Commons Sitting of 14 December 1888

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Stockton Borough, v. Joseph Dodds, esquire, Manor of Northstead.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES, Votes 4 to 6, 8, 11, 14 to 22, 24, 25.
Resolutions [December 13] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday [76], negatived; Statute Law Revision (No. 2) * [293].
Withdrawn—Quarter Sessions* [383]; Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen * [145]; Liquor Traffic Local Veto (Scotland) * [106]; Perpetuity Leases (Ireland) * [307].

QUESTIONS.

  PHARMACY ACT—POISONING BY CARBOLIC ACID.
  MR. PICTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the numerous cases of poisoning by carbolic acid, the number being 62 in the latest Annual Report of the Registrar General, inclusive of 42 suicides; and 12 cases having been reported in the newspapers during September and part of October this year; whether the Pharmaceutical Society has

  227
  expressed an opinion that carbolic acid ought to be placed among poisons within the purview of the Pharmacy Act; whether the Town Clerk of Liverpool, by order of the Municipal Authorities, addressed a Memorial to the Privy Council urging the desirability of restricting the sale of carbolic acid; and, whether the Government intend to take any action in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The answer to the first three paragraphs is in the affirmative. The Resolution passed by the Pharmaceutical Society has been submitted to the Privy Council Office for approval, and is now under consideration; but there are difficulties in the way of approving the Resolution. Skilled opinion is not altogether favourable to the views expressed by the Society, and the question is one that requires great consideration.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
  MR. PICTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there has been received, during the present year, from the Governor of Lagos any despatch, or other communication, mentioning the arrival in Lagos of certain African Natives in a wounded condition, and who alleged that they had been shot and otherwise assaulted by employés of the Royal Niger Company; whether the statement made by these Natives was that they had been engaged by the Niger Company for service in the Niger District; that a difference arose as to the terms of the engagement, and that after an altercation the men, practically unarmed, were shot down by rifles, with fatal results to many; whether the Government of Lagos made any inquiry, and whether he found the statement of the Natives to be substantially true; and, whether the Government will lay the Governor's communication upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The events referred to took place in March last. A German named Zweifel, who had received high recommendations from the French Senegal Company, under whose auspices he had explored the sources of the
  228
  Niger, was employed by the Royal Niger Company to conduct an exploring expedition in their territories. He was given the entire management and control of the expedition. He engaged about 160 men belonging to tribes in the rear of Sierra Leone, many of whom had served with him previously. The expedition seemed to have been badly conducted, and ended in a dangerous mutiny. The men were armed, though not with firearms, and the white men—namely, the four officers and the two resident agents—fired upon them to save their own lives, killing six and wounding others. A judicial inquiry was held by Sir James Marshall, the chief judicial officer, who ordered two of the mutineers to be imprisoned till they could be removed to Sierra Leone. The whole affair is believed by the Royal Niger Company to have been owing to lamentable mismanagement on the part of Mr. Zweifel; but the quelling of the mutiny could hardly have been avoided. There is no despatch on the subject from the Governor of Lagos which could be presented, and it is understood that there were no Lagos men employed.
  MR. PICTON: Were those who shot the men tried as well as the mutineers?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONreplied that the judicial officer mentioned had been the Chief Justice of a British Colony before. He considered that the Europeans could not be made criminally responsible, because they acted in defence of their lives.
  MR. PICTON: Did not the Governor express disapproval of the action of the Royal Niger Company?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: That is not within my knowledge. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know something more than I have already told him, I must ask him to give Notice of his Question.

  MADAGASCAR—ALLEGED MASSACRE OF FREED MOZAMBIQUES.
  MR. S. SMITHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that eight so-called leaders of the freed Mozambiques in Madagascar were bayoneted to death by order of the Hova Government because they refused to work without payment in French gold mines; whether it is true that they were asked

  229
  whether the English Vice Consul had encouraged them to resist the Government authority; to which they replied—
  "No, we refused to go to the forced labour at Mevatanana (gold mines) of ourselves. Mr. Knott did not incite us;"
  and, whether the Government have received any Reports relating to this massacre which confirm the above statement; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): It has been reported from Madagascar that seven leaders of the Makoa, labourers from the African Mainland, were put to death, in fact bayoneted, by the Hova authorities for refusing to work under requisition in some gold diggings which are being explored by a Frenchman. It is also reported that, in reply to an inquiry, the men stated that they had received no encouragement from the British Vice Consul; but we cannot vouch for the accuracy of these reports. It should be added that they were not British subjects, and had no right to British protection. The Vice Consul, being absent from his post at the time of the execution, was not able to report from his personal knowledge. There is, consequently, no Paper to lay on the Table.
  MR. S. SMITHasked, whether it was not the fact that our Consuls at Madagascar had been very frequently changed of late, and that, consequently, they had extremely little influence in the island?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: No, Sir; I do not think that is the case.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BELFAST BOARD OF GUARDIANS—ALLEGED DEATH OF A PAUPER INMATE.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)(for Mr. P. O'BRIEN)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Local Government Board, Ireland, has been called to the proceedings at the meeting of the Belfast Board of Guardians on December 4, at which Dr. Carrey, a Guardian, brought under the notice of the Board the fact that the dead body of a Roman Catholic pauper inmate named Thomas Gaskin had been
  230
  found by two other inmates in a trough four feet deep filled with water, at a distance of 200 yards from deceased's dormitory, at 3 a.m. on November 28; whether the master of the workhouse made any Report of this alleged occurrence to the Guardians at the next meeting following the finding of the body; whether it is true that the body has been removed to the dissecting room of the Belfast Queen's College; and, if so, by whose authority was it removed, and when and where was it interred; and, whether an inquest has yet been held in this case; and, if not, is it intended to hold one?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: The attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the matter mentioned. The deceased had found it necessary to go out to the yard during the night. His body was shortly afterwards found in the trough; but the trough is only some 18 inches deep, containing, as a rule, about 5 inches of water, and is situate about 30 yards from the ward which was occupied by the deceased. The medical officers saw the body immediately, and certified that death was due to cardiac failure. The master reported the occurrence at once to the police, who communicated with the Coroner. The Coroner, however, after inquiry, considered an inquest unnecessary under the circumstances. The master made no Report to the Guardians. The body does not appear to have been removed to the dissecting room of the Belfast Queen's College, but to have been taken by a friend of the deceased's and interred in the borough cemetery. The master was not bound to make a Report as to the death to the Guardians.

  ARMY (CONTRACTS)—TENDERS FOR SWORDS AND SWORD BAYONETS.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for War, If he has any objection to lay upon the Table copies of the advertisement calling for tenders for 20,000 swords in the autumn of 1885, of the tenders received, and of the contract with the German firm with whom the order was placed, as also copies of the advertisement calling for tenders for 150,000 sword bayonets this year, of the

  231
  tenders received, and the contract with Messrs. Wilkinson and Company?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I cannot undertake to produce copies of tenders received for these contracts; but if my hon. Friend would like to see a copy of the contract with Messrs. Wilkinson, I shall be very happy to show it to him.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CHARGES FOR "EXTRA POLICE."
  MR. HOOPERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many counties in Ireland are charged for the expenses of extra police; whether in the last fiscal year this extra cost charged to the County of Cork was £7,000; whether he can state how many policemen so charged for to the counties as extra men have up to the present been brought to London as witnesses for The Times; and, whether, at the termination of the Special Commission, he will take steps to have the counties relieved of the cost of the extra men so brought to London for the time they were absent from service in their respective counties?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: The Constabulary Authorities report that the number of counties, in addition to the boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry, chargeable with an extra force of police, is 19. The charge for extra police in the County of Cork (both Ridings combined) was, in the year ended the 31st of March, 1888, £7,733 14 s. 2d. As regards the inquiry in the third paragraph, it is not practicable to distinguish between the free quota and extra force of a county whose establishment consists of forces of both classes; nor can the steps suggested in the latter part of the Question be followed, inasmuch as the absence of men from their county under subpoena in order to give evidence in a Court of Justice is, in the nature of the case, a contingency to which every Police Force is liable, and does not create a vacancy in the county concerned.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked, was a county to pay extra for the policemen who were attending an inquiry over in London for weeks together on the
  232
  ground that they were extra men employed in Ireland?
  MR. MADDENrepeated that the two forces were not to be kept distinct as regarded payment, and that attendance in Court on subpoena was simply an ordinary contingency.

  EGYPT—SUAKIN—REINFORCEMENTS OF BRITISH TROOPS.
  MR. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for War, Who is to bear the expense of the fresh reinforcements now being sent to Suakin; and, whether the Egyptian Government has been consulted, and has approved of the sending of these troops?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): It is arranged between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Khedive that the extra cost entailed upon the Imperial Exchequer by the Army of Occupation in Egypt is defrayed by the Egyptian Government. The amount during the present financial year is £110,000. If the operations of the Army of Occupation in the defence of Suakin entailed extra cost beyond that sum, which will have to be ascertained in consultation with the Government of Egypt, Her Majesty's Government will then have to consider how it is to be met. In answer to the second part of the Question, I may say that the Egyptian Government has approved the sending of these troops.

  EGYPT—THE SUAKIN EXPEDITION.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether instructions have been conveyed to the military commanders at Suakin, in conformity with the assurance given by the Marquess of Salisbury, as to expeditions from Suakin to a deputation on the 11th of May last, that—
  "So far as any advice we can give to the Egyptian Government goes, we discourage military expeditions into the country as likely to make the disease worse which we seek to cure?"
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Most certainly, yes. The answer is in the affirmative.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Who is the Political Agent at Suakin, and what are

  233
  the means by which we convey this discouragement to the military commanders at Suakin?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government have given the most complete and positive indications of their views in this matter. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there can be no doubt whatever as to the meaning and intention of those communications, or the result of them.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman; but I hope he will be able to answer the question as to who is the Political Agent at Suakin.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am under the impression that Colonel Kitchener is the Political Agent, but I am not sure. That is my impression; but I may be inaccurate. I have had no Notice of the Question, and am not always aware of the arrangements made.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The Question was asked yesterday by one of my hon. Friends behind me; and, if I may say so, Colonel Kitchener can hardly be the Political Agent, for he is the Adjutant General of the Egyptian Army, and is in command of one of the brigades in the field.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the right hon. Gentleman will put the Question down for Monday, I will take care that he is accurately answered. I only spoke from my own impression.

  CRIMINAL LAW—THE CONVICT FERGUSON.
  MR. AINSLIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can give a reply to a Petition which was sent to him on behalf of a convict called Ferguson, who was sentenced in 1878 to 20 years' penal servitude, and which Petition was signed by nearly 1,400 of the leading inhabitants of Barrow-in-Furness?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State is now in communication with the learned Judge with regard to this case; and when his Lordship's observations have been received the Secretary of State will be in a position to give a reply to the Question.

  IRELAND—SANITARY AUTHORITY AT NENAGH—PROPOSED WATERWORKS.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware of an application on the part of the Sanitary Authority at Nenagh, County Tipperary, made a considerable time since to the War Office, for a small portion of the disused barrack field at Nenagh, to be used for the purpose of a reservoir for the proposed Nenagh Waterworks; whether, after several communications forwarded to them on the subject, on the 10th of October last they replied—
  "That the matter was referred to the Military Authorities in Ireland, who would give no delay to the matter;"
  whether, subsequently, an Inspector was sent down to make a Report as to the site required, but that ever since no communication has been made to the Sanitary Authority at Nenagh, thereby causing unnecessary delay to the proposed works, which the Local Government Board are pressing to have completed; and, whether he will take steps to have the matter arranged without further delay?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The matter referred to in the Question has been arranged; and the use of the piece of land will be granted as soon as the necessary legal steps have been completed.

  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION ACT—EXTENSION.
  MR. COURTNEY KENNYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the inquest held at Tooting on the 4th of October upon an infant named Isaac Arnold, and to the recommendation of the Coroner and jury that the Infant Life Protection Act should be extended in the manner suggested by the Metropolitan Board of Works in their Report of 1881, and in several other years; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any legislation next Session to amend the Act, so as to render it more effective in the suppression of the practice of baby-farming?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said:Yes, Sir; the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to this matter. He has now under consideration proposals for remedying the existing law, so strikingly exemplified by the fact brought to light at the inquest referred to; and he has invited the Local Authorities of certain large towns of England and Scotland and of Ireland to favour him with any observations and suggestions which their experience of the operation of the Act may be able to afford, and which may assist in framing a measure on the subject.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE—REVISION OF THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury has hitherto taken any share in that careful revision and amendment of the whole financial system of the Metropolitan Police which the Secretary of State for the Home Department has pointed out that system is now undergoing; and, whether this revision is purely Departmental; and, if so, whether he can state by what official it is being conducted?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON)said, that the Treasury, on being asked to appoint a Representative on the Committee to consider the question, had done so. It was not a purely Departmental Committee. It was at present sitting; and, therefore, he was not able to give any information as to its proceedings.

  PILOTAGE—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
  MR. J. C. STEVENSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has it in contemplation to ask Parliament to give effect to the recommendation of the recent Committee on Pilotage, who reported their opinion that the time had arrived when the exemption of an owner from damage done by his ship when in charge of a pilot, by compulsion of law, should cease to exist?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, that, with reference to the recommendations of the Committee, directions had been given for the preparation of a
  236
  Bill, which he hoped would be introduced next Session.

  FACTORY ACTS—STRIKE OF EMPLOYES AT BALBRIGGAN.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can now state the result of the inquiry made by the Inspector of Factories for the Dublin District into the causes of the strike of employés in the hosiery factory of Smyth and Company, Balbriggan?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: Yes, Sir. It has been ascertained that fines are deducted from wages in this factory. Proceedings are being considered for the purpose of raising in a Court of Law the question of the legality of such fines in a case that has arisen in England.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the hon. Gentleman if he would see that reasonable expedition was observed in bringing the test case to trial?
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he had no reason to believe that any time would be lost.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSION FOR THE DUBLIN DISTRICT.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that applications from the County of Dublin for the fixing of fair rents, which were lodged so far back as September and October of last year, are still unheard; and, if so, whether he will take steps, by strengthening the Sub-Commission for the Dublin District, to have this arrear of business disposed of at an early period in the coming year?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners report that all cases received up to, and including, the 28th of September, 1887, are listed for the Sub-Commission at present sitting in the County Dublin. It has not been possible yet to fix a date for any sitting after the present one.
  MR. CLANCYsaid, he might, perhaps, be allowed to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that Dublin

  237
  County was entitled to special facilities, because nearly all the farmers of that county held under leases, and were not able to enter the Land Courts in earlier years.

  POST OFFICE—NON-DELIVERY OF PARCELS, &c., IN THIS HOUSE.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)(for Dr. TANNER)asked the Postmaster General, Whether complaints have reached him that no check or safeguard is taken in the Post Office in this House to effectually prevent the loss or non-delivery of parcels, often of considerable value, which have been insured in a local Post Office and forwarded to a Member of this House?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I received a complaint from the hon. Member of the loss of an insured parcel containing a valuable walking stick addressed to him at the House; and, as he has been informed, I much regret that, after most careful inquiries, no trace of the missing parcel has been found. Since the 10th of October a proper check has been established upon the delivery of all parcels delivered from the post office in the House; but, having regard to the limited space available in the Lobby Post Office, I hope hon. Members will refrain, as much as possible, from having parcels addressed to them here.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the parcel, which did contain a valuable walking stick, was insured for £10, and, as he is unable to return the stick, will he pay the £10?
  MR. RAIKES: I am happy to inform the hon. Gentleman that I have already paid the £10.

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION—LEGISLATION.
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Technical Education Bill next Session?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he hoped that the Government would be able to deal with the question next Session.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES—INSURANCE OF INFANT LIVES.
  MR. BAUMANNasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the evidence given by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies before a Select Committee of this House during the present Session, in which it is stated that the practice of insuring infant lives "does tend, and must tend, to increase infant mortality;" and, whether the Government will consider the expediency of introducing a Bill next Session to prevent the insurance of infant lives?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Our attention has been called to the matter, which is of great importance, and is also extremely difficult to deal with. The question is receiving the serious consideration of the Government.

  AFRICA (EQUATORIAL)—REPORTED CAPTURE OF EMIN PASHA AND MR. STANLEY.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether General Grenfell has received a letter from Osman Digna; and, if so, whether its purport can be stated to the House? also, whether there is any truth in what appears in all the papers this evening, that the Mahdi has captured Emin Pasha and the white traveller with him, who is supposed to be Stanley?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): So far as we know—we have it only by telegraph—the letter contained statements as to the surrender of Emin Bey and of a white traveller who was with him; but Her Majesty's Government have no means of knowing whether the allegations are well founded.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I should like to ask a Question of the First Lord of the Treasury, and that is, in view of the statement contained in the letter which has been received from Osman Digna by General Grenfell, and in view of the fact that British subjects are now, if the contents of the letter be true, in the power of the ruling authorities at Khartoum, whether the Government will not consider the desirability of seriously

  239
  contemplating negotiations for the release of those persons before entering upon hostilities with the tribes around Suakin?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not able to answer the Question at the present moment. Perhaps the noble Lord will put the Question down for Monday.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to The LORD MAYOR of DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that he was not in a position to make any announcement as to the date of the Adjournment. He trusted that they would be able to conclude the Business of the House before Christmas. The Irish Estimates could not be taken until Tuesday at the earliest.
  In reply to Mr. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would state this evening whether the Scotch Estimates would be taken to-morrow or not. He hoped he should be able to do so before 7 o'clock.
  In reply to Mr. BURT (Morpeth),
  MR. W. H. SMITHregretted to say that, in consequence of the serious opposition with which the further progress of the Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen Bill was threatened, the Government were under the necessity of relinquishing all hope of proceeding with the Bill this Session. The Bill would, therefore, be withdrawn. The present Act ceased to operate at the end of this year; and it would be necessary for Parliament to continue that Act within the next few days.
  In reply to Mr. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Statute Law Revision Bill was in the hands of the House and stood for second reading. As the hon. Member was aware, much labour had been expended on it. If the House were willing to pass it through its various stages before the Adjournment he should be very glad.

  THE ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES COMMITTEE.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked if the First Lord
  240
  of the Treasury, taking into consideration the important evidence given before the Committee on the Army and Navy Estimates, would now state, for the information of the House, that he would, at the earliest possible opportunity next Session, bring forward the Army Estimates, so that they might have full discussion on all the important points mentioned in the Committee's Report.
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I have no hesitation whatever in repeating the assurance which I have given to the House frequently during the last few days, that it is the deliberate intention of the Government to proceed at the earliest possible moment, in the next Session, with Supply, and that we hope to devote two Sittings a week to it regularly.

  PROBATE DUTIES (SCOTLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. D. CRAWFORDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the Probate Duties (Scotland and Ireland) Bill would be brought on; and whether there would be an opportunity of discussing; it?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am not able to say, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Bill will betaken. If there is serious objection to it, the Bill will not be proceeded with in the course of the present Session.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Resolved, That this House will sit To-morrow.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £304,900, Medical Establishments and Services.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERwished to draw attention to the important investigation which had been carried on by the Committee upstairs on the Army and Navy Estimates. The object of postponing several of those Votes until the Autumn Session was to afford an opportunity for considering the evidence given before the Committee. He did not think it would conduce to the

  241
  convenience of the House, or promote a satisfactory discussion, if the Committee were now to enter upon an examination of these Votes at this late period of the Session, when a thorough and complete discussion was impossible. So far as he was concerned, he should like to arrive at an understanding with the Government that this question should be regarded as open for discussion on the Estimates next year. The Report of the Committee could then be considered with the fulness it deserved. The House might now allow the Estimates to pass with as little delay as possible, so as to bring the Session to an early close. He made that suggestion believing that it would be for the convenience of the House and of the Government, and that it would tend to promote a more satisfactory discussion of the very important evidence given upstairs.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, it was probably expected that he should say a word in reply to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. As far as he was concerned, the Committee would naturally expect that he was not able, in all cases, to say what had been done in consequence of the Report of the Committee on the Army Estimates, which sat during last year and the present year. In a good many cases they would have to institute further inquiries, and when the Estimates were presented next year they would be able to show the results of those inquiries, and the effect they had produced on the Army Estimates. In those circumstances he was inclined to think that it would, perhaps, be for the convenience of the Committee if these subjects were discussed next year, when the specific proposals of the Government were before the House. If they were now discussed it was obvious that he would not be able to state the views of the Government.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he concurred entirely with the views of the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench, and also with those of the Secretary of State for War. He thought it would be fatal to the re-appointment of the Committee on the Navy and Army Estimates if the result of their examinaion was to lead to even more protracted
  242
  discussion on the Estimates in Committee than was the case in former days, when such Committees did not sit. The great object of this Committee was to assist the House, and to relieve it; but if, on the other hand, it was found that the Committee only tended to provide material for fresh discussion, then, undoubtedly, the Committee would have greatly failed in its object. The Committee examined with great care most of the Army Votes, and nothing could have exceeded the courtesy of the War Office in affording information, and nothing could have been more excellent than the conciliatory attitude which the War Office took up with regard to the investigation. The Committee had ventured, in various directions, to recommend certain changes, which might or might not be improvements; but the Committee could not expect the Secretary of State for War to decide, within the course of a few months, on the merits of the suggestions made. He thought, therefore, the Committee would do wisely to accept, on the whole, the thorough, exhaustive, and useful examination of the Estimates conducted by the Army Committee, and to wait until next year, in order to see whether the Secretary of State had examined all the recommendations made by the Committee as to discoveries and expenditure, and whether those discoveries and recommendations had led to useful changes in the Public Service. As far as he was concerned, he did not intend to take up the time of the Committee in debating any of the questions which might come up on the Army Estimates. If the First Lord of the Treasury and the Secretary of State for War found themselves in a position to abide by the pledge given that the Army Estimates would be taken at an early period next year, when they could be discussed without pressure, the Committee had then every reason to be satisfied with the position of affairs, and ought to allow the Estimates to go through now without taking up the time of the Committee further.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, it had fallen to his lot at the meetings of the Committee on the Army and Navy Estimates to take an active part in the proceedings, and a considerable portion of the Report he had prepared himself. Therefore, he felt entitled to speak in support of the view

