Commons Sitting of 16 July 1888

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Third Reading—Greenock Harbour, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Bribery (Public Bodies) Prevention* [335]; Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations)* [336].
Report from Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures—Railway and Canal Traffic [190–333].
Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [Nineteenth Night]—R.P.
Withdrawn—Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland* [201]; Technical Instruction* [270].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—First Reading—Elementary Education Confirmation (London)* [334].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  GREENOCK HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (by Order.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. CALDWELLsaid, he had placed on the Paper the following Motion:—
    "That the Bill be re-committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills. That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power, if they think fit, to insert provisions in the Bill that the Bill shall not affect any priority of right or rights of preference under the Law existing prior to the passing of said Bill into Law, which may have been acquired by the Loyal Vale of Clyde Lodge of Oddfellows, No. 2736, of the Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society, under an action at their instance against the Trustees of the Port and Harbours of Greenock for £600 interest and expenses, raised on 1st March, 1888, and in which action decree has been granted in favour of the said Friendly Society."
    He knew that it was objectionable to oppose a Private Bill upon the third reading; but the explanation he had to give in regard to the Greenock Bill was a very simple one. A certain Friendly Society had acquired rights of preference against the Trustees of the port and harbours of Greenook to the extent of £600 interest and expenses—an action having been brought by them, and a decree granted in its favour. The contention of the Harbour Trustees was that an arrangement had been made by them in which the Oddfellows had acquiesced, whereby the interest upon their debentures was to be determined by the Court of Quarter Sessions in an action then pending. The Friendly Society, however,

    1377
    maintained that it had entered into no such bargain, and that it considered their funds perfectly free. The result was that the Bill went before the Committee as an unopposed Bill, and no steps were taken to give evidence, because the demand of the Society was then pending in a Court of Law. Since then, and after the decision of the Committee was given, judgment had been given by the Court of Quarter Sessions, which made the demand of the Society a legal one, and he had therefore placed his Amendment on the Paper in regard to the third reading of the Bill. No doubt, it would be said that it was an unusual course to object to a Bill which had been hitherto unopposed, and to abstain from opposing it until it came before the House for a third reading. He thought, however, that the Society had acted rightly in not opposing the Bill before, on account of the extreme expense that would be involved in opposing a Private Bill. In this case the Friendly Society was simply a body of working men, and it would have been very difficult for a body of that kind, having an interest only to the extent of £600, to have opposed a Company with £1,500,000 at their back. The Oddfellows' Society were quite justified in the course they took in pressing their claim before the Court of Quarter Sessions. It might seem to have been a smart action on their part that they should endeavour to secure a right of precedence under the laws that existed prior to the passing of this Bill to the amount of their bonds; but he did not think that such a course was unknown in business transactions. At any rate, the Society had gone into Court, and had acquired a legal preference in respect of their £600 bonds. The Amendment which he had prepared was to prevent the Trustees from using the Bill in order to bar the right the Society had acquired prior to the passing of the Bill. It provided that if, according to law, the Society had acquired a right of preference in respect to their bond, and interest and expenses, they were not to be deprived of their vested interest by an Act of Parliament. It had always been recognized that Parliament was entitled to interfere between rights that were pending; but when a bondholder had got preference as against other existing bondholders, and had acquired by diligence that right
    1378
    of preference, no Act of Parliament should take away from him any right he might have so acquired. That was the contention of the Oddfellows' Society now. They maintained that having acquired by diligence a priority of preference, and having obtained it as late as the present month, they were thoroughly justified in asking the House to insert a clause in the Bill to the effect that nothing should interfere with any vested rights they might have acquired prior to the passing of the measure. Having stated the grounds on which he had put the Amendment down upon the Paper, he thought it right to state that he did not mean to press the Amendment in the present stage of the Bill. It was extremely difficult, on the one hand, to say how far the Oddfellows' Society had acquired a legal right of preference; and, on the other hand, it was doubtful how far the Bill would take away that right, if it had been acquired. Therefore, as the amount involved was not a very large sum, and looking to the immense amount of Stock owned by the other bondholders, amounting in the aggregate to £1,500.000, he did not think it would be to the public interest if he were to detain the House by entering further into the matter. He should, therefore, not move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  BALLINA AND KILLALA RAILWAY AND HARBOUR BILL (by Order).
  [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [13th July], "That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee."—(Mr. Kimber.)
  Report of Committee read.
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA, in supporting the re-committal of the Bill, said, that all the requisite preliminaries had been complied with; but after having undergone investigation at the hands of the Committee to which it was referred by the House, it had been rejected on grounds which it would be found no longer existed,

  1379
  The object of the Bill was simply to obtain an extension of time for the construction of a line of railway which was authorized to be made five years ago, and which, when made, would be of great advantage to the locality. He, therefore, approved of the proposal that the Bill should be re-committed to the former Committee for further consideration.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, that as Chairman of the Committee to whom the Bill had been referred, and who had unanimously rejected it, it was his duty to point out to the House why the present most unusual Motion should not be accepted. There were two points referred to the Committee—one was the question of the bona fides of the promoters; and the other was the question of the sufficiency of the estimates. As to the question of bona fides no evidence of the bona fides of the promoters was given; but the proof was rather the other way. There was every evidence of the want of bona fides adduced before the Committee. The promoters obtained permission five years ago to construct a railway of about nine miles in length. The engineer of the line, a Mr. Fraser, gave an estimate of £42,000 for the construction; but another competent engineer stated that it ought not to exceed more than £26,000; in addition to that a harbour was to be constructed at Killala at a cost of £46,000, and a guarantee had been obtained from the barony of £40,000. Since the Bill authorizing the construction of the line was passed, no steps had been taken by the promoters to carry out the bargain entered into five years ago. No evidence in support of the bona fides of the promoters had been produced, nor any evidence to show any real effort to obtain the capital. There were no shareholders. In point of fact, it did not appear that anyone took the least interest in the line, except the engineer himself. The local interest in the matter was represented by nobody. The only Irish witness which came before the Committee in support of the Bill was Mr. Fraser, the speculative engineer himself, and undoubtedly he had a considerable interest in the contract. The barony, although it had been induced some years ago to give assent to the scheme, now objected to the proposals of Mr. Fraser, and resolutions had been passed both at
  1380
  Ballina and Killala against the scheme. Six parishes, in which were two-thirds of the whole population of the barony, had held a meeting at which a resolution condemning the scheme was passed. That afforded a convincing proof that the barony did not desire that a speculative engineer should go on with the construction of the line. He would not say, for a moment, that it might not be desirable that some day or other a line of this kind should be made; but he did not think it desirable that permission should be given to those gentlemen to extend the time for carrying out their project. He did not think that the estimates could be relied upon. So far as the contracts were concerned, those which were put before the Committee were not complete. One was put in, which they were told was complete; but it was a contract which no Committee ought to accept. He was bound to say, as Chairman of Committees on Railways for many years, that he had never seen such a proposal before. The Bill proposed to authorize a capital of £150,000, whereas the entire cost ought not to exceed £60,000. On that ground alone the Bill ought to be rejected; but there was another and still more important reason—namely, that the gentlemen who promoted the Bill had failed to support it by any substantial evidence. The promoters thought that they had now found out what the points were in which they had failed before the Committee, and then asked to be allowed to supply further evidence. It was, therefore, evident that the Motion before the House was simply to obtain a fresh inquiry. He thought the Bill ought not to be passed, and he should oppose the Motion.
  MR. CHANCEsaid, he was completely at variance not only with the conclusions the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had drawn from the facts, but also with his statement of the facts of the case. At the same time, he must say that it was perfectly evident, to any person who knew anything about the Bill, that the decision to which the Committee, over which the hon. Baronet presided, arrived was not only the proper, but the only decision a Committee of that House could have come to on the facts then before it. He wished, in the first place, to deal with a few of the statements which the hon. Baronet made. He said, in the first place, that

