. They work well in the boroughs, and do not clash with the absolute control over the force exercised by the Watch Committees; and, so far as I know, there is no reason whatever why this difference should be made between the boroughs and the counties. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the doctrine he laid down last night. I should have liked to have said a few words on the financial question between the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler); but I have not time to go into the detailed figures. But I understand the question to be simply this, that while the President of the Local Government Board does not contest my right hon. Friend's general classification of local taxation, what he does is to criticize the figures which my right hon. Friend produced, and he lays special stress on the fact that during the last 10 years a

    1549
    certain number of rural districts have come to be classed as the intermediate districts.
    MR. RITCHIE: Not intermediate, but urban districts.
    MR. CHILDERS: I understood the right hon. Gentleman last night to say intermediate. However, I will take urban districts. The right hon. Gentleman does not controvert my right hon. Friend's figures.
    MR. RITCHIE: I said the statement I made entirely upset the comparison of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. CHILDERS: Surely he did not dispute the figures themselves.
    MR. RITCHIE: I controverted the force of the comparison.
    MR. CHILDERS: The right hon. Gentleman's object was to throw doubt upon my right hon. Friend's figures, and he endeavoured to correct them so as to bring them into harmony with his own.
    MR. RITCHIE: I never said anything about bringing his figures into harmony with my own. I did not advance figures as against those of the right hon. Gentleman. All I stated was, that when he gave figures to the House showing what the increase of the urban rates had been during the last 10 years, as compared with the increase of the rural rates, he omitted to mention that a largo number of urban districts had been carved out of rural districts.
    MR. CHILDERS: That is precisely what I understood, but I did not, perhaps, express it as clearly as the right hon. Gentleman has done. But the amount in dispute is not large, and when we go into Committee we shall have an opportunity, now that we have the right hon. Gentleman's figures and the figures of my right hon. Friend before us, of more fully discussing this important matter. All I would say at the present moment is that it will be a very important matter in Committee to see whether, under the plan of the right hen. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in counties which contain a number of small boroughs as well as a large number of rural districts, the distribution of the funds in future at the disposal of the Local Authorities is not too favourable to the county at the expense of urban districts. I will say no more than that it is a question which has to be threshed out in Committee. Before I sit down, I
    1550
    should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could hear what I have to say as to the general financial construction of the Bill. What I understand as the financial plan of which the Bill and the Budget scheme are the expressions, is that in the present financial year, the County Authorities are to receive from the Exchequer £1,150,000—that is to say, four-sixths of one-third of the Probate Duties, and they are to receive from new local licences £826,000, making altogether £1,976,000, the present subventions being left intact.
    THE CHANCELLOR OE THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square): Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to correct him? There is the subvention to the roads to be considered.
    MR. CHILDERS; I am allowing for that. Next year the position will be this. The County Authorities are to receive from the Exchequer one-half of the Probate Duties—£1,800,000—and from the new licences, £826,000. From old licences they will receive £2,970,000, less subsidies £2,582,000, and the total effect of that will be that they will receive more than they do at present by, in round numbers, £3,000,000. The effect on the Exchequer will be a loss this year of something more than £1,150,000, and in future years £2,188,000. Well, Sir, how is it proposed to meet this draft on the Exchequer? There are two things which my right hon. Friend proposes to do; and I am only going to state the facts, not to argue whether his proposals are wise or not. He has to provide for the contribution which goes from the Exchequer to the Local Authorities, and he has also another object, which is to take off 1d. from the Income Tax; and he has bound up these two objects together in this way. He proposes to levy new taxes for the Exchequer to the extent of £585,000, and more local licences amounting to £826,000—altogether to add to the local and Imperial taxation, £1,411,000. But he takes off £1,550,000 through the remission of the Income Tax. I think I have stated that quite accurately. Now, if that is the case, if the proposal in connection with the local Budget and the Imperial Budget is to add further taxes—local and general—to the extent of £1,411,000, and to take 1d. in the pound from the

    1551
    Income Tax, at a cost of £1,550,000, with the prospect next year of a far greater burden on the Exchequer, would it not be far better to leave matters as they stand, abandoning altogether both the now local and Imperial taxes, not disturbing the Income Tax, with precisely the same result? I am not going to argue as to the policy of each individual tax which my right hon. Friend proposes to put on in order to realize the amount which his reduction of the Income Tax renders necessary, but as to the new local licences, I think my right hon. Friend himself is by this time aware that they are extremely unpopular, and will meet with very stout resistance. The Horse Tax, I would remind him, was abandoned by Sir Stafford Northcote because the exemptions were so great that it was impossible satisfactorily to collect the tax, and yet my right hon. Friend is going to impose it with still greater exemption than those which existed when Sir Stafford North-cote abolished it. And with regard to the proposed Cart and Wheel Tax, almost every day produces seine new modification, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade promises to a deputation or announces to the House. I am very much afraid that when these taxes come to be discussed in Parliament it will be extremely difficult to lay down either with respect to the Horse Tax, with respect to the Waggon Tax, or with respect to the Wheel Tax, a system which will not be so full of exemptions and anomalies that it will be practically unworkable. Now, let me repeat again what I said just now. I said you will not find it necessary to raise any new taxes if you leave the income Tax alone. Why not give the Local Authorities, instead of £826,000 in the shape of obnoxious new local taxes, as you propose to give them, an equivalent amount from the House Duty, say, one-half, or more precisely four-ninths, which would reach £840,000? This transfer and the non-enactment of the additional Wine Duty and stamps and other imports, will be just met by not taking 1d. off the Income Tax. I would suggest that for the consideration of the Government. Of course, this is not the time for debating in detail any change of this kind which affects mainly the Budget proposals; but, so far as
    1552
    local taxes are concerned, I would only repeat that I greatly deplore these additions to the charges on locomotion, just after they have been one by one abandoned; and if there ever was a time when the warning "Why cannot you let it alone?" was applicable, was the present.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Firth,)—put, and agreed to.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present:—

  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (PENSIONS) BILL.— [BILL 92.]
  (Sir Richard Temple, Mr. Godson, Mr. Hastings.)
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (PENSIONS) BILL.— [BILL 92.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 44: Majority 7.—(Div. List, No. 72.)

  ARCHITECTS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  (Colonel Duncan, Captain Penton, Mr. Murphy, General Goldsworthy, Colonel Makins.)
  ARCHITECTS' REGISTRATION BILL.

    [BILL 81.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    COLONEL DUNCANsaid, the object of the Bill, the second reading of which he was about to move, was very simple. There was nothing at present to prevent a man calling himself an architect, surveyor, or engineer; while the public had no means whatever which would enable them to distinguish between those who were competent and qualified persons and those who were not. The promoters of the Bill desired to afford facility for distinguishing between men who had been trained to the profession of architects, civil engineers, and surveyors, and those who had not received such training. There were many difficulties to be encountered in effecting this—in the first place, there were the rights of many professional men which had to be considered; and, secondly, there was the

    1553
    very strong opposition which any new measure had to encounter. If he could put before the House the numerous objections to the Bill which had reached him, it would be found that they all answered one another. He had received letters telling him that the Bill was for the purpose of making architecture, engineering, and surveying close corporations; others said that its object was to make those professions open to the most inefficient practitioners. Most of the objections to the provisions of the Bill were matters which could be considered and met in Committee. There were eminent Bodies in the country which were fitted for conducting, under the Privy Council, an examination into the capabilities of persons for these professions, but at present there was no compulsory power in those Bodies. This power the Bill proposed to give them. At the present time there were many sanitary questions to be dealt with, but those questions could not be treated by ignorant men. The Legislature had taken care, by many enactments, that medical examinations should take place, and if other classes of professional men were compelled to be registered, he did not see why that rule should not be applied to those who belonged to the professions which were the subject of this Bill. He found that a sentimental objection was urged against the proposal—namely, that architecture was a mystic art, and that the ability of a man in that department could not be tested. But the same objection might be urged in the case of medical men. It could not be denied that a large amount of useful knowledge would be obtained by the proposed examinations, and that the public would be gainers in future by securing the safety which would result from those examinations. The desire of those who promoted this measure was simply the elevation of these professions and the protection of the public. He would conclude by moving the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Colonel Duncan.)
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, as a member of the Medical Profession, he had had some experience of registration in that profession, and he would ask the House not
    1554
    to come to any premature decision upon the Bill. There was no kind of comparison between the Bodies with respect to which the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Duncan) had sought to establish an analogy. In the case of the Medical Profession, they had a homogeneous body developing itself until the time was ripe for the practitioners to be grouped together. The professions dealt with in the Bill appeared to him to be heterogeneous, and he was not prepared to see all those Bodies grouped in one Bill in order to establish an association of architects, engineers, and surveyors. He agreed that some steps should be taken for making architects more acquainted with sanitary matters, but he did not think that the Bill offered adequate means of arriving at that desirable end. He, therefore, urged the House to consider the matter further before agreeing to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member.
    MR. GILLsaid, he joined the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in opposing this Bill. He objected to placing these three Professions on the same footing as the Medical Profession. At present, it was open to anybody who had talent and skill to practice in those Professions without having the opportunity of doing any serious harm. The employment given to the three Professions came, as a rule, from boards and business corporations, who knew their interest well enough to get the best men to do the work. It was only natural and necessary that precautions should be taken in the case of the Medical Profession, to the members of which men's lives were entrusted, and accordingly the public were entitled to every security that Universities and educating Bodies could afford, by ensuring that the members of the Profession should practice with efficiency and skill; but in the case of engineers, surveyors, and architects, the matter was entirely different. The institutes of civil engineers, surveyors, and architects were entirely against the Bill. They considered it a most invidious and entirely unnecessary measure. For those reasons, he hoped that the Division would be taken at once, and that the Motion for the second reading would be promptly defeated.
    MR. MURPHYsaid, he rose to support the Bill for the very reason which had induced his hon.