  243
  of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) which had been adopted by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) and Her Majesty's Government. It would be premature, he thought, to discuss now some of the extremely important recommendations of the Committee, important both in the number and extent to which reforms were proposed in Army and Navy administration. The Committee had been practically unanimous in the recommendations they had made. He believed that he had supported every one of them, and certainly, to his mind, they were most valuable. He, therefore, entreated the Committee not to embarrass the Government by urging them to pronounce an opinion upon the recommendations of the Committee now, but to defer the matter until next Session, so as to afford time for a full consideration, and to allow the Government, after further inquiry, an opportunity of dealing with such reforms as were, in their opinion, desirable to be introduced.
  MR. PICTONsaid, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington was quite right in saying that there would be small encouragement given to the investigations of such Committees if the only result was to lead to still more protracted debates; but, on the other hand, it would be small encouragement for the re-appointment of such a Committee if the inquiry already entered into brought about no reforms in the Army Estimates. So far as they had hitherto gone, he did not see that any practical result had followed from the appointment of the Committee. At the same time, he was ready to admit that the middle of December would be an unfortunate time to enter into a long discussion on the subject. He would not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, but would take the earliest available opportunity of doing so next Session. He had no doubt the advice of the noble Lord was that which they ought to follow.
  COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid, he entirely coincided with the views which had been expressed, and he should confine himself to stating that when the Estimates were discussed in the Spring, he would challenge the administration of the Medical Service on the ground of effi-
  244
  ciency. The changes which had been made in the Medical Service had been in the right direction; but they had gone too far, and rushed from one extreme to the other.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, he had an Amendment which he had put off until the present stage at the request of the Secretary of State for War—an Amendment of enormous importance financially, and which he might fairly say was on the lines of the recommendations of the Committee—he referred to the reduction of the list of Generals. Of course, he should not enter into it at that moment, but he wished to mention it to the Committee, because he considered that he should be greatly wanting in his public duty if he were to pass over the earliest opportunity of laying before the House a matter in which, undoubtedly, a considerable amount of economy might be effected. He thought the evidence given to the Committee showed that there had been a very great increase in the number of Army officers, and that it was of the utmost importance to devise some steps for the reduction of the list of Generals. He had, however, been much impressed by what had been said by the noble Lord, and when such economists as the noble Lord and the two right hon. Gentlemen on his right concurred in deprecating a long discussion on the present occasion, he was quite sure that the suggestion was made quite as much in the interests of economy as with a view of consulting the convenience of the House and the time at their disposal. Therefore, he did not propose to move his Amendment, as he did not think it could be discussed properly under two or three hours. But he earnestly trusted that the Secretary of State for War would give his full attention to this important proposed reform, and would, if possible, remember that it was one of those reforms which it was better to do thoroughly and at once than merely to give what might be in a nature of a sop to the economists. He had no reason to think that the right hon. Gentleman was not in full sympathy with the reformers in this matter; and, therefore, he was quite prepared to abstain from bringing forward the question to-day, and to postpone it until next Session, when he should undoubtedly raise it on the first opportunity.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he desired to say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) that he hoped that before the Estimates were next presented he might be able to submit to the House a scheme which would be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman.
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he had no intention of infringing the honourable understanding which had been arrived at on both sides of the House to postpone the discussion of these Estimates until next year, but he sincerely trusted that next Session they would be afforded an equally favourable opportunity of discussing them. As a rule, when they came down to discuss the Army Medical Vote, they were generally put off until an inconvenient hour—perhaps 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning; or they were squeezed into a corner of the evening, and the discussion cut as short as possible. They had now a most favourable opportunity, with a clear field before them, and yet they were not to have a discussion. He did not intend to say a single word in regard to anything that happened in the Committee upon the Estimates, but he did desire to say a word on a question they had already heard a good deal about—namely, the vexed question of relative rank. It had been discussed a good deal, both inside of the House and out of it, and the first question asked in regard to it was, why relative rank should be abolished at all? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would remember that when he courteously received a deputation on the subject, the question was spoken of as one of sentiment. It was very difficult to explain what was the relative rank which the Army medical officers had lost, and to explain their precise condition of mind upon the subject. He believed that a strong expression of opinion had been sent to the right hon. Gentleman on the part of the medical authorities of the Kingdom, through the British Medical Association. That Association, representing the medical profession throughout the United Kingdom, had endeavoured to ascertain the views of medical men on the question. Out of 1,500 circulars sent round, 900 answers had been received entirely condemnatory of the abolition of relative
  246
  rank, and giving reasons why it should be restored. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would look into the question, and endeavour to ascertain what the view of the Army medical officers was in regard to it. It might be said that those views might be made known through the Army medical authorities, but that was a very difficult matter to carry out, seeing that the young Army officers stood in a certain amount of awe of their own authorities, being afraid to complain lest they might be regarded as chronically dissatisfied and have a bad mark placed against their name. The Director General of the Army Medical Staff was a thoroughly courteous gentleman, always ready to receive any representations that might be made to him, but young officers, who had justentered the Service, found some difficulty in bearding the lion in his den. Then, again, opinions of this kind were only important when they represented large masses of opinion all over the country. He sincerely trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the question of relative rank, and see if anything could be done to restore it, or to give to the medical officers an equivalent for that which they had lost. He had received a large number of letters from all parts of the world complaining of the abolition. There was only one other point he desired to call attention to, and it was the examination for promotion to the position of brigade surgeon. He thought the severity of the examination might be somewhat modified when it was made to apply to officers of this rank, even if it was not abolished altogether. It was extremely hard that an Army medical officer who went up for examination once, and failed, should not get another chance, and consequently have his prospects of promotion detroyed. A medical officer was constantly called upon to pass an examination under circumstances of great inconvenience; he was called upon suddenly, without any warning, even in India, where he had no books at hand or any opportunity of bringing his mind to bear upon medical studies, and then he was told, if he failed to pass, no matter how difficult the circumstances were, that no other opportunity would be afforded to him. Combatant officers, when they failed to pass an examination,

  247
  were allowed another chance, and surely the professional knowledge which a medical officer acquired by active service was of more importance and advantage than mere book-learning. The experience he had thus acquired must have rendered him efficient for the position of brigade surgeon. He therefore ventured to ask that the question might be taken into consideration with a view of securing that Army medical officers, who had failed once under unfavourable circumstances, should have a second chance, always assuming that their service had been good in other respects.
  SIR WILLIAM CROSSMANsuggested that the Army medical officers, on return from foreign service, should have an opportunity of refreshing their knowledge in civil hospitals, so as to make them more competent for the duties they had to perform.
  DR. TANNERthought that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would do well to solve a difficulty which was alleged to be productive of very bad results in connection with the Army Medical Department. If the Army Medical Department would take a leaf out of the book which they were constantly copying in other respects—namely, the regulations in medical matters connected with German Army administration—they would, he thought, do good service. It was notoriously the fact that a medical officer who had been stationed in South Africa, or upon some hill station in India, when he returned home after a number of years' service, would find that, to a great extent, he had got rusty. He felt bound to complain strongly of the treatment which the Army medical officers of this country received. He admitted that there were magnificent institutions in London and elsewhere, such as the London Hospital and University College Hospital, and why they were not made available for the improvement of the studies of Army medical officers when they returned to England from service abroad, as was the case in Berlin, he was at a loss to understand. There had been a strong expression of opinion on this point by Royal Commissions and men of eminence and high standing in the profession; and yet, in spite of all the advantages lying at their very door, up to the present time nothing had been done. He recollected, while studying at Berlin,
  248
  that the operative surgery class in particular, and some of the classes engaged in the study of physiology and so forth, were filled with both Army and Naval medical officers. He had brought it under the notice of a Committee on the Naval Estimates on which he had served, and he had directed attention to it in the course of the present Session. He had now got something like a definite assurance from the First Lord of the Admiralty that substantial attention would be paid to the Administrative Medical Department connected with the Service. Surely, what could be done in connection with the Navy could be even more easily done in regard to the Army. He should, therefore, press for some attention to these points, because he, and most of the gentlemen who belonged to the profession, were strongly of opinion that the remedy of the grievances complained of was urgently called for. Many advantages would accrue; the unfortunate patient would be better cared for, and when the medical officer in due course of time resigned his position and trust, he would be found more fitted to enter upon civil practice than he could possibly be if, after having been stationed for many years in India, China, Africa, or other parts of the world, he returned home without enjoying facilities for professional improvement. At present it was constantly alleged that Army medical officers returning to England after service abroad had grown a little rusty; but if the matter were solved in the way he suggested, this would no longer be said, and an Army medical officer would be able to settle down to civil practice and perform valuable work. He trusted that the Secretary of State for War would consult some of the heads of the medical profession and some of the retired medical officers. He did not propose to enter into the question of relative rank, or of the examination which candidates for the position of brigade surgeon major in India were required to pass. But if he abstained from entering into them, he hoped they would receive from the right hon. Gentleman the consideration they deserved. They were questions which excited a deep interest. He should suppose that most members of the medical profession had received a small cartload of pamphlets of all kinds bearing upon them, and year after year the

  249
  Medical Press was full of letters and statements in regard to them. He could not conceive how it was that the medical officers did not receive the relative rank they were entitled to. When they were going to pitch a camp in time of war, surely its location, from a sanitary point of view, was of the highest importance, and it was necessary to take the opinions of a practical medical man. Whether it was the location of a camp, or the inspection of a prison, or looking after and treating disease—surely a little more consideration ought to be displayed towards gentlemen who were not only medical officers, but men who had been obliged to go through a long and arduous military training before they were able to perform the duties with which they were intrusted. He thought that the case of surgeon major in India was a particularly absurd one. A man was called on to perform very arduous duties, and to travel about the country under a high-sounding title; and yet, practically speaking, he was worse paid than any other officer of similar rank, and was called upon to provide himself with a gorgeous uniform. The expenses entailed upon him by his position steadily diminished his finances, and certainly demanded some little attention on the part of the Government. There was another point which he had considered it his duty to bring under the notice of the Government either last year or the year before—namely, the practice of sending out very young officers to India immediately after they joined the Service. He had pointed out that there was very considerable mortality among young medical officers who, after joining the Service, with no period of probation at all, were sent out to a warm climate, and, being junior medical officers, almost invariably got the worst stations. He had asked the Secretary of State for War if it were intended to open out a new system of medical education in India for the special advantage of the young officers who were sent out there, but he received no answer. If young men were to be sent out to India, it was desirable that they should remain for a considerable time in some healthy locality in order that they might become acclimatized, and fitted for the duties they would be called upon, as medical men, to perform. Of course, the junior medical officers would have to deal with very heavy
  250
  cases, and to inspect all the places where the sanitary condition was the most unsatisfactory, and it was, therefore, desirable that they should be afforded some period of time for acquiring experience. As to the burning question of the transfer of medical officers to the new medical schools which were to be created in various parts of India, he thought, for his own part, that sufficient attention had not been paid to that subject. If the right hon. Gentleman discredited his statement he would refer him to the columns of The British Medical Journal, where he would find the subject discussed at considerable length. He did not know whether the object was to effect economy, but he failed to understand the principle upon which they were going to create these large schools.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman was now entering into a question which related more to the Government of India than to the administration of the Army Medical Department.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he understood that it was contemplated to transfer the Army medical schools from Netley to India, and the expenditure, which had hitherto been borne under the head of Netley, would now be distributed over a very much larger area. Of course, a portion of the cost would be borne by India, and no doubt it would be irregular on the present Vote to enter into that question. If gentlemen who had hitherto received their education at Netley were to be transferred to India, there would undoubtedly be a very great increase of expenditure, because at Netley all the necessary requirements of a high-class medical education were already provided, whereas in India they would have to be provided at very great expense. In his opinion that expenditure was, for any practicable purpose, unnecessary, especially when, as far as he could find out, there was no fault found with the system of education provided at Netley. Hitherto the school at Netley had been found most satisfactory and workable. So far as the study of those climatic diseases which prevailed in tropical and semi-tropical climates were concerned, they could certainly be studied just as well at Netley as in India. In India, of course, there was the chance of seeing examples in reference to most of the climatic diseases,

  251
  but that was not the point. He thought it was advisable that the representations which had been made upon these subjects by officers of the Army Medical Department, who had devoted their lives to the study of these matters, should be repeated over and over again. There was certainly a great deal to be said upon them, and, so far as the Army Medical Department was concerned, he did not think that the Secretary for War had paid that attention to it which its importance demanded, or otherwise the matter would not have been passed over without some special expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman. He sincerely hoped to obtain some explanation from the Government in regard to the proposal to transfer the medical school from Netley to India; how it was proposed to bring it about, and what interests were expected to be served. He also hoped that some attention would be paid to the remonstrances of the officers of the Medical Department.
  SIR TINDAL ROBERTSONsaid, he had intended to say something about the question raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson)—namely, the relative rank of medical officers, but after the expression of opinion on both sides of the House with regard to shortening the debate that day, he thought it would be well to leave the matter over until early next Session, when it could be fully discussed. It would not be respectful to the Committee to say now what would have to be re-said next Session. He had only risen to emphasize the importance of the question. He hoped, at the beginning of next Session, before the Estimates were again discussed, that the Secretary for War would undertake to examine this question carefully, and that the medical officers in the Army would receive that consideration to which they were really entitled.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he would endeavour to reply to the various questions which had been put to him in the course of the discussion. He should be glad to have from the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) his exact scheme in writing.
  DR. TANNERasked, if the right hon. Gentleman referred to the scheme he had suggested in connection with the education of Army medical officers
  252
  which was adopted on the Continent, especially in Germany, where Army medical men were associated with civilians?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the scheme which he desired to have was that to which the hon. Member referred in the early part of his speech. He had not been able to follow the details exactly, but if the hon. Member would submit it in writing he would be glad to see how far any portion of it could be made available. Two or three other questions had been put to him. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir William Crossman) had suggested that these medical officers should have an opportunity of refreshing their knowledge in civil hospitals, so as to make them more competent for the duties they had to do. He should be glad to consider that point, which had not recently been brought before him, although a similar question—namely, the desirability of allowing medical officers an opportunity of refreshing their knowledge by going back to Netley—had been brought before him. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) had raised two questions; first of all the question of the relative rank of soldiers and medical officers. No doubt that was a question which had excited much interest among the officers of the Army Medical Department, and he had had occasion to hear a good deal about it. Some time ago he received a deputation of medical men on this subject. They waited upon him to represent the injuries they thought they had sustained; but he was bound to say that, having heard all their statements, he failed to see where the grievance lay. No doubt the grievance, if it was one at all, was of a sentimental character. He did not disparage the grievance because it was a sentimental one, as sentiment had to be reckoned with. But in reality the main purpose was not so much to obtain substantive rank as to have the additional titles conferred on medical officers of surgeon-captain and surgeon-colonel. At the present moment he was not disposed to go far from the attitude he took up at the time he received the deputation. He had done his best, by an alteration of the Rules, to prevent any misconception upon the matter. With reference to the exami-

  253
  nation for brigade-surgeon, surgeon-majors who had failed to pass would be qualified by obtaining the Fellowship of any of the Medical Colleges, or the equivalent of a University degree.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked, whether this Order would be retrospective?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was afraid he could not answer that question. He was not at the moment prepared to say. He would communicate privately with the hon. Member; but he should like to say generally, in regard to this Vote, that there had been some important suggestions made by the Committee on the Army Estimates. Those suggestions he was taking into consideration, and he hoped next year, when the Estimates came on, that he would be able to show how far they had been carried out.
  COLONEL NOLANdesired to say a word upon the medical question. He did not think the Secretary for War had given a very satisfactory answer as to the question of the relative assumption of military rank by the Army surgeons. What the Army medical officers asked was that the claims of seniority might be considered, and he thought the award of the rank requested would be a very harmless matter. All they desired was that they might be made more closely to represent the majors and colonels in the Army, which were the titles they wanted to assume. He thought such ranks in the Medical Department might be definitely laid down in The Army List. In regard to the question of economy, he was of opinion that at the present moment we were paying an enormous and extravagant sum for pensions. In that direction he should certainly like to see a reduction of the Estimate. He was not in favour of reducing the pay of the Army medical officers, but he thought they should be required to serve for a longer period. By that means a large sum of money might be saved and a great reduction in the Vote effected. All he suggested was that the period of retirement should be deferred until a later day. He had been no party to the understanding arrived at at the beginning of the Sitting, but he had no wish to infringe it. All he wanted to know was whether it was a fact that a surgeon major aged only 44, and getting a salary of £450 a-year for actual work,
  254
  and being in the enjoyment of good health, was able to retire with a pension of £500 as surgeon major general, with no work at all to do? He did not think that that was an economical administration of the Army Medical Department, and he was of opinion that the only way in which they could effect economy would be by prolonging the term of service. If any difficulty arose as to the titles the Army medical officers were to have, he thought the best way out of the difficulty would be to give them almost any title they pleased. Give them titles that would enable them to rank with military officers, but their pensions should rest upon the question of age, and it was absurd to lay down the principle that a medical officer, when he had been in the Service for five or six years, was entitled to a pension. No doubt they ought to have facilities for retirement, but this was pushing the principle to the extreme. In point of fact they were giving a man £50 a-year for doing nothing, and putting in another man at £450 a-year to do the work. He believed that hundreds of such cases occurred, although, perhaps, not one as strong as that which he had mentioned. He sympathized with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to carry out reforms, but he must be aware that the process would be a very slow one. At least £10,000 a-year might be saved, without much injury to the medical officers, by deferring the period of pension; and probably the doctors themselves would not object to serve a little longer, as they rarely got much practice after retirement. That, he thought, was the direction in which economy should be pushed. He objected to the principle of sending out young men to serve oncerta in hot stations, and then pensioning them off after a few years' service.
  MR. A. E. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, he had no wish to prolong the discussion, but he thought, as he had only been able to give a modified assent to the recommendations of the Committee upstairs, of which he was a Member, that he ought to state what his views were. The Committee recommended that the regimental system for the medical officers of the Guards should be abolished. Now, he wished to maintain that system, not because he was in favour of any special privileges for the

  255
  Guards, such as brevet rank and other advantages—for he was altogether in favour of doing away with such privileges—but because he thought the regimental system was the best wherever it could be applied. He believed that in regard to small battalions other than the Guards, it might be impracticable to maintain the regimental system, however desirable it might be, but where, in the case of the Guards, there were a large number of men quartered in the same place, it was quite practicable to maintain the regimental system. He should, therefore, like to see it maintained, not solely for the benefit of the Guards, but because he believed it was a better system in itself. There was another reason why he differed with the Committee in regard to this recommendation, and it was that it was arrived at without calling the Commanding Officer of the Guards before the Committee, or anyone who had any acquaintance with the manner in which the existing system worked. He would repeat that he did not treat the matter as one of privilege for the Guards, for on that question he was quite at one with the Committee, but because he believed that where they were dealing with a large body of men the regimental system was the best. He Lad, therefore, found it impossible to assent to this recommendation of the Committee.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that he was unable to enter into the question raised by his hon. Friend now.
  MR. A. E. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, he had no desire to discuss the question at length. He had only risen for the purpose of entering a protest against the recommendation of the Committee, because the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had intimated that he intended to deal with the recommendations of the Committee before next Session.
  COLONEL BLUNDELLremarked, that when the matter came regularly before the Committee he should be prepared to state his opinions upon it. The system in the Guards was a brigade, not a regimental system, and was better than the extreme system now existing in the Army.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he should like to have an explanation upon an item in the Vote in which there appeared to be a reduction. He altogether differed
  256
  from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) that there was too much money spent upon this Department. If they desired to keep the men in the Army in an efficient condition it was absolutely necessary that they should look after their health; to do that they must have doctors; and if they had doctors they must pay them. He saw from Sub-head D that a large reduction had been made in connection with the supply of medicines. He regretted the reduction very much, because he knew, as a matter of fact, that medicines this year were not a bit cheaper than they were last. The price of drugs, as a matter of fact, had rather gone up. Nevertheless, there appeared to have been a reduction of no less than £5,000, and the pay of the Medical Staff had been reduced by £9,260. They might cut down the pay of the doctors, but if they cut down their pay they certainly ought to provide them with good stuff for the purpose of dealing with disease. He should, therefore, like to have some explanation in the reduction of the item for the cost of medicines and surgical instruments. In regard to the surgical instruments with which the Army medical officers were provided, he had heard many complaints in the course of the last two years from medical officers in distant stations in India that sufficient facilities were not afforded them for getting the instruments, when they got out of repair, put in a proper condition.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)said, the matter was easily explained. There had been a considerable return of medicines into store from Egypt.
  DR. TANNERsaid, that stores of all kinds underwent deterioration if kept long in store in any branch of the Military or Naval Services. Nothing was more prone to deteriorate than drugs. He understood the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to say that the reduction in this item of the Vote was owing to the return of medicines into store from Egypt. Surely there must have been an enormous store of medicines in Egypt in order to effect a reduction of £5,000, and there must have been a considerable amount of deterioration among them? He should certainly like to have a little more light thrown upon

  257
  the subject. Complaints were constantly made of the bad medicines provided, and he could easily understand how those complaints arose, when he now heard from the hon. Gentleman that so large a reduction in the Estimate had been brought about in consequence of the return into store of medicines from Egypt—medicines, which he presumed, had been in Egypt for a couple of years. Egypt might be a good place for treating diseases of the lungs, but it was not the most desirable place for keeping medicines, which were very apt to deteriorate when kept. It was to his mind a most extraordinary thing that such an immense reduction should have been effected by the return of drugs into store.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, the hon. Gentleman could hardly be aware that the force in Egypt had been reduced from 15,000 to 8,500; it was quite obvious that that reduction of the strength of forces placed a large supply of drugs at the disposal of the War Office. The hon. Gentleman knew as well as he did that if any of the drugs deteriorated so as not to be fit for use, they would not be served out to the troops.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he should like to be informed what the value of the medicines returned from Egypt was, and who they were valued by?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was afraid that the hon. Member required too much. He should be glad to be informed by the hon. Member of any cases in which inferior drugs had been supplied.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £555,000, Militia Pay and Allowances.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War would admit that the Militia was one of the most important forces we had in this country, and that it was most desirable to maintain it in a state of full efficiency. His right hon. Friend must admit that the Militia was not in the very efficient state in which they would all like to see a force of that kind. He should like to know from the Secretary of State for War whether the Committee of the Cabinet, or the Royal Commission, were considering the state
  258
  of the Militia and the Militia Reserve as one of the matters before them? They all knew that there had been a large increase in the number of officers, owing to so many having passed into the Line, and, if it were necessary to embody the Militia, there might be considerable difficulty in regard to the efficient officering of this branch of the Service. Without entering into details he would only mention the fact that many of the officers of the Militia were exceedingly good officers, and did their work remarkably well, although they had never been in the Line at all. Some of the officers were certainly not so efficient, and, so far as the men were concerned, there were some 30,000 Militiamen in the Reserve who ought to be as efficient with their rifles as any other part of Her Majesty's Forces. He wished to know whether the desirability of employing the services of retired officers from the Army had been considered.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, that the Militia cost about £500,000 a-year, and the Secretary for War was naturally anxious to make it as efficient as possible. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his opinion, it was conducive to the efficiency of the Militia to have it commanded by men of 30 or 40 years' service. He did not mean absolute service, but service in command of a regiment. Would it not be desirable, as far as the colonels were concerned, to introduce the short service system into the Militia. It was no longer a half-trained force, the plaything of the country gentleman, and certainly it was not desirable that the commanding officers should be colonels who had been in command of regiments for 30 or 40 years. Under present regulations in the Army, commanding officers were limited to five years' service as such.
  MR. GURDONremarked that the Militia barracks at Norwich were a mile and a-half from the town, on a steep hill, and in such a position as was supposed to be detrimental to the interests of the regiment. Negotiations with the War Office had been opened with the view of purchasing a small piece of unoccupied land, but the regiment were told that they must purchase it at their own expense, and that even then it might at some time be required for the use of the Army.