  1381
  a speculative engineer was the only person interested in the line. Now, he (Mr. Chance) thought it would have been desirable, before the hon. Baronet cast a slur upon the character of an individual who was not represented in that House, that he should have made himself acquainted with the facts. If he had done so, he might have easily discovered that the Deputy Lieutenant of the county (Sir Charles Knox-Gore), through whose property the line ran for six miles, and several other gentlemen of position were members of the Board of Directors. It was, therefore, singular, under such circumstances, that the hon. Baronet should get up in that House and say that the Bill was a matter of interest to one individual only, and that individual a speculative engineer. But the hon. Baronet got deeper in the mire as he went on. He had produced a telegram, no doubt, in the innocence of his heart, which had been received from an hon. Member who opposed the Bill, stating that meetings were held yesterday in the localities in which the Bill was opposed. It would appear that six meetings were held, and that they were organized by an individual from Belfast; but it would not appear that even 100 persons took part in the whole of the six meetings. It was perfectly consistent with the statement contained in the telegram referred to by the hon. Baronet that five or six gentlemen chartered an outside car drove round the district, and held the meetings one after another. He asked the House to consider what the proposed line was. The harbour at Killala had been characterized as of but little use; but it had been stated strongly by no less an authority than Sir Thomas Brady, in the second Report of the Commission on Public Works in Ireland, that the Commissioners unanimously recommended the harbour as one of the 12 that ought to be constructed in Ireland; the only opponent was Lord Annaly, who admitted that the harbour would be most valuable, but took up this extraordinary position—he knew that large fishing operations could be carried out upon that coast; but he objected to the construction of the harbour until large fishing boats showed a desire to come to the place—that was to say, that he desired the effect to be produced before the cause. Now the railway was a line nine miles in length, and it had also
  1382
  been condemned by the hon. Baronet; but it was strongly recommended by Mr. Tuke, on page 648 of the Appendix of the Report of the Commission. Mr. Tuke strongly recommended it as an independent line, altogether leaving out the question of carrying it further on to Belmullet. The promoters had been de-scribed as speculators, but they were men of position and influence who had a large interest in the locality. All they could possibly get under the Act of 1853, even if this extension of time were granted, was 5 per cent for 25 years, and the payment of that sum of £2,000 a-year depended entirely upon the construction of the harbour and the working and maintenance of the line and harbour. Whether the line succeeded or failed, no further guarantee would be given by the barony, and he asked the House to consider what the barony was getting for its money; it was to give £2,000 a-year for 25 years, and in return was to receive a harbour, costing £35,000, and a railway that would cost £40,000. He thought the harbour and railway would be a very good return, indeed, for a guarantee of £2,000 a-year. By the Act of 1883 it was provided that the guarantee should be first charged on the whole concern. Consequently, the barony would become the absolute proprietors of the line, if it was found to be an unsuccessful undertaking. The moment the line ceased to work, it would become the absolute property of the barony. He quite admitted that it would be dangerous and wrong to lay down for universal or even large application the principle to the promoters of public undertakings should be at liberty to apply constantly for an extension of time for the completion of their undertaking. But it must be borne in mind that this line would be constructed on terms that would be economical to the directors and beneficent to the people. It would open out an enormous fishing field upon the West Coast of Ireland, and under no consideration could the promoters make a penny out of the transaction as the Bill now stood. It must be borne in mind that the construction of the line was originally authorized in 1883, and that the opposition to the present measure came from one individual, one local landlord alone, whose contribution to the guarantee would amount at the most to £120 a-year. Even if the Bill had been ob-

  1383
  jected to, and condemned in a resolution passed in the district, it must not be forgotten that in 1883 it was adopted both by the Grand Jury and the Board of Guardians, and in 1885 a resolution was passed giving a perpetual guarantee which it was now proposed to get rid of. There was only one other observation of the hon. Baronet which he wished to deal with—namely, the position of the barony. He could not understand what that House had to do with the question of the barony. The liability of the barony was confined to £2,000 a-year conditional on the making of the line. He maintained that the promoters had shown the utmost bona fides in promoting the line. Although they knew that the guarantee was conditional with the successful making of the line, they had undertaken to go on with the work; and not only Sir Thomas Brady and Mr. Tuke, gentlemen possessing the highest knowledge upon the subject, but also Captain Walmsley, Sir John Cooto, and others, had strongly recommended the construction of this line and harbour. He admitted that he would not in any case have supported the Bill in the interests of the promoters alone. He apprehended that whatever happened to the Bill they would lose their money, but that was no concern of the House. The construction of the line would give employment to 200 people almost continuously for two years in a most impoverished district; it would develop the fisheries of the coast, and the inhabitants of the locality were nearly unanimous in its favour, with the exception of a few individuals in the town of Ballina; he therefore hoped that the House would consent to the Motion. After the observations which had been made by the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid), he thought the House ought to hear the opinions of some other Members of the Committee. He held in his hand a copy of the agreement for the construction of the works and the issue of capital. The agreement for the construction was to complete the work for £100,000. He ventured to say that if those documents had been produced when the case was before the Select Committee, at least three out of five of the Members would have recommended the passing of the Bill. Under these circumstances, he should certainly support the Motion.
  MR. COURTNEY KENNYsaid, that, as one of the Members of the Committee, he wished to remark that he thoroughly endorsed the statement of facts which the hon. Baronet the Member for South Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had laid before the House, and he believed they would also be endorsed by the other Members of the Committee. The hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) had laid great stress on the position occupied by the members of the Board of Directors of the Company. Now, the Committee had been struck by the fact that none of the Directors of the Company had been called before them, except one single individual who did not appear to have any local interest.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to say a few words to explain that he was one of those who opposed the Bill, and that he hoped the decision of the Committee would be adhered to. His hon. Friend (Mr. Chance), who spoke a few minutes ago, had not correctly stated what the provisions of the Bill were. First of all, the holders of preference shares were made liable; but if the line did not pay the working expenses, and it certainly would never do so, the ratepayers would make up the difference between the income and the working expenses, so that, in point of fact, the liability of the ratepayers was practically unlimited. In addition to that, the promoters of the Bill had issued a circular of a most absurd character, stating that a line of steamers was to run from Ballina to Killala in conjunction with a line of railway only eight miles long. It was impossible to imagine that a line of steamers would be laid down from Killala to any part of Scotland in opposition to the line of steamers which existed already. He believed that an attempt had been made to get an expression of an opinion from the people of the locality on Sunday morning after Mass. The opinion obtained from six parishes possessing two-thirds of the rateable value of the district was that they were resolved not to support the Bill. Under these circumstances, he asked the House to object to the proposition now made.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that before the House