    1555
    Friend (Mr. Gill) to oppose it. His hon. Friend seemed to think that this Bill was put forward in an exclusive sense, but he (Mr. Murphy) considered it rather an enfranchising Bill than otherwise. Its only opponents were the members of three very exclusive and select Bodies, who had their head quarters in London. There were, however, a great many admirable associations in other parts of the country, and in Dublin there was the Society of Engineers and Architects, who were in favour of the Bill. No doubt the London societies had great weight all the world over; but, as he had said, they were very exclusive, and it was to put an end to those close boroughs that the Bill was designed. He hoped the House would assent to the second reading, and if it were thought desirable, he would, for his part, be willing that, in Committee, the Bill should be made permissive.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, that Clause 21 provided that after the 1st of January, 1889, no person should be entitled to take the name of architect, civil engineer, or surveyor unless he had registered under this Act. Now, that seemed to him to be introducing a proposition of the gravest kind, and he had not heard any adequate reason that evening in support of the measure, which must press harshly and severely upon a large class of persons. He thought also they should have the view of the Government on this subject, and perhaps the best course, under the circumstances, would be that the Debate should be adjourned.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he thought that anybody acquainted with the Professions intended to come within the scope of this Bill must feel that there was no real necessity for the measure, which, while it imposed restrictions on those who practised in the Professions, did not meet the evils of which the hon. and gallant Member had complained. He would only speak for the Society of Civil Engineers, and he asked the House to consider what had been the result of the works carried out by them during the last 50 years. No one would say that there had been any defects in the work which the civil engineers had performed during that period, or that the Profession had not been practised in a way satisfactory to the
    1556
    country. They had spent a large sum of money in the promotion of the science of engineering, and he thought it was a monstrous thing to say that men who were members of that body should not be allowed to practise unless they registered. Then, again, no doubt there were various views with regard to architecture; but in this case also, during the last 50 years, the practice of architecture had enormously improved, and he submitted that those who supported the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Duncan) should show where was the necessity for this Bill, in what respect the Profession had failed, and how it was proposed to establish the examining Body, with regard to which there were no particulars or details given. Again, hon. Members knew perfectly well that during the last 13 or 14 years examinations were held for the purpose of testing surveyors and granting diplomas and certificates and for proficiency in sanitary science and such matters as were necessary for those who practised that profession. And, again, he said that if the Bill was to be passed, they would require some explanation from the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Supporters as to the parts of the country where these examinations would be required. The House would understand that, having taken a great interest in these Professions for many years, he (Sir Richard Webster) would be the first to advocate that there should be efficiency in architecture, surveying, and engineering; but having had a large acquaintance with members of the Professions concerned, having carefully considered the Bill, and not being influenced by anything except his own knowledge, he thought that this was a measure which the House ought not to pass without it was fully explained in what manner the evils alluded to were intended to be met.
    MR. BRUNNERsaid, his experience was rather a sad one in this particular—namely, that some years ago he had advertised for an engineer at a salary of £300, and failed to hear of one who was sufficiently familiar with logarithms to calculate the proper weight for a fly-wheel. He fully sympathized with the object of the Bill introduced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but, nevertheless, could not support it, for the reason that, as it

    1557
    seemed to him, there was no guarantee in it for a thoroughly sound education, nor did the council which was to confer degrees appear to be properly constituted. He trusted, however, that hon. Members who had thought over the Bill would consider that better education for members of these Professions was very difficult to obtain in England, and he thought it a disgrace to the country that that should be so.
    MR. GILESsaid, he would appeal to the Members of the House as to whether the engineers who had carried out tremendous works in all parts of the world should be placed in the position contemplated by the Bill. He failed to see why the 5,530 members of that Profession should be so treated, and he would point out that although the Bill was nominally for the protection of the public against incompetency, its object was very different. If hon. Members would look at Schedule A, it would be seen that the members of 23 societies were to be pitchforked into the Professions. The three leading Institutes of Engineers, Architects, and Surveyors had petitioned against the Bill. He was bound to say that its promoters were particularly patronizing, for they said that the Charter of the Institute of Engineers, now some 60 years old, was to be confirmed by them. The members of the Institute were very much obliged to them for this consideration; but they did not want the irresponsible authors of the Bill to confirm this Charter. He considered that engineers had done more than any other Profession to increase the civilization of the world. To what had been done in railways, steamships, electricity, and other branches of engineering, the great names of Stephenson, Brunel, Armstrong, and Siemens testified, and their works were the monuments of their greatness. The members of these Professions claimed higher ground than that assigned to them by the promoters of the Bill; and, if for no other reason, he trusted the House would reject the Bill.
    MR. ISAACSsaid, on behalf of the body of architects he ventured to think that a more uncalled-for measure than the present could not well be conceived. While he recognized his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Duncan) as a great authority upon guns of all descriptions, he could
    1558
    not consider him an equal authority on the particular subject with which he had associated his name. He was aware that there was a feeling abroad that the architect of the present day was not up to the requirements necessary with respect to the sanitation of houses; but he bogged to point out that, in that matter, it was not so much the architects who were at fault as the jerrybuilders, and that if the Bill were passed to-morrow, they would still have to guard against the latter. As was well known, the Royal Institute of Architects and the Architectural Association had long held the foremost place in the estimation of the profession and of the public; but a third society had been created within the last few years, and it had occurred to that Society that some ready means should be found for making it compulsory that architects should be registered. The Bill would not, in his opinion, effect any practical advance in the Profession of architecture. It was proposed that all the members of the various Societies should be entitled to be registered; and when he said that some of those Societies were, so to speak, of mushroom growth, the House would be able to come to a conclusion as to the merits of the members of those Societies in regard to the privilege which this Bill proposed to give them. If it were necessary to have a controlling body over the education of those who would practise the Profession in future, they should call to their aid a Society respectable as to its ago and reputation, which possessed a Royal Charter, and which numbered amongst its members some of the leading architects of the day, rather than place themselves in the hands of a Society established only three years ago. If, then, it was unnecessary that such a Bill should be passed with regard to the Profession of Architecture, it was nothing short of an impertinence to seek to control the Profession of Civil Engineers by this Bill. He therefore hoped that the House would say there should be no legislation in this direction, and that the Bill would be unanimously rejected.
    MR. BEADELsaid, as he had the honour to be President of the Surveyors' Institution, he wished to say a few words on this Motion. The provisions of the Bill constituted an attack upon the influence fur good which the Surveyors' Institution,

    1559
    incorporated by Royal Charter, exercised. The Bill was also an attack upon the Royal Society of Engineers and the Royal Society of British Architects. He thought the House would be careful in allowing a Bill to pass the second reading the purport of which was to do that which his hon. and gallant Friend, in his own Profession, would be the very last to countenance—namely, to allow those who had not gone through the necessary ordeal of passing through those Institutions for the purpose of getting the stamp of ability placed upon them, to arrive at a position which would enable them to compete with those who had passed that ordeal to place a brass plate upon their doors and style themselves engineers, architects, and surveyors. If such a measure were proposed in the case of the Army, no one would use more influence than his hon. and gallant Friend to prevent it becoming law. When it was considered that the members of the three Institutions attacked numbered rather more than 10,000, and that, as he was advised, pressure had been put upon many persons to induce them to sign the Petitions which had been presented to the House, he thought hon. Members would hesitate to allow the Bill to be read a second time. The House should bear in mind that to pass the Bill would be to throw odium upon institutions which had stood the test of time. If it were the pleasure of the House, there would be no difficulty whatever in having registration; but did any Member suppose that by giving a man the opportunity of describing himself upon his brass plate as a registered practitioner he would be capable of holding a position in any one of the three Societies in question? Or would anyone who had a house to build, or a large work to execute, think the brass plate a sufficient reason for employing the man who displayed it as his surveyor? Every prudent person ascertained the qualifications of the medical man he was going to consult; and those who opposed this Bill asked that the stamp of ability should not be placed on those who had not shown that they were entitled to it by the exercise of industry and by having passed the necessary ordeal, as was the case with the members of the Institution which he represented. He could not believe that the House would sanc-
    1560
    tion the principle of the Bill; and, for the reasons stated, he trusted that the Motion for its second reading would not be agreed to.
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that the Bill was drawn exactly according to the Act which he had the honour of passing through the House in relation to the Medical Profession when the Liberals were last in power. But the House should recollect the circumstances under which that Bill was passed. The Medical Profession was a homogeneous Profession, so far as regarded the subjects which it had to undertake. It was not easy to reform the Medical Profession; and it was only after great care and consultation with all the examining Bodies and the practitioners that he was able to get sufficient support to pass such an Act. The Bill now before the House was framed on exactly the same principle—that was to say, there were certain qualified Bodies who were to go upon the general council. Then there were to be certain representative members elected for the three parts of the Kingdom. But who were the constituents in this case? There were no regularly qualified and registered people who could become electors at the present moment. They were to be constituted by the Bill. In the case of the Medical Profession the practitioners had been registered for many years, and they could properly form a constituency. But here it was proposed by the Bill to create a constituency, and a constituency, too, which was very unwilling to be created. The architects and engineers and surveyors were not at present identical; and the House could not in justice pass a Bill which met with so much opposition as this Bill did, and which was not founded upon the same conditions which enabled the House to pass the Bill relating to the Medical Profession.
    COLONEL DUNCANsaid, he had listened to all that had been said by hon. Members against the Bill, but he could not help feeling that a good deal had been gained by drawing public attention to the subject.
    MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that the hon. and gallant Member has no right of reply on an Order of the Day.
    COLONEL DUNCANasked for leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill withdrawn.

  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS BILL.
  (Mr. Fenwick, Mr. William Crawford, Mr. Burt, Mr. William Abraham (Glamorgan), Mr. Pickard, Mr. Arthur Acland.)
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS BILL.

    [BILL 137.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that the second reading of this Bill ought not to pass without some statement being made with regard to it. The Bill proposed that they should take a distinct step forward—a step which the House had not hitherto thought proper to take. It proposed that, in future, no one should have charge of a boiler or steam engine who had not received a certificate from the Board of Trade. This question had arisen last year in connection with collieries, and had met with a certain amount of discussion; but the House had decided, upon what he considered to be weighty arguments, that it was not desirable to introduce such a provision as was here proposed. He did not, by any means, say that no larger supervision than now existed ought to be had over steam boilers; but, at the same time, he thought they were entitled to say that the accidents arising from improper management were so few that they might assume that, generally speaking, proper care was exercised in the management of engines and boilers. Articles of that kind might be divided into two classes—namely, those which belonged to large and that which belonged to small works. He thought it must be admitted that in every properly conducted large manufactory it was the interest of the proprietors to see that the boilers were properly managed, because the loss arising from bad management altogether outweighed any small difference there might be between the wages of skilled and unskilled persons, and, therefore, in the case of large works, he was certainly of opinion that the Bill was unnecessary. With regard to the smaller works, he would like to know what reason there was to suppose that any certificate from the Board of Trade, or any similar body, would bring about a greater amount of care than was now exercised? It generally happened, where
    1562
    an accident occurred, that it was not so much from want of knowledge as from want of care, and he did not understand how a certificate could show whether a person was fit to be trusted in that respect. He was not speaking at random, because he bad in his mind one or two cases which had come to his knowledge within the last year or two. In the case of one accident, the man who had had the management of an engine for years was perfectly competent and would have passed any examination; but one day he came to his work in a state of intoxication, turned a handle the wrong way, and an accident was the result. That case, to his mind, showed how utterly inadequate a certificate of the Board of Trade would be to give any guarantee of character necessary for the management of an engine. With regard to boilers, he knew of a case the other day in which a boiler had been used for some time; there were no less than three persons more or less in charge, any one of whom would have passed any examination that the Board of Trade would prescribe. It happened that a slight injury occurred to the boiler, and it was then found that there was another defect which a proper examination would have shown to exist. These were typical instances showing the futility of a test by examination. This subject had been, from time to time, he believed, under the consideration of the Government, and it had been found extremely difficult to deal with it; therefore, he considered that he might fairly ask that the House should not support the second reading of the Bill, until it was shown that it would bring about greater safety than was now secured.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that the passing of the Bill would not, as had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), lead to the wholesale discharge of men now in charge of engines and boilers unless they passed an examination. The examination which was proposed by the Bill was a very simple one, and every person in charge of an engine ought to be able to pass it. Discharges would not follow upon the passing of the Bill, because the 5th clause of the Bill provided that no man should be required to pass an examination if he had been in charge of a steam engine or boiler for the time of two years. Full