  259
  He thought there ought to be some guarantee that they would not be turned out at a moment's notice, and thus lose the whole of the money they had spent.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, that as in a case of emergency we must rely very much upon our Militia, it was of importance that they should be able to shoot. In a debate which took place last July in "another place," various statements were made as to the efficiency of the force.
  COLONEL NOLANrose to Order. He wished to know whether it was in Order for the hon. Member to refer to a debate which took place in July last during the present Session, in the House of Lords? If allusions of this kind to debates in the House of Lords were permitted, he was afraid it would be opening a very wide precedent, which might become extremely inconvenient in other cases hereafter.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that according to the Standing Order and Rules which appertained to the conduct of debate, any reference to a debate in "another place" during the present Session would be irregular.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, that the Militia was a feeder of the Line to the extent of something like 13,000 men every year, and, if all necessary deductions were made, the number of the Militia which could be put into the front rank would amount to about 43,000 only. The returns as to Militia shooting showed that more than 5,000 recruits did not shoot at all, and in the battalions there were 7,000 more who did not shoot; so that there would have to be deducted about 12,000 men who did not shoot at all. But assuming that 43,000 could be placed in the front rank, a great proportion of them would be raw lads about 17 years of age. Even they, if they could shoot, would be of some service. The Militia recruits' course was 40 rounds a-year at the range. Of course his military friends would correct him if he were wrong. The trained men's course was the same—40 rounds at distances never exceeding 300 yards, except when advancing on the target from 265 yards to 160. He would ask hon. Members to compare that with the Linesmen's course, because he understood that it was the intention of the
  260
  Authorities to place the Militia where they would put the Line to oppose the Germans or the French. He maintained that under such circumstances the Militia should not be worse instructed than the Line, but the mode of training was altogether different. The Linesman was trained to shoot in such a way as if he were in the actual presence of the enemy, so as to familiarize him with what he would be likely to meet in actual warfare. But not the slightest pretence was made of teaching the Militiaman the use of his weapon under any such conditions. The recruits of the Line fired about 100 rounds at the range at various distances; the trained men from 150 to 200 rounds at distances varying up to 800 yards, and, where the locality would permit it, up to 1,800 yards—that was exclusive of private practice. What was the result as far as the Militia man was concerned? The hon. Member for Glasgow was a Member of the Select Committee which had been referred to in the course of the debate, and he asked General Fremantle how the Militia shoot. General Fremantle replied that they shoot very badly. Being asked whether he thought a Militiaman could hit a target six feet square, General Fremantle gave this somewhat evasive answer, "1 think it would depend upon circumstances." In reply to a question put by him to the Secretary of State, on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Military Authorities did not think it desirable that the rounds not expended in body firing should be fired at a head-and-shoulders target, the probability being that the Militiaman would not hit it. As he understood it the object of the men shooting under these circumstances at this description of target was that they should fire at something representing an enemy as he would appear behind a breastwork. If a Militiaman could not hit a man who was stationary the question was could he hit him when in motion up and down? He knew a gentleman who was a crack shot, and who went to Wimbledon and shot at the Pool target, with the result that having fired seven shots in succession he never hit the figure once. What, therefore, could they hope from the practically untrained, and, to some extent, unintelligent Militiaman? Notwithstanding that the range was only a two-section

  261
  range, that but two men could shoot at a time, and that the course of musketry instruction was rushed through in four days, the opinion of the Authorities was that there was a certain amount of improvement, and that if more facilities were given it would be greater. Having now made the points he intended, he would ask the Secretary of State for War one or two questions. In the first place, was it right to delude the public into the belief that the force was so good that it was not necessary to take any steps to make it more efficient? Was it right to intrust the defence of the country to a force which was unable to use the only weapons of war which were in use in the hands of an Infantry soldier? And was it right to place these men in a position in which they would be certainly opposed to the picked troops of the enemy, and give them no weapon that was necessary to resist an attack under the circumstances? He answered these questions in the negative. What then was the remedy? They would be told that it was difficult to get long ranges. Probably it was, but he did not think that was the only difficulty. At any rate, if it were it must be surmounted. It had been suggested to him that this was simply a question of money; and just as the First Lord of the Admiralty yesterday had spoken of the expenditure of money on guns as an admirable expenditure, because without guns ships were useless, so he said that expenditure on ranges and the various matters calculated to afford instruction to the Militia would be admirable, because no soldier could be of any use unless he was instructed in the use of his weapons. It was a question of widening and extending ranges, of giving a more extended and careful course of instruction in musketry, and of giving to exercise some of the time now devoted to manœoeuvres, with regard to which Lord Wolseley said they were only fit to amuse nursery-maids in Hyde Park; and, further, it was a question of giving up the barrack-square drill, which might give the men a smart appearance, and which he was told was, in the opinion of some officers, the only test of excellence.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that they voted £1,426,000 for the Militia, which
  262
  numbered 100,000 men, and the result was that each Militiaman cost the country £14—a very considerable sum indeed. He thought there were two faults in connection with the Militia System; first, with regard to numbers; and, secondly, that the men could do no shooting. Lord Salisbury, the other day, pointed out that there were in Europe 7,000,000 men under arms, and he would point out that there were only 500,000 British and Irish troops in the country, including the Militia and Volunteers. In point of numbers, therefore, there was a remarkable deficiency in the forces of the country, and a discrepancy between those forces and the Armies of Continental Powers which, he thought, extremely dangerous. He did not see how the deficiency could be made up cheaply, except by adding to the reserves and the Militia. The difference between the number of British troops under arms and the Continental troops actually under arms, was not so great, but it was the Reserves in which foreign powers were so enormously strong, and it was there that the great difference lay as between them and this country. Therefore he thought that the Secretary of State for War should try to increase the number of troops under arms and in reserve. He was obliged to conclude, more from what the Inspector-General left unsaid than from what he did say on the subject of the shooting of the Militia, that they could not shoot at all. And these men, after all, ought to be the main defence of the country. He thought if the Secretary of State would look at the question of the Militia as a whole he would see that it was totally out of gear with the times and the position of the country. The present system was extravagant in the extreme, and that reacted on the shooting. His own opinion was that a man was a good shot if he shot well at 300 yards, and that if he did so at one range he would probably shoot well at all ranges; but for this there must be certain appliances. There must be a range close to the barracks, otherwise the whole day would be taken up in getting to the range and back to the place where they were trained. This was the first thing to be secured, and then he suggested that the Militia should be remodelled. The present system of training was, in his opinion, both expensive and

  263
  troublesome, and he thought that if the training were concentrated the country would save, not only in training, but in respect of the whole travelling staff. He would like to see schools in certain parts of the country, and the Militia allowed to go up when they liked for three months' drill, and a large number of men would easily he got to attend if they paid; he believed in this way 200,000 instead of 100,000 men would be obtained. This would be a clean sweep of the whole system; but it was of no use to discuss whether the Militia were well trained or not as long as they only fired 40 rounds. That number might with advantage be fired in the first day, and a man would probably require to fire a 100 rounds to make him a decent shot at the first range. To be called upon to pay £1,420,000 for 100,000 men who were bad shots, and only came up for a month's training in the year, showed that the system was thoroughly bad, and ought to be condemned. He did not say that the French, or even the Germans, knew more about these things than we; but, when he saw every country doing the same thing, he felt pretty certain that they were right in what they did, and that if we stood out we should be likely to be in the wrong. In maintaining the Militia at so small a figure they were departing from the old tradition that it should be a numerous force; that fact was of importance when the increase in Continental Armies was considered; and he thought the Secretary of State for War would do well to think over the matter and the suggestions he had made. Finally, he pointed out that it would be cheaper to employ a larger number of sergeants, and keep them at work all the year round.
  COLONEL WAKINGsaid, he hoped it would not be considered that because they had remained silent during the discussion that the Militia officers in the House were not very deeply interested in this question, and that because they did not discuss it now they would not do so on a future occasion at great length. There were many subjects which he should like to touch upon, although he abstained from doing so at that period of the Session; but in case something might be done in the Recess he would say that although he agreed that the extension of the Militia would be desirable, he hoped that no
  264
  plan so detrimental to the regimental system would be adopted as that foreshadowed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was glad that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had addressed an appeal to him on the subject of the Militia, and had spoken of the somewhat comprehensive statement made by him the other day as one from which some misunderstanding might possibly arise. Within the limits assigned to him on that occasion he had not attempted to deal with all the numerous questions connected with the Army and Auxilliary Forces as he should have liked to deal with them. He was compelled to touch on subjects in connection with which great changes were proposed, and, therefore, he had advisedly not spoken of the Militia, because he was not prepared to propose that any great changes should be made with regard to it, although following steadily the lines recently adopted he was able to say that the Militia were improving in many inportant respects. The Militia was a force on which they knew they could, to a large extent, rely in case of need; but they didn't think it should be exposed to the very severe test to which his hon. Friend the Member for Newington (Mr. Cooke) suggested, because undoubtedly they would not think of putting the whole force into the front line in the event of invasion. On the contrary, a large portion of the Militia would be occupied in garrison duty, which he was fully confident they would be well able to perform. The War Office were, of course, alive to the necessity of improving the Militia as far as they could, both in respect of numbers and efficiency, and there was no point of more importance than that dealt with by his hon. Friend the Member for Newington and the hon. and gallant Colonel opposite—namely, the question of shooting. Although he frankly admitted that in the case of the Militia there is a great deal to be desired in this respect, he must also say that on the whole there was an improvement. He could assure the House that the military authorities of the country were fully alive to the importance of further improving, as far as they could, the Militia in the matter of shooting. There were, of course, difficulties in the way

  265
  which he believed the Committee would recognize. First of all there were practically only 23 working days during which the training went on in the course of the year, and it might be that too large a portion of that time was devoted to work other than shooting, but they would endeavour to utilize the time available to the full, particularly with the idea of improving the latter. More than one hon. Member had referred to great difficulty as to ranges, and the hon. Member for Newington thought that might be overcome by the expenditure of money. But the difficulty was not merely of a pecuniary character. He could assure his hon. Friend that there was a difficulty in this respect in the case of the Regular Forces, and a much greater one in the case of the Militia, and the consequence was they were obliged to take what ranges they could get in the places where the Militia were called out. His hon. Friend would say, "Call out the Militia in places where ranges were available;" but he thought the Committee would know that the moment a suggestion was made as to calling out the Militia at a new place, a howl arose from the representatives of the particular district, and it was almost impossible for the Military Authorities to remove them from the town where they had been accustomed to be called out to another town in the locality. A good deal had been said with regard to the officers. There was no doubt that the Army gained very largely by the number of officers drawn from the ranks of the Militia, and, on the other hand, the Militia was rendered more attractive by the present system under which commissions in the Army were obtainable. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Essex (Major Rasch) suggested that they should apply to the Militia what he called the time limit, and get rid of some of the old officers. There were two sides to that question; for while, on the one hand, when a commanding officer became too old to be efficient it was desirable that he should retire, and a more efficient officer put in his place, on the other hand it was exceedingly difficult in many parts of the country to attract the most efficient officers to occupy the position; and further, it must be borne in mind that a great deal was gained
  266
  by having men in the Militia of large local influence and popularity. In conclusion, he repeated that the Government were fully alive to the importance of improving the Militia in the general scheme of the defence of the country, and making them thoroughly efficient for the particular duties which that force might be called upon to perform.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he could not help smiling when he heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he relied largely upon the Militia in the event of invasion; and he had listened with much interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Down (Colonel Waring), who spoke for a section of the Irish people. Having in mind the circumstance that a Militia regiment in North Down once made an attack upon a school teacher, and that whenever a Militia regiment was disbanded a large number of troops had to be imported into the town in consequence of the disgraceful behaviour of the men, he did not think there was much to be expected from the courtesy, at any rate, of the Militia. Anyone who had studied the internal economy of any Irish Militia regiment would have found that the two great desiderata were a good mess and a game of cards afterwards, and that so far as the duties they had to perform in the 23 days of training were concerned, anything like drill was looked upon with horror. These were the men on whom the right hon. Gentleman relied; but if any misfortune should require them to be called upon, he did not think the country would derive much advantage from it. He hoped that in future the bands of the Militia regiments would be required to devote some period of time to study, so as to render the symphonies which they performed less discordant; he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in the name of harmony to spare the ears of civilians in the districts where the regiments were assembled by calling out the bands of the Regular troops. He observed an increase of £300 under Sub-head B, and of £1,500 under Subhead C, from which one would infer that there would have been an increase in the number of men, and perhaps of officers. But he challenged an explanation of the fact that there was a very great falling off, and also of the circumstance that the expense of the Militia staff was borne on this Vote.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked whether during the Recess, if there was such an interval, the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to a grave cause of irritation felt by the operation of the compulsory system as to the Militia in the Channel Islands? Such a promise would be very satisfactory.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, his attention had of late been occupied with the subject to which the hon. Member had just referred, and he should be glad if he could see his way to putting the Militia in the Channel Islands on a more satisfactory footing. He pointed out to the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) that the increased charge of £300 under Sub-head B was for extra payments connected with submarine mining. With regard to the decrease of £2,000 in the amount for annual training, it appeared that upon the average of recent years more money had been taken than was required, and the Department felt justified in diminishing the amount this year, As to the question of Militia bands, the matter would have his attention.
  MR. WEBSTERsaid, he was informed that what was called "bring money" in connection with the Militia had been abolished, and he would be glad to know what had been the effect of that abolition?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, the change was a very recent one, and he had no information yet on which he could answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
  SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELLsaid, in his regiment of 800 men he had, before the abolition of the premium, never more than from five to eight men who did not turn up to be enrolled, but he had since found himself obliged to make arrangements to assist in getting the troops to assemble; and one of the difficulties in the way of that was, no doubt, the taking away of the half-crown for bring money. To make an efficient regiment there must be well-trained non-commissioned officers, and unless these were acquainted with the men the result which they so much desired could not be attained. He considered that the drilling of recruits at depots had been one of the greatest mistakes ever made; it had reduced the Militia by 20 or 30 per cent. and he could point to a large and distinguished
  268
  regiment in Ayrshire which, once 1,200 strong, was now reduced to 600. In this matter the inclinations of the men must be considered, and they did not like to go into barracks, where they had to carry coals, rake gravel and roll it. If the Militia was to be full and strong, the Militiaman's ignorance of a soldier's life must be taken into account. Again, when men found out that they were well looked after in the Militia they would probably join the Army afterwards; but it was very difficult to get men to do so if they thought they were not going to be put under trained officers and officers belonging to their own counties.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £76,000, Yeomanry Cavalry.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked, whether the decrease in the numbers of the Yeomanry in respect of some regiments was due to the fact that it was unpopular with the farmers? His information was that it was unpopular on account of the expense and the obligation to keep horses up to a certain standard. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would pay attention to the suggestion that the staff officers of the different regiments should be blended together so that the expense in that respect might be lessened. The staff of the Militia was very expensive, having regard to the fact that they were only at work eight days. Would it not be possible to employ some of the officers compulsorily retired to do the work? He believed they would gladly undertake it, and would be quite fit after a little rubbing-up at Aldershot.
  MR. COCHRANE-BAILLIEasked the Secretary of State for War, whether he would consider the desirability of giving half a day's pay to Yeomen when shooting their rounds? The hon. Member for Newington (Mr. Cooke) had spoken of the desirability of looking after the shooting of the Militia, and he made the same appeal on behalf of the Yeomanry. These men made considerable sacrifices in money and time when they attended for training, and they had, in addition, to give some time to shooting, on account of which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider them entitled to some compensation.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he would be glad to consider the point; there was

  269
  an important difference in their case, inasmuch as they came out for training during so short a period. He did not think it was possible to blend together one or two regiments of the Yeomanry Cavalry; but the whole question of the branch would be considered, and it would be his duty to consider the point which the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Farquharson) had mentioned. No doubt, adjutants might be got with advantage from among the retired officers; but the great thing to aim at was that the officers discharging the duty of adjutants should be thoroughly competent to perform their duties, and should not, by lapse of time, have lost touch with the Regular Army and its requirements. He was afraid it was true that farmers were not joining the Yeomanry in such numbers as formerly; but he hoped that when agricultural depression had passed away the country would have again a large number of farmers joining the Service.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £442,200, Army Reserve Force (including Enrolled Pensioners).
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he believed no one in the country—certainly not in the House—was unaware of the great value of Reserve Forces in case of emergency. Lord Cardwell, then Mr. Cardwell, when the Reserve was inaugurated, had stated in that House that, in a certain number of years, there would be 80,000 men in the Reserve. We had, however, only 51,000 or 52,000, and, as things wore at present, he did not see how more men for the Reserve were to be obtained. The two things which militated against them was the enormous waste with regard to recruits and the period of service in India. He hoped his right hon. Friend and the Committee on which he was serving, or the Royal Commission, would inquire into the matter, and see whether something could not be done with regard to lengthening the service for India and shortening the service at Home. He believed that if the latter were curtailed there would be a much larger Reserve. With regard to the important question whether the 52,000 men of the Reserve and the 30,000 men of the Militia were efficient, he ventured to say that his right hon. Friend did not in the least know whether they were effective or not, as there was no medical
  270
  examination, and it was impossible to conjecture how many men ought to be rejected as unfit to take their place in the Line. No one who had given evidence before the Committee said otherwise than that, with the exception of those discharged within a year, the men were deficient in musketry instruction and drill. Therefore, he maintained that if they were to look to the Reserve as a means of defence, they were bound to see that they were efficient. If necessary, the Reserve must be called out, and he had too high an opinion of employers in this country to believe that they would not give their men the necessary leave of absence. He ventured to say that every man ought to have his arms, accoutrements, and clothing ready at a moment's notice, so that he might go down to the depôt and commence training there and then; and although his right hon. Friend might say that this would be difficult to carry out, yet the safety of the country demanded that the Reserve should be in an effective state. With regard to the Cavalry and Artillery Reserve men, they had the evidence of H. R. H. the Duke of Cambridge and many distinguished officers, including the late Colonel Duncan, whose death was sot only a great loss to that House, but also to that profession of which he was so distinguished a member. All gave evidence that although the Reserves of Cavalry and Artillery were in a certain sense most useful, yet they would not at once be fit to take their place in the ranks; and, therefore, both Cavalry and Artillery should always be kept up to full strength. His right hon. Friend said we had two Army Corps in perfect order. What everyone who had the well-being of the country at heart would like to see was that these two Army Corps should be turned out complete in every respect—Commissariat, Transport, &c., fit to embark at a moment's notice. If they were turned out, as he hoped they would be next year, we should then see whether they were efficient and effective, or whether they required to be made up to full strength by taking men from the Reserve, which he should regard as a most lamentable thing.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, there were only 49,000 men voted for the Reserve, which was an exceedingly small number,

  271
  and represented only a quarter of our whole force, whereas on the Continent the Reserve was usually double the strength of the Army. The cost of men in the Reserve was about one-tenth of the cost in the Army, and he believed that by the expenditure of £200,000 the Reserve might be brought up to 500,000 men. The Reserve did not greatly increase the expenditure, and he thought the Authorities ought seriously to consider how it might be increased. Lord Wolseley had given evidence to the effect that the Guards had never been more efficient than they were under the rule of short service, and also said that the shorter the service with the Colours the greater the number of men that would be got. Consequently, if men were allowed to retire after three years, they would get a larger number of men in the Reserve. If a soldier was a good shot, a good soldier, and of good character, he did not approve of retiring him too soon, although, of course, he would get rid of men of bad character as quickly as possible. There were a very large number of men in the Army anxious to go out after a year's service, and he thought that their object should be to get these men for seven years in the Reserve. There must, of course, be a separate system for India. This was a mere question of pay, and if the men were well paid and given a sufficient outfit, there would never be any difficulty in getting men to go to India. But now, in order to have regiments at home, and in order to have less trouble, the Government were keeping down and starving the whole Reserve. The second question started by the hon. and gallant Baronet was the calling out of the Reserves. Of course it would make the Reserves more efficient to call them out, but the question was whether it was worth while to give the men all the pain and annoyance which would be occasioned by that operation. The men could go up there and be drilled for a certain number of days, and in that way their efficiency might be kept up. That, he thought, might be done; and if it was thought that the men did not come up in sufficient numbers for the purposes of drill, pay them a little more. That would have the effect of securing better attendance. He did not say that even under those circumstances they would get all
  272
  the Reserves to come up for drill; but, at any rate, they would get an appreciably large number. It would be a very unwise thing, however, to put upon the men the unnecessary strain of calling them out. They would not object to being called out through any distaste they had for the military life, but they did not like to lose their work. Did not the hon. and gallant Admiral remember what occurred when the Reserves were last called out? Many letters had been written by the men, declaring that they had lost their employment. Such a condition of things rendered the Service unpopular. Military Authorities were always anxious to call out the Reserve. They declared that they liked to see the men—that they liked to see the regiments look big. Military Authorities did not believe in the existence of the regiments unless they saw the men together; but his (Colonel Nolan's) contention was that it was not necessary to call out the Reserves in order to prove that the force existed, because their past experience showed that 93 or 94 per cent of the men came up. He was in favour of calling out the men voluntarily, but not of calling them out forcibly, which was a part of the policy of keeping up an insufficiently largo Reserve. He believed they would increase the Reserve if they adopted the plan of allowing men to retire into the Reserve as soon as possible, and making the Reserve men as comfortable as circumstances permitted.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, the questions raised by his hon. and gallant Friend were of great importance. When the hon. and gallant Member had said that they should consider the views of the two bodies who had been engaged in considering the question of our naval defences, he (Mr. E. Stanhope) replied that the matter had received the utmost consideration from his Colleagues and from himself. They had very carefully thought over the suggestions made with respect to both the points to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had drawn attention. Now, however, he would restrict himself entirely to the question of the Army Reserve. No doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman was aware that among the items in the evidence on which the Committee of the present year had laid stress, were the strong recommendations made by competent mili-