  1385
  came to a decision he should like to explain the reason of the vote he was about to give. He did not think it necessary or proper at that stage to discuss the merits of a project which was sanctioned by a Committee of the House five years ago. He would only say that the Commission, after examining the evidence, distinctly stated that, in their opinion, no advantage would be derived by the fishing industry by the construction of the harbour at Killala. The hon. Member who asserted that the harbour would be of great advantage for the fishing industry could hardly have consulted the Report of the Commission, which was entirely to the contrary effect. It was not necessary, however, for the House to consider that question. A very strong Committee of that House had gone into the matter, and had reported upon it, the conclusion they arrived at being that, considering a period of five years had elapsed since the time the Company were authorized to construct the railway, and all the attendant circumstances, there was convincing proof that this was not a bonâ fide transaction. He must say that such facts as he had seen led him to the same conclusion as the Committee. After the lapse of five years since the original Bill was passed, it would be a very strong case indeed which should induce the House to take upon itself the responsibility of over-ruling the decision of the Committee upstairs.
  MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he concurred with the views which had been expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and he desired to say why he opposed the Bill. There were many circumstances in the South of Ireland which rendered it most desirable that the House should hold its hand before endorsing schemes of this kind, which would have the result of sinking the country in debt. It had been stated by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Chance) that the construction of the railway would create a fishing industry. Now, he had always understood that it was the railways that followed the fish, and not the fish that followed the railways. That had certainly been the case in the fishing ports of the South of Ireland. He should vote against the proposal to re-commit the Bill.
  MR. CHANCEasked, by the indulgence of the House, to be allowed to correct an unintentional misrepresentation which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Committee did not recommend the construction of the harbour at Killala in the interests of the fishing industry. What the Committee said was, that they could not recommend a large outlay. The locality would now be getting both the harbour and railway for £2,000 a-year, which was a very different thing.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 206: Majority 177.—(Div. List, No. 218.)

QUESTIONS.

  WAR OFFICE—VICTORIA BARRACKS, BELFAST.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the officers' quarters in Victoria Barracks, Belfast, were condemned, in 1883, as unfit for occupation, owing to frequent cases occurring of enteric fever; and, whether these quarters are now in use as a hospital for soldiers?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The officers' quarters referred to were condemned as officers' quarters because they were found unsuitable for the purpose, and not because of the frequent occurrences of cases of enteric fever. On the contrary, no case of enteric fever has originated in this building. It is now used as an infectious diseases ward; but I shall be glad when it is possible to provide a better place.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)— GEORGE AND WILLIAM DODD, PAUPERS, SLEAFORD UNION.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the case of George Dodd, a pauper, in the parish of Wilsford in the Sleaford Union; whether it is a fact that, on June 11, 1888, the relieving officer refused relief to George Dodd, although the medical officer had, two days previously, or-

  1387
  dered him nourishing diet, he being seriously ill; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the case; also, whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the circumstances attending the death of William Dodd, a pauper in the parish of Wilsford, in the Sleaford Union, on May 11, 1888; and, whether there is any reason to believe that William Dodd's death was accelerated by want of proper attention on the part of the Guardians, medical officer of the district, or relieving officer; and, if so, whether he will cause an investigation to be made into the matter?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. LONG): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to reply to his two Questions. The attention of the Local Government Board had not been drawn to the cases of these persons prior to the Notice of the Questions; but it is evident that they are cases in which an inquiry should be held by an Inspector of the Board, and the Board have directed an inquiry accordingly.

  LABOURERS' DWELLINGS ACT (IRELAND)—.ARDU UNION.
  MR. NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that more than two years have elapsed since the first steps were taken for the erection of dwellings in the Ardu Union under the Labourers' Dwellings Act, and that an absolute order was granted in August, 1887; that the necessary notices to landlords, &c., for fixing fair rents were delivered ready for service to the solicitor to the Board of Guardians, Ardu Union, last December; and, if he can state the cause of this great waste of time, and say who is responsible for it?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The lands to be taken compulsorily for the purpose are to be acquired (1) by purchase, in regard to which the arbitration proceedings are in progress; and (2) by lease, with respect to which the necessary notices for service on owners and occupiers were sent to the Guardians' solicitor on December 16, 1887; but the Land Commission having declared them to be defective, further
  1388
  proceedings were necessary, which, however, have now been fully carried out, and the cases have been delegated for hearing before a Sub-Commission at the beginning of next month. The solicitor to the Guardians reports that there has been no unnecessary delay on his part in the matter.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—FAIR RENTS, &c., CO. LOUTH.
  MR. NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many applications from County Louth to have fair rents fixed remained unheard on June 30; on what date, and in what town, will the next sitting of a Sub-Commission be held in County Louth; and, if he could state the names of the Sub-Commissioners selected to act on this occasion?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me that the fair rent applications in question number 831. The Commissioners are not at present in a position to fix the date of the next sitting of a Sub-Commission in the county, nor can they name the gentlemen who will compose it.

  THE TITHE AGITATION (WALES)— EMPLOYMENT OF THE MILITARY.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state the amount of expenditure incurred through the employment of military in Wales in connection with the collection of tithe-rent charge?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The cost of the employment of troops in Wales in connection with the collection of tithes in January last and recently was about £197.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked, whether any part of the cost of the employment of the military in Wales had been thrown upon the local rates?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No; I think not.

  THE TITHE AGITATION (WALES)— LEVYING OF DISTRAINTS.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the

  1389
  Home Department, Whether he can state the number of distraints levied for tithe rent-charge in Wales during the last two years?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, as distress warrants were got at the instance of private individuals, he could not state the number of distraints, as no record was kept anywhere.

  THE TITHE AGITATION (WALES)—THE DISTURBANCE AT LLANEFYDD.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Major Leadbetter, the Chief Constable of Denbighshire, in his Quarterly Report to the Quarter Sessions held last week, stated that the recent tithe disturbance at Llanefydd was commenced by a person named William Jones striking Mr. Stevens, the tithe bailiff; whether the Grand Jury made a presentment that such Report was inaccurate and misleading, and should be regarded as one-sided; whether the Chief Constable has made a similar Report to the Home Office; whether he will cause an independent inquiry to be made into the accuracy of the official Report so made by Major Leadbetter; whether, notwithstanding the alleged disturbed state of the county, the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions was presented with white gloves, owing to there being no prisoners to be tried; and, whether, having regard to this proof of the peacefulness of the county, Her Majesty's Government will, in future, decline to allow the military forces to be employed in Denbighshire?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The answer to the first three paragraphs is in the affirmative. I am informed by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions that the Report of the Chief Constable was fully discussed by the Court, many of the magistrates having been present at the tithe disturbance. The magistrates unanimously passed a resolution that the Court, while deeply regretting the disturbances which had arisen in some parts of the county connected with the payment of tithe rent-charge, and having heard the Special Report of the Chief Constable, is of opinion that the Chief Constable and police have acted with discretion; and that the magistrates
  1390
  were fully justified in deciding to call out the military in aid of the civil power for the maintenance of law and order in this county. I see no reason for ordering a further inquiry into the details of the disturbance. No one alleged that the county was in a disturbed state, and there was a gratifying absence of ordinary crime; but, so long as the magistrates see reason to anticipate disturbances in connection with the enforcement of tithe, the Government will not decline to render them such assistance as, under the circumstances, may be thought necessary.

  COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION ACT, 1887—CLAUSE 12.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is now his intention to cause Clause 12 of "The Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Act, 1887," to be universally observed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, it was his intention that all the provisions of the clause, so far as lay in his power, should be universally observed.

  STATE OF IRELAND—BOYCOTTING— DESECRATION OF A GRAVE AT WOODFORD.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN (Westmeath, S.) (for Mr. SHEEHY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he saw a statement about a fortnight ago in The Standard and other Conservative papers, which purported to give details of a revolting act of desecration of a grave at Woodford, reciting how a man named Whaley was Boycotted up to the hour of his death; how after death the funeral was only attended by the widow and her children; and how, a few nights after the burial—
  "The coffin was dug up and placed standing on its head, leaning against the wall of the graveyard;"
  and, whether he has caused any inquiry to be made into the truth or falsehood of this story; and, if so, can he state whether there is any truth in it?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I find that the man referred to had, for taking the herding of a farm, been subject to

  1391
  annoyance; and that at the Summer Assizes last year six persons were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for assaulting and intimidating him, and from that time up to the date of his death he was under police protection. The funeral was only attended by the widow and son of the deceased, together with the police who had been protecting him. It took place at a very early hour of the morning, and was kept as private as possible, at the expressed wish of the deceased. The man's grave does not appear to have been interfered with.

  WAR OFFICE (AUXILIARY FORCES)— UNIFORM OF VOLUNTEER OFFICERS.
  MR. C. H. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Why Volunteer officers clothed in scarlet are not allowed to wear sashes; and, whether it is the intention of the Government, when the new Regulations come into force making Volunteers liable to be embodied with the Militia, to allow Volunteer officers to wear gold lace, and otherwise to assimilate their uniforms to those of the other Auxiliary Forces of the country?
  THE SECRETARY of STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): It is considered advisable to maintain a distinction between the uniforms of the Regular and Volunteer Forces; but I should add that there are already great complaints of the heavy expenses which fall on officers holding commissions in the Volunteer Force, and it would be very undesirable to add to them.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—DRONFIELD PETTY SESSIONS—SENTENCE ON A LAD FOR FISHING.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, as reported in The Derbyshire Times of July 7, at Dronfield Petty Sessions, a lad, William Barber, was fined 30 s., including costs, and in default of payment was committed to gaol with hard labour for 14 days for attempting to take fish, to wit, minnows, by letting down into the stream a glass bottle fastened round the neck by a piece of
  1392
  string; and, whether he will take any action in the case?
  THE SECRETARY of STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The magistrates inform me that William Barber is a lad 19 or 20 years of age, who was fined 6s., and 14 s. costs. The magistrates were of opinion that he was catching minnows as a bait for trout. He was fishing in a trout stream where poaching has been rife by youths from Sheffield, who have repeatedly been warned and dismissed without fines; but the practice has continued. Barber has undergone his sentence. There is no ground for any action on my part.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether it was not the fact that the evidence went to show that the boy was fishing with a glass bottle with a string round the neck; and whether that was the usual way of fishing for trout?
  [No reply.]

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES) BILL.
  MR. T. SUTHERLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade, If, in the present state of Public Business, it is the intention of the Government to persevere with the Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Bill; and, if not, whether he would consider the advisability of nominating a Departmental Committee, consisting of practical men (somewhat analogous to the Load Line Committee), to consider proposals and formulate Rules with regard to the nature and extent of life saving appliances which should be carried in vessels of different classes, with a view to increase the security of life at sea, without, at the same time, placing shipping under disadvantages which would be likely to cause injury to the carrying trade of this country, the Report of such Committee to form the basis of whatever legislation might be considered necessary on this subject?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The course proposed in the second part of the hon. Member's Question is precisely that which is proposed in the Merchant Shipping (Life Saving Appliances) Bill, to which he objects; and it was adopted upon the unanimous recommendation of a Select Committee of this House, of which the hon. Gentleman was himself a

  1393
  Member. With regard to the first part of the Question, I am prepared to amend the Bill by inserting in it provision for the special representation of Liverpool and the Clyde ports on the Committee which it proposes to constitute; and, as the Bill has already passed through the other House, I hope to be able to pass it into law this year. If I am unable to do so, owing to the opposition of the hon. Member, I must throw on him the responsibility of stopping a change in the law which, while it will relieve ships which do not carry passengers from a liability now imposed on them, will certainly add to the chances of safety of both crews and passengers of passenger-carrying vessels.
  MR. T. SUTHERLANDasked, whether the Committee was intended to be permanent or temporary?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he must refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Bill. The Committee, as the hon. Gentleman would remember, was proposed first to prepare Rules for the sanction of the Board of Trade and of this House, and would be summoned together afterwards when necessary.

  POST OFFICE—CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
  MR. COGHILLasked the Postmaster General, Whether, when the contract for a three years' supply of clothing for the Post Office was entered into in April last, one of the stipulations of that contract was that all work was to be made up on the contractor's own premises, and whether he required and received assurances from the firm to whom the contract was given that this condition would be complied with; whether he has had his attention called to the fact that the contractor in question has given out some of the Post Office clothing to sweaters; and, whether he received a tender from a firm at Newcastle-under-Lyme, in which they engaged to finish all the garments entirely on their own factory, and to give out no work to be done up off their premises; also, whether the successful contractor for the Post Office clothing in April last was allowed to amend his tender after first sending it in; and, whether the same privilege was extended to other competing contractors?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): It is stipulated in the contract that all the garments needed by the Post Office shall be made on the contractor's own premises; and the Secretary of State for War, by whom the contract was made on my behalf, has the power to order the contractor's premises to be inspected from time to time. I have no information on the point raised in the second part of the hon. Member's Question; but the contract provides for the infliction of a fine of £100 for each proved offence. If the hon. Member can supply me with any information, the matter shall be inquired into. A tender for the contract was received from a firm at Newcastle-under-Lyme; but the prices named were higher than those quoted by the firm to which the contract was given. The successful contractor for supplying uniform clothing to the Department was allowed to amend his tender after sending it in, so far as to add to the prices quoted an additional sum to provide for the manufacture of garments on his own premises. It was unnecessary to offer a like opportunity to other competing contractors, inasmuch as the terms of their tenders were higher than the terms of the successful contractor, even after they had been increased by a sum to provide against sweating.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877—PRISON DISCIPLINE—COMPULSORY WEARING OF PRISON CLOTHES.
  MR. BRUNNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Under what Act of Parliament, and section, or bye-law, Rule, or Order made in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, and duly authorized, is a Prison Governor entitled to forcibly strip, and leave naked, a prisoner sentenced to a term of imprisonment with or without hard labour, in order to compel such prisoner to clothe himself in prison clothes?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The authority referred to is Rule 28 of the Local Prison Rules, which imperatively directs that a—
  "Convicted criminal prisoner shall be provided with a complete prison dress, and shall be required to wear it."