    1563
    protection was therefore given to men now in employment, and every effort made to disturb existing arrangements as little as possible. He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) present, because he would be able, no doubt, to inform the House, if it was necessary, that good results had followed upon the examination of men in charge of marine engines and boilers. The noble Lord the ex-President of the Board of Trade (Lord Stanley of Preston), speaking in "another place" last Session, on a kindred proposal to the one of his (Mr. Broadhurst's) hon. Friend, gave some important figures as to the good that had resulted from the examination of marine engineers; and he showed that since marine engineers had been required to pass examinations, and to obtain certificates from the Board of Trade, the loss of life from explosions at sea had almost altogether ceased. The hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) asked what good was to follow this examination. Every good. They had the best of evidence that the greatest possible good—a large saving of property, and, what was still more important, great protection of life—had been consequent upon the examination imposed upon marine engineers by the Board of Trade. He presumed that every Member of the House knew that no marine engineer was allowed to take charge of a vessel unless he had obtained a certificate of competency from the Board of Trade. If it was necessary that the engineers even of small vessels should obtain certificates, how much more necessary was it in the case of our crowded towns, where boilers were found every few yards distant, many of them old and patched up and driven by most incompetent men. Whatever his hon. Friend (Mr. Fenwick) had in his mind in proposing the Bill, he knew what the Committee who prepared the Bill had in their minds. The Committee of the Trades Congress, of which he had the honour to be secretary, had in their minds the important fact that every year there were numbers of accidents, resulting in great injury to limb, and often in loss of life, through over-winding and incompetent supervision of colliery engines. This Bill was a strictly Conservative Bill. It sought to
    1564
    do no one a harm. It did not seek to disturb any trade, to advance any private interest; but its whole object was the protection of property and the protection of life. He claimed the support of every thoughtful Member of the House for the second reading of the Bill. Might he recall to the House the fact that on the last occasion on which they had a thorough debate on this subject—he was not then a Member of the House, but he was under the Gallery, and he remembered the debate as though he took part in it—a distinguished Predecessor of the Home Secretary, who was now Lord Cross, but who was then Home Secretary, took part in the debate. He remembered perfectly well that Lord Cross said that boilers had a language, if not like the language of human beings, yet as unfailing and as unerring in its indications, and that they only required a competent person to be in attendance upon them to understand the language of a boiler, and to be able to take such precautions that would prevent an explosion, and thereby prevent great destruction of life and property. There could be no stronger argument in favour of the second reading of this Bill than the speech of Lord Cross if there had been time to reproduce it. He was persuaded that the reproduction of that speech would have been sufficient in itself to carry the second reading of the Bill. But curiously enough the noble Lord, after making such a good speech, failed to support the Motion to which he spoke. He was only like many of his Colleagues and political Friends, who often made good speeches, but gave bad votes. Sometimes they gave very good votes, and made very bad speeches. Members on both sides of the House, however, were guilty of such failings. But he asked the attention of the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) for a moment, because this was a very important matter, and could not be disposed of lightly. The safety of hundreds of lives depended upon this or some similar protection being afforded. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would only consent to support the second reading of the Bill to-night, and to vote for it, if necessary, he (Mr. Broadhurst) would guarantee that to-morrow the right hon. Gentleman's permanent officials at the

    1565
    Board of Trade would show him evidence of the most conclusive character to justify him and his Government in supporting the Bill. Let the right hon. Gentleman refer to the Reports made to the Board of Trade by the Departmental officers on the causes of explosions of boilers, and especially as to the number of explosions that had taken place in the case of boilers of traction engines. Why only a few years back, an explosion took place at Maidstone. He was speaking now, like the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), without his brief; but he had read on more occasions than one, that in that case some lives were lost and much injury was done, and that the coroner's verdict amounted in short to this—that the explosion and the consequent loss of life and loss of property would not have taken place had the man in charge of the engine been a competent and skilled man and fit for the important duty entrusted to him. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would look up the Reports, he would find one concerning the running away and explosion of a traction engine some years ago at Rochester or somewhere in the neighbourhood. There was a celebrated manufactory of traction engines in the neighbourhood of Rochester, and if he remembered rightly the manufacturer of those engines gave evidence as to the cause of the accident, and confirmed the opinion that some legislation of this kind was necessary. In the case of one explosion which took place, it was found that a very economical driver, wishing to get all he could out of the engine with as little expenditure of coal as possible, had wedged down the safety valve with a brick. If this moderate and reasonable proposal, which no man ought to say a word against, had been in operation during the last 10 years, scores, if not hundreds, of lives would have been saved, many children would not have been left fatherless, and much destruction of property would have been prevented. Those were reasons which led him to support this Bill. He wished it, however, to be understood that he spoke entirely for himself. He must not be supposed to represent in any way whatever the opinions of his Colleagues upon the Opposition Bench, but he spoke as an independent Member. He sincerely trusted that the
    1566
    Government were, at any rate, agreed as to the second reading of the Bill, and he had no doubt that his hon. Friend in charge of the measure would after the second reading had been carried, be ready to consult with the Board of Trade as to any Amendments which it might be thought necessary to insert in the Bill in Committee. Let them distinguish this night, extraordinary as it had been, in legislative incidents, as one night in the Session when the House resolved to do its utmost to protect the lives of our great labouring community as far as they could by the adoption of reasonable proposals of this nature. He had great pleasure in supporting the second reading of this Bill.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, that the boilers which predominated in country districts were of no danger whatever to anyone, and in legislating upon this question such a fact ought not to be forgotten. If they were to impose the proposed restrictions on the ordinary farmer, they would simply prevent him using steam on his farm in the same manner that he did at present. They knew that in many agricultural occupations, such as dairying, steam boilers were frequently used, and that the boilers for the most part were not of a very dangerous tendency, but were manufactured in order to do the simplest work, and in order that they would require little attention in management. But if any of the farm labourers had to go before a Board of Examiners to get certificates, and those certificates were to appear in The London Gazette before the men could attend to boilers, a great amount of mischief would be done to the country districts generally. Having said this he hoped that if his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) consented to allow the Bill to go further, he would take care that there was no harassing legislation in the Bill, for they wanted as much freedom as possible so long as there was protection of life and property.
    MR. T. FRYsaid, there was in the Bill a good deal that was valuable, though it seemed to him they would have to correct one or two points. The principal point to be determined was who was the person really in charge of the engine or boiler. Unless they were careful as to the wording of the

    1567
    Bill, many persons would be thrown out of employment. If, however, it made clear who it was who was understood to be in charge of an engine or boiler, the House might safely assent to the second reading.
    MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, that a little knowledge was certainly a dangerous thing in the management of a steam engine or boiler. He was in favour of the second reading of the Bill, because he thought that all those who were brought in contact with those who had charge of engines and boilers should be safeguarded. He did not, however, agree with hon. Members who were of opinion that a man should be called upon to pass for the care of an ordinary farm engine the same examination as a man who wished to take charge of a marine engine, because marine engines were very complicated pieces of machinery and were altered in construction everyday. At the same time, a simple examination would be a safeguard in the case of all those who had charge of engines. He did not think it was necessary for a man to pass an examination as a fitter or constructor; but still a man who took charge of a boiler ought to have at least a slight knowledge of the working of a steam gauge. The fact was that, in many cases, old worn-out boilers were used upon farms, and they were a source of very great danger, not only to those who had charge of them, but also to those who had to work about them. Not only that, but they were liable to produce in many cases fires and other disasters. He hoped that those in charge of the Bill would be able to explain to the House what sort of examination, roughly speaking, it was sought men should be required to pass. He trusted that nothing of a very complicated nature would be required, because it would throw out of employment a very great number of men. He should support the second reading, and he could not help thinking that in Committee they could put in such restrictions as were considered necessary.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, that an hour ago he was as little aware, as he supposed most hon. Members of the House were, that this subject would come up for discussion that night; but it had been his duty to consider the matter, seeing that the Bill
    1568
    stood on the Orders of the Day, and he had also had to consider it with reference to another Bill introduced by another hon. Member of the House for dealing in another way with this very important question. If he could believe that the effect of the Bill would be anything like what had been attributed to it by the hon. Member (Mr. Broadhurst), certainly he should recommend the House to give it a second reading. More than that, he should do his best to pass it into law. But the point they had to consider appeared to be this—not whether they were anxious, as he was sure all of them were anxious, to do everything in their power to get rid of the terrible dangers of explosions and the causes which now led to them, but whether the particular proposal before them was likely to attain that object. Reference had been made by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) to the qualification required for the engineers in charge of marine engines. As the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. Llewellyn) had already stated, it was hardly fair to compare the case of marine engines with ordinary engines. Marine engines were notoriously complicated to a degree, which the engines dealt with in this Bill, or a great majority of them certainly, could not be considered to be. It might be perfectly right and necessary to insist on qualifications in the case of marine engines, whereas it might not be so necessary to insist upon qualifications in the case of ordinary engines. Let him call the attention of the House to the fact that it had been found necessary, in order to exclude as many persons as possible from the scope of the Bill, to say that the mere fact that a man had had charge of an engine or boiler for a period of two years before the 1st of March, 1888, should be sufficient testimony that he was qualified to have such charge. But if that was to be a proper qualification, what became of the argument that all the accidents, or a large proportion of the accidents, were due to the absence of qualification on the part of the men who had charge of the boilers? The very proposal which the hon. Members in charge of the Bill found it necessary to insert in order to avoid depriving hundreds of men now in charge of boilers of employment, showed that the remedy they proposed would not really meet the