  273
  tary authorities that the Army Reserve could not be in a satisfactory state, or, at any rate, that they were not aware that they could be in a satisfactory state unless some proper means were adopted for calling them out. From all the evidence which reached him (Mr. E. Stanhope), he was sure they could rely to a great extent upon the Infantry Reserve. When called out, the Infantry Reserve came up well, and was found to be adequate to the services required of it. It was, however, somewhat different with the Artillery and Cavalry Reserves. Though the hon. and gallant Gentleman had quoted the evidence of their late lamented friend, Colonel Duncan, on the subject, he had not referred to the evidence of a much higher authority, which he might have done with advantage. Lord Wolseley had dissented from the view that the Cavalry and Artillery Reserves were useless, although he had admitted that it might be desirable to test them by calling them out. There were many difficulties in the way of calling out the Reserves. Everyone knew perfectly well that if they were to call out the whole of the Army Reserve at any given period of the year, or, indeed, if they were to call out it every year, they would find that many employers who now took Reserve men into their service would hesitate very much before doing so. If they made a reckless experiment in this way, they would run the risk of discrediting the Reserve and of preventing men from coming into the Army because of the probability that during their period in the Reserve they would have no chance of regular employment. Taking into consideration the evidence which had been brought before them, and the opinions expressed by high military authorities, they had come to the conclusion at the War Office that they ought to proceed carefully and cautiously in experimenting on this question. He proposed to make a suggestion to his Colleagues which would have the effect of increasing the official information about the Reserves, with out incurring the danger which would undoubtedly arise from a frequent calling out of the men.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £845,600, Clothing Establishments, Services, and Supplies.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had put an Amendment
  274
  on the Paper to this Vote—an Amendment which he should like to have moved on Vote 1. He did not intend to press the Amendment however, and would, therefore, merely allude to it. Observations had been made upon the subject with which he wished to deal, on the Vote just agreed to. The recommendation he wished to make had been prevented by the establishment of the betwixt and between system six or seven years ago. He thought that they ought to have a real long service and a real short service Army—that they should have a long service Army established in India. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) had told them that they would certainly gain by that system. They would have a large Reserve, for they then would get, as Lord Wolseley had pointed out, a much larger number of men to enlist for short service if they knew they were not liable to be sent to India. However, he did not wish to press that point. He only desired to say a word, with a Radical view of the whole question of our Army defence, which arose on a particular point of the Militia Reserve. The moral he had drawn from the recent Naval Manœuvres was that no Navy which we were likely to have under the present circumstances of this wicked world, would be a sufficient defence, and, without awaiting the arrival of the Millenium, we must increase our land forces at home. He thought it was clear that we could not expect that any reasonable Navy we might have would be able to protect all our different ports and our naval stations in the event of war breaking out. Certainly it could not be done by gunboats or torpedo boats, and panics would be sure to arise as they had in the case of a Scotch town not long ago, which was shelled and bombarded whilst the people were at church. He maintained that they required not so much an increase in our Navy as an increase in the land forces at home, and this was a point upon which he should like to say a few words. His view was that we should have that which we had not now—a defensive force at home, each locality having as strong a body of men as was necessary to defend it from the sudden incursion of an enemy.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member the fact that he is

  275
  travelling far outside the Vote now before the Committee.
  COLONEL NOLAN, on the point of Order, said, it had been an understanding for the last 16 or 17 years that on the Clothing Vote they could go into the general question of military defence. A regular arrangement upon this subject was usually made at the beginning of the year. They were now in the month of December, and they seemed to have forgotten what happened last March, and this showed how inconvenient it was to have such a prolonged Session. He should like to know whether they were not to be allowed to have a general talk on Army matters on the subject of the Clothing Vote.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was an understanding frequently arrived at from Session to Session to allow the first Vote to be taken, and to have a general discussion upon a subsequent Vote. He did not think that such an understanding had been come to this Session, but even if it had it seemed to him that the point the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was raising was one which he would not be entitled to raise on the present Vote.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, that the understanding arrived at this year was—that Vote 1 being agreed to, a general discussion should take place upon Vote 12—the Vote for Stores.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought the understanding was that a discussion should take place upon Vote 11.
  CAPTAIN COTTONsaid, he trusted the authorities at the War Office would consider, during the Recess, the desirability of providing better clothing in the matter of appearance and cut of the Royal Artillery. He thought he should be best consulting the convenience of the Committee if be did not enter fully into the question now. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would give him a promise that he would talk the matter over with him, he would not do more than mention the subject in this way.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War would have great pleasure in going into this question with the hon. and gallant Member. He was fully aware that some questions had been raised as to the clothing of
  276
  the Artillery, and the matter should certainly be looked into.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £119,800, Establishments for Military Education.
  (7.) £68,600, Miscellaneous Effective Services.
  CAPTAIN SELWYNsaid, he saw that under this Vote there was money asked for for Military Attachés abroad. He should like to draw attention to the fact that we had now two Military Attachés—one in Paris and one in Berlin, who seemed to have been holding their appointments for a considerable time, but whom he believed were shortly to give up their appointments and return to their regiments. He wanted to ask the Government if they thought that officers who were absent from their regiments for a considerable period—for eight or 10 years—and who had lost touch with their regiments, should be brought back to command them? There was a general feeling amongst officers in the Army that if a man was away from his regiment for a protracted period, care should be taken that he should not be suddenly brought back into the important position of commanding officer of his regiment.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was quite aware that officers liked Home Rule inside a regiment, and liked to have an officer whom they knew to command them. But if the Government abolished the present system they would have to abolish Military Attachés altogether. They would not get a good officer to act as Military Attaché if the fact of his accepting such a post was to cut him off from his regiment. They had better do one of two things—namely, if the officers employed as Military Attachés were capable men to keep them in touch with the Service, or else abolish Military Attachés altogether. If they told an officer to whom they offered the post of Military Attaché that he would never have the chance of commanding a regiment, and never have the chance of becoming a General, they would never be able to induce an officer to take the post of Military Attaché.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he agreed with the observations of the hon. and

  277
  gallant Gentleman the Member for North Galway. He should like to add that it would not be right to allow an officer to be absent from his regiment as Military Attaché, and then to allow him to return to the commanding of a regiment, unless the Commander-in-Chief was fully notified that such officer was quite competent to command his regiment. In the cases mentioned he could assure the Committee that the Commander-in-Chief would not recommend that these officers should be allowed to return to their regiments unless he was thoroughly satisfied of their competency.
  DR. TANNERsaid, he should like to know how it was that there was an increase of £620 in the pay of the Military Attachés abroad. Was this in consequence of an increase in the number of Military Attachés? If so, what was the increase, and what was the object of it? And there was another point about which he should like to put a question. There was an increase of £242 under the head "Miscellaneous." It was a very easy thing, when they found that there had been an increase in some small matters, to bring the items together and put them under such a head as this. He was of opinion that the sooner these "Miscellaneous" headings were done away with the better. The country should know for what specific purpose the money had been expended.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that increase had arisen from the temporary employment of an officer as Military Attaché in Italy. Great importance was attached to our having a representative in Italy for the purpose of observing the great advance which that country had made in warlike operations and materiel, and in the organization of her army. We had a Military Attaché at Rome for the purpose of giving information on these matters. With regard to the amount under the head "Miscellaneous," he could offer no explanation.
  DR. TANNER, said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would excuse him for calling attention to the increase under the head of "Miscellaneous." It was the second increase in the Vote. If he might be permitted to say so, in order to save time in future discussions upon these subjects, it would be as well to put an end to left-hand statements across
  278
  the Table. If they could have an explanation of these increases put in the Estimates themselves there would be no occasion to ask for explanations.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £257,900, War Office.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he wished to draw attention to an important subject which would come properly under this Vote, which came under the head of "Director of Contracts." He had no fault to find in any way with the present Director of Contracts, but only with the policy of the Department. It was only fair to say that the policy of the Director of Contracts was really the policy of the War Office and the Government. Though the Director of Contracts was in charge of the matter, the subject, in one way, was too big for him, and though he (Colonel Nolan) was discussing the point on the salary of this official, he did not wish to bring any personal charge against him. He desired, however, to say that in the matter of contracts there was a great waste of public money. A large amount of war material which was obtained in the Department of the Director of Contracts was purchased by open competition—such things as hay, oats, straw, bread, and meat. These things they procured at the cheapest rate; but there was another large portion of material to follow, amounting to more than £1,000,000 a-year, which was not obtained by open tender. They had obtained the evidence of the Director of Contracts with regard to this system of procuring supplies, and it seemed that in the case of the expenditure of this £1,000,000 they paid for a large number of articles prices very much above the cost of manufacture. These articles were chiefly guns, gun-carriages, material for field batteries, metal, and hundreds of other articles—even such a thing as coke at one time was obtained without open tender. So far as coal and coke were concerned, however, the system had been modified, because it was admitted on all hands to be a scandal that such things as those should not be put to open contract. Now, the moral effect of giving away £1,000,000 without open contract opened the door to a great deal of patronage, and without suggesting any improper conduct on the part of the officials, from the foremen upwards, he wished to say

  279
  that the sum was far too large to be expended in such a way, for it was possible to distribute it by favour. He did not say that it had been distributed by favour, but there was nothing in the present system to prevent such a distribution. Unfortunately, it was to the interest of the officials in the manufacturing establishments that the present should continue. None of the officials who were appointed heads or subheads of the Department had ever got one penny from this system—certainly not directly, and he did not think they had made anything out of it indirectly. No doubt we were certain to get a good article where there was no open tender, because when we paid 60 or 70 per cent above the cost of manufacture it was obviously to the interest of the person with whom we dealt to supply goods of the best quality. The officers of the Manufacturing Departments, finding the articles of a good quality, did not find it necessary to exercise the same amount of inspection. Therefore, they were perfectly satisfied with the system. They always had the Heads of Departments favourable to the present system. On the other hand, by limiting the number of contractors they prevented some manufacturers who would be willing to supply goods of the best quality at much lower rates from doing business with the Departments. Persons who were not on the list of favoured contractors to whom the Government applied for the material in which they dealt were unable to do business with the Government. It was very difficult to get on the favoured list. His contention was that where they had to purchase a large quantity of material—a quantity exceeding £1,000,000 value a-year—they would always be able to obtain some of it below cost price. The Director General of Artillery had declared in evidence that he would not give much for articles manufactured under cost price, but the price depended upon the market, and it was a fact that they got, even from Sir Joseph Whit worth's manufactory, some articles at a remarkably cheap rate. Besides, every business man knew perfectly well that goods were obtainable at a very cheap rate, if put up to open tender. He did not wish to trespass too long on the time of the Committee, or infringe too much on the understanding
  280
  entered into at the beginning of the discussion, but there had been a good deal of evidence given on this subject before the Select Committee appointed at the instance of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), and a great many people were under the impression that the prices paid in cases where open tender was not insisted upon, were considerably above what would have to be paid under the open tender system. The evidence of experts was that in many cases they could not be certain, by inspection, of the good or bad quality of certain articles. They said that they could not be sure of the quality of the goods unless they could choose the manufacturer; and, further, that, under certain circumstances, there was no time for inspection, and that they must have a manufacturer whom they could trust. Well, the country was now paying £6,000 or £7,000 a-year more for additional officers in the Inspection Department of the Army; it was not too much to say, in fact, that a new Department had been created. Surely, then, it was now possible to properly inspect and test all warlike material. Inspectors, as a rule, had the right of entering into the factories where the articles purchased were being made, and the right of seeing the process of manufacture, and as to whether the goods supplied to the Government were properly made or not. Well, though he could go into this subject at much greater length, he thought the time had come when the Secretary for War should declare to the Director of Contracts that a very large number of contracts should be put up to open competition. Of course, he did not propose that every article should be tendered for, and whenever the Secretary for War wished to exempt any special article from the ordinary rule of open tender, it was only right that he should obtain such article from a particular manufacturer, but he should have a definite reason for doing this. Of course, such a thing as the Maxim machine gun could not be put up to open competition. If they did put it up to open competition, he doubted if they would get as good an article as they could at present. There were plenty of exemptions to the system he advocated, but they would not amount in value to anything like £1,000,000. It certainly

  281
  should not be necessary to exempt from open tender such articles as pig-iron, steel, and gun-carriages. Any engineer could turn out a gun-carriage and articles of that kind; but he certainly thought the time had come when the authorities at the War Office should do something in the direction he suggested. They should either adopt a system of open advertisement, or, at all events, modify the present system as far as possible, and put the supply of a large number of articles at present purchased privately on the same footing as hay, oats, bread, and so on.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDENsaid, he had observed on the Notice Paper a Motion to reduce the Vote in the name of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), who had intended to move a reduction in regard to the Director General of Contracts. Now, he (Sir William Plowden) could not allow this Vote to pass without some comment on the system of contract now in force in the Army Departments. Last year, when he had the honour of being on the Army and Navy Estimates Committee, they came to a point where some information was asked for as to the contracts for shells, and he thought this was an instance which might very properly be brought to the attention of the Committee as illustrating how unsatisfactorily the present system had worked. It was proved that one firm got a contract to supply 7,000 studless shells at £78 per 100, and on the same day, another firm got a contract for the same quality and the same shells at £126 per 100; but that was not all, for the first firm subsequently wrote saying that they had made a mistake, and that the prime cost to them was £112 10 s. per 100, and they were paid at that price. Well, there is more than this. There is a book called the Woolwich Vocabulary, published every three years by Government, which gives the prices of the various Magazine stores, calculated by the Woolwich authorities. In this book the outside price of this particular shell is given as £121. Thus not only was this contract given out the same day to two different parties at two very different prices, but we have also the significant fact that one of these prices is absolutely considerably in excess of what the Woolwich Vocabulary gives as the outside cost of
  282
  production—that is, the No. 2 Balance Sheet price. He (Sir William Plowden) in this matter did not wish to say one word against the Director General of Contracts. He knew nothing about him, but a system which resulted in such facts as this was altogether to be deplored and condemned, and called for amendment as soon as possible. It evidenced one of two things—either that the Director of Contracts was incompetent to discharge the duty he had undertaken, or there was something which had not come out to account for the extraordinary circumstances he had referred to. Other cases similar to the one to which he referred had also been set forth in the Auditor and Controller General's Report on the Army Appropriation Accounts for 1887. And would it be conceived as possible that when the Controller and Auditor General asked for information on these matters, he was at once met by the War Office telling him that he had no business to make such inquiries. They refused to give him the information for which he asked. The Controller and Auditor General said he had a right to ask for the information, but they declined to give it. This official had been quite right in making his application, because he had a Parliamentary function to perform, and it was desirable, if there was anything which could be complained of, that he should bring it under the notice of Parliament in his Annual report. He trusted some explanation would be forthcoming in this matter.
  MR. COCHRANE-BAILLIEsaid, arising out of what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan), he should like to ask whether the Government would not think it desirable that the contractors who did not supply stores equal to agreement should be liable to some further penalty than that which at present they were liable to. From the Commissions which had sat to inquire into the character of Army stores, especially that of the Egyptian Campaign, it was shown that the supply of hay and other provisions to Her Majesty's forces did not come up to the proper standard. It was shown that in time of war, when the staff had a great deal to do, and were not able to give the goods sent in a thorough inspection,

  283
  there was great danger of inferior goods being passed. He therefore thought that contractors who knowingly, or through culpable negligence, allowed goods of an inferior quality to be sent in should be made directly liable to some heavy penalty. At present the only penalty was being placed in the black books of the Government, and it was well known that a firm could easily assume another name and still continue to supply goods to the Government. His observations had reference more particularly to circumstances which transpired in time of war. They could not at such times rely upon having a sufficient body of expert Inspectors to take care that nothing was passed for the supply of the Army which was unfit for use. That was why he thought the contractors should be rendered liable to heavy penalties for supplying articles of bad quality.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, the Government were anxious to hold all contractors to their engagements to the best of their ability, but when the hon. Member said that contractors who supplied bad goods should be made subject to a heavy penalty, it must be remembered that the penalty the Government at present inflicted for the non-performance, according to the terms of a contract, was a very heavy one, the articles being returned. In this way articles were thrown upon the hands of the contractor, which, in nine cases out of ten, were unsaleable in other quarters. Therefore, the first penalty entailed upon contractors in these cases was a very heavy one, and cost those persons a great deal of money. It had been shown that the goods which had already been rejected had been sent in again, and subsequently passed. That was an important matter, and against such a state of things ample precautions had now been taken. As to contractors dealing under another name, that also was a subject the War Office had directed its eyes upon to the fullest extent. One firm, Messrs. Ross and Co., had been struck off the books of the War Office for infringing the rules in this matter, and he believed they were no longer in business. Everything had been done to prevent goods being brought in under another name. In the case of criminal negligence or a fraud, there was, of course, a legal
  284
  remedy, and certainly the Government would not scruple to employ it when necessary. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Sir William Plowden), it was a little difficult to deal with those questions which were of very old standing, and which were not immediately within their recollection. But the hon. Member asked, why a contract had been entered into to supply shells with one firm at £78 per 100, and with Messrs. Armstrong at £126 per 100. This was a very peculiar case. It was the first time that this other firm had competed for the supply of these shells. Only a trial order had been given, and it was found out that the firm had made a total mistake in the price they had quoted for the articles. They subsequently asked that the price should be altered, and the War Office had consented. With regard to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Galway, the Secretary of State was at one with him as to the desirability of opening up competition wherever it could be done, and they had already done that to a very large extent. He did not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman could have heard the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) only four or five months ago. With regard to large guns they had, for the first time, called upon every firm who was likely to be able to construct them of the description required, and a large contract had been given to another firm besides Messrs. Armstrong and Messrs. Whitworth. He could not agree with the hon. Member when he spoke of the Inspection Department as a means of decreasing the price. He admitted that a large number of contracts were taken below cost price, but while that was an advantage to the Government in some respects, it also had its dangers, as every businessman would agree. He should not like to take the responsibility of giving out a contract in a case where he knew that the manufacturer had undertaken to supply articles below cost price. The result of accepting contracts below cost price was that a large number of articles were passed into the Service which were not fit for use. The establishment of a more efficient system of inspection had had a tendency to run up prices. For articles for which they formerly paid a

  285
  sweating price, they were now forced to pay a higher price, and if they got a better article through their inspection, and after due competition, they could not complain of having to pay the cost price and a small percentage over. Having regard to this, they were determined to extend, as far as they could, the system of open contracts. They had increased their list of contractors very largely, and had placed articles on the open list which formerly were purchased privately. That was the course they were pursuing, and would endeavour to pursue as much as possible in the future.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he considered the answer of the hon. Member very satisfactory on the whole. He was aware that these reforms could not be effected with a rush. But he thought the hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that the inspection had a tendency to run up prices. He thought that the absence of inspection, which was due to private purchase and high prices, had a tendency to keep up those prices. His suggestion was that now that they had better inspection they could afford to have open competition.
  COLONEL EYREsaid, he desired to have some information with regard to the pay of shorthand writers in the War Office. He understood that the shorthand writers were paid at the rate of something like two guineas a day, and he understood that they were only employed for some three or four hours during the course of the day.
  MAJOR RASCHwished to know whether the Secretary of State for War could give any information as to certain articles having been supplied by foreigners to an English firm. He should also like to know if the War Office would take steps to carry out the plans for employing discharged soldiers in the War Office. If there was a way of putting soldiers in some of these places covered by the item of £6,500, employment would be given to a very meritorious class of men who at the present time needed employment.
  MR. E. STANHOPEassured his hon. and gallant Friend that the War Office were desirous of obtaining the assistance of discharged soldiers. At the present time no messenger was appointed who had not been a soldier. He was person-
  286
  ally favourable to the appointment of military clerks; and although he was afraid there would not be much additional demand in the War Office, at any rate, for the higher class of clerks, he should be very glad, whenever occasion served, to avail himself of the services of those who had served in the Army. His hon. and gallant Friend had also asked for information respecting the contract lately given to Messrs. Wilkinson. He gave the contract to Messrs. Wilkinson with the sole object of enabling the bayonets to be made in this country. The last contract was, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knew, carried out at Solingen in Germany; and he (Mr. E. Stanhope) was very anxious that bayonets in future should be made in this country, and accordingly he gave the contract to Messrs. Wilkinson. As to what had happened since, he was dependent upon the statement of Messrs. Wilkinson. That firm assured him, however, that they had done their utmost to obtain English workmen qualified to do the work required. They were gradually obtaining a staff of competent English workmen; and he was confident that, before any long time had elapsed, they would find it possible to obtain in this country all the labour connected with the making of bayonets. So far as regarded the importation of any foreign weapons, instead of providing weapons made in this country, he had no evidence before him to show that Messrs. Wilkinson had not made the bayonets in this country. Certain evidence had been tendered to him, which he was now examining, but so far as the matter went at present he had no evidence to satisfy him that the weapons Messrs. Wilkinson were now furnishing us with had not been made in England. If it should turn out that the weapons had been imported from abroad, and given to us as weapons made in this country, of course he should have to consider what action he should take upon the contract. He was asked by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Colonel Eyre) a question concerning the employment of shorthand writers by the War Department. He was glad to say that they did not often have to avail themselves of the services of professional shorthand writers. However, whenever it was requisite they employed shorthand