  1395
  This Rule was framed under the provision contained in Section 12 of 40 & 41 Vict., c. 49. It is also identical in terms with the similar Rule relating to English prisons, contained in Section 23 of Schedule 1 to the Prisons Act of 1865.
  MR. BRUNNER: But is this treatment of a prisoner not in conflict with the Rule which provides that no violence should be used, or restraint imposed, on a prisoner without the authority of the Visiting Justices?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I apprehend it is not so.
  MR. FLYNNasked, why was not the Rule referred to by the right hon. Gentleman carried out in the case of Father Ryan?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked for Notice of the Question.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—MR. P. O'BRIEN, M.P.—RELEASE AND RE-ARREST.
  MR. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. P. O'Brien, M.P., on his release from Tullamore Prison on Wednesday morning, after completing a term of four months' imprisonment, was re-arrested and conveyed to Kilkenny to undergo a further term of three months; whether this latter sentence was inflicted while Mr. O'Brien was in custody on the first charge; whether, under the circumstances, the sentence should run from the first day of the Sessions; whether this practice was followed in the case of the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy); and, whether any power lies with a Judge deciding an appeal to stay the execution of one sentence until that inflicted by another Judge shall have terminated?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The facts are as stated in the first and second paragraphs of the Question. In the case referred to in the fourth paragraph, the Judge directed that the sentence should run from the first day of the Sessions. No such direction was given in the case of the hon. Member for North Monaghan. As regards the legal question suggested as to the commencement of the term of imprisonment in the latter case, I have directed the matter to be submitted to the Law Officers for their opinion.

  FRANCHISE ACT (IRELAND)—LISTS OF VOTERS—MR. S. M'DERMOTT.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has any further information to give to the House as to the case of Mr. Samuel M'Dermott, who has been employed in making up the lists of voters in Derry?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the only further information he had received on the subject was a Report from the Clerk of the Union, to the effect that Mr. M'Dermott's employment with him had ceased before the end of last month.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—MR. E. K. SUPPLE, D.I., DUNDALK.
  MR. NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Mr. E. K. Supple, D.I., Royal Irish Constabulary, was summoned by Mr. James Callan, Bridge Street, Dundalk, before Petty Sessions, held in Dundalk on June 29, for having used language calculated to provoke a breach of the peace; and that, during the hearing of the case, it was sworn by three respectable witnesses that Mr. Supple said to the plaintiff on June 20 "I will get your neck wrung off;" that, notwithstanding Mr. Supple's denial of the charge, the judgment of the Court was that—
  "We believe that Mr. Supple may have used the language complained of; but we do not consider it was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace;"
  how long has Mr. Supple been stationed in Dundalk; what is the usual limit of time which Inspectors in the Royal Irish Constabulary are allowed to remain in one district; whether be is aware that last year Mr. Supple, in an action brought against him for assault, battery, and false imprisonment, settled the case by the payment of £20 and the plaintiff's costs; and, in consequence of the evidence in that action, was condemned by the Court, severely admonished by the Inspector General, and publicly censured in this House by the Under Secretary for Ireland; and, whether, taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, he will,

  1397
  if he cannot see his way to taking more prompt and vigorous action, order an open inquiry into the general character and conduct of Mr. Supple in his present position?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that the summons against the District Inspector named was in connection with his having, by direction of the Divisional Magistrate, ordered a disorderly mob to disperse. The magistrates did say that the language in question, which was deposed to by Mr. Callan and two witnesses, may have been used by the District Inspector; but that they did not consider it was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. They marked the case "no rule." The District Inspector, however, states he did not use the words attributed to him. He has been stationed at Dundalk since 1859. There is, I understand, no time fixed for an officer to serve in a district. I am aware of the Parliamentary Question of last Session alluded to, and the circumstances which gave rise to it. I do not see any necessity to adopt the course suggested in the concluding portion of the Question.

  THE POLICE FORCE—PAYMENT OF PENSIONS.
  MR. CAUSTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it could be arranged, in future, to pay the pensions of Police Officers weekly instead of quarterly (as at present), and that the amounts should be remitted to the Post Offices nearest to the residences of the pensioners?
  THE SECRETARY of STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Pensions are now paid quarterly in advance; and it would not be practicable to pay them weekly owing to the clerical labour involved. Any pensioner who desires his pension to be remitted to him by means of a post-office order has, under the existing Regulations, merely to apply to the Receiver of Police, and his request will be complied with.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— THE GRACETOWN NATIONAL SCHOOL, CO. TIPPERARY.
  MR. J. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  1398
  Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the gratuity for instructing the Assistant of the Gracetown National School, County Tipperary, has not been paid, although it is due for nearly a year?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The National Education Commissioners inform me that there is no gratuity payable in the case in question. The Rule governing the award of such gratuities requires that not more than 12 months shall have elapsed between the pupil's first examination and the date of his leaving as a pupil the school of his former instructor. In the case alluded to a period of upwards of 15 months had elapsed.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT—MUNSTER DAIRY AND AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has received a copy of a Resolution passed at a public meeting of the subscribers and friends of the Munster Dairy and Agricultural School, on the 23rd ultimo, calling upon the Government to afford such further assistance to the Committee of the Munster Dairy and Agricultural School as will enable them to provide and maintain a suitable farm for the education of male agricultural pupils; and, whether the Government are prepared to take any steps with a view to carry out the important measures suggested in the Resolution?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have not seen a copy of the Resolution referred to; nor can the Government, I am afraid, enter into any undertaking in the matter.

  ARMY—PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS —ERROR IN AN EXAMINATION PAPER.
  MR. CRAIG SELLARasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that, at the late examination of candidates for ad-mission to Sandhurst Military College, one of the mathematical papers contained a question of impossible solution, in consequence of which the paper was cancelled; whether the candidates, after returning home, some of them to great distances, were recalled to London for examination on a substituted paper;

  1399
  and, whether the Government, in consequence of the unnecessary expenses to which the candidates have been put through the mistake of an examiner under the direction of the Civil Service Commissioners, will refund to each candidate the outlay thus caused?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): I am afraid that there can be no doubt that some inconvenience has been caused to candidates for Sandhurst by the necessity to come up for a second algebra paper; but I am sure that the Civil Service Commissioners regret that inconvenience as heartily as I do myself. It appears, however, that in no other way could the consequences of the error in the first paper be remedied; and I do not see how we can admit a claim for re-imbursement of the extra expenses incurred by the candidates without raising many awkward questions, which the amount at stake in any particular case would scarcely make it worth while to raise.
  MR. CRAIG SELLARgave Notice that he would call further attention to the matter in Committee of Supply.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) ACT, 1885 (ADVANCES AND APPLICATIONS)— THE RETURN.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, When the Return of Proceedings under "The Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1885," ordered 4th May, will be presented?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN), in reply, said, if the hon. Member would accept the Return in the form ordered by the House of Lords on the Motion of Lord FitzGerald on the 18th June, there would be no difficulty whatever in getting it.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Will it be amended?
  MR. MADDEN: It will be slightly amended. I have explained to the hon. Member the difficulty of granting a Return in the exact terms of his Motion.