    1569
    difficulties they desired to grapple with. Reference had been made by the hon. Member for West Nottingham to the Reports of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade had power, as the hon. Member was aware, to inquire after an explosion had occurred, and to take steps with a view of prosecuting, if necessary, the persons to whose fault the explosion might be due. He had here the Report of the Board of Trade dated the 31st of August, 1886, and in that document he found it stated that in the year 1885–6 there were 57 cases in which preliminary inquiries under Section 6 of the Boilers Explosions Act, 1882, were held. That was an increase in the number of cases as compared with previous years, though the number of lives lost fell below the average. What did the Report state as to the accidents in which inquiries were held? Thirty-two accidents were due to deterioration, corrosion, or defectiveness of the safety valve of the boilers; 16 to defective design or construction; six to ignorance, neglect, or carelessness of the attendants; and three to miscellaneous causes; making 57 in all. Now, the House would observe that of these accidents not a single one would have been avoided had this Bill been in operation. [Mr. BROADHURST: Yes, 16.] The Bill before the House would do nothing whatever to prevent defective design or construction of boilers. That might be dealt with by proposals for inspection, which were contained, he believed, in another measure now before the House. Ignorance was the only cause that could possibly be considered to be dealt with by the Bill, and that, as he had already observed, would hardly be guarded against when they admitted that employment for two years past was sufficient qualification. Neglect or carelessness could not be dealt with by the Bill, and, therefore, the result was that practically this Bill would have done no good whatever towards preventing any of the 57 cases of explosions in which inquiries were held by the Board of Trade during the year 1885–6. Now, what was stated in addition? Although such a large proportion of the explosions were caused by the neglect, not of the persons employed to look after the boilers, but of the owners, in no case had the facts been so proved as to warrant the Department in
    1570
    taking the responsibility of recommending a prosecution under the Criminal Law. So that in all these cases it was found impossible to make any person amenable for the misfortune which had occurred. What he wanted to hear from those who were anxious to give a second reading to this Bill was something more than general philanthropic sentiments in favour of preventing these explosions. The hon. Member for West Nottingham was full of such sentiments. He shared those sentiments with the hon. Member, and if, by the passing of this Bill, he believed anything could be done towards remedying this serious evil, he certainly should be one of its earnest supporters. But seeing that the working of this Bill, applying as it did to the small agricultural boilers all over the country, most seriously interfered, and unneccessarily interfered, with agriculture and with the smaller trades, he was bound to ask himself, before he gave his vote in favour of the second reading, whether it was really a Bill that would carry out the object of those who had brought it into the House. He could not satisfy himself that it was so, and, therefore, he would have to give his vote against the second reading.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he did not wonder at the hesitation of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) who had just sat down, if it was thought that the Board of Trade should licence every man who had charge of a boiler or steam engine, and supply him with a certificate show that he was capable of undertaking such duties. But, after all, the machinery by which it was proposed to accomplish this object was very simple, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman had under-rated considerably the advantages which might accrue from the application of the provisions of this measure. The right hon. Gentleman had said very truly that, in the case of marine engines, there was much more reason for an examination as to the qualification of the persons who were to take charge of them. Marine engines and boilers were much larger and much more complicated than those on shore, as a general rule, and an accident to one of them subjected those who were in the vicinity to the greatest possible danger. The explosion of a marine boiler pro-

    1571
    bably meant the destruction of the ship, and a probable loss of a great number of lives. He thought they were all of them agreed that there had not been much loss of life in connection with boiler explosions of late years; and, with regard to the Report of the accidents the right hon. Gentleman quoted, there was net one which was shown to be an unavoidable accident. The right hon. Gentleman stated that examination would not at all tend in any respect, so far as he could see, to diminish the number of accidents; but, on the contrary, he (Mr. Mundella) thought that if the men who had the control of the boilers and engines referred to in the Report the right hon. Gentleman read, had been intelligent men, the probability was that nine-tenths of the accidents would have been avoided. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted 32 cases where there was deterioration, corrosion, or defectiveness of the safety valves of the boilers, which caused the explosions. Well, an intelligent man, efficient for the discharge of the duty of taking care of a boiler, in each of these cases would have known that there was something wrong, and would have pointed it out—indeed, a man who knew his business would not have worked with a boiler that was defective; he would have declined to place his life in jeopardy under such circumstances. He (Mr. Mundella) know that employers of labour like himself knew little more than what they were taught by their engineers in regard to their boilers and engines; but there could be no doubt that intelligent engineers would find out that deterioration was taking place, and would not allow that to continue. The right hon. Gentleman said—"But you are willing to take as a test of intelligence that a man has been for two years in charge of a boiler." Now, that was not so; but the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to point out that even in higher professions they had, when they first brought men under registration, to accept the mere fact that they had, for a certain time, discharged the functions that it was necessary to consider them capable of discharging those functions. Take the case of the Medical Profession. Men who had not had the necessary qualifications had been allowed to register because they had been in practice when the registrations were first in-
    1572
    stituted. In the case of veterinary surgeons, he himself had passed a Bill under which a great many men were allowed to register who had been in practice five years, and he had found that amongst the men who had thus qualified were a number of ex-policemen and some few convicts. These men did not possess the qualification which the measure provided that veterinary surgeons in the future should possess, but they had had the experience of practice. The object of this Bill, although not so much to interfere with the persons who at present had the control of boilers and engines, was to secure that in the future none but intelligent and properly qualified men should be entrusted with such control. He (Mr. Mundella) knew that in his own county there had been many accidents from explosions entirely owing to the ignorance of those in charge of the boilers and engines, and if they could do anything to prevent such ignorance, he trusted they would not hesitate to do it. He saw that the Bill provided examiners, and he was certain that there were civil engineers in every constituency and district where engines and boilers were worked who would be able to give the necessary certificates of competency. By the system proposed, if a civil engineer put to an applicant for a certificate the necessary questions as a test of competency, and the applicant had answered those questions satisfactorily, the certificate would be given to enable that man to take charge of boilers of all kinds. Such a thing would be a safeguard to the public. He did not say that all the provisions of the Bill were perfect, but any that were considered faulty could be amended in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would give along day to the Committee—that was to say, fix a day some distance off, say a fortnight or three weeks hence—he trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would allow the measure to be read a second time. The right hon. Gentleman could consider what Amendments might be necessary, and could take every precaution he pleased to bring the measure under the supervision of the Board of Trade, so as to prevent undue friction in its application. If the right hon. Gentleman would adopt such a course, he would be doing good service to the operative classes of this country.
    MR. ADDISONsaid, he proposed to give the House an opportunity of taking a long interval for the consideration of the measure, for he proposed to move that the second reading of it be deferred until that day six months. He objected to the Bill not only because he had received a great many communications from his constituents against it, but because he objected to it on principle. First of all, with regard to the powers it contained, the borough he represented was situated in a county which probably had more boilers and knew more about these questions than any other county in England. ["No, no!"] He undertook to say they had more boilers in Lancashire—
    An hon. MEMBER: Than in Yorkshire?
    MR. ADDISONsaid, he would, at any rate, undertake to say that they had more boilers in Lancashire, if Yorkshire was excluded, than in any other county in the country. It was the universal opinion of everybody practically acquainted with this subject in Lancashire, that the Insurance Companies, who were now inspecting boilers in the interests of traders, did their work and insured better examination and greater efficiency on the part of engineers than any State inspection could insure. That, he maintained, was a fact known to all practical men; and, beyond this, he would appeal to the House and ask if such a measure as the present were to be allowed to pass, where this sort of legislation would end? It proceeded upon a sort of notion that no class of the community, and certainly no traders, were ever able to manage their own business for themselves or conduct it without inspection or regulation. It was a class of legislation which they all ought to deprecate. It proceeded on the notion that in every department of trade the State or the Government, or the powers that be, whatever they are, were to be allowed to interfere and tell manufacturers what they ought to do and how they ought to do it—to tell them, in particular, what steps they ought to take to protect life and property. He thought it was in the works of Mr. Buckle—a gentleman for whom hon. Members on the other side of the house ought to have the greatest respect
    1574
    —that they found the doctrine laid down that all the good Acts of Parliament, or nearly all the goods Act of Parliament, had been Acts to put an end to previous legislation, because in all times people, well-meaning people, no doubt, had thought that trade ought to be treated in that sort of spirit by the Legislature, that it could be regulated and managed and controlled a great deal better by Act of Parliament than people could manage it for themselves. Now, what the traders of the country asked was to be let alone; they asked for freedom and liberty, and they asked it not only because experience had shown that all such regulations interfering with trades did harm, but because, in the view of Mr. Buckle, trade as carried on without restriction had been the great means of bringing about the happiness and prosperity of the country. The Bill rested upon a fallacy so far as it was thought that the State could with advantage regulate the private business of traders. The second fallacy upon which it rested was that it would secure all sorts of ability in those who were to undertake the management of boilers and engines, and that they would bring about all sorts of security if they could only enact some sort of limitation in those who undertook the work, and require them to pass examinations. He (Mr. Addison) made bold to say that every practical man in the House knew perfectly well that examinations were no good whatever in securing efficiency in any calling they liked to name—[Laughter]—yes, he maintained that examinations were of no use in securing proficiency in any branch of life. Many hon. Members had engineers in their employment, and he would ask those hon. Members if they would not trust these men quite as well, if not a great deal better, than if they had obtained, say, from someone on the opposite side of the House, a certificate of competency such as this Bill proposed to confer upon them? What was the proposed examination to go into? Was it to go into a man's sobriety, into his care, into his diligence and knowledge and scientific learning? How were they going to conduct such an examination? Who was to conduct it, who was to look after it? Such an examination as that proposed would go a very short way indeed towards securing the best men. It was said that such

    1575
    examinations were necessary in the Medical Profession; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bright-side Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had shown thorn that they did not get the best men by examinations; but he (Mr. Addison), for himself, quite admitted that as regarded some professions—it might be his own and the Medical Profession—there might be some excuse for insisting upon examination and making them close professions. A great many people, however, on the other hand, thought that it would be better to throw the Professions open, and to have no such restrictions. But, whether that was so or not, why such restrictions should be extended to trade he failed to understand. The fact was, that all these benevolent schemes were a part of that great theory of Protection which hon. Gentlemen opposite were very active in proclaiming against in the simple matter of the Corn Laws, but were most active in defending and extending when it affected subjects and Bills of this kind. This required amongst hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House who were lovers of freedom, as well as of that freedom which every Englishman ought to have to conduct his business in his own way, the most viligant care and attention to watch these constant fallacies and attempts at Protection which came from the other side. No one desired to interfere with those people who watched boilers and engines except those who were anxious to interfere with all callings and to worry and badger all trades. There was no call or necessity for the Bill. The work of managing boilers and engines was done a great deal better than it would be done with it, and he hoped that those who attended to engines and boilers would be left in liberty and peace. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he begged to second the Amendment. He concurred with every word which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) as to the importance of taking all possible pains for the preservation of life from accidents to boilers and engines. The question before the House was whether the Bill now before them was such in its provisions as would secure safety in this respect. As a rule
    1576
    the large boilers in the country were in the hands of great capitalists, and no doubt they did their best to employ persons skilled in the management of boilers and engines and watched all these questions with the most delicate care, because they were the persons who would lose most heavily in the case of accidents. Although he put the matter thus on financial grounds he did not mean, and he thought no one would venture to impute for a moment to the great capitalists say of such counties as Lancashire and Yorkshire that they were careless of human life and negligent so far as the welfare of those who worked for them in their great manufacturing establishments were concerned. His friends in the North who were conversant with this subject and capable of giving an opinion in regard to it, thought that the great cause of explosions in boilers was not want of skill in their management, but negligence and carelessness and remissness, and that no examination and no certificate as to qualification and the testing of skill alone could be a security for good conduct and diligence. The adoption of measures for security for good conduct and diligence must always rest with those who had charge and management of the factories. It was to those who had control over the management of the engines and boilers that it was necessary to trust. Many hon. Members found it necessary to travel from time to time, some of them every week, many of them every day by railway. There was no examination for those who had charge of our locomotive engines, and there was no class of men who, so far as the public safety was concerned, had more responsibility resting upon their shoulders, and he said at the same time that there was no class of men in the country who did their work with greater care. The result of the care exercised by these persons was that explosions of locomotive boilers were accidents most rare in occurrence. Even when such an accident did occur he ventured to say that it was not from any fault on the part of the driver or stoker, but from some defect in the boiler of which only a scientific engineer could have been competent to judge. He spoke those few words as representing a great industrial district, and he hoped he might also be permitted to add his testimony to what had