  287
  writers outside at the recognized scale of remuneration. But, fortunately, several clerks in the War Office could write shorthand, and their services as shorthand writers were available without any extra cost to the State.
  MR. THEODORE FRYsaid, there was one question he desired to ask the Secretary of State for War upon the salary of the Director of Artillery and Stores, and that was with reference to melinite, the explosive now used so much by the French Government. He would like to know whether any experiments with the explosive had been made in this country, and, if so, whether the results of the experiments were likely to lead to the adoption of the explosive by this country.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That subject cannot be dealt with on this Vote.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) £17,200, Rewards for Distinguished Services.
  (10.) £74,400, Half Pay.
  MR. PICTONsaid, he could not allow this Vote to pass without expressing the very earnest hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would, before next Session, give very careful attention to the evidence given before the Select Committee upon Army Estimates, and would endeavour to do something to lessen the abuse which most Members recognized as existing in the present system, consisting in the employment of a very much larger number of general officers than we could possibly find work for. They had it upon the highest military authority that there were 109 generals for whom no work could be found, and they also had it on good authority that in other Armies no one was promoted to the rank of general officer until there was need for his services in that capacity. It was said that an Army like ours, which was employed in all parts of the world, was obliged to have a large number of generals. He could recognize the force of that argument; but, at the same time, to have 109 generals more than we wanted was rather too large a reserve.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he had not a word of complaint to say in regard to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, who had put perfectly correctly before the Committee the issue raised before the
  288
  Committee on Army Estimates. He had already assured the Committee that the matter was engaging his earnest attention; and, indeed, he believed he should be able to present to the House with the next Estimates a scheme dealing with this question.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) £1,196,200, Retired Pay, &c.
  SIR FREDERICK FITZWYGRAM (Hants,)said, that although this Vote was to be discussed fully next year, he wished to say now that, in his opinion, we were on the wrong tack as regarded retired pay. Our system was to give increased retired pay for increased service; while, on the other hand, we were compelling young men to retire because we induced, by increased retiring allowances, older men to stay on. It seemed to him that this system was entirely wrong, and he ventured to suggest another system, exactly the reverse of the present system—namely, a maximum pension to be given at a fixed age, say at 45 years of age, irrespective of rank; but to allow any officer to remain on, irrespective of rank, up to the age of 55, if, in the opinion of the Inspecting General, the officer remained so long efficient, no increase of pension whatever being given for increased length of service. The advantages which he thought would ensue from this scheme were these. In the first place, we would get rid of the very great grievance of compulsory retirement, for it was not good for the Army to have a number of men going about complaining of the result of their military service. Secondly, we should very largely decrease the pension list—he was not an actuary, but it seemed to him certain that if the maximum pension were fixed at £300 a-year, there must be a decrease of the pension list; and, thirdly, we would get rid of the drones, for there were drones in the Army as well as in other services. The effect would be, in his opinion, that men who did not take a real interest in the military profession, who were never likely to get on, never likely to hold high office, would very goon accept the maximum retiring pension of £300; while, on the other hand, we would retain the services of the best men, those who really took an interest in military affairs, for they would be induced to stay on by the prospect of

  289
  promotion to high place and to the higher pay. There was nothing at all now or novel in this proposal; it had been the system of the Indian Civil Service for very many years past. In that great Civil Service there was a maximum pension after a service of 24 years, but a man could stay on as long as he liked, but he did not receive any higher pension. The result of that system had been that the men who were not likely to hold high office—he did not wish to use any uncivil word—but the inferior men, as a rule, came home, while the best men were retained in the Service by the prospect—in fact, the certainty—of high pay and higher office. The Indian Civil Service, especially in its upper branches, was admitted on all hands to be a very efficient and effective Service, and he believed it derived its main efficiency from the system which had existed for many years past of a maximum retiring pension. In the Indian Local Army exactly the opposite system prevailed. The pension increased by grades every five years, until, after 37 years' service, it reached the enormous sum of £1,150 a-year. The result of that system was that every man determined, however little interest he took in his profession—in fact, the more idle a man was the more he determined, if possible, to stay on, in order to earn every five years a higher pension, and perhaps ultimately, by 37 years' service, to attain the maximum pension of £1,150. The expense to the Exchequer of this system was enormous; while, on the other hand, it led to great and increasing inefficiency in the upper ranks of the Indian Local Army. The upper ranks of that Army were choked by old and inefficient men. He proposed, in regard to our own Army, a system exactly contrary to that, because he believed the system he proposed would largely decrease the cost of pensions, give much greater satisfaction to the retiring officers, and probably largely increase the efficiency of the Service.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he could not altogether accept the view the hon. and gallant Gentleman had taken with regard to the Indian Civil Service, but he did accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view that the Indian Army Services were shockingly mismanaged. When the hon. and gallant
  290
  Gentleman said that the Indian Civil Service system was altogether successful, he (Sir George Campbell) was not quite sure of it. He was a little afraid that the system of large pensions drove young men out of the Service; that it was not altogether the inefficient men who left the Service. Some men might think they could do better elsewhere, and might, therefore, be willing to accept the maximum pension of £300. What he wanted to say particularly, however, was that he shared the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view as to the extreme necessity of having an efficient Home Army; and he wished to ascertain whether the Government had done anything to insure the utilization of the services of retired officers to whom the country was paying annually enormous sums? Constant complaints were made of the deficiency among Militia and Volunteer officers, and he had always insisted that, if the nation paid large sums by way of retired allowances to officers, it should be able to insist in practice—he believed it did in theory—that the services of the retired officers should be at the disposal of the country. He was strongly of opinion that in the present state of the world, the silver streak having become somewhat effaced, we required a very strong defensive Army. We ought to get something for our money. If pensions were paid to officers, those officers ought to be still available. He thought there was great danger in commuting pensions, because when an officer had commuted his pension the country had no hold on him.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, that if officers left the Service at an early age, on a considerable pension, their services were available in case of emergency up to the age of 55. That was a condition under which officers received their pensions, and that was a condition Her Majesty's Government intended to hold them to. He inferred that the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) would not allow officers to commute their pensions until they had attained the age of 55; that subject had received the attention of the War Office, and they were now in communication with the Treasury in regard to it. They were framing rules against such commutation, and he thought that very shortly they would be in a position to make a statement upon the question.

  291
  His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham (General Sir Frederick FitzWygram) was no doubt aware that this Vote had been the subject of very great study and concern to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had made some extremely valuable suggestions; but, as he was aware, it was not the intention of the Department to leave the Vote in its present condition if they could help it. They were, however, bound to fulfil existing engagements with officers who had already retired. They were desirous of causing no stagnation in promotion in the Army; and his right hon. Friend had proposals before him with the view of preventing and checking the continuous increase of this Vote, and, if possible, of diminishing it substantially as time went on.
  Vote agreed to.
  (12.) £126,700, Widows' Pensions, &c.
  (13.) £14,700, Pensions for Wounds.
  (14.) £31,300, Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals.
  (15.) £178,300, Superannuation Allowances.
  (16.) £44,900, Retired Allowances, &c. to Officers of the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer Forces.
  (17.) £38,000, Ordnance Factories.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [13th December] reported.
  MR. W. M'ARTHUR, Mid, St. Austell)asked for an explanation of the additional outlay made in respect of naval prisoners for chaplain, surgeon, and building at Bodmin Prison.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)said, it was found that the gaol was insufficient to accommodate all the prisoners, and alterations had to be made. When it could be done they had utilized the existing staff, and the doctor was paid £50 a-year extra for attending to the naval prisoners. It was, of course, desirable and necessary
  292
  to separate the men, who had only been guilty of breach of discipline, from the ordinary prisoners. The Government, however, would do their best to effect economies in the management of the gaol.
  Resolutions agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to Mr. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, the remaining Scotch Estimates would be taken at 12 o'clock to-morrow. He had undertaken that Class V. should be taken on Monday, and the Revenue Votes on Tuesday. The remaining Irish Votes would also be taken on Tuesday.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsuggested that the Revenue Votes should be taken on Monday.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he should most desire that they should; but he was under a promise that they would be taken on Tuesday. It would be greatly for the convenience of the House, and the Irish Estimates might then be taken first on Tuesday.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLhoped the House would not be kept very late on Monday.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he could not make any promise. It ought to be borne in mind by hon. Members that there would be another opportunity of discussing these Estimates within three months.
  MR. HUNTERasked, whether the House would adjourn at 6 o'clock to-morrow?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, no such arrangement could be made.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped the House would not be kept sitting till a late hour to-morrow.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, there again he must appeal to the House. He was sure the House desired to show consideration to the officers and the Speaker, and that it would do all in its power to facilitate the progress of Business, so that the Sitting might not be unduly

  293
  prolonged; but a fixed hour of closing did afford an opportunity to any individual to stop the Business, which the Government did not think anyone ought to possess at that period of the Session.
  MR. HUNTERentered his protest against continuing the Sitting to-morrow after 6 o'clock, and he moved that the Wednesday Rule should apply to the Saturday Sitting.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it was not competent for the hon. Member to make that Motion.
  MR. W. H. SMITHappealed to the hon. Member not to set himself against the feeling of the majority of the House. There was no desire whatever to protract the Sitting beyond getting through the necessary Business, which, in the opinion of the majority, could be got through without unduly protracting the Sitting. He therefore appealed to the hon. Gentleman, and those who thought with him, to do their best to facilitate the Business, so that the Sitting might not be protracted.
  MR. ESSLEMONTsaid, they wished to do all in their power to facilitate the Business of the House; but they did not wish to be placed in the position of discussing the Scotch Votes to-morrow up to an intolerably late hour, or of not discussing them at all.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether it was not competent for a private Member to move that the Wednesday Rule should apply to Saturday?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it could not be done without due Notice. Usually this matter had been left to the Government; and the hon. Member would observe that if a private Member were to put down a Notice of Motion it would have no precedence, and therefore it could come to nothing.
  MR. HUNTER: Was Notice given by the Government that the Wednesday Rule should not apply to the Sitting tomorrow?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, there was no Motion before the House.
  The House suspended its Sitting at twenty-five minutes before Seven of the clock.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.— [BILL 76.]
  (Mr. James Stevenson, Mr. Walter James, Mr. Charles Wilson, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Cozens-Hardy.)
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.— [BILL 76.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. J. C. STEVENSON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that although he had had charge of the Bill since 1879, this was the first opportunity afforded him of taking the sense of the House upon the direct issue as to whether it should be read a second time or not. Before the Rules of Procedure were amended, this and many other important measures were prevented from coming to a direct issue in the House. He believed, however, that if the Rules now in operation had been in force in recent years there would now have been, in some shape or other, a Sunday Closing Bill on the Statute Book of this country. The fact that they had now obtained an evening for the discussion of the Bill at the end of a crowded Session of Parliament was itself a proof of the importance of the subject; and he thanked the Government for the hearty way in which they had discharged, at great inconvenience to themselves, their obligation under which they promised to provide an opportunity for a debate upon the second reading. The Prime Minister some time ago described this question as a burning question. This was an accurate description; but it would continue to burn until it had burned itself out by the passing of the legislation that was demanded. Many millions of the people of this country had an intense desire to see this question settled; and the only way to satisfy their demands was to legislate on the lines of the Bill now before the House. It was a monstrous anomaly that public-houses should be allowed to remain open while other places of business were closed on Sundays. The supporters of this movement did not expect that they would all at once reach the end which they had in view. Their desire was rather to keep the question to the front, and take what they could get until the full measure was applied

    295
    to the whole country, which would break down the monopoly by which a single business was allowed to remain open on Sundays, and that business one which offered great temptation to people to waste their money and bring discredit upon themselves and misery upon their families. He might say at once that he did not expect to be able to apply the Bill to London. He was always ready to admit that London was in a peculiar position, being, from its great mass of inhabitants, a kingdom in itself, and in this, as in other matters, he thought the legislation for London should be specially applicable to London itself. London, therefore, might be regarded as altogether outside the scope of the Bill. As to the large towns, he believed that public opinion was ripe upon the subject, and that they were ready for the total closing of public-houses. In 1886 he carried an Amendment in Committee on the Bill of the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) for total Sunday closing all over England, except the Metropolis; but the Dissolution of Parliament, which shortly followed, put an end to the further progress of that Bill. If this House should take a different view, he hoped that hon. Members in Committee would propose such Amendments as would give what they thought the large towns were ready for. With regard to the rural districts, he did not think that anyone would deny that they were prepared for the total closing of public-houses on Sundays, and he believed that the publicans themselves were exceedingly anxious to have the Bill passed. He might mention in passing that the Church of England Temperance Society had issued a circular in which they expressed the hope that the second reading of the Bill would be strongly supported that night. Some people looked upon the measure as one of coercion; but he regarded it as a measure of liberation. It would set free on Sundays some 200,000 or 300,000 people who were engaged in the liquor trade—barmen and barmaids, a class which, perhaps more than any other class, required rest on that day. They heard a great deal about the nine hours' movement, and they knew that the labouring classes now worked 54 hours a week; but those who were engaged in the liquor trade worked 108 hours a week, and the man
    296
    who would have his glass of beer on Sunday deprived these people of health, comfort, rest, and the opportunity of getting moral and intellectual improvement. He had received a letter from a barman, who said he had not had a Sunday for over 20 years, and that it was "simply miserable." There was no plea of real necessity in the matter, though there might be one of slight convenience. The House had been too long in responding to the demand of the public for Sunday closing. Lord Cross, when Home Secretary, received a Memorial on the subject, signed by upwards of 14,457 ministers of religion belonging to all Churches. In 1882 a declaration, signed by 3,598 County and Borough Magistrates, was presented to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian; and in 1883 there were sent to the House Petitions signed by 1,493,097 people, praying, not for a compromise, but for the Bill now before them. Petitions in favour of the Bill were also forwarded by 116 Town Councils and 362 Boards of Guardians. Last year a very interesting Memorial on the question was presented to Her Majesty, on the occasion of Her Jubilee, signed by 1,132,608 mothers and daughters of England. He said, therefore, that if the House withheld that measure from the people, it would be withholding from them that which the people desired. A canvass of householders of the country had been made with a view to ascertain their opinions on that subject, and out of a bout 1,000,000 householders, 883,000 had asked that public-houses should be closed during the whole of Sunday. There could be no doubt that the opinion of the country, as it had been expressed in different ways, was in favour of that important change. An overwhelming majority of those who were most interested in the question demanded that that measure should be passed. Up to 1839 there was no Sunday closing at all, except during Divine Service, and it so happened that it took place first in London, then in Liverpool, and afterwards in Manchester and Newcastle. The whole of the householders of the country were now represented in that House, which was more democratic than it had been before; and he urged that the House should now make up for the negligence of the past in that

    297
    matter, and confer on the people that great boon which had been too long delayed, and which they so earnestly desired. All the temperance reformers, all who worked in Sunday Schools, or who were engaged in any way in promoting the welfare of the great body of the people, said that drink was one of the worst obstacles to the success of their labours, and that the most ready mode of diminishing the evils of drink was to deal with that question of Sunday closing. Scotland had had the advantage of a Sunday Closing Act for 34 years, and he did not think that the voice of a single Scotch Member would be raised for the repeal of that measure. Ireland and Wales had also legislation of that kind; and though in the case of Wales there had been some friction, yet they could hardly expect to have a great change of that description carried out without some amount of trouble or friction. And whose fault was that? It was the fault of Parliament, which had allowed the habit to be created, and the evils of Sunday drinking to go on so long; and he asked, would the trouble be made less by further delaying that beneficial change? He had a circular from the Band of Hope Union, which had 1,718,000 young persons under 21 years of age connected with their organization, and they were convinced that thousands of young persons, being at leisure on Sunday, were exposed to special danger from the bad habit of frequenting public-houses, and that, in the interests of the sobriety of the country, those houses ought to be closed on Sunday. In 1880 he carried a Resolution, by a majority of 36, declaring that the time had come for a measure of that kind being undertaken. He was glad that the present Government had this year done something in regard to Sunday closing by introducing Clause 9 in their County Government Bill; but that had been withdrawn, so that at present there was no measure with that object except the Bill which he now asked the House to read a second time, in order to prove that, in their opinion, such legislation was urgently called for and ought not to be delayed. This was not a question which should be left to private Members, and he found fault with Governments on both sides for having neglected it so long. If the Government thought
    298
    the Bill wont too far, he invited them to bring one in themselves on lines which they could approve. He would now refer to a circular issued by the Licensed Victuallers' Protection Association. He believed that a copy had been sent to Members of the House, but by some accident he had not received one. That Association had got up Petitions this Session against the Bill, and the figures were rather peculiar, there being only 603,887 signatures to the Petitions. Now, be understood there were 100,000 public-houses in England, and, that being so, there were only about six signatures to each public house—which was not a very wide expression of opinion when compared with that on the other side. To the Petitions of the licensed victuallers themselves there were 8,122 signatures, and as there were 100,000 public-houses, that was only 8 per cent of the whole number, which showed that the publicans themselves were really in favour of working only six days a week like other people. But Petitions from public-house counters had no moral value compared with those from self-denying people who had no interests of their own to serve. Upon the subject of compensation, which the Association claimed in the event of Sunday closing being enacted, the House had already delivered its judgment, for it decided against compensation in the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. There was one argument against his proposal with which he wished to deal. He had heard hon. Gentlemen say that they would never vote for shutting up public-houses in the East End unless the clubs in the West End were shut up also. Who wanted the public-houses in the East of London to be shut? It was the people in the East End. They did not care whether the public-houses in Pall Mall were shut or not; it was the houses at their own doors which they desired to be shut, and from which they suffered. He should be glad to give any Sunday Closing Bill which contained a clause dealing with the West End clubs his support. The wives of the working men in the East of London had said that they did not care about the West End clubs. They did not lose their Sunday dinners because of the opening of those clubs, but they lost their dinners in consequence of the public-houses at their own doors being open; and that

    299
    seemed to him to be the practical view to take. He feared that the governing classes of this country did not thoroughly understand and appreciate the wants of those who were farther removed from them in social rank. ["Oh, oh!"] In support of this view he might quote the opinion of Cardinal Manning to the effect that the governing classes were too far removed from the life of the people to be conscious of the immensity of the evils which existed beyond their own level in life. Dealing with the Amendments which had been placed on the Paper, he said that he was not so anxious for the mode of carrying out his object as he was that something should be done in the direction he had indicated. When the responsible Government of the day brought in a Bill for dealing with this matter in a particular way, although they did not see fit to persevere with the particular clause, he was one of those who voted for its continuance in the Bill. He did not see how the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) could help them very much, and he suggested to the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot) that he ought to vote for the second reading of the Bill, and endeavour to amend it in Committee. If the hon. Member would bring forward a Bill on the lines of his Resolution he should vote for it and try to amend it in Committee afterwards. The result of no discussion in Parliament this Session was looked for with greater anxiety than the discussion and decision of that night. The people would look to see whether the House had listened to their earnest cry to stop this temptation on the only day in the week when they had most money to spend and most leisure to spend it—a temptation which brought numerous evils in its train, and which those people felt so acutely. He concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. J. C. Stevenson.)
    MR. LABOUCHERE, in rising to move—
    "That this House is of opinion that it would be more conducive to the interests of temperance and to the principle of local self-government that the question of Sunday Closing should be relegated to the decision of the
    300
    inhabitants of the localities in which the public-houses are situated,"
    said, that his Amendment was not designed in a hostile spirit to the cause of temperance. On the contrary, although he was not a member of any Band of Hope, he was a practical teetotaller; and he could assure his hon. Friend that he sympathized greatly with him and wished him success in the cause which he and others in the House had made their speciality. He considered, however, that his hon. Friend and those who were acting with him were making a great tactical mistake in the course which they were taking at the present time. He thought it was a pity that this Bill should have been brought forward at a time when real success was close at hand. Zeal was sometimes somewhat compromising, and it was so here. It would be a matter of great regret, when they were near the goal which they sought to attain, were they to fail owing to a tactical error. What was the principle at the bottom of the crusade hon. Gentlemen had undertaken against intemperance? As far as he understood it was this—that the whole question of the regulation of the liquor traffic was essentially a local one, and that the inhabitants of the locality were the persons to decide whether any spirituous liquor was to be sold within their locality, and, if so, under what conditions. For a long time this principle was successfully contested in the House by those who feared that if it were adopted it would greatly diminish and eventually destroy the liquor traffic; but of late years it had advanced greatly. In 1880, 1881, and 1883, the hon. Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) passed Resolutions in favour of the principle of Local Option, In 1885, Lord Salisbury declared in a speech at Newport that he considered this question of Sunday closing or opening of public-houses was a local one, and that he was in favour of the locality deciding. In this present Session, the Government, acting on this view of Lord Salisbury, introduced the Local Government Bill, creating local elective councils. There were two clauses in the Bill dealing with the liquor traffic. By the first clause any locality being a county, town, or borough, was enabled to suppress public-houses at their will, but that