  WAR OFFICE—THE HORSE ARTILLERY —AMMUNITION COLUMNS.
  GENERAL FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the strengthening of the attenuated batteries of Horse Artillery, promised by the Government at the time of
  1400
  the reduction of certain batteries in April, 1887, has yet been carried out; and, whether the ammunition columns promised, as the result of that reduction, have yet been formed?
  THE SECRETARY of STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Three batteries only of the Royal Horse Artillery are at the lower establishment of four guns each. I shall be glad if it be possible to make these also six-gun batteries; but the primary duty this year appeared to be to provide for certain additions to the garrison artillery, urgently required for the defence of the Empire. The mode of providing the ammunition columns which was proposed by the Military Authorities in 1887 was the conversion of 14 existing field batteries into ammunition columns; but there is a scheme now before me for providing the nucleus of these columns for home defence in another way.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—SENTENCE ON MR. LATCHFORD, J.P., AT TRALEE.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as to the case of Mr. Latchford, J.P., who was sentenced on June 9, at Tralee, to a month's imprisonment, Whether the two Resident Magistrates refused to increase the sentence for the purpose of appeal, and also refused to state a case; on what grounds proceedings were taken under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act instead of in the ordinary Court of Petty Sessions; by whose authority the case was tried under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and, to whom the duty is, in practice, committed of determining when proceedings shall be taken under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I am informed that there was no question of law involved, and therefore no case was stated. The proceedings were instituted under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, the case being one of riot, in which the ordinary Petty Sessions Court has no summary jurisdiction. The Divisional Magistrate directed the trial of the case under the Act mentioned. In practice, the duty of determining when proceed-

  1401
  ings shall be taken under that Act is committed to the Divisional Magistrate of the district in which the offence occurs.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I wish to know whether in a case like this, which was undoubtedly one of assault, and which would have been triable by the ordinary magistrates at Petty Sessions, it rested with the Divisional Magistrate to determine whether summonses should be issued for riot or for assault?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman must recollect that the charge was not for assault but for riot; and the magistrate in the exercise of his discretion decided—and I think rightly decided—that the case should be tried by a summary process, rather than by the expensive process of indictment.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: This is an important question. It is alleged that the Divisional Magistrate had had a political difference with Mr. Latchford; and I want to know whether the Chief Secretary approves the Divisional Magistrate's causing summonses to be issued for riot instead of assault in order to bring this gentleman within the machinery of the Crimes Act, when he could be tried by the ordinary Court of Petty Session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information to enable me to say whether the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is correct as to matters of fact or not. It is true that the Divisional Magistrate decided that the case should be tried before a Crimes Act Court rather than by indictment; but there is no ground for believing that the Divisional Magistrate decided that proceedings should be taken for riot rather than for assault. I have heard no whisper to the effect that the Divisional Magistrate had any political difference with Mr. Latchford. I think it has been suggested in this House that one of the magistrates in the case had a difference; but I believe that it is not a fact.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I will bring the whole case before the House on the Estimates.

  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION— REMOVAL FROM WIMBLEDON COMMON—RICHMOND PARK.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, in order that Members
  1402
  of the House of Commons may know the practical nature of the request which has been made on behalf of the National Rifle Association by the Council, he will afford facilities for placing in the Library of the House an ordnance map, showing the whole of Richmond Park, and indicating the portion of it asked for by the National Rifle Association for their Annual Meeting?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET)replied in the affirmative.

  POST OFFICE—OPENING LETTERS OF IRISH MEMBERS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Postmaster General, If the evidence recently supplied him, with reference to the opening of the letters of Irish Members of Parliament, has afforded any clue to the parties engaged in that practice?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): On the 5th instant the hon. Baronet handed to me the covers of seven letters alleged to have been opened, addressed to gentlemen residing at Cork, at Mallow, and at Monkstown. I received at the same time from the Lord Mayor of Dublin one addressed to a correspondent in London. I directed an inquiry into this matter to be set on foot at once; but it must necessarily take time, and as soon as it is completed I will not fail to inform the hon. Baronet and the Lord Mayor of the result.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—COUNTIES OF BOROUGHS.
  MR. HERMON-HODGEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether a borough, which by incorporation of adjoining districts brings its population up to 50,000, will be entitled at any time hereafter to be made a county of itself, and to be placed in the same position as those boroughs which are now included in the Fourth Schedule?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. LONG)(who replied)said: The Local Government Bill contains a provision which would enable the Local Government Board, on application from a borough with a population of not less than 50,000, to issue a Provisional

  1403
  Order constituting the borough a county borough.

  POST OFFICE—PETITION OF THE CITY POSTMEN.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Postmaster General, when the City postmen may expect a reply to the unanswered clauses in their Petition of June, 1887, relating to their hours of duty, payment for excess time, and rate of pay for emergency duties?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I am unable to state exactly when the Petition in question will be answered; but it shall be my care to see that an answer is sent as soon as the inquiry is complete. So far as those branches of duty to which the Question refers are within the control of my own Department I trust that very little more delay need be anticipated.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS—PAYMENT OF RATES AND TAXES.
  MR. FINUCANEasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether the Rural Sanitary Authorities in Ireland are bound to pay Income Tax, county cess, and poor rates for labourers' cottages built under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; and, whether the collectors of the rates mentioned have demanded the above rates; and, if so, will the Government, if the present state of the law enables those collectors to enforce the payment of such taxes, introduce a short Bill to exempt from local taxes houses built for the poorest and most deserving class in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)(who replied)said, the cottages built under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts are included by the Commissioners of Valuation in the valuation lists, and they are, therefore, assessable for the purposes mentioned. I am informed that in certain Unions the Guardians appealed against the valuation, and that the action of the Commissioner of Valuation was upheld by the County Court Judges. The collectors enforced payment of the county cess and Income Tax. The poor rate is payable and receiveable by the same persons—namely, the Board of Guardians—and I have no information as to the course usually taken by these Bodies. As at present advised,
  1404
  the Government see no reason to introduce any special legislation dealing with this kind of property differently from the ordinary case of houses let to the labouring classes.