    1577
    fallen from those hon. Gentlemen who had spoken on behalf of those persons employing boilers and engines in the agricultural districts. He knew something of what occurred in the sparsely populated agricultural districts of the country. He knew there were many boilers used by those engaged in agricultural pursuits and those following small industries in remote villages, who would have their trade very much impaired and restricted if the provisions of this Bill were imposed upon them. In these cases it was to the care and diligence of their servants that they would have to trust much more than in any examination, however well conducted, which might be rendered necessary by Act of Parliament.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Addison.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he would not stand between the House and a Division for more than a moment or two, but he was a manufacturer himself, with boilers of his own, and therefore was not likely to vote for the second reading of a Bill which would harass industry. He must say, however, that in listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Addison) who had moved the Amendment, he had been very much astonished, as that speech had seemed to carry him back to the records of debates in this House some 100 years ago. There was not a word which fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman which might not have been urged against the Factory Acts and against all measures which had been passed for the protection of miners and sailors or against any provisions for the protection of the working classes in their various pursuits. It seemed to him that the hon. and learned Member with too much Buckle was made mad. The hon. and learned Member had carried Buckle's arguments to a conclusion which really brought them to this—that there should be no examination for medicine or law, in fact that there should be no examination for anything, but that everybody should be allowed to do everything he liked in this world without the slightest
    1578
    guarantee to the public of his proficiency or competency. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), in his statement about the number of accidents caused by boilers, had somewhat erred. The most frequent cause of boiler explosions, and, therefore, of loss of life through boiler explosions, was the inefficient working of the safety valves, and that was owing, in 99 cases out of 100, either to the ignorance of the man in charge of the boiler, or not very unfrequently through his incapacity at the time through drink. He (Mr. Winterbotham) did not think the Bill was perfect, but he believed that the simple examination and certificate of efficiency which it proposed would prove extremely valuable, and would have the effect of saving a great many lives every year. He appealed to the House on behalf of the working classes generally—he appealed in particular to hon. Members representing large working class constituencies to support the Bill. This was not a Party question, and he would ask hon. Members, whatever their political views may be, to vote for this measure as a step in the right direction. If they only saved a score of lives in the year by rendering the possession of a certificate of competency necessary—and it must be borne in mind that it was a certificate which could be very easily obtained—it was worth while passing the Bill. Certificates were necessary under the Factory Act with regard to the age of children; there was no difficulty in getting certificates as to eyesight in accordance with Board of Trade regulations for signalmen, &c.; and there would be no difficulty in getting certificates with regard to a few simple matters in regard to boilers. There was probably not a town in England where a civil engineer was not to be found, and where, therefore, a certificate under this Bill could not be procured. As to the Bill being harassing to agriculturists using small boilers, it seemed to him that Amendments could be proposed in Committee which would have the effect of preventing small boilers, such as were used in dairies, coming under the operation of the Bill at all. He urged hon. Members to support the Bill in order to prevent selfish employers employing cheap labour, for that was what it meant, instead of skilled labour, and thereby

    1579
    endangering the lives of their employés in factories and workshops.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I should like to say one or two words on this Bill, and in the first place, I desire to point out that this debate is remarkable in several respects. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that not one single Member whose name is on the back of the Bill has addressed the House or given a single reason in support of the acceptance of the measure. Now, this being a Bill apparently promoted by those who profess to understand something about the question, one might have expected that they would have enlightened us upon the subject, and given us some knowledge of their reason for proposing the measure. It is rather remarkable that they have not done so, and there is another remarkable fact—namely, that not a single Member who has addressed the House has pointed to oven one instance where an accident which has occurred through the explosion of a boiler or an engine would have been prevented if this Bill had been in operation. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cirencester Division of Gloucester (Mr. Winterbotham) took to task my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for what he said about the Report of the Board of Trade on this very question, and the hon. Gentlemen went on—I hope I am not speaking too strongly, but I am expressing my opinion when I use the words—to libel the men in charge of these boilers. He went on to say that these explosions occurred either from ignorance or through drink. Well, Sir, anybody who knows anything of this subject and of the attention which employers of labour pay to these matters, must know that no person in drink would for a moment be allowed to take charge of a boiler. I say it is a libel upon the men who take charge of engines and boilers in this country to charge them either with ignorance or with being in that condition in which the hon. Member supposes they are generally to be found.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman; but I spoke of accidents due to the inefficient working of the safety valve of boilers, and I said that in 99 cases out of 100 they were to be attributed either to the
    1580
    ignorance of the man in charge of the boiler, or to his being incapacitated through drink.
    MR. JACKSON: Well, I do not think the explanation the hon. Gentleman has offered to the House in any sense alters the conclusion that the House will arrive at, or in any sense challenges the accuracy of what I stated. Now, I had hoped, as I have said, that some Member of the House who has had practical experience of this question would have been good enough to say a few words to the House on the subject of the Bill. I cannot claim to have much knowledge of boilers and engines, but I can claim to have had some practical experience of their working, because, during my life I have been in charge both of a boiler and an engine, and when I hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) talking here about employers of labour in this country not knowing whether their boilers are being deteriorated by corrosion or not, and not being in a position to protect themselves, I marvel where he has lived, and how he can have forgotten that there are in this country boiler insurance and protection associations.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I did not say that employers did not know how to protect themselves—I made use of no such language. I was always accustomed to insure my own boilers, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman did the same. What I said was that my personal knowledge of deterioration and corrosion and defectiveness of the safety valve was not of much value, and that I trusted entirely to the engineers. I also called attention to my belief that if we had the circumstances of the 57 accidents reported to the Board of Trade read out, we should find that these accidents were not inevitable.
    MR. JACKSON: The right hon. Gentleman says that the employers do not know of the deterioration of their boilers. My point is this—that employers in this country can and do protect themselves from the want of their own individual and personal inspection by employing these insurance societies who undertake the business for them, and I will go further and say that as a matter of safety, not only to workmen engaged in the works, but also to those thousands of people who

    1581
    pass those works, the inspection by one of these Societies voluntarily undertaken is of much more value practically than any examination which would be obtained under the Bill. We have heard something about deterioration and we have heard something about corrosion; but what does the Bill propose to do? Does it propose to impose upon the engineer in charge that he shall go inside the boiler every time it is cleaned out and travel through the flues every time they are swept, because unless he does that it is absolutely impossible to say whether or not the boiler is free from corrosion. ["No, no!"] Somebody says "No," but I have had practical experience of this matter myself, having been inside the boiler and through the flues myself. If I do not speak with much practical knowledge, at any rate, as I have said, I speak from practical experience, and I maintain that so far as this Bill is concerned it would absolutely fail of its purpose. If its purpose is merely to effect the object of preventing explosions it should be made compulsory that every man, not only in charge of an engine and a boiler, but every stoker who fired a boiler, and therefore saw the water gauge and steam gauge and knew what pressure of steam there was, should also have a certificate. This would be essential, because everyone who knows anything about the matter knows that within a very few moments steam may rise to such a pressure that danger may ensue if anything goes wrong. No examination and no supervision in the sense in which this Bill is drawn could possibly prevent such a thing. Now, something has been said about marine engines and boilers, and I am sorry the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst), who spoke on this subject, is not here. Well, I am not quite sure, but I rather think that in the case of marine engines certificates are not required for the engineers of all steam vessels, but only for those of a certain class of steam ships. I rather think that certificates are limited to engineers of steamers engaged in the passenger trade and foreign going steamships. This Bill, if passed, would apply not only to large businesses where a great many engines and boilers are employed, but to every small manufacturing concern in the country, and it is quite clear to my mind either that those
    1582
    who drew the Bill did not intend it to apply to all small works or that they have failed to appreciate the difficulties which would follow if it did apply to them. Because what does the Bill itself say? It says that those engines or boilers to which the Act applies should be placed or kept at all times when at work under the supervision of some person holding a certificate of qualification under the Act. It says that one of these certificated men should not have charge of more than a certain number of boilers or engines, or of boilers or engines which were apart a greater distance than the Board of Trade should prescribe. That does not contemplate the man in charge of the boiler having a certificate, but it points to the man who is to have the superintendence having a certificate. It does not contemplate that the man who fires the boiler should have a certificate, but that this should be possessed by some individual who has the general supervision of the whole concern. I venture to say, from my own experience, that supervision of that kind would not prevent one single explosion which takes place under the present system, and, I say that if you carried it out further you would be guilty of an enormous injustice and would do enormous injury to the small manufacturers of the country, who keep one man not only to run the engine but also to fire the boiler. I must say I am surprised that men sitting for constituencies such as those of the hon. Members who promote this Bill should not have seen the effect of the measure. If they had seen it, I should have been even more intensely astonished at their bringing it forward; for it is a Bill which, in my humble judgment, would absolutely cripple the trade of the country. It will do no good in itself and will inflict enormous injury to a large class of working men.
    MR. FENWICKsaid, the hon. Member had spoken with a warmth and vehemence that showed he was master of the subject. He complained that no Member in charge of the Bill had spoken on the second reading. Well, he (Mr. Fenwick) admitted the charge, but his answer was that he thought he was best consulting the wishes of the House in simply moving the second reading in the formal manner usual on such occasions. He had reason to believe there