    301
    was coupled with a scale of compensation in case they did so that rendered the permission perfectly nugatory. Both sides of the House thought that that was a mistake, because it laid down the principle, in defiance of the existing decisions of the Courts of Law, that a publican had a freehold in his property. By the concurrent agreement of both sides of the House this clause was withdrawn. The second clause allowed the locality to deal with the Sunday Closing Question; but the one clause was not dependent on the other, except in this way—that in the first a huge bribe was given to the publican. The Government did not wish to offend the publicans, and the publicans were not satisfied without a quid pro quo. There was, however, a difficulty in the way. The Government had not a majority of their own supporters in the House. There were some Liberal Unionist supporters of the Government, who happened to be very strong temperance advocates, and they did not know exactly what to do. They wanted some excuse to be allowed to show their subserviency to the Government at the expense of their temperance principles. Therefore it was agreed that if those Liberal Unionist temperance advocates would vote for the withdrawal of the clause in the Local Government Bill an opportunity would be given to parade their temperance views by giving an absolutely barren vote on the Bill of his hon. Friend. The great negotiator on this subject was his hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Caine), who voted against what he had formerly advocated because he had bargained away his vote, and who brought his hon. Friend behind him and others into the Lobby with him. Where was the hon. Member for Barrow now? [An hon. MEMBER: In India.] No doubt, then, his hon. Friend was persuading the 250,000,000 people of that country that the great chief whom he followed so subserviently was right in describing them as nothing but black men. When the Liberals voted against the withdrawal of the clause they meant that all regulations in regard to the liquor traffic ought to be local questions. Now, however, it was proposed that they should declare that this particular question was an Imperial one. He was not a very great believer in consistency in Parliament; but still he liked to be
    302
    consistent, at least, during the Session. His hon. Friend the Member for South Shields had urged that this question had been Imperially decided before. As to the Forbes Mackenzie Act, it was passed because a majority of the Scotch people were in favour of it. Under that Act no public-house, but only hotels, could be opened on Sunday bonâ fide for travellers; but his hon. Friend did not go quite so far, for he had put in his Bill a note which stated that matters should remain as they were with regard to bonâ fide travellers and lodgers. Then they had passed the Welsh Act, and also the Cornwall Bill, which was rejected by the House of Lords. At that time, however, there were no local councils. Would the Welsh Act have been passed if there had been a majority of Welsh Members opposed to it? It was passed for Wales because there was in that country a consensus of opinion in favour of its being passed. The present Bill was for England; and he very much doubted whether a majority of the English Members were in favour of it. ["Hear, hear!"] There were Scotch and Welsh Members who would vote for it; but would it be fair and legitimate to pass this Bill, which was a local Bill for England, against the wish of a majority of the English Members, by the votes of Scotch and Welsh Members, who had absolutely nothing to do with the matter? The hon. Member for South Shields said there was a majority in this country in favour of his proposal, and he endeavoured to prove that by telling them the number of Petitions which had been signed. He (Mr. Labouchere) had presented many Petitions, from many quarters, and upon many matters, at the request of his constituents and others, but for his part he was no believer in Petitions, for he knew very well how they were got up, for or against a measure. He should require a great deal more satisfactory evidence than Petitions, even if signed by a million of the wives, daughters, and husbands of England, to believe that there was a majority of the people in favour of the Bill. His hon. Friend had told them that a resolution had been signed by 1,020,000 householders, but there were about 6,000,000 householders in England. Therefore, if those figures

    303
    were to be taken as a test, they proved rather the contrary to what his hon. Friend said. It was said that the Petitioners were circularized. By whom were they circularized? By people who knew the localities, and the people they were circularizing, and who knew what the answers would be.
    MR. J. C. STEVENSON, interposing, remarked that whole localities were taken.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend that certain localities were in favour of Sunday closing; but the gentlemen who got up the Petitions chose their localities in which they thought they could get a majority. Supposing there were a majority of the English Members in favour of it he should bow to their decision, but he should have great hesitation in forming one of the majority. They had just passed a Bill giving large local powers to the County Councils. Hon. Members on that side of the House, in supporting it, recognized the fact that this Sunday Closing Question was a matter which regarded the Local Councils rather than that House. It was not their business, immediately after having created those County Councils, to trench upon what they had asserted to be their attributes; their desire was that their powers should be greater than they were. In voting for the proposal of his hon. Friends, they would be making a direct attack upon the principle of local self-government. He should vote against the Bill, as a teetotaller, himself. [Laughter.] Yes; he was a teetotaller. He was one of the strongest advocates, and also a practical advocate, of teetotalism; but as a teetotaler he should vote against the Bill upon the ground of expediency. If we gave to the locality the right to decide upon Sunday closing, we should have no ground to refuse to give them a right to decide on closing on Mondays, Tuesdays, and other days of the week. This was our old friend the thin end of the wedge. Let them get it, and inevitably they must get in a short time the whole Local Option for which his hon. Friend and himself had been struggling for years. He was strongly in favour of all these local rights being reserved to the Local Councils. If one town wished public-houses opened they ought not to be dictated to by others that did not.
    304
    He wished to leave the matter entirely to the locality. If they really wanted a Bill to prevent persons from going into public-houses on Sunday, it ought not to include the present provision which guaranteed to the bonâ fide traveller—one of the most thorough humbugs that ever lived—the right to go three miles off and to spend hours and hours drinking in a public-house. He was in Wales the other day. Five miles from Swansea there was a place called the Mumbles, with a very considerable population, a tramway connecting the two places. On Sunday the cars formed a kind of fair, for half Swansea went out to get drunk at the Mumbles, and half the Mumbles came in to get drunk at Swansea. Again, the hon. Member had laid special stress upon the vast amount of sobriety which would ensue if public-houses were closed on Sundays alone. The hon. Member did not, he supposed, speak from a Sabbatarian point of view, imagining it worse to get drunk on Sunday than on any other day in the week. His position was that wages were paid on Saturday, and that Sunday being a holiday offered more temptations for drinking. But in that case, why not go further, and close public-houses on Saturday also, because there was more drinking and more drunkenness on Saturdays than on Sundays? Therefore, he was going further than his hon. Friend, and, if really his hon. Friend wished to cope with this question, he would leave with the localities the right, not only to close public-houses on Sundays, but on Saturday nights and on other days if they so pleased. His hon. Friend made most extraordinary exemptions from the Bill. The Bill was supposed to be for all England, but a small, trifling village was excepted from its operation—London; and the great towns were also to be excepted if it were thought desirable. What, then, remained of the plan for Sunday closing all over England? Why, it was Local Option. Why did his hon. Friend leave out London? Because the Londoners did not want Sunday closing. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not know why Londoners were to be consulted more than the people anywhere else. Why should not the villagers in the country be allowed to contract themselves out of the Bill in the same way if they did not want Sunday closing? His hon. Friend had knocked the bottom out of his Bill by

    305
    saying that he was leaving out London and the large towns—
    MR. J. C. STEVENSONexplained that what he had proposed was that London should be excluded, and that the House might enact that in the large towns there should be partial, and in the rest of England complete Sunday closing.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked, whether the system of leaving it to the locality was not an infinitely better one than the proposal of his hon. Friend? Then, again, by his Bill the exception was to be very much greater than the rule, if London was to be exempted and the large towns partially exempted. For his part, he believed that the drinking that took place in England was a positive national disgrace, and that the House and the Government shared that disgrace, because, by the existing system of revenue, the State profited by it and practically encouraged it. The only way of dealing with the matter was to stand hard and fast by the old plan of campaign—the principle of Local Option; and it was because he was in favour of that principle in all such restrictions—whether it was Sunday opening or whether it was weekday opening—that he proposed to move the Amendment standing in his name. Water-drinkers were very innocent people—innocent as doves. He wished them to have a little of the wisdom of the serpent. He did profess to be either a dove or a serpent himself. He was a practical man, and he desired legislation on this matter; he wanted restrictions in the matter of public drinking; he wanted the House to put down, if it possibly could, the facilities which were given all over the country for the people to get drink, and he believed they would do that best by what he had already called the old plan of campaign—Local Option. He would urge the House, and the distinguished advocates of the temperance cause themselves, to vote for his Amendment, and then, before long, they would obtain the very legislation for which they had been agitating. But if they stood or fell upon a Bill for the general closing of public-houses on Sunday they would put back the cause of Local Option to the dim and distant future. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    MR. DILLWYNseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House is of opinion that it would he more conducive to the interests of temperance and to the principle of local self-government that the question of Sunday Closing should he relegated to the decision of the inhabitants of the localities in which the public-houses are situated,"—(Mr. Labouchere,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken (Mr. Labouchere), though not adopting a tone of great seriousness, showed that he was practically in accord with the principle advocated by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. J. C. Stevenson). He thought that the House could hardly be expected to pass the second reading of a Bill, the promoter of which had declared his intention of accepting, in Committee, Amendments which would entirely change the character of the Bill. The hon. Member was ready to except from the Bill the whole of the Metropolis, but surely that was not the way in which a grave matter of that sort ought to be presented to the House. London was certainly a very important part of the Kingdom, and if the Bill professed to be a Sunday Closing Bill for the whole Kingdom, and if it was at the same time proposed to except London, then they were called upon to vote for a very different measure to that before the House. He was ready to support a Bill such as was brought in by the hon. Baronet the Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) on several occasions in former Parliaments, which was a Bill, he might say, in passing, eminently of a non-Party character. It had been introduced by the hon. Baronet, and was backed by the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, then Lord Castlereagh. He referred to the Bill of 1884. If the hon. Member for South Shields had accepted that Bill at the time, and if the Bill had become law, this question would have been settled. He (Mr. J. G. Talbot) considered that the proposal before the House was not a statesmanlike way of dealing with the

    307
    question, nor was it according to the practice of Parliament. A Committee of the House of Lords reported on the subject in 1879, and from that Report he would read a few words. It said—
    "In England the houses are open (on Sundays) from 12.30 until 2.30, and from 6 to 10; in the Metropolis only from 1 to 3, and from 6 to 11 at night. The Committee are of opinion that the claim of persons employed in the sale of drink to be relieved from Sunday labour is entitled to great weight. Women and young persons are now prohibited by law from working in factories more than'56 hours in the week, while in public-houses in the country they can be kept at work for 108 hours, and in London for 123½ hours. The Committee, believing that public opinion in England is not yet ripe for total closing on Sundays, although it seems to be advancing in that direction "—
    the qualification was worthy of notice—
    "cannot go so far as to recommend its adoption. They are, however, of opinion that the restrictions already enforced, which have proved efficacious, might be carried still further with advantage, and with the general concurrence of the populations affected. They would recommend, therefore, that licensed houses in the Metropolitan district should be open from 1 to 3 for consumption off the premises only, and from 7 to 11 for consumption on the premises; and in other places from 12.30 to 2·30 for consumption off the premises only, and from 7 to 10 at night for consumption on the promises in populous places, and from 7 to 9 p.m. in other places."
    It would be observed that these recommendations fell short of what the hon. Baronet the Member for Durham proposed in his Bill, but he was ready to go beyond the recommendations of the Lords' Committee, and to support the Bill of the hon. Baronet if he would bring it in again. There was a class of persons who ought not to be lost sight of beyond the householders, a great majority of whom, the hon. Member said, were in favour of his Bill. The hon. Gentleman forgot that there was a very large floating population in London and other places whose opinion could not be got at in a census of the kind that had been relied on, and it was very hard that they should have no place of refreshment on Sunday open to them. So serious would be the effect of such a Bill that he did not believe that anybody could carry it out. They could not forget what Lord Cross had said when Home Secretary—that he would not be responsible for the peace of London if such a Bill became law. This was not a Party matter, but a practical matter that should be dealt with on
    308
    principles of common sense. It was, of course, very desirable to lessen the temptations to drunkenness on a day when there was more leisure, and therefore greater opportunities, for getting drunk. Without dwelling upon the religious question, they all wished, as far as possible, to unite in preserving the sacred character of the day; and there was, he believed, practical unanmity in the House that they must try to do not what they desired, but what was practicable. The hon. Gentleman who proposed the Bill had taken the wind out of his sails by admitting the very restrictions which he sought to establish. If the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the Motion for the second reading and allow his Resolution to stand in its place, that would be the wisest thing that could be done. But, whatever the result of the discussion to-night, he ventured to predict that the consequence would be, in a very short time, that the House would pass some such Bill as was sketched out in the Resolution, which, if the Forms of the House permitted, he would submit as an Amendment.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that though the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had said that teetotallers were not doves, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) hoped he took a practical view of the position in which the House was placed to-night. He was not responsible for the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields, though it was one that went in the direction of the policy he had supported for so many years. He always looked on the second reading of a Bill very much as on a Resolution; you did not go into details; you simply declared the principle. It was the skeleton of a measure, and you clothed it afterwards in Committee with flesh and blood. The principle of this measure was that the trade in drink should be brought into conformity with other trades, and should not be carried on on one day in seven, the Sunday. He would like to guard himself against being supposed to support it on Sabbatarian grounds. He believed that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, and, if anything, physically, materially, intellectually, or socially benefited mankind, it ought to be carried on upon the Sunday quite as much as upon

    309
    any other day, perhaps more so. He felt as indignant as anyone when he saw the people of this country shut out from Museums and Parks on Sunday while all those public-houses were open to tempt them in. He knew that many Gentlemen on the other side of the House thought that the consumption of drink on Sunday was a kind of religious ceremony. He saw the noble Lord the Member for Brixton (the Marquess of Carmarthen), and he would quote a remark that noble Lord made the other day at one of those licensed victuallers' functions which he was very fond of attending—indeed, he (Sir Wilfrid Law-son) believed the noble Lord was a distinguished distiller himself. Well, that noble Lord said the other day—
    "Some people talk about the alliance between beer and Bible. Why not? It is a very good thing. I myself read the one and drink the other."
    He did not hold that view at all. He did the one and not the other. He believed that it was the very greatest curse to the people to have this drinking carried on upon Sunday or week-day, and he did not think they ought to be called "gloomy fanatics" for saying that Sir William Gull said that alcohol was the most destructive agent known to the faculty. Many Members would recollect when they had among them Baron Dowse. Baron Dowse was not a "gloomy fanatic," like himself, and yet he said that the measure of the degradation of any district was exactly in proportion to the amount of alcohol consumed in it. Every day, every hour, every half-hour you cut off from the consumption of alcohol among the people you conferred a great benefit upon the community. Therefore, whatever the motive for bringing in the Bill, whether Sabbatarian or not, he cordially supported it. The hon. Member who spoke last dealt rather with details. They had not heard much against the Bill yet; but, no doubt, they would have some good speeches by-and-by. He could see that the right hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was full of the subject, and he might almost answer the right hon. Gentleman's speech. They were friendly antagonists, and he knew very well that the right hon. Gentleman would talk about Scotland and the
    310
    failure there. There was a speech made this year by the late Lord Advocate—he was not a "gloomy fanatic" either—and he told the House that the evidence in favour of closing in Scotland on Sunday was overwhelming; that it was all nonsense to talk about "she-beening," and that everyone of any consequence in Scotland was in favour of Sunday closing. There was not a Scotch Member on either side, if he voted for the repeal of the Forbes Mackenzie Act, would have the shadow of a shade of a ghost of a chance of being elected. Talk of failure in Ireland! They had a Select Committee of their own this year, and they reported dead in favour of the Sunday Closing Act, and that it should be extended to the five towns, called "Cities of Refuge," where it was not now in force. Then, there was poor little Wales, which was always trotted out. But there were plenty of his Welsh friends who would be able to tell the whole truth about it. They would be told about Cardiff and the clubs. But the police for two years had put down the clubs, and now the Welsh Sunday Closing Act was working admirably well. Was there any earthly reason why Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, enjoying the blessing of being sober, they should not extend the same blessing to England? The House would only be consistent in passing that Bill. Thay passed one Act this year to prevent the sale of a single drop of drink on the Dogger Bank; and, surely, if drink was useful anywhere, it would be useful among all those dangers and hardships. The Prime Minister, to a deputation presenting the claims of the Native races this very afternoon, had called the drink traffic with Native races "a miserable traffic," for, he said, "a vast amount of human happiness and misery are involved." He also said that if they succeeded in stopping the traffic "a moral conquest of the greatest value would be obtained." All that he asked was that they should have that moral conquest here. Why should not we, natives of Great Britain, be protected as well as anybody else? Who was against the Bill? Why, the most powerful band of monopolists the world have ever seen—the trade! The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) said the other day that—

    311
    "The indiscriminate multiplication of those establishments, and the abnormally excessive number in our large towns of establishments for the sale of liquor, are rapidly ruining both the health and the morals of a large part of our urban population. This is the direct parent of more than one-half the crime and two-thirds the poverty, the misery, the disease, and the vice which tarnishes and disgraces our English civilization."
    He hoped the noble Lord would show his faith by his work, by voting for that Bill. The noble Lord referred to what was said by the Bishop of Peterborough—that he would rather see England free than sober—and said that he did not think the Bishop would say that again if he would only go and take a walk with him in the dark in the London streets. He supposed they should soon see the noble pair walking about the streets together. The opposition to that Bill came from the licensed victuallers, and the most extraordinary part of the opposition was that they said that the Sunday closing of public-houses would cause more drink to be consumed. Well, if more was sold it must be bought somewhere, and who made it but the licensed victuallers—the brewers themselves? If the publicans went against the Bill on that account, all he could say was that they were the most philanthropic band of men the world had ever seen. The House of Commons, after all, was an Assembly of men possessed of common sense, and he did not think a single man on either side was taken in by that argument. When "the trade" went against Bills like that under discussion it was because such Bills would greatly damage their business. They would decide to-night, when they went to a Division, who was on the Lord's side and who was on the landlords—who was for the publican and who was for the public. There was a Society which called itself the "Liberty and Property Defence League"—he called it the "Liquor and Lucre League"—and the President of that Society, the Earl of Wemyss, sent the following telegram to the "Scottish Wine, Spirit, and Beer Trade Defence Association":—
    "Express my regret at absence. This battle of British liberty is being fought in the British public House. Urge permanent, united action of all interests to defeat united forces of Law-son, Harcourt, and Biggar."
    These were the sort of people who
    312
    were opposing the Bill. He would say one word, in all friendliness, to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He thought that, with the best of motives, and after a life spent, as he had no doubt, in advocating Local Option, he had, by his Amendment, somewhat confused the issue. He did not blame him; but, really, when they did get a chance of a fair and square vote in that House on anything in the world it was hard to have the issue confused. He would tell the House why he did not vote for the Amendment. In the first place, because he thought it was not well, when they got a chance, to throw it away on the bare possibility of getting something else. He would remind the House of the story of the Scotch. Member who said to a fellow-countryman who had just been elected—"Be ae taking a' you can get, and be ae complaining that you canna get mair." Local Option was only a means to an end. He advocated it because he believed it would strike a decisive blow at the liquor traffic. If anybody would propose a Maine Law for the whole country, he would do all he could to carry it. That was a Maine Law for Sunday. He believed the hon. Member who brought that Bill in did not exaggerate one bit when he said that there was no debate and no Division which had taken place throughout that long Session which would be watched with so much interest by the people of this country as the one in which they were now engaged. Hon. Members would not have forgotten the speech of the late Colonel Duncan in seconding the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The words of that gallant Member were—
    "Would it not be well in all our legislation if we could do something, just something, to make the homes of the people a little brighter?"
    He was sure the House could do nothing better to follow the advice of that good man whom they had lost than pass that Bill. They would thus do something to make the conditions of life more hopeful, happier, and brighter to the great masses of the people. In doing so, they would do their duty to themselves, their constituents, and the country.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: The hon. Baronet has been good enough to allude to me as a consistent opponent of him on this ques-

    313
    tion, and the remark is perfectly true. I have been always opposed to Sunday-closing, because I have endeavoured to show myself a supporter of true liberty and of the true principles of temperance. But I wish to bring the House back to the consideration of the real question before it, and I would ask you to forget, for the moment, the dissertation of the hon. Baronet. The Bill is purely and simply a Sunday Closing Bill, and a large part of it has already disappeared. We are told that one-fifth of the population is to be withdrawn from it—namely, those of the Metropolis—and we are also told that the great towns will be treated in a manner somewhat approximate to that. There remains, therefore, only the small localities to be dealt with; and I happen to be the Representative of one of those small localities in this House. That is the very point to which we have to address ourselves—are these small localities to be subjected to this arbitrary measure? I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in his place, because, some years ago, when he was Home Secretary, we had a series of Divisions on this matter during the fragmentary Bills which were introduced in this House, and the right hon. Gentleman laid down this principle. He said, speaking in 1882—
    "The House, in two Parliaments, has practically concluded that these are local questions, to be dealt with according to the sentiments of the community affected by them. That principle having, therefore, been wisely and firmly established, the only question we have to ask is—is there an overwhelming sentiment in this particular community in favour of the measure? "—(3 Hansard, [273] 1656.)
    But the hon. Member, in his Bill, proposes a drastic measure for all localities. But is there an overwhelming sentiment in favour of this Bill? I deny that proposition entirely. I say there is no evidence whatever before the House or the country of anything like it. Let us consider who are the supporters of the Bill. First, there is the teetotal party, and I say they have no right to be heard on this question at all. Their action, if I may be allowed so to express it, is hardly moral—because they are opposed to the sale of drink on any day of the week. And why should they attack Sunday? I am afraid it is because they think it is a weak point, and because they are likely to be backed up by the
    314
    Sabbatarian party, and, therefore, the better able to drive a hole in the enemy's ranks. Therefore, I say their action is not exactly moral. Then we will strike them out; and who is the next party? They are the religious party, a party strongly in favour of Sabbatarian observances; and then there is the third category of opponents—those who have never been properly instructed upon this subject, who take no trouble to ascertain the facts, but take for granted all that was told them as to the supposed advantages of Sunday closing. I have taken the greatest trouble myself to ascertain from the police whether they think excessive drinking is prevalent in the country, and they have always replied in the negative, and I have never yet consulted any police authority, but I have obtained information that if the public-houses were closed on Sunday drunkenness would be greatly increased. These facts are confirmed by statistics which have been placed before the House in a Return which Her Majesty's Government were good enough to give me. I find by this Return that on a bonâ fide Sunday in the whole of England the proportion of persons arrested for drunkenness, compared with the weekday, was only as three to five. But, if you come to the Metropolitan area, I find that on week-days the average number of arrests is 51, and on Sundays only 25. I contend that if you eliminate from those supporting the Bill the persons I have named, you will find that the number of those who object to the Sunday opening of public-houses upon legitimate grounds is very few indeed. There cannot, therefore, be said that there is in any part of the country an overwhelming sentiment in favour of the doctrine enunciated by the right hon. Member for Derby in 1883. I am not going into the question of Petitions. I do not believe very much in them, but in my own constituency, with over 20,000 persons, there has been only one Petition presented in favour of this measure, signed by only 60 persons. Therefore this Bill, if it passes at all, ought not to be in a form to affect them. The only other point I wish to submit is this—that if the measure be passed it will not tend to the public advantage or to an improvement in the temperate habits of the people. I think experience shows all who live in London that there