  THE CATTLE TRADE (SCOTLAND)— SALES BY LIVE WEIGHT.
  MR. MAHONYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in some of the largest markets in Scotland, notably Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, the practice of selling fat cattle by live weight has been largely adopted; whether the quotation of prices, thus tested by actual weight, are invariably lower in the same markets than those arrived at by the ordinary method of guess work, and published as the market quotations of the day; whether the practice of selling by live weight has also been adopted by some salemasters in Liverpool and Dublin; whether he will take steps to ascertain the weekly prices in these five markets, which are thus based on actual facts, and cause them to be printed and circulated among Members quarterly; and, whether he will add, from time to time, to the Return the prices in other large markets, where the practice of selling by live weight may be adopted?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The information received by the Board of Trade does not enable me to answer the Question as to the practice in the markets in the places named in the affirmative, though I am aware of cattle being weighed at Edinburgh, and of a few cattle being weighed at Liverpool, so that in these cases the information as to the price realized for live weight could be given, though the sale was not actually by weight. I will have inquiry made of a number of salemasters at the places named; or if any of them would be willing to make Returns to the Board of Trade of the weight of cattle sold by them and the prices realized, so that the price per live weight could be stated, and if the results obtained are sufficiently satisfactory the information could be circulated quarterly, as suggested by the hon. Member.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE LAY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS.
  DR. TANNERasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whe-

  1405
  ther it is the case that in a Schedule issued by the Irish Land Commission 31st May, 1888, substituted for the form of Schedule annexed to the Order of the 20th May, 1887, it is laid down that particulars of holding are to be filled in and signed by the Lay Assistant Commissioners "after inspection;" and, whether such particulars have ever been in the past so filled in and signed without inspection?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)(who replied) said: The Laud Commissioners inform me that it is laid down in both the Schedule of the 20th of May, 1887, and in the substituted Schedule of this year, that the particulars of the holding are to be filled in and signed by the Lay Assistant Commissioners after inspection. In the Schedule in use before the 20th of May, 1887, there was no such direction; and it has then happened that the particulars stated in the form were those deposed to in Court before inspection.
  DR. TANNERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the last portion of the Question—whether such particulars had been filled in without inspection?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that as he understood before 1887, and before the adoption of the particular Rule to which allusion had been made, they did occasionally fill in such particulars without inspection.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— ROSSCARBERY PIER.
  DR. TANNERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any Report will be made with regard to the unsatisfactory condition of Rosscarbery Pier, and whether it is a fact that Messrs. Jackson, County Surveyor, and Keating, C.E., on the part of the Board of Works, have lately visited and minutely inspected the work; and whether Mr. Keating has had any part in prior inspections and passing of the structure in question?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON), in reply, said, he was informed that no new points had been raised in connection with Rosscarbery Pier; and, therefore, it appeared to be unnecessary to have any further Report. He was not aware that Messrs. Jackson and Keating had jointly visited
  1406
  and reported on the work; but they might have done so. The latter gentleman had throughout been in charge of the work on behalf of the Board of Works. He (Mr. Jackson) had reason to believe that the pier had been well built, and that the contract had been faithfully carried out.
  DR. TANNERinquired, whether the Treasury approved of sending down an officer to inspect work which he was previously concerned in constructing?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, the Treasury had no reason to doubt that the officer was able to make a faithful and satisfactory Report on the work. As the hon. Member knew, the work had been inspected by an officer on behalf of the Local Authorities, and had been approved by him.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THIE SUB-COMMISSION AT NEWCASTLE WEST, COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a Resolution adopted by a meeting of tenant farmers held in Newcastle West, County Limerick, on the 12th instant, expressing dissatisfaction with the smallness of the reductions granted by Mr. Tuckey's Commission, and complaining of the action of the Commission with regard to the cases heard; what are the names of these Sub-Commissioners, and whether any are landlords or land agents, or connected with them; and, whether another Sub-Commission, commanding in some degree the confidence of the tenants of County Limerick, will be substituted for the hearing of the remaining cases?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me that the Sub-Commission over which Mr. Tuckey presides consists of the following gentlemen:—Msssrs. C. O'Keeffe, A. N. Comyn, C. R. Butler, and H. C. Gregory. The several gentlemen were appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of the day, under the authority of the 43rd section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, who was satisfied as to their fitness. It is not the province of the Land Commissioners to inquire whether any of the gentlemen named are landlords

  1407
  or land agents. Messrs. O'Keeffe and Comyn were originally appointed
  by Earl Cowper, and Mr. Gregory by Earl Spencer. Mr. Butler was appointed by the present Government. The Commissioners do not intend to substitute a different Sub-Commission for the Sub-Commission referred to.
  MR. FINUCANE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the fact that the present Limerick Land Sub-Commission had, on any occasion during the past year, fixed judicial rents far higher than the paid valuer of the landlord had done?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know anything about that; but I have no doubt that the Sub-Commissioners gave an impartial judgment.

  POLITICAL OR CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, with the exception of the Duke of Rutland, all persons, now living, to whom Political or Civil List Pensions have been granted, continue to draw their pensions?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, the names of those persons to whom political pensions were assigned were given in the Finance Accounts; and on their acceptance of posts under the Government the pensions were suspended during the tenure of office. There was no official record of those persons who, having been awarded Civil List pensions, had ceased to draw them.

  GRANTS TO MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON, asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now state the result of the deliberations of Her Majesty's Advisers on the question of Royal Grants?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, no possible result had yet been arrived at in the deliberations to which the hon. Member referred; and he was not, therefore, in a position to make any statement to the House at present on the subject.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS' EXPENSES) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he received a Memorial very numerously signed, and in which a majority of Scotch Members concur, requesting an opportunity to move the second reading of the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) (Scotland) Bill; whether he is aware that the second reading of the Bill has been repeatedly objected to by the supporters of Her Majesty's Government; and, whether, in all the circumstances, he will arrange for an opportunity (if otherwise impossible) on some Saturday to consider this and other Private Bills in charge of Scotch Members?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, he was not aware that any Memorial of the kind to which the bon. Member referred had been received by him during the course of the present Session. [Mr. ESSLEMONT: It has.] He was sorry it had escaped his recollection. Nor was he in a position to give any information as to the other circumstances referred to in the Question. He should have very considerable hesitation in asking the House for a Saturday Sitting for the Bills of private Members.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS)—"O'DONNELL v. WALTER AND ANOTHER" (AUTHENTICITY OF LETTERS).
  MR. SUMMERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government has held any communication with the leading counsel for The Times, in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter and another," with respect to the charges recently brought in that journal against certain Members of this House; and, if so, whether he is prepared to state to the House the nature of the communications that have taken place?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The hon. Member must be aware that it is absolutely without precedent to make any statement as to private communication between Members of the Government. But, if the object of the hon. Gentleman is intended to suggest that