    1583
    was general concurrence in the main principle of the Bill, and he made no speech, thinking the Division, if there was to be one, would be so much earlier. The hon. Member also said that no hon. Member had ventured to say that these boiler explosions attended with loss of life were caused by the ignorance of the men in charge of the engine or boiler; but he (Mr. Fenwick) wondered that it did not occur to the hon. Gentleman that the persons who were best qualified to give information on that subject were probably the persons whose lives were sacrificed by the explosion. Did the hon. Gentleman forget that only in last Session his own Government were engaged in legislation which provided for the examination of managers having charge of coal mines? Why did the Government deem it necessary to enact such strict provisions in that Bill to secure the competency of those in charge of mines? They were deemed necessary because of the serious explosions and loss of life that had occurred in coal mines; and while it was impossible to find culpable negligence on the part of those responsible for the management, notwithstanding that fact could not be proved, yet it was deemed expedient to bring in such a measure and provide for the examination of mine managers. The same principle was embodied in the Bill, simply seeking to ensure that persons who had charge of steam engines and boilers on land should have some technical knowledge at least of the machines with which they had to deal. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) seemed in his remarks to convey the idea that Members on the Opposition side attached little importance to the care and diligence of those who had charge of steam engines and boilers. Care and diligence he (Mr. Fenwick) was not disposed to under-rate in any calling; but all the care, diligence, steadiness, and sobriety you could command would be of no avail to reduce injury and loss of life to a minimum unless the man in charge had some technical knowledge of his calling combined with his care and steadiness. He had thought hon. Members opposite claimed to be the champions of technical education; ever and anon they were dinning technical education into the ears of Parliament and the country, and he might have
    1584
    expected they would readily support the main principle of the Bill, which was to ensure that one class of artizans should have some technical education in matters with which they were immediately concerned. Objections had been urged to the Bill on the ground that it would seriously interfere with trades, especially small trades in the country, and he was willing to admit there might be minor details of the Bill that would require careful attention in Committee, and he would be quite willing to accept any well considered Amendment that did not seriously interfere with the main principle of the Bill. It certainly was not his intention—and he among the promoters of the Bill was perhaps most responsible—to cause any vexatious interference with any trade, however small, and if the House accepted the second reading, he would give every assurance that he would consider any Amendment proposed in Committee with the view of preventing that the Bill in its operation should not press harshly upon any trade or manufacture. Also he was prepared to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the Bright-side Division of Sheffield, and allow an ample interval for the consideration of Amendments before asking the House to take the Committee.
    MR. WHARTONsaid, he should like to know whether hon. Members who favoured the Bill proposed that the Bill should include locomotive engines? If they did, then they could hardly have considered the subject sufficiently, for he found, under the Bill, that Inspectors were to be men who had two years' experience, or who held a certificate from the Board of Trade. Now, the men who had charge of locomotive engines were men of from 12 to 20 years' experience, and, apparently, there would be put over their heads, men with but two years' experience as independent Inspectors in regard to boilers.
    MR. FENWICKpointed out that the provision for two years' experience was to cover those who were now in the service, as an equivalent for a certificate; in fact a service certificate, such as was given under the Coal Mines Act of last Session.
    MR. WHARTONsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Member for the explanation. But there was another

    1585
    matter hon. Members had probably not considered, and that was the number of locomotives in daily use, He believed the number was from 12,000 to 15,000, and how were all these boilers to be inspected? The terms of the Bill were—
    "Every engine or boiler to which this Act applies, shall be placed and kept at all times when at work under the supervision of some person holding a certificate of qualification under the Act."
    How, he should like to know, was the supervisor to inspect these engines when at work? Was the "Flying Scotch-man" always to have an Inspector on board, or when was he to inspect the engine? It appeared to him that the provision was absolutely ridiculous. To have a Board of Trade Inspector inspecting every engine every day appeared to him an absolute absurdity. The expense of such a provision was an important item. If the Board of Trade was to employ Inspectors who would have to be competent men, Parliament would have to find their pay, and the House would soon find the expense something considerable. The objection had been urged that the Bill would interfere with every trade; but he spoke not only on behalf of the railway interest, but of the railway passengers, and protested against Inspectors of two years' experience being held as competent as drivers of 20 years' experience. No doubt, the Bill would interfere with all trades; but, on behalf of the railway trade and railway passengers, he should certainly vote against the Bill.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, he had not heard anything that led him to suppose that the Bill would produce the good results that were anticipated from it. He should prefer, if there was to be legislation on the subject at all, for the purpose of giving more security to life from boiler accidents, that there should be constituted a system of compulsory inspection. He believed a regulation of that kind would be much more satisfactory in result than the Bill. If he was rightly informed, something like half the boilers in use were already inspected, and the result, he believed, was most satisfactory. There was the benefit of experience, and he thought it would not be difficult to pass a Bill through the House making inspection universal.
    1586
    He was satisfied that inspection of boilers, whilst producing better results, would be far less harassing both to employers and employed. Much had been said as to the effect of the Bill upon small employers, and undoubtedly it might be very unjust on many occasions. He did not very well see how such injustice could be avoided. There were many cases where small employers employed only a man to work a small engine, and this man would, under the Bill, have to hold a certificate, and if anybody not certificated meddled with the engine or boiler he would be subjected to a considerable fine, as would also the employer. But suppose the certificated man were ill or absent from his work for a day, the concern, whatever it might be, would have to be closed, for it would be impossible to immediately get another certificated man. He mentioned this to illustrate the harassing nature of the provision, and he firmly believed his hon. Friends were not on the right tack.
    MR. SALTsaid, he believed the Bill, as it stood, would work very great injustice to a large number of small manufacturers who used engines. He really did not think any hon. Member, except the last speaker, knew what a large number of small engines were used by manufacturers, by builders, by farmers for farming, pumping, and ninny purposes. He granted that the intention of the Bill was good, and the idea of having boilers inspected was one that all would sympathize with. But the Bill was drawn on wrong lines entirely, and in principle it was wrong. It would not touch the great employers of labour, men of large capital who had skilled workmen of the highest calibre at command, but it would do serious injury to thousands of small rising industries in which a steam engine was used. If there had been the one single principle in the Bill, providing that boilers should be subject to inspection, he would not have opposed the second reading, but have waited to consider it in Committee; but he believed the principle was wrong and thoroughly unworkable, and, so far from doing good, it would be the cause of infinite mischief.
    MR. J. C. STEVENSONsaid, while he sympathized with its object, he felt constrained to vote against the Bill. They had far too

    1587
    much Government inspection and interference already. He appreciated the motive of those who framed the Bill, but he believed it would not realize the benefit they expected. He would rather place reliance on the spread of education and increase of intelligence among those in charge of engines. He was happy to observe even among unskilled labourers of the country very much more intelligence than was to be found among skilled artizans of half-a-century ago, and he looked forward to still further progress of information and thoughtfulness among those taking charge of engines and boilers.
    SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKsaid, he must object to the Bill in the agricultural interest, as it would be most harassing to tenant farmers who used engines for various purposes. No hon. Member could say many accidents happened from boilers used for threshing machines or fixed engines on farm holdings. It would often happen that the man who generally drove a threshing machine engine, from some cause might be unable to attend, and the threshing of a stack would have to be delayed if a certificated man was compulsory. In a rural district certificated men would not readily be found, but there might be another man quite capable of driving the engine, and who perhaps had taken turns in doing so with the regular engineer, and it would be hard that the machine should of necessity remain idle, because each of the two or three men with it was not not certificated. He was quite certain that, among the farming interest, there would be a very strong feeling against such a proposal. There was another interest that had not been alluded to. Did the House realize that, at the present time, among the fishing vessels in the North Sea there were a large number having a small engine on board, not to propel the vessel, but for working the capstan? The vessels carried five or six hands, and the engine perhaps was used only two hours a-day, and any of the men were quite capable of working the steam capstan.
    MR. FENWICKsaid, he was sorry to interrupt, but the hon. Member had not observed that the Bill only applied to engines and boilers on land, and made no mention whatever of fishing vessels.
    SIR EDWARD BIRKBECKsaid, he found he was mistaken, and thanked the hon. Member for his explanation. His objection was on behalf of the agricultural interest, and he protested against such a harassing proposal. If such a Bill as this were passed, it might next be proposed that drivers of cabs, omnibuses, and perambulators should take out certificates.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, he had listened to the debate with mingled surprise and sorrow, because, for the first time in the House, he had found a great part of hon. Gentlemen opposite engaged in the deification of ignorance. The whole attitude of hon. Members opposite had been in favour of ignorance as the best method of controlling scientific machinery. Surely if a scientific machine required study in the making, it required a certain amount of study for its action, and would be best managed by men of knowledge and experience. But the whole contention of hon. Members opposite was in a contrary direction, including the hon. and learned Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison), who contended that all legislation was wrong that did not upset past legislation. It was a pity he did not act on that view when the Crimes Act was under discussion. All that the Bill required was that a man should have some qualification for his duty—that any man controlling an engine should be competent, his competency being established by certificate or two years' experience, so that the argument of 25 years' experience being destroyed was altogether beside the question.
    MR. WHARTONsaid, what he objected to was that engineers should be under the surveillance of Inspectors of only two years' experience.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, he might suggest to the hon. and learned Member that there was no question of Inspectors; the Bill did not contemplate the appointment of an Inspector, but simply that the man should have a certificate of qualification or an experience of at least two years.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, that was for the supervision of those who drove.
    SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, supervision was control of the engine, and it was the same thing with a locomotive; it could not be supposed that a super

    1589
    visor was to travel alongside the locomotive. The hon. Gentleman was trying to throw ridicule on the honest well-meant attempt of mining Representatives to protect the lives of mining operatives; it was not worthy of himself and his position. The whole argument against the Bill amounted to saying that ignorance was better than skill. That was the argument that had been advanced over and over again by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that was the condition of mind that had brought about the present commercial condition of the country. If there had been a willingness beforehand to encourage scientific knowledge applied to manufacture, the present commercial depression might have been avoided. Let hon. Members show their zeal for technical education by voting for scientific knowledge for engineers, the principle was the same. Too long we had neglected skilled instruction for our operatives, and to put ignorance in front of skill was unworthy of a great Party who professed to advocate technical education. Accidents that occurred from boilers exploding could, in great part, be avoided were skilful men in charge; the words of the President of the Board of Trade were—"None of these accidents were inevitable." A skilful man as engineer was better than an ignorant one, and accidents were more likely to be avoided. On the grounds of humanity and of general experience the Bill ought to be supported.
    MR. C. W. GRAYsaid, he should not like these remarks to remain unanswered, so far as agriculture was concerned, and agriculture was closely concerned, seeing that farmers thrashed corn and cut chaff by steam, and had engines in general use on the farm. He had had considerable experience of these engines, and never yet had he known a case of any bad accident arising from want of intelligence on the part of the man who drove the engine. If the Bill passed, it would have the most unjust effect on many industrious, respectable men, who had charge of engines, and who certainly could not be described as ignorant. If it was necessary to have a Bill of this nature passed in reference to every pursuit to which a certain amount of danger attached, there would be no end to such Bills. He was quite sure that there were far more ac
    1590
    cidents through men having charge of horses not thoroughly understanding how to manage the animals, than from men not knowing how to work an engine properly; but surely hon. Members would not propose that his ploughman or horseman should get a certificate before taking a horse out. Whatever might be the case in reference to engines in large manufactories, he was not aware of there being the slightest demand for a Bill of this sort in connection with engines used in agriculture; and he hoped the House would hesitate before passing such a Bill. He was no more a friend to ignorance than the hon. Gentleman (Sir Walter Foster); but he did not believe in unnecessarily harassing farmers and farm labourers with legislation such as this.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 147: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 73.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second reading put off for six months.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  (Dr. Clark, Colonel Malcolm, Mr. Mackintosh, Dr. Macdonald, Mr. Angus Sutherland, Mr. Lyell.)
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.