    315
    is no drunkenness on Sundays. I am in the habit of walking a great deal on Sundays, and I really cannot recollect the time when I saw a drunken man. According to the statistics each weekday the average convictions are 33, and on Sundays they average only 15, and this shows clearly that this legislation is quite an unnecessary interference. But when we come to Wales, where there is absolutely Sunday closing, the statistics shown by this Return are absolutely contradictory of what was said by the hon. Baronet; for, although we find that Wales has been in possession of this inestimable blessing of Sunday closing, there is no decrease in drunkenness there at all. If you look through the Return—which it is quite clear escaped the observation of the hon. Baronet—for he does not like to look at things which are distasteful to him—you will find that there is no difference whatever between Wales and England. When you go to Glamorganshire you find an awful result. In the Glamorganshire district, including Cardiff and Swansea, notwithstanding Sunday closing, the number of persons arrested for drunkenness on Sunday is exactly equal to those on week days. I think I heard somebody say something about Scotland, Well, there the number of arrests for drunkenness on Sunday is greater than in England. I really want to know why we want the Bill at all. We are told by the hon. Member that he wishes to confer a great benefit on the population. But what was the cause of drunkenness in those places where Sunday closing was established? It was that large quantities of liquor are taken home on Saturday night. A man cannot get a glass of whisky, brandy, or beer, and therefore he takes home a large quantity with him on Saturday night. I am told that in Wales it is the habit of Welshmen to take home on Saturday evening what they call a John Roberts—taking an enormous quantity of liquor, which they consume on Sunday. It is to prevent such a custom in England that I wish, not only to agree with these Resolutions, but to reject the Bill altogether. Now, there is another point which was alluded to by the hon. Member—the question of justice between two classes. Is every public-house, and every house of entertainment, and every hotel to be shut up, and every
    316
    club in London to remain open? After all, what is a club, except an hotel? It is simply a private hotel. Those who know the history of clubs are well aware that the first clubs that were established in London were nothing but hotels, which but a limited number of persons were allowed to enter. Well, are you going to say that the poor man, who cannot afford to pay such a subscription, is not to have a house of entertainment? The hon. Baronet said I was full of the subject. Well, Sir, I am fuller of the subject than he thinks. There is a private hotel near the Reform Club—of which I believe the hon. Baronet is a member—and a friend of mine, who is a member of that club, sent me a note to-day, telling me that in that club there had been consumed during last year intoxicating liquors to the amount of £4,000; and he said there was in that club a stock of intoxicating liquors—of which the hon. Baronet is a joint proprietor—of the value of £10,000. Is he full of the subject? I think the hon. Baronet does not like to approach that part of the subject, but only the part which relates to his own convenience. Why cannot he allow the poor man to go even one mile, a mile and a-half, or two miles, without this hard-and-fast line of three or four miles? I do not call that liberty of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley)—I wonder how he is going to vote on this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has always gone up and down the country talking in favour of liberty and against coercion. Is he going to give the poor man the liberty of taking a glass of beer or spirits on the Sunday, or is he going to coerce him and say he should do nothing of the sort? I am in favour of true liberty as against coercion. My proposition is that it is an interference with the liberty of the subject to pass the second reading of this Bill. I think it has been shown that there is a gradual increase of sobriety, not only in the upper but in the lower classes, and I say we should not try to drive the people from the straightforward and honest path which they are going by interfences which are, I think, unworthy of our nation. I shall vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite—not because I approve of it at all, but because it strikes at a

    317
    Bill which I believe to be uncalled-for and unsound; and if the Amendment becomes the substantive Question, then I shall record my vote against it.
    MR. ATKINSONthought that they, as the guardians of the public purse, ought to recognize the good service done by the teetotallers in keeping down the rates, both for prisons and poor-houses, by setting the example they did. Judges and magistrates told them that a great part of the expense of the taxation was caused by the abuse of that which the teetotallers were constantly preaching against. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot) said he objected to the Bill as it was now presented to the House. Although the hon. Member who introduced the measure expressed his willingness to except London, and probably other large towns, from its operation, he, as one of the Members whose names were at the back of the Bill, would not agree to such an exception being made. That was a matter which he believed they would have the privilege of discussing in Committee. It was not, therefore, open to argue that the Bill now before the House excepted London and the large towns; they must deal with the print of the Bill as it stood. As to whether the people of London and the other towns would submit to it, he believed they would find, if the Bill became law, that it would be greatly to their advantage, and they would have the same movement among their large towns as they had had in Ireland. His information with regard to Wales was diametrically opposed to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven. He was informed by ministers of religion, magistrates, and others in Wales that the Sunday Closing Act passed for that country had been a success. He had been associated with this movement for 22 years, and he might remark, in face of the new-born zeal for temperance on the Opposition side of the House, that the first Bill on the subject was brought forward by a Conservative Member at a time when the Liberals were in Office. They ought, however, to lift this great question from Party influences altogether. He believed no measure had ever been placed before Parliament which would bring more good to the people than this Bill. He earnestly
    318
    hoped that the House would agree to the second reading, and he promised that when the Bill reached the Committee stage he would do his utmost to obstruct any attempt to emasculate it.
    MR. BOWEN ROWLANDSsaid, he must contest the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) that there was not a majority of the people of England in favour of this Bill. Special reference had been made to the working of the Sunday Closing Act in Wales, and it had been stated that the measure had been a failure, and that the majority of the Welsh people would desire to have it repealed. Such was not the fact. The Act had not had fair play in certain parts of Glamorganshire, which were near the English counties, where public houses were opened on Sundays; but in the rest of the Principality the Act had undoubtedly been a success, as was shown by the testimony of those best able to form an opinion. Only recently the Corporation of Cardiff and the School Board had petitioned in favour of the measure; and this was only one among a multitude of similar instances. No doubt the number of arrests for drunkenness had only slightly diminished; but that was not a sure test. The police were now more vigilant and active in regard to drunkenness, and this, in some degree, accounted for the number of arrests. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven had quoted statistics to show that the number of arrests in England on Sundays was less than on any other day of the week; but that was rather an argument in favour of Sunday closing; for, if the partial closing on Sundays which now existed reduced drunkenness, was it not reasonable to infer that total closing would reduce it much more? That the feeling of the country was strongly in favour of Sunday closing was conclusively shown by the floods of Petitions which were poured in in favour of it from Corporate Bodies of all kinds. He supported the measure on the general principle that it was more calculated than legislation in any other direction to promote the material and moral welfare of the people. He did not think that anyone seriously contended that clubs were at all in a position analogous

    319
    to that of public-houses; but if the drinking in clubs produced Petitions to Parliament praying for legislation of this character, and evoked other adverse demonstrations of public opinion, then he would vote that clubs should be subjected to the same legislation as public-houses.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, that, notwithstanding the fact that the subject was one that had for a long time excited a large amount of public interest, and was in itself one of very great importance, the speeches of that night had been of commendable brevity, and yet he did not think the subject had in any way suffered on that account. He agreed with the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Atkinson) when he said that this question ought not to be treated as a Party question. He should be sorry if it came to be supposed that a matter affecting so largely the social condition of the people was one which belonged peculiarly to one side of the House or to the other. He would give the best evidence of his hope that the question would not be treated as a Party one by saying, at the outset, that the Government hoped that hon. Gentlemen would not be moved by any Party consideration in the vote they gave, but would vote according to their convictions of the goodness or the badness of the measure before the House. He also agreed with the hon. Member when he said that the country was under a deep debt of gratitude to the Temperance Party for the good work they had done. Hon. Members who had been in communication with him on this subject would acknowledge that he had often recognized the claim that the Temperance Party had upon the public, and it must be an immense satisfaction to them to know that the labours which they had gone through for so many years had resulted, and were continuing to result, so satisfactorily to the cause which they had advocated. He did not propose to discuss whether any legislation, or no legislation, was desirable upon this particular point, nor what had been the effect of Sunday closing where it had been tried. He did not desire to gainsay the contention that Sunday drinking was attended with some amount of evil. Drinking to excess, whether on
    320
    Sunday or week-day, was a great evil, and he drew very little distinction between the two. We all desired that people should be temperate both on the Sunday and on the week-day; and whether Sunday drinking or week-day drinking resulted in the greater evil he did not propose to inquire. There was a great deal in the argument which was often used that by closing public-houses on the Sunday you might not do much to diminish drinking on the Sunday, and you might possibly do some harm, and you might do a considerable amount of harm, by driving the drinking from the public-houses to the homes of the people. We all desired, as the late Colonel Duncan said, to see the homes of the people brighter; they would not be brighter if, by drastic legislation, we drove drinking into them, but the reverse. He would not argue whether legislation was desirable or undesirable. So far as the Government were concerned they were out of court on this question, because they made certain proposals affecting it in their Local Government Bill. The question, therefore, seemed to him to be reduced to this—whether such legislation should be of an Imperial rather than of a local character; and, if Imperial, whether the Bill before the House was the measure by which the proper object should be attempted. For his own part, he was convinced that legislation for the proposed object should not be undertaken by that House on the lines of this Bill; and he thought the hon. Member who introduced the Bill perceived the weakness of his position by offering to exclude London from it, and modifying it largely with regard to the large towns. As had been remarked, it would be unwise to deal with the Bill on the assumption that these Amendments would be made in Committee, which Amendments the hon. Member behind him had said he would vigorously oppose. They must take the Bill as it stood; and what did it propose to do? It proposed, without consulting the desires and wishes of the people, by an arbitrary method, to close public-houses entirely on Sunday throughout the country. He ventured to say that, under such circumstances, no one could contemplate the passing of such a Bill without a considerable amount of alarm. The hon. Member himself viewed it with considerable alarm,

    321
    because he frankly stated that he would exempt London. The immediate closing of all the public-houses on Sunday in London would probably be attended with greater evils than those which the Bill proposed to remove; and if they attempted to carry out such a proposal in the large towns of the country without consulting the people and acting in accordance with their wishes and desires, they might very possibly have an entirely different result from that which they wished to have. He did not think that the House should attempt to legislate upon a question of this kind for the whole of the country. In bringing forward the Local Government Bill the Government expressed their opinion that the matter ought to be dealt with by the newly constituted authorities. The County Councils, would be able to take the matter in hand in the manner best suited to the inhabitants and most in accordance with their wishes. That being his view, it might be said that he would be prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton; but he was equally unable to support that proposal, because he was distinctly opposed to a direct popular veto. If the question of Sunday closing came to be relegated to the County Councils, he hoped it would be considered in connection with the whole system of licensing. The right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) desired that the County Councils should have the power of closing public-houses apart from the question of licensing; but he was glad the House hesitated, with the Government, to commit such a power to them, seeing that the questions to be considered were already sufficiently complicated without having added to them at the first election that of Sunday closing. The Government were desirous that this matter should be dealt with from no Party point of view, or in a Party spirit; and he would again express the hope that hon. Members would vote according to their convictions, whether they were—first, in favour of further legislation on this subject; and, secondly, whether the legislation indicated by this Bill was the legislation of which they approved?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not rise for the purpose of protracting the debate, as the subject before
    322
    the House has been often and fully discussed, and what the House desires is that the opinion of hon. Members should be pronounced upon the Bill which my hon. Friend has brought forward, and upon which the issue is a somewhat complicated one. My hon. Friend has brought forward his Bill under rather remarkable circumstances. The Government—and we are very glad of it—made a proposal with respect to Sunday closing in their Local Government Bill; and, so far as we upon these Benches were concerned, we accepted their proposal with respect to Sunday closing, which was not complicated at all by the question of compensation, and we would gladly have seen it pass into law. The Government, however, thought it right to withdraw that proposal, and I am not going into any recriminations upon the subject. I hope that I shall follow the precept rather than the practice of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Atkinson) on this subject, and, with reference to what he has said, I can only hope that in the Division we are soon going to take what he has stated with reference to the Party to which he belongs will be made conspicuous. If that is so, I shall accept our defeat in that honourable rivalry with the greatest possible equanimity and pleasure, and I hope it will appear that the majority of the Conservatives will have voted in this Division for the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. J. C. Stevenson). That will be the test, I think, and not the assertion of the hon. Member for Boston. The hon. Member for South Shields was adjured to bring forward his Bill on the rejection of the clause in the Local Government Bill, and he was specially pressed to do so by those Gentlemen who really secured the rejection of Local Option as to Sunday closing in connection with the Local Government Bill—I refer to hon. Gentlemen who sit on these Benches. There was the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine), who is all for Imperial Sunday closing. He said—"Leave out the clause, and we will effect the principle by carrying the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields—in this way we will carry out Imperial Sunday closing." I am sorry the hon. Member is not here to-night to see the triumph of his diplomacy. And there is another right hon. Friend of mine, who is not here, who was very in-

    323
    strumental also in defeating the proposal made in the Local Government Bill, and that is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). But I remember in that discussion that I said—"When the Member for South Shields brings in his Bill, how will you vote?" My right hon. Friend said—"I shall vote for the Bill." Well, that makes me all the more deplore his absence to-night. But, then, there is my noble Friend the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington). He did not express an opinion either way. He is a very influential Member of this House, and I am very sorry tonight that he is not to give us the benefit of his knowledge and of his views on this very important subject—I imagine he is not to do so, as I do not see him here. These were the Gentlemen who defeated the proposal of the Government with reference to Local Option in the Local Government Bill, and they must take a large share of the responsibility for the defeating of that proposal. The excuse then given to us was—"Oh, you will see what we think of Sunday closing when we come to deal with the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields." Well, we shall see what they think of Sunday closing. I hope, as there is going to be a vast majority of Conservatives, according to the hon. Member for Boston, voting for this Bill, and as there will be—I will not say a majority—but a unanimity of Liberal Unionists who will support it, we shall have a unanimous vote in favour of this Bill for Sunday closing. Now, however, we are in a rather awkward position on account of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and how is that going to be dealt with? Well, my right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck)—who, I am bound to say, is a stout and staunch supporter of the anti-temperance view—as I am aware, has been constantly saying in this House, and saying quite fairly—"I am going to vote for that Amendment, although I disapprove of it, because it will defeat the Bill." That is really why I am going to vote against the Amendment in the first instance—because it defeats the Bill. It is not because I disapprove of the Amendment, for if the hon. Member for Boston should prove a false prophet, and
    324
    the Bill should be defeated, then I should vote for the Amendment, because I have taken for many years a view of the subject which that Amendment would carry out. I have voted for every proposal on this subject which has come forward as a practical proposal. I have voted for Sunday closing in the form of Sunday closing, and I have voted for Local Option, and I shall vote for the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields, the more so because when practical proposals are before the House on this subject I believe that everyone who really wishes to forward the matter should vote for these proposals. I confess I do not admire the policy of Gentlemen like my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot). I believe that hon. Member to be a sincere temperance reformer. I have heard him speak often on many proposals in this House, but I do not think I ever heard him support a practical proposal made in this House. He has always had—
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I supported the Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease).
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member for Durham! That I do not remember. I have taken part in many Bills on this subject promoted by many Members, and I have always admired the ingenuity with which the hon. Member for the University of Oxford has laboured to give some reason for not voting for them. I know he has a special admiration for the Reports which come from the House of Lords. I also have a great respect for the House of Lords, but I must say that I think this is above all a question which the House of Commons ought to deal with as representing the people. I decline altogether to be bound by a Report of the House of Lords on a question of this sort. Well, now, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for White-haven, has challenged me, and said I have always advocated the principle of Local Option in this House. So I have, and I do not disagree with it on this occasion, and if this were a Bill or Motion for Local Option I should vote for it unquestionably, but I am not going to vote for an Amendment in favour of Local Option, in order to defeat this particular measure. Those would be tactics I do not understand—

    325
    those would be tactics which are too often adopted in dealing with this matter. When we have a proposal by the Government for Local Option, then comes forward the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine), to defeat it by a Motion for Imperial Sunday closing, and when we have a Motion for Imperial Sunday closing then he comes forward with a proposal to defeat that by a Motion in favour of Local Option, and by the aid of this kind of see-saw and hocus-pocus, the enemies of Sunday closing obtain what they want. The country will understand how, in the early part of the Session, Local Option was defeated by a pretended preference for Imperial Sunday closing, and how, at the end of the Session, Imperial Sunday closing has been put on one side by certain Members on account of their great love for Local Option. Well, in that manner it is perfectly easy for people to combine in order to defeat both measures, and in point of fact to defeat the principle of Sunday closing altogether. Now, I can understand the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Local Government Bill. He said—"I am in favour of Local Option in the County Councils." We were not adverse to that and we showed him that we were not, for being in favour of the proposal, we voted for it, but there are Members who shared the views of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who are prepared to take an opposite course to that. I am going to vote for this Bill as a declaration in favour of Sunday closing. That is the sense which I attach to this Vote, and I believe every man who votes against this Bill will naturally be understood as voting against Sunday closing. Taunts have been levelled against the hon. Member for South Shields, and it has been said—"You are inconsistent, because you are going to exclude London." Is it inconsistent with Sunday closing to exclude London? Why, the Irish Sunday Closing Bill was founded on that very principle. It excluded Dublin and Belfast, and although it is true that as a matter of prudence and policy those large towns were excluded, the result of the experience of that measure has shown that these powers may be extended and that now you can remove the exemptions. No stronger argument could be given in
    326
    favour of Sunday closing than the argument that experience has shown that it is possible to extend the measure in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven says that we are an immoral Party, because we only propose to close public-houses on Sunday, while some of us would be very glad to close them on other days as well. That is a most extraordinary objection. Why, if we cannot get seven days in the week, we are glad to get one day. There is one argument in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ritchie) to which I must demur. He says if you close public-houses you will drive people to drink in their own homes—private drinking it is called, secret drinking.
    MR. RITCHIE: I did not make that at all a strong point. I said those who argued the other way said that.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not wish to make a point of it against the right hon. Gentleman, but I hear this argument constantly used by the publicans. They refer to private drinking as if it were the greatest crime that could be committed. Well, I imagine that most of us in this House are guilty of a crime of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman himself, if he drinks at all, does not drink in a public-house, and so he must be driven by force of circumstances to drink in his own home, and surely that is not so great an evil. I do not imagine that the home of the right hon. Gentleman is any the worse for the private drinking that takes place there. I notice this argument, which is constantly in the mouth of publicans, in order, if possible, to explode it and show its sheer absurdity. Private drinking is the practice of people in all positions of life, who drink at all, and, therefore, an objection of that kind seems to me to be totally unfounded. Then there is the extraordinary argument of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) which I should like to notice. He said—"Do you think that the English people will ever tolerate, in a matter of this kind in which they are interested—that they will ever allow themselves to be coerced by the votes of Irish and Scotch Members? This is a matter that affects them only, and are they to be coerced by the Irish and Scotch Members against their own opinions and

    327
    wishes?" That remark was loudly cheered on the other side of the House but do hon. Gentlemen opposite never by English votes make other people adopt opinions which they would never accept of their own motion? Are you going to apply the argument which was cheered in the mouth of the hon. Member for Northampton, that it was utterly unfair that Irish and Scotch votes should have weight on the question of English Sunday closing and other matters? Now I understand, to a certain degree, the position the Government have taken up. They say—"We proposed Local Option in the County Councils." Well, I wish they had gone a little farther. I venture to say, and I think I may expect with some confidence, that, excellent as the Local Government Bill was in many respects, it was not perfect, and that right hon. Gentlemen will next Session have to introduce an amending Bill. That is an observation I venture to make as the result of my Parliamentary experience. Now I want to know what is the position of Her Majesty's Government with reference to this question of Sunday closing? When they bring in another Bill to amend the Local Government Act, will they bring forward a proposal to hand over the question of Sunday closing to the County Councils? That is a question we have a right to ask them. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) said he did not wish to embarrass the electors at the commencement of the County Councils with a question of this kind, when they were occupied with such great and interesting and exciting topics already. Well, I have not myself observed that there is such great excitement in the topics which are now occupying the attention of the electors at these elections, and the right hon. Gentleman might well have given the Councils some topic which would have had the effect of causing excitement and interest. However, that argument of the right hon. Gentleman will have been removed next Session, as the election will then have taken place. I venture to say that he would find no danger or inconvenience in giving the County Councils, if he thinks it desirable, the power to deal with this matter; and, therefore, I think that upon a question of this kind we ought to have had some clear declaration from the Government with regard to
    328
    what they intend to do themselves if they reject this Bill and the Amendment, although I was glad to hear the declaration of the President of the Local Government Board. There is one Member of the Government whose absence I very much regret. During the 20 years that I have been in this House I have never known a Home Secretary absent from his place when these licensing debates have been brought forward. I think it is a most remarkable circumstance, and I confess I regret it very much. Well, Sir, as I have said, I did not rise for the purpose of protracting this debate. I wished to say exactly what my position in the matter was. I have always myself on this subject advocated Local Option, and I have always said that that is the safest way to commence and to proceed in this matter. If this were a Resolution or a Bill for Local Option, I should support it as I supported the proposal of the Government at the commencement of the Session, but as the proposal before the House is that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields—a Bill for the closing of public-houses on Sundays—I shall certainly vote for it. I shall vote in the first instance against the Amendment, because the Motion which will be put to us will practically be "whether the words 'that this Bill be now read a second time' stand part of the Question." I shall vote in favour of those words standing part of the Question, but if a majority of this House should decline to read the Bill a second time, and then the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton be put as a substantive Resolution, I should vote in favour of that Amendment. This is a clear Parliamentary method, and I think will satisfactorily test the opinion of the House on one of the most important questions which has ever come under its consideration.
    MR. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, he thought that those who had watched his conduct during the considerable number of years he had sat in the House would do him the justice to believe that he did not interpose in this debate for the purpose of delaying a Division, and that he would not take part in the discussion if he did not think he had a right to be heard, and if he had not something he wished to put before the House and