  1409
  the Government have received from the Attorney General any communication whatever respecting matters which have come to his knowledge as counsel for the defendants in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter," I have to state most distinctly that there is not the slightest foundation whatever for such a suggestion.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I complain that the right hon. Gentleman has misapprehended the point of the Question put to him. He was not asked whether any communication had been made to the Government by the Attorney General in regard to the case of The Times. The Question was, whether the Government had made any communication to the Attorney General for the purpose of assisting him in his duties as counsel for The Times?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have answered that Question already.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): Mr. Speaker, I beg to be allowed to answer this Question. I answered a similar Question in this House a short time ago. I desire to say that I have received not the slightest communication from the Government of any sort or kind, direct or indirect, in order to assist me in the performance of my duties as counsel for the defendants.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord state whether the Attorney General has been consulted in drawing up the terms of the Motion now on the Paper?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I say distinctly, No!
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if it is intended to consult the learned Gentleman, the leading counsel for The Times, in drawing up the Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman may be informed at once that the Bill has been already drawn, and there is no necessity—
  Several Irish MEMBERS: Has he been consulted?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. W. H. SMITH: But I say again distinctly that I decline to answer any Question as to communications that may have passed between Members of the
  1410
  Government in the discharge of their duties. No such Question can be answered by any Minister.
  MR. PARNELL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the fact that the Government have full power over the order of Business for to-day, both as regards Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion, and that the Notice of Motion with respect to the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill is placed by the Government after 31 Orders of the Day and after four Notices of Motion, whether we are to understand that its place on the Notice Paper is a measure of the importance with which the Government views the Bill in question? And I wish also to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to bring in the Bill to-night for the first reading; and, if he intends to bring it in to-night, whether he will have it printed and distributed by to-morrow; whether he will propose an early day for its second reading; and, when it comes on, will he make it the first Order on the Notice Paper?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman asks me whether I attach to this Order the relative importance which belongs to the position in which it stands on the Order Book. Sir, the Bill of which I have given Notice is a Bill to be introduced in accordance with the offer that I made to the hon. Gentleman and those who are associated with him. It is for him to say whether he will accept the proposal of the Government. I do not desire to debate that proposal; and I have put it in this position on the Order Book in order that it may be rejected or accepted by the hon. Member in the form in which it stands. If the Motion is received and accepted by the House, the Bill will be immediately printed and circulated, and I will then name a day for the second reading. But I may say frankly that I do not anticipate being able to make provision for a debate on the second reading of a measure of this kind. It was an offer made by the Government to the hon. Gentleman and his Friends, to be either accepted or rejected. It is reasonable that some discussion should take place on the second reading, if hon. Members desire that discussion; but I am not able—and I am

  1411
  not desirous—to occupy the time of the House at length in the consideration of this measure.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg, Sir, to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House on a definite question of urgent public importance—namely, the statement that we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman, and the position which he has assigned to this most important Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member; but that would be a violation of the Rules of the House. It would be anticipating the discussion of a Bill standing on the Notice Paper.
  MR. PARNELL: I submit that my Motion has reference to the position in which this Notice has been placed on the Paper, and not to the merits of the question or the merits of the Bill itself. I simply desire that the House, whom I consider to be the judge in this matter, as representing the English nation and the Irish nation—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have given it as my ruling, and the hon. Gentleman will be quite out of Order—
  MR. PARNELL: In moving the adjournment? With regard to the conduct of the Government—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman would be quite out of Order in moving the adjournment of the House, anticipating a discussion on a question already on the Paper.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to say—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to state that I do not propose to anticipate the discussion—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order? It is quite contrary to the Rules of the House, and I cannot permit it.
  MR. PARNELL: I shall say no word with reference—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I should like to put a Question to the First Lord of the Treassury with regard to the course of Business. The first Question has reference to the Notice No. 5, for to-night, which has just been the subject of some remarks. It would be greatly, I think, to the convenience of the House if the right
  1412
  hon. Gentleman could inform me whether he intends to make the Motion to-night which he has put on the Paper; and, if so, after what hour he will not take it? I want, also, to ask him a more general Question. In consequence of my having learnt that the progress made with the Local Government Bill has been of a satisfactory character, and that the Bill is not likely, perhaps, to occupy so much of the time of the House as we at one time apprehended, I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if that should prove to be so, he will—I do not say to-night, but probably at the close of the Committee on the Local Government Bill, or some other early date—give such further information to the House as he can with respect to the future intentions of the Government with regard to Business, and especially as to the probability of a Sitting in the Autumn?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see, with reference to the latter part of his Question, that I had better reserve my observations for some further opportunity before I answer him. I think it may be desirable to see what progress is made with the Local Government Bill, and to make any further statement that is necessary when we have concluded Committee on that Bill. With reference to Notice No. 5, I have placed that Notice on the Paper in the form in which it stands, in order to give as complete information as possible to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House as to the character and scope of the Bill. I had hoped that the Bill would be accepted without debate—that is to say, the Motion for the introduction of the Bill. If it is opposed, it cannot be taken to-night, because we shall not reach it until after 12 o'clock.
  MR. PARNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that we are not to be allowed to debate the first reading, whatever may be the hour at which the Motion is reached to-night; and that we are to accept as sheep the judgment of a jury of butchers?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member must be aware of the Rules of the House. If there is opposition to the Bill, I believe it cannot be taken after 12 o'clock; but it can be discussed after 12 o'clock and up to the hour of 1.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: With regard to Notice No. 5, do I understand

  1413
  that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to propose that Notice to-night after 12 o'clock, for discussion to-night?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, Sir; I shall ask leave to introduce the Bill after 12 o'clock tonight, and then discussion may take place. But the right hon. Gentleman is aware that if that discussion takes the character of opposition to it, it cannot be continued.
  MR. PARNELL: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean? Will he be kind enough to say under what Rule of the House it is provided that if the discussion takes the character of opposition it cannot be continued?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the Motion is opposed it cannot be taken.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: May I ask whether it would not be convenient to everyone that the right hon. Gentleman should agree to take Notice No. 5 as the first Order to-morrow?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Distinctly not. Subsequently,
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid: With reference to Notice No. 5, may I ask you, Sir, whether, as it refers to the conduct of hon. Members of this House it does not come within the category of a question of Privilege?
  MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not. It is put down in the usual way as a Notice of Motion, and it will come on when called on. Of course, if the discussion takes place after 12 o'clock, the hour for adjournment would be 1 o'clock.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—PARISH OF LOCHS, IN THE LEWS.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the following facts:—That in the parish of Lochs, in the Laws, Scotland, with a population of 6,284 and a valued rental of only £4,670, 12 schools, under the direction or at least by the authority and approval of the Board of Education or Scotch Education Department, were built at a cost of £20,311, and that the assessment for school rate alone amounted, in 1884, to 5s. 8d. per *1, and is at present 4s. 6d. per *1; that in the parish of Barvas, in the same district, with a population of 2,600 poverty
  1414
  stricken inhabitants, and a total assessable rental of only £2,900, the assessment for school rate alone amounts to 5s. 4d. per £1, in addition to which there is an assessment of 7s. 6d. per £1 for parochial and other public rates; that the average school rate assessment for all Scotland is under 6d. per £1; and, whether, considering the extreme poverty of the people in these and other parishes in the Highlands of Scotland, and the above exceptional and practically unbearable burdens resting upon them in respect of education and the poor, the Government will, in the distribution of grants for relief of local taxation, grant such extra relief to the Highlands of Scotland as will bring the assessment for education and the poor down to a rate not exceeding the average rate of such assessments for Scotland?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, there were certain points in the statement of the hon. Gentleman to which exception might be taken—for example, his omission of the fact that of the stated cost only £7,763 fell upon the locality, £12,428 having been defrayed by grant from the Education Department. The responsibility for the number of these schools rested with the Board of Education in Edinburgh and the local School Boards, and not with the Scotch Education Department. The hon. Member was also in error as to the population of Barvas, which was 5,325, and not 2,600, as stated. But the Government were a ware of the difficulties under which these parishes were placed, and were unable to say more at present than that the circumstances were receiving their careful attention.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES —CLASS V.—THE COLONIAL OFFICE VOTE.
  DR. CLARKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