    [BILL 162.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
    DR. R. MACDONALDbegged to second the proposal of his hon. Friend, and in doing so said he would state to the House in a few words what was the purport of the Bill. It was, in fact, to bring under the operation of the Crofters' Act all leaseholders in Highland counties under £30. As the House knew when the Crofters' Bill was passed, no leaseholders were put under it. But since then, there had been made a precedent for this Bill, because Irish leaseholders—large and small—had been enabled to apply to the Irish Land Courts. In this Bill they were only asking that the privilege should be extended to small leaseholders under £30 a-year. They should remember that since the Act was passed rents in the crofting

    1591
    counties had been reduced quite 40 per cent, and he hoped the House would now see its way to granting this little concession to the small leaseholders, for it could do no harm.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
    MR. MARK STEWARTin moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, from what he had gathered from the speech just delivered, the only reason for bringing in the Bill was that it was desirable to make Scotland like Ireland, to place Scotch leaseholders in the same position as the Irish. But it seemed to him that the great wish of hon. Members opposite was to place the whole of Scotland under the Crofters' Act. Well, that point was thoroughly discussed in 1886, when the Bill was before the House. The Bill was introduced in a speech of great length in 1886 by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), and it was now hardly fair to ask the House to reverse a decision come to after great deliberation and consideration. In the first place, no grievance had been proved, and if there was a grievance it had not been mentioned in the House that night, and surely it was not a fair proposal at that hour to alter the system of land tenure in Scotland for the purpose of satisfying one particular class, without attempting to show any cause whatever for the alteration. He had nothing to do with crofters—nor did he wish to have anything to do with them—in his part of the country; but he would point out that although leaseholders had no access to the Crofter Commission, yet very many of them bad obtained reductions of rent; therefore they had not suffered in the way the House was led to believe. This question having been discussed and decided in 1886 the House ought not now to be asked to reverse its decision.
    MR. SALTseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that on such a Bill they had a right to expect a statement of their views from the Government. The reasons which existed for the passing of the Crofters' Act in 1886 were equally urgent now in support of the proposal before the House. In 1886, the argument was advanced that there was no precedent for the proposals in this Bill. But a precedent had since been established by the existing Government in the Act of last Session for the revision of rents under leases in Ireland, and surely they ought to be as liberal with Highlanders as they had been with the people of Ireland. To say that there was no grievance was untenable, for everybody knew that the leaseholders in the Highlands were paying excessive rents. It was quite true that, in many cases, landlords had made reductions to leaseholders, and that fact proved their case; it seemed indeed an additional argument why the Bill should be passed.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was totally unable to understand the argument of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mark Stewart). It was not proposed to extend the Crofters' Act to all parts of Scotland; it was only asked that certain leaseholders should participate in its benefits. It was not even proposed to extend it to the large leaseholders, it was only to extend it to small leaseholders in crofting parishes, to those who had real bonâ fide crofts and were under terms which they had accepted years ago. In Ireland a concession such as this had been made to large as well as to small leaseholders. He did not want to go so far as that, but he held that a crofter who had accepted terms which were too high, should have the power to apply to the Court. He trusted that the Government would not resist that very moderate concession; it would be illogical, unfair, and unreasonable for them to do so, and he hoped that this small act of justice would be done to a small class of tenants.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, that after what they had seen of land legislation in connection with Scotland and with Ireland, there was no reason in the world why the Government should be in the least alarmed at the prospect presented by the hon. Member for Kirk-

    1593
    caldy (Sir George Campbell) of doing something which he said was illogical. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had a few minutes earlier declared that the House was entitled to the views of the Government, but it appeared to him that the usual course on the introduction of a Bill in that House was that the promoters should on the second reading give their views in the first place, in order that the Government might have an opportunity of judging whether the Motion was one that ought to be opposed or not. His hon. Friend (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) in moving the second reading absolutely abstained from taking that course, as had also been done in the case of other Bills before the House that evening. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion (Dr. R. Macdonald) seemed rather ashamed of that, and he thought it better to say something. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy had told them that it was not proposed to extend the Bill to the whole of Scotland. But they knew very well that the hon. and learned Member for Nairnshire (Mr. Anderson) intended, if he could, to extend not only the provisions of this Bill, but of the Crofters' Act also to all leaseholders and tenants throughout Scotland, and no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that a very reasonable and fair thing to do. Therefore, the Government, remembering as they did how they had been told upon every successive move made both on the Irish chess-board and on the Scotch, in reference to the move that land was made for entirely exceptional reasons, and when they found that the result of making an exceptional move was an immediate request to take another step, and still another stop, until the whole country was absorbed—were not prepared to adopt the course which had been suggested. From beginning to end of the history of land legislation, no proposal had been made by hon. Members opposite which had not been advanced on exceptional grounds, which it was said could not possibly affect the rest of the country, and yet from time to time those statements had proved absolutely fallacious. Remembering that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to accept this proposal at the instance of the hon. Members for Inverness-shire and Ross-shire, surely it was more important to ask the opinions of Her Majesty's late Government, for the
    1594
    opinions of the present Government on this question had always been the seine.
    Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: The late Government, I believe, have changed their opinion.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, that although he could not suppose that a private Member representing a constituency North of the Tweed would be able to express the views of the Government, yet he should not be surprised if what he said turned out to be correct.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I know it is so.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, that though he would not be surprised if it were correct, yet he would not believe it till he heard it from a responsible member of the late Government. His right hon. Friend, who was responsible for the Crofters' Act of 1886, distinctly intimated, in the course of the debate, that he would not accept an Amendment that would do the very thing which was now proposed. His opinion might have altered since then, but certainly the circumstances of Scotland had not altered in one single repent. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members opposite might cry "Oh!" but if they had such a triumphant case, why did they not state it for the information of the House. If the circumstances of Scotland had changed, they ought to have some statement on the subject. The reasons which his right hon. Friend gave in 1886 were reasons which could not change. Let them go back for a moment to the question of Ireland. They were told that because a certain thing was done in Ireland, it ought also to be done in the Highlands of Scotland. But the fundamental basis of all that had been done in Ireland, rightly or wrongly, was that in Ireland there had always been what was practically a dual ownership of the soil, and it was the general wish of the House and the intention of the Government, as soon as it could give effect to it by reasonable means, to put an end, if possible, to that dual ownership. What was done last year in the case of Ireland was a temporary expedient in view of tiding over the difficulty during the time which might be necessary for completing the abolition of the dual ownership. ["Oh, oh!"] Again hon. Members cried "Oh!" but he had looked at the report of last year's debates, and he had found distinct evi-

    1595
    dence of that fact. He himself heard it stated last year—and he had now seen it in print—that the whole purport and object of the procedure in Ireland during the last few years had been with a view of tiding over the difficulty till dual ownership was abolished and practically single ownership established in Ireland. What was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman in 1886 in reference to the Crofters' Bill? It was that there was no analogy between the two cases, that there was no right whatever on the part of the crofters in the land, and that their position was one of having had, for some historical reason never very clearly defined, but still accepted by the House, some right to stay on the land; but that the crofter was in any sense a dual owner of the land was most distinctly and emphatically repudiated over and over again in the debate. Now, if any discoveries had been made which had led to the change of opinion suggested to have taken place on the part of the late Government, he should very much like to hear them explained. The Government still held to their views in the matter. The matter was thoroughly threshed out by a noble Duke who had large possessions in the West Highlands, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and surely no very fresh light had been thrown on it during the last two years. If such light had been cast on it, it could not be said he was unreasonable in asking for an explanation. He ventured to say there was not a single hon. Member on the other side of the House who, 20 years ago, would not have considered that persons who had leases were in a much better position than those who had not. And why? Because they had certainty of tenure for a given time, and in a period of prosperity they could reap the full benefit of it. Of course, they would have to take their chance of adverse seasons; but then they could depend on the sympathy of the landlords, who in the Highlands, as well as in other parts of Scotland and England, had been found most willing to give the tenant due consideration in hard times. It was in vain to suggest for one moment the idea that leases were unfavourable to a person who was a tenant of the soil. No doubt, it was an idea which necessarily arose in the minds of tenants,
    1596
    when there was a long period of depression, of bad seasons, of bad harvests, and of bad markets, which prevented the sale of the produce. Then, of course, it occurred to every man that he would be better off without a lease; but it was only within the last year or two that the idea had arisen that the granting of a lease for a term of years to a tenant was not an act on the part of the landlord done practically at the request of the tenant and in his interest and not in the interests of the landlord. He knew that from his own experience. It was perfectly natural that a farmer in hard times should wish to get off his bargain, but it should not be forgotten that in times of prosperity he reaped all the benefit. But to suggest that it was a hardship on the tenant to have a lease, instead of being at the mercy of his landlord from year to year, was a suggestion no man would make who knew the facts of the case. But what was the position of the crofter who had no lease, compared with the crofter who had one? The former was the very man his right hon. Friend wished to help, for the simple reason that he was exposed to the immediate risk of eviction if he did not pay the stipulated rent for a single year. On the other hand, the tenant who occupied under a lease was always presumed to be a man in better circumstances than the one who had no lease. He ventured to say that it was not possible for hon. Members opposite to refer to a single case in the Highlands in which, in consequence of inability to pay rent on the part of the leaseholder—of a small leaseholder under £30—he had been evicted. Even if they should quote cases in which notices of eviction had been served, there would be something to say. They might be told that certain things would happen, but still they were left in this position, that the whole argument in this case was not based on anything proved to have occurred, or likely to happen, but entirely on the analogy with Ireland. The question was, should there be an alteration in the law of 1886, a law passed after much discussion, and after the right hon. Gentleman opposite had given earnest attention to the details of it. It had worked satisfactorily, yet the very first House of Commons elected after the passing of the Franchise Bill was asked to disturb