    329
    his constituents before he gave a vote on this question. He saw before him the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and the hon. Baronet would, no doubt, remember that the first speech he (Mr. Gathorne-Hardy) made in this House, now some years ago, was in connection with a Motion for Local Option which the hon. Baronet, himself brought forward. He desired to point out to the House, and to those who might take an interest in anything he did, the reason why, if he again had to vote on the Motion of the hon. Baronet, he should give the same vote he did 10 years ago, and why it was his intention on the present occasion to support the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields. He should like to say just a word as to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The right hon. Gentleman had begun by twitting the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Atkinson), who had declared that he did not wish to introduce a Party element into the debate, and having departed from his precept in his practice. Well, he (Mr. Gathorne-Hardy) ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had himself followed the hon. Member's example rather than his precept. He had been certainly surprised, after he had heard the right hon. Gentleman deprecate the introduction of Party politics into the discussion, to hear him sneer at the Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), and the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken from the Front Ministerial Bench. If hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House did not agree with him in this matter, probably he (Mr. Gathorne-Hardy) was mistaken, and he would withdraw everything he had said on the subject, but all he could say was that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was eminently calculated to introduce a Party element into this discussion. Now, with regard to the question before the House, he especially deprecated the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He had very much disliked the proposal the Government put forward in the Local Government Bill. He did not like the system of partial closing, a system of
    330
    bringing in a succession of Bills for different places, and he had always said to his constituents that if such measures were brought forward he should vote against them, as he should vote against the principle of Local Option and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. He should vote against that Amendment because he believed it to be a mischievous thing, when we had, as at present, artificial boundaries that we should have public-houses open on one side and closed on the other. If the thing was right, it was right once for all and everywhere, and should be adopted because the people wished it—and he was going to vote for this Bill because he was persuaded that the vast majority of the people desired to have Sunday closing. When he first sat in the House it was for a Southern constituency, and he was not so convinced upon all these points as he had since become, because he was now satisfied that certainly in the North of England the feeling on the question of Sunday closing was extremely strong. He was satisfied also that in the South of England there was a vast body of people against Sunday drinking. He should be asked, if he were opposed to Local Option, and did not think it right that the people should decide on this drink question for themselves, how was it he was going to support Sunday closing? That was a fair question, and his reason was this, that he did not believe in the right of the majority to coerce the minority on a question as to which all people had a perfect right to choose. The Sunday opening of public-houses was an exception to the general law; it was an exception to general law which certainly was not made in the interests of the public. This was not a publicans' question, and he declined to give a vote upon it as if it were a publicans' question. Although we had our museums and places of amusement closed on Sunday, although there was a law affecting all parts of the country which prevented trading and working on the Sunday, an exception was made in favour of the opening of public-houses on the Sunday, not in the interests of the publicans, but because it was originally believed that the people of the country desired the public-houses to be opened on Sunday. From the best evidence which came to him he was satisfied that the people had no such

    331
    desire. Upon the ground that the people had a right to remove an exemption which was supposed to have been made in their favour, but which, in reality, they considered unfavourable to them, it was his intention to give his vote for the Bill. If he were to act in regard to this subject upon any mere narrow Party view, undoubtedly he would not take up the position he occupied on the present occasion. Unfortunately, he usually found himself on the drink question between two fires: he found himself to some degree opposed by the publicans and the liquor interest generally, because he declined to vote with them on the question of Sunday closing, and he found himself opposed by the Temperance Party because he did not think it justifiable to go the length the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth would go. After all, every one must answer for his vote, not to his constituents but to his conscience; and he for one would give his vote for the second reading of this Bill because he believed that Bill to be just and right. If hon. Members would bear with him for a few moments more he would like to say that in one of his earliest election contests the question was put to his opponent—"Are you in favour of Sunday closing?" He had something to do with the putting of the question—he had the question put on his behalf. His opponent replied—
    "In answer to the gentleman putting that question let me ask him to look on my right and he will see the President of the Licensed Victuallers' Society, and to look on my left and he will see the Chairman of the Licensing Association. That is my answer, and I shall give no other."
    That would not be his (Mr. Gathorne-Hardy's) answer. He had never, and he hoped he never should, gain a vote by concealing his opinions. His desire was that his vote should be guided by his conscience, and to night he should give a hearty vote for the second reading of the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. J. C. Stevenson).
    MR. A. CORBETTsaid, he rose for the purpose of adding a few words to what had been said as to the results of Sunday closing they had experienced in Scotland. Comparing the three years before they
    332
    had in Scotland Sunday closing, with the three years after they had Sunday closing, he found that the number of cases of Sunday drunkenness was reduced from 11,471 to 4,297. In Glasgow there were 1,218 cases of Sunday drunkenness in the year preceding the passing of the Sunday Closing Act, but the number was 464 in the year succeeding the passing of the Act. The experience in the largest Scotch city was very well summed up by the Chief Constable, who, in his report for the year after the Act was passed, said—
    "The new Act has produced a degree of quiet and order in our streets on week mornings, and in particular on the Sabbath day, which must be apparent to all the citizens."
    It was because he (Mr. A. Corbett) and his brother Scotch Members had seen in Scotland results so beneficial that they proposed to vote for the Bill.
    MR. BARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask you whether in the event of the first Division being against the second reading, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton becoming the substantive Motion, it will be possible to move to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "County Councils" for "inhabitants."
    MR. SPEAKER: In the event of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton becoming the substantive question, it will, of course, be competent for any hon. Member to move to amend it.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, he would not have risen but that he did not like to give a silent vote on such a question as this. He should certainly vote against the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields and support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). To discuss the Bill was futile and waste of time, as the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had informed them the Licensing Clauses wore incorporated in the Local Government Bill, but owing to circumstances over which the right hon. Gentleman had no control they were dropped. There was no doubt whatever that the Local Authorities would ultimately have the control of licenses, and, therefore, he failed to see what the House of Commons had to do with the matter. Neither

    333
    he nor his constituents were addicted to drinking on Sunday, and, therefore, the Bill did not concern them.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 167: Majority 7.

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Glam.)

    Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

    Acland, A. H. D.

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

    Acland, C. T. D.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Allison, R. A.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Anderson, C. H.

    Grotrian, F. B.

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Asher, A.

    Haldane, R. B.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Hanbury-Tracy, hon F. S. A.

    Barbour, W. B.

    Harcourt, rt. hn. Sir W. G. V. V.

    Baring, Viscount

    Hastings, G. W.

    Barran, J.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Beaumont, W. B.

    Hobhouse, H.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Holden, I.

    Bolitho, T. B.

    Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Howard, J.

    Bolton, T. D.

    Hoyle, I.

    Bright, Jacob

    Illingworth, A.

    Bright, W. L.

    Jacoby, J. A.

    Brown, A. H.

    James, hon. W. H.

    Brunner, J. T.

    Joicey, J.

    Buchanan, T. R.

    Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J.

    Burt, T.

    Kenny, C. S.

    Caldwell, J.

    Kenrick, W.

    Cameron, C.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    Cameron, J. M.

    Lawson, H. L. W.

    Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

    Leake, R.

    Cavendish, Lord E.

    Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

    Chamberlain, R.

    Lockwood, F.

    Channing, F. A.

    Mac Innes, M.

    Childers, rt. hon. H. C. E.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Cobb, H. P.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Coghill, D. H.

    M'Arthur, W. A.

    Coleridge, hon. B.

    M'Donald, Dr. R.

    Collings, J.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Conybeare, C. A. V.

    M'Laren, W. S. B.

    Corbett, A. C.

    Mappin, Sir F. T.

    Corry, Sir J. P.

    Mildmay, F. B.

    Cossham, H.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Courtney, L. H.

    Morgan, O. V.

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    Morgan, W. P.

    Craig, J.

    Morley, right hon. J.

    Craven, J.

    Morley, A.

    Crawford, D.

    Morrison, W.

    Currie, Sir D.

    Mundella, right hon. A. J.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Neville, R.

    Duff, R. W.

    Nolan, J.

    Ebrington, Viscount

    O'Connor, A.

    Ellis, J.

    Oldroyd, M.

    Esslemont, P.

    O'Neill, hon. R. T.

    Evans, F. H.

    Parker, C. S.

    Ewart, Sir W.

    Paulton, J. M.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Pease, H. F.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro-

    Finlay, R. B.

    Firth, J. F. B.

    Flower, C.

    Foljambe, C. G. S.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Philipps, J. W.

    Foster, Sir W. B.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Fowler, rt. hon. H. H.

    Picton, J. A.

    Fry, T.

    Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L

    334

    Portman, hon. E. B.

    Stewart, H.

    Price, T. P.

    Stewart, M. J.

    Provand, A. D.

    Stokes, G. G.

    Reed, Sir E. J.

    Stuart, J.

    Reid, R. T.

    Sullivan, D.

    Rendel, S.

    Summers, W.

    Richardson, T.

    Swinburne, Sir J.

    Roberts, J.

    Sykes, C.

    Roe, T.

    Thomas, A.

    Roscoe, Sir H. E.

    Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

    Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

    Vernon, hon. G. R.

    Rowlands, W. B.

    Waddy, S. D.

    Rowntree, J.

    Warmington, C. M.

    Russell, Sir C.

    Watt, H.

    Russell, T. W.

    Whitley, E.

    Samuelson, G. B.

    Will, J. S.

    Schwann, C. E.

    Winterbotham, A. B.

    Sinclair, J.

    Woodall, W.

    Sinclair, W. P.

    Woodhead, J.

    Smith, S.

    Wright, C.

    Stanhope, hon. P. J.

    TELLERS.

    Stepney-Cowell, Sir A. K.

    Atkinson, H. J.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    Stevenson, J. C.

    NOES.

    Addison, J. E. W.

    Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Curzon, hon. G. N.

    Ainslie, W. G.

    Darling, C. J.

    Allsopp, hon. G.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Ambrose, W.

    De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

    Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Banes, Major G. E.

    Dorington, Sir J. E.

    Baring, T. C.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Barry, A. H. S.

    Duncombe, A.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Egerton, hon. A. de T.

    Bass, H.

    Elliot, Sir G.

    Bates, Sir E.

    Ellis, Sir J. W.

    Baumann, A. A.

    Elton, C. I.

    Beach, W. W. B.

    Evershed, S.

    Beadel, W. J.

    Eyre, Colonel H.

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

    Bentinck, Lord H. C.

    Field, Admiral E.

    Bentinck, W. G. C.

    Finch, G. H.

    Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

    Finucane, J.

    Bethell, Commander G. R.

    Fisher, W. H.

    Bigwood, J.

    Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

    Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Bonsor, H. C. O.

    Flynn, J. C.

    Boord, T. W.

    Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

    Borthwick, Sir A.

    Fraser, General C. C.

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

    Fulton, J. F.

    Brookfield, A. M.

    Gedge, S.

    Bruce, G.

    Giles, A.

    Burghley, Lord

    Goldsworthy, Major-

    Campbell, Sir A.

    General W. T.

    Carmarthen, Marq. of

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

    Charrington, S.

    Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

    Clarke, Sir E. G.

    Granby, Marquess of

    Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.

    Gray, C. W.

    Compton, F.

    Grimston, Viscount

    Cooke, C. W. R.

    Hall, C.

    Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Crilly, D.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    335

    Hervey, Lord F.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

    O'Connor, J.

    Hill, A. S.

    Parker, hon. F.

    Hoare, E. B.

    Polly, Sir L.

    Hubbard, hon. E.

    Penton, Captain F. T.

    Hughes, Colonel E.

    Plowden, Sir W. C.

    Hunt, F. S.

    Plunkett, hon. J. W.

    Hunter, Sir W. G.

    Powell, F. S.

    Isaacs, L. H.

    Power, R.

    Isaacson, F. W.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Reed, H. B.

    Jarvis, A. W.

    Ridley, Sir. M. W.

    Jeffreys, A. F.

    Ritchie, rt. hon. C. T

    Jennings, L. J.

    Robertson, Sir W. T.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Rollit, Sir A. K.

    Kerans, F. H.

    Russell, Sir G.

    King, H. S.

    Salt, T.

    Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.

    Knowles, L.

    Selwin-Ibbetson, rt. hon. Sir H. J.

    Lambert, C.

    Selwyn, Captain C. W.

    Lawrance, J. C.

    Seton-Karr, H.

    Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

    Sidebotham, J. W.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Smith, A.

    Legh, T. W.

    Spencer, J. E.

    Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

    Stephens, H. C.

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Talbot, J. G-.

    Long, W. H.

    Tapling, T. K.

    Lowther, rt. hon. J.

    Taylor, F.

    Lowther, J. W.

    Temple, Sir R.

    Maclean, J. M.

    Theobald, J.

    Makins, Colonel W. T.

    Tollemache, H. J.

    Malcolm, Col. J. W.

    Townsend, F.

    Maple, J. B.

    Walrond, Col. H. W.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Wardle, H.

    Mills, hon. C. W.

    Webster, Sir R. E.

    Milvain, T.

    Wharton, J. L.

    More, R. J.

    Whitmore, C. A.

    Moss, R.

    Wilson, Sir S.

    Mount, W. G.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Wood, N.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Muntz, P. A.

    Wright, H. S.

    Murdoch, C. T.

    Noble, W.

    TELLERS.

    Norris, E. S.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    O'Brien, P.

    Labouchere, H.

    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I beg to move—
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I claim to move that the Question be now put.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I moved, Sir, that the Question be now put.
    MR. SPEAKER: There is some little time left.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I beg to move to leave out all the words after "That," in order to insert—
    "This House, whilst approving the principle of Imperial legislation with regard to the closing of public-houses on Sunday, and willing to assent to a further limitation of the hours
    336
    than exists at present, cannot give its approval to a measure which enacts the closing of such houses during the entire day."
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out the whole of the words and to substitute an entirely different Resolution. I am afraid I cannot put the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
    Question put,
    The House divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 128: Majority 58.

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Glam.)

    Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

    Acland, A. H. D.

    Currie, Sir D.

    Acland, C. T. D.

    Curzon, hon. G. N.

    Allison, R. A.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Anderson, C. H.

    Duff, R. W.

    Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

    Ellis, J.

    Asher, A.

    Esslemont, P.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Evans, F. H.

    Atkinson, H. J.

    Ewart, Sir W.

    Banes, Major G. E.

    Farquharson, Dr. R.

    Barbour, W. B.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro-

    Baring, Viscount

    Finlay, R. B.

    Barran, J.

    Finucane, J.

    Bartley, G. C. T.

    Firth, J. F. B.

    Bentinck, W. G. C.

    Flower, C.

    Biggar, J. G.

    Flynn, J. C.

    Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

    Foljambe, C. G. S.

    Bolitho, T. B.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Foster, Sir W. B.

    Bolton, T. D.

    Fowler, rt. hon. H. H.

    Bright, Jacob

    Fry, T.

    Bright, W. L.

    Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

    Brown, A. H.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Brunner, J. T.

    Gourley, E. T.

    Buchanan, T. R.

    Gray, C. W.

    Burt, T.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Buxton, S. C.

    Haldane, R. B.

    Caldwell, J.

    Hanbury-Tracy, hon. F. S. A.

    Cameron, C.

    Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

    Cameron, J. M.

    Hastings, G. W.

    Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Causton, R. K.

    Hobhouse, H.

    Chamberlain, R.

    Holden, I.

    Channing, F. A.

    Howell, G.

    Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

    Hoyle, I.

    Cobb, H. P.

    Illingworth, A.

    Cochrane-Baillie, hon. C. W. A. N.

    Isaacson, F. W.

    Coghill, D. H.

    Jacoby, J. A.

    Coleridge, hon. B.

    James, hon. W. H.

    Collings, J.

    Jennings, L. J.

    Conybeare, C. A. V.

    Joicey, J.

    Cooke, C. W. R.

    Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J.

    Cossham, H.

    Kenny, C. S.

    Courtney, L. H.

    Kenrick, W.

    Cozens-Hardy, H. H.

    Kimber, H.

    Craig, J.

    Lawrance, J. C.

    Lawson, Sir W.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lawson, H. L. W.

    Craven, J.

    Leake, R.

    Crawford, D.

    Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

    Cremer, W. R.

    Lock wood, F.

    Crilly, D.

    Lowther, J. W.

    337

    Lubbock, Sir J.

    Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

    MacInnes, M.

    Rowlands, J.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Rowlands, W. B.

    Maclean, F. W.

    Rowntree, J.

    M'Arthur, W. A.

    Russell, Sir C.

    M'Donald, Dr. R.

    Russell, T. W.

    M'Ewan, W.

    Samuelson, G. B.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Schwann, C. E.

    M'Laren, W. S. B.

    Sidehotham, J. W.

    Mappin, Sir F. T.

    Sinclair, J.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Sinclair, W. P.

    Mildmay, F. B.

    Smith, S.

    Molloy B. C.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Morgan, O. V.

    Stanhope, hon. P. J.

    Morgan, W. P.

    Stepney-Cowell, Sir A. K.

    Morley, rt. hon. J.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    Morley, A.

    Stevenson, J. C.

    Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

    Stewart, H.

    Stewart, M. J.

    Neville, R.

    Stuart, J.

    Noble, W.

    Sullivan, D.

    Nolan, J.

    Summers, W.

    O'Brien, P.

    Swinburne, Sir J.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Tapling, T. K.

    Oldroyd, M.

    Taylor, F.

    O'Neill, hon. R. T.

    Thomas, A.

    Paulton, J. M.

    Thomas, D. A.

    Pease, H. F.

    Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

    Philipps, J. W.

    Vernon, hon. G. R.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Waddy, S. D.

    Picton, J. A.

    Wallace, R.

    Playfair, right hon. Sir L.

    Warmington, C. M.

    Plowden, Sir W. C.

    Watt, H.

    Portman, hon. E. B.

    Whitmore, C. A.

    Price, T. P.

    Will, J. S.

    Provand, A. D.

    Winterbotham, A. B.

    Rasch, Major F. G.

    Woodall, W.

    Reed. Sir E. J.

    Woodhead, J.

    Reid, E. T.

    Rendel, S.

    Richardson, T.

    Wright, C.

    Roberts, J.

    Roe, T.

    TELLERS.

    Rollit, Sir A. K.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    Roscoe, Sir H. E.

    Labouchere, H.

    NOES.

    Addison, J. E. W.

    Bruce, G.

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Burghley, Lord

    Ainslie, W. G.

    Campbell, Sir A.

    Allsopp, hon. G.

    Carmarthen, Marq. of

    Ambrose, W.

    Charrington, S.

    Baring, T. C.

    Clarke, Sir E. G.

    Barry, A. H. S.

    Compton, F.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Cotton, Captain E. T. D.

    Bass, H.

    Darling, C. J.

    Bates, Sir E.

    De Lisle, E. J. L. M. P.

    Baumann, A. A.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Beach, W. W. B.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Beadel, W. J.

    Dorington, Sir J. E.

    Beckett, W.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

    Duncombe, A.

    Bentinck, Lord H. C.

    Egerton, hon. A. de T.

    Beresford, Lord C. W. De la Poer

    Elliot, Sir G.

    Bethell, Commander G. R.

    Ellis, Sir J. W.

    Bigwood, J.

    Evershed, S.

    Bonsor, H. C. O.

    Eyre, Colonel H.

    Boord, T. W.

    Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

    Borthwick, Sir A.

    Field, Admiral E.

    Brookfield, A. M.

    Finch, G. H.

    338

    Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

    Long, W. H.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Maclean, J. M.

    Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

    Malcolm, Col. J. W.

    Forwood, A. B.

    Maple, J. B.

    Fraser, General C. C.

    Morrison, W.

    Fulton, J. F.

    Moss, R.

    Giles, A.

    Mount, W. G.

    Goldsworthy, Major-

    Muntz, P. A.

    General W. T.

    Murdoch, C. T.

    Granby, Marquess of

    Norris, E. S.

    Grimston, Viscount Hall, C.

    Paget, Sir E. H.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Parker, hon. F.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Parker, C. S.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    Pelly, Sir L.

    Hervey, Lord F.

    Penton, Captain F. T.

    Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

    Plunkett, hon. J. W.

    Hill, A. S.

    Powell, F. S.

    Hoare E. B.

    Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

    Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

    Reed, H. B.

    Howard, J.

    Robertson, Sir W. T.

    Hubbard, hon. E.

    Russell, Sir G.

    Hughes, Colonel E.

    Salt, T.

    Hunt, F. S.

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.

    Hunter, Sir W. G.

    Selwyn, Capt. C. W.

    Isaacs, L. H.

    Seton-Karr, H.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Smith, A.

    Jarvis, A. W.

    Spencer, J. E.

    Jeffreys, A. F.

    Stephens, H. C.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Stokes, G. G.

    Kerans, F. H.

    Temple, Sir E.

    King, H. S.

    Theobald, J.

    Knatchbull-Hugeseen, H. T.

    Tollemache, H. J.

    Knowles, L.

    Townsend, F.

    Lambert, C.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

    Wardle, H.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Webster, Sir E. E.

    Wharton, J. L.

    Whitley, E.

    Wilson, Sir S.

    Wood, N.

    Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

    Wright, H. S.

    Legh, T. W.

    TELLERS.

    Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

    Gedge, S.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Resolved, That this House is of opinion that it would be more conducive to the interests of temperance and to the principle of local self-government that the question of Sunday Closing should be relegated to the decision of the inhabitants of the localities in which the public-houses are situated.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  [Lords].—[BILL 318.]
  (The Lord Advocate.)

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL

    SECOND READING.
    Order for second reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be deferred till Monday next."
    MR. R. W. DUFF: asked, whether the Government really

    339
    intended to proceed with the Bill this Session?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he was not in a position to answer the Question, but if the hon. Gentleman would put the Question to-morrow he would endeavour to answer it.
    MR. R. W. DUFF: Will the Government give an answer at the meeting of the House to-morrow?
    MR. JACKSON: I will endeavour to do so.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  SCOTCH CROFTERS' EMIGRATION.

    SELECT COMMITTEE. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on appointment of Select Committee [22nd November] read and discharged.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  SUFFRAGANS' NOMINATION BILL
  [Lords].—[BILL 363.]
  (Mr. Tomlinson.)

  SUFFRAGANS' NOMINATION BILL

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be deferred till Tuesday next."
    MR. ILLINGWORTHasked, if it really was worth while to keep the Bill on the Paper? It was quite impossible at this period of the Session to discuss adequately a Bill of this kind, especially when so many other Bills affecting the Opposition had been treated very summarily.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, the Bill only contained one clause and might very easily be discussed in half an hour—say during one of the stages of the Appropriation Bill.
    MR. DILLWYNreminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that the First Lord of the Treasury had expressly stated that no contentious Business would be taken.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee deferred till Tuesday next.

  WALTHAM ABBEY GUNPOWDER FACTORY (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 273.]
  (Mr. Brodrick, Mr. Secretary Stanhope.)
  WALTHAM ABBEY GUNPOWDER FACTORY (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 273.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be deferred till Monday next."
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, there was very strong opposition to the Bill, therefore it surely would be well, in view of the period of the Session, that the Order should be discharged.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)said, he could not accept the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. The Bill had been before a Select Committee composed of Members from all Parties. The Committee, with the exception of one Member, were unanimous in their approval of the Bill, and the dissenting Member only objected to one clause. He would not go into the details of the Bill, but merely add that the whole object of the Bill was to provide for the public safety. He sincerely hoped the hon. Gentleman would re-consider his determination to oppose the Bill, because he was persuaded that after half-an-hour's discussion the House would be prepared to pass the Bill.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that precisely the same argument might be urged with reference to half-a-dozen Bills. Surely the public safety might be secured without doing injustice to private individuals.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.
    It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.