    1597
    it without any facts being stated in justification of the disturbance. He would recall what took place last year. His right hon. Friend having spoken against the Amendment—and spoken emphatically and distinctly—if he remembered rightly very distinct opposition came from the Liberal side of the House, from Gentlemen who could not be suspected of sympathy with Her Majesty's present Government. He remembered that the Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan) spoke distinctly and clearly as to the great dangers which would result from any attempt to deal thus with contracts in writing. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) was also most emphatic on the same subject. Had they now changed their opinions? Did crossing from one side of the House to the other affect the opinions of hon. Members? Let them remember, too, that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) spoke not merely for himself, but with the responsibility of the whole Front Bench? Was there now any alteration in his views? There had been no suggestion of any facts by hon. Members' opposition which called for a change in the law, and the Government were not prepared to accept this Bill, because they believed that the reason for which the proposal was rejected in 1886 still held good, and nothing had since occurred to justify a change.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) had challenged the late Government to express their views on the question before the House, and, in particular, to state whether they had changed the opinions which they held in 1886 upon that subject. As he had the duty of carrying the Crofters' Act through the House, it was proper that he should respond to the challenge; but he was bound to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a late Government was not exactly like the present Government. The late Government was no longer a corporate entity, the Members who had composed it were not required to meet for the purpose of considering such Bills as this; and in anything he now said he merely expressed his own opinion, and would bind nobody but himself, He would
    1598
    tell his right hon. and learned Friend what were the views he entertained in regard to this Bill. In the first place, he would ask the House to notice precisely what the Bill did, and what it did not do. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed great terror as to the future. He had attempted to show, he ventured to say unsuccessfully, that taking one step necessarily led to taking another. He seemed to think that by assenting to the Bill they would agree to extend the principle of the Crofters' Act all over Scotland. But if any question of that kind were raised, it would be considered and discussed upon its merits at the proper time, and he was sure that Parliament would not hesitate to take any step it might think right. Stated shortly, the effect of the Bill as he read it was simply to strike out of the Crofters' Act the words "from year to year." The definition of a crofter would remain the same in all other respects, but the benefits of that Act would be extended to persons who held upon a tenure of more than one year. What he would ask the House to notice was that the very ingredients which entered into the definition of crofter, and to which they attached so much importance, would still be preserved by this Bill. A crofter meant a tenant who resided on his holding, the value of the holding not to exceed £30; the holding to be situated in a crofting parish; and if not actually a crofter himself, he must have to be the successor of the crofter—his heir or legatee. Even if the Bill were assented to, it would not extend the area or scope of the Crofters' Act, the operation of which would still be confined to crofting parishes. He thought the House would see there was no very large question involved; it was simply whether the word crofter should not include leaseholders. His right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate said that when the Bill of 1886 was before the House, the proposal wag resisted, and resisted on the ground—not quoting the actual words—that leaseholders were in a totally different position from tenants from year to year, that they had always been so regarded, and that even in the Irish Land Act of 1881 there had never been any interference with persons who were holders under contract. But a great deal had

    1599
    happened since then. In last Session the present Government extended to Irish leaseholders the benefits of the Act of 1881, which previously the House of Commons had declined to do. His right hon. and learned Friend said that the dual ownership formed a distinguishing feature in Ireland, as compared with the tenure in England and Scotland. No doubt it did; but this did not affect the question now under consideration. Though he did not profess to know much about Irish leases, he assumed in Ireland, as elsewhere, when a man held land on lease, that lease would be the measure and definition of his rights in the land let. That must be so, for what would be the use of a lease if it were not the measure and the definition of his rights? Well, then, when the present Government and House of Commons said that leaseholders in Ireland were to have the benefit of getting what proved to be oppressive rents reduced, he failed to see any reason why the same Government and the same House of Commons should decline to extend to a much more limited class of tenants in Scotland the like benefit already conceded to yearly tenants. It was perfectly true that the Crofters' Act was confined to customary holders; but it was matter of common knowledge that very many of those who had been customary holders had got leases, not because they desired them, but because they were obliged to take them. It was now felt to be a great hardship and misfortune that persons who possessed the same claim to relief in all other respects, except that they had made a contract or lease, should be cut off from the benefit of the Act. Having regard to what had been done by the present Parliament and the present Government in reference to Irish leaseholders, he, for one, was unable to see that there was any serious or valid objection to extending to the very limited class affected by the Bill the same benefit which had already been given to holders from year to year when they could show that they were heavily over-rented. In the older law of Scotland there was relief to those who suffered severe loss plus quam tolerabile. It was very hard that where two persons had holdings side by side, and were in all respects in the same position except that one of them had accepted a
    1600
    lease while the other had not a lease, the leaseholder found his neighbour getting his rent reduced by a third or a half by the Crofter Commission, while he was cut off from the chance of anything of the kind, and must go on paying an exorbitant rent. He would be sorry to make any suggestion or statement not supported by fact, and therefore he would merely say he had heard it asserted that many crofters were pressed or induced to take leases just about the time that proposals for legislation came into the air—for they had a Crofter Bill in 1885 as well as in 1886. Now, if that were the case, it would be a very bitter hardship for a man who had been so pressed or persuaded into taking a lease. The House would be but following out logically the action it took in making the extension to Irish leaseholders, if it extended the Crofters' Act to small leaseholders under There were many reasons why Parliament should pause before interfering in contracts entered into upon equal terms, or contracts that did not come within the crofter class; but there was every reason why a Government that extended the Act of 1881 to Irish leaseholders should have less hesitation in extending the Crofters' Act to a much smaller class under the limit of £30, a limit rarely touched, most of the holdings being only a few pounds. Larger holdings would not be affected. All the considerations that prevented the introduction of this provision in 1886 had disappeared; it would then have been an entirely new principle, Parliament would not have accepted it, and it could not have been consistently introduced. But a material change had come about by the legislation of last year, and the claim for the extension of the same relief to a small class of leaseholders in the North and West of Scotland could not reasonably be denied.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)rose to speak, when—
    DR. CAMERON, rising, claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    MR. SPEAKERwithheld his assent. He said the debate had not been conducted for such a length of time that it was desirable to take the opinion of the House while still an interval of time was left for discussion.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he would not delay the decision for any length of time, but the grace with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. B. Balfour) had gone through the rather severe operation of eating his own words required a few words of comment. The last part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a happy illustration of the fallacies in the first part; for in the first part he told the House that the mere fact of Parliament passing a Bill in regard to one class of tenants never would be urged, or was likely to be urged, to influence Parliament in passing a Bill for a class of tenants in another part of the country, and immediately afterwards he went on to argue that the passing of an Act for Ireland last year was ample reason for applying this Bill to leaseholders in Scotland. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be reminded that there was a fundamental difference between the cases of Ireland and Scotland. In Ireland, leaseholders were the exception to an universal national system, and it was felt by Parliament that, under existing circumstances, it was absolutely impossible to maintain the exception. But leases in the Highlands of Scotland were not the exception, but the rule.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Crofter leases?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman draw a distinction between small farmers under £30 in Inverness-shire and Perthshire?
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that among the class of persons to whose case this Bill is directed leases are by no means common. There is a great difference between the body of leaseholders, throughout Scotland and the small customary holders in small crofter counties who have been got to accept leases.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Got to accept leases?
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Have accepted leases.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURcontinued. Got to accept leases was the allegation of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but there was no class of tenants in Scotland who had got to accept leases; as a class they desired to get leases. [Cries of "No!"] Unquestionably that was the fact. No
    1602
    distinction, historically or practically, could be drawn between the leaseholders in Inverness-shire and Ross-shire; they were similar to those in Perthshire, Aberdeen, and elsewhere, not crofter counties. The right hon. Gentleman forgot when he said there was a certain hardship in the circumstances of a man who had a lease of his holding as compared with his neighbour who had no lease; that in all exceptional legislation there must be a border land, and a hedge might be the division, on one side of which were one set of conditions, on the other side another; and it was an illustration of the extent to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument might be carried that the privilege you give to one side you must ultimately give to the other; what you give to Inverness you cannot refuse to Banff, to Fife, or to Aberdeen; and why not extend it to the whole of the United Kingdom? That, no doubt, would meet with the approval of the supporters of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He did not wish to detain the House unnecessarily. He would point out, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say a word in his remarks as to the ground on which the Crofters' Act was introduced by his Government. It was introduced on a definite historical basis, and applied to holders from year to year, not to the great mass of small leaseholders; it excepted leases on the definite undertaking to improve the holding—it excepted what were called improvement leases. If this Bill were accepted, that historical basis would be abandoned, which was the sole ground for limiting the Act to crofter tenants from year to year in crofter counties, and the only distinction between these and other leases would be swept away. This was a question of extreme gravity in view of the tendencies prevailing at this time. The House might have been right or wrong in applying to Ireland exceptional principles of land tenure; but let it not be forgotten that the ideal tenure was free contract between man and man. That might be an impossible idea in Ireland, but it was not impossible in England and Scotland, and it was something worthy of being retained. He asked the House to unequivocally reject the proposal, which would abandon all the historical bases upon which the Crofters'

    1603
    Act was justified, leaving the House face to face with principles capable of infinite extension, and the greatest injury to leaseholders throughout the whole Kingdom.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 126: Majority 36.—(Div. List, No. 74.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Bill put off for six months.

  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Henniker Heaton, Bill for the better administration of the Funds of Queen Anne's Bounty, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henniker Heaton, Mr. Hanbury, and Mr. Kerans.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 211.]

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message as proposes the time and place of meeting of the joint Committee on Private Bill Legislation be now considered:—
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee appointed to join with the Committee of the Lords to examine into the present system of Private Bill Legislation, and to report how far and in what manner, without prejudice to public interests, that system may be modified, with a view to the interests of suitors, the economy of the time of Parliament, and the reduction of Costs and Charges, do meet in Room No. 1, Upper Corridor, upon Friday next, at half-past Three of the clock.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords, to acquaint their Lordships that this House hath directed the said Committee to meet in Room 1, Upper Corridor, upon Friday next, at half-past Three of the clock.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to agree in the appointment of a Chairman:—That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:—That three be the quorum.

  PARTNERSHIP BILL.— [BILL 206.]
  (Colonel Hill, Sir Bernhard Samuelson, Sir George Elliot, Sir Charles Palmer, Mr. Whitley, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
  PARTNERSHIP BILL.— [BILL 206.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him an irregular proceeding
    1604
    to ask hon. Members to vote for the second reading of a Bill of which not the slightest explanation had been given. He was sure few Members expected the Bill would be reached, and had not, therefore, made themselves acquainted with its contents. Possibly the House might, in passing the second reading, be agreeing to a Bill most objectionable in its nature; and, in a like unexpected Manner, the Bill alight slip through its other stages. It behoved Members to be vigilant, and to allow no doubtful Bills to pass unchallenged; while a sufficient explanation of the Bill and its objects might smooth its passage and increase the prospect of its becoming law.
    It being One of the clock A.M., the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow; and Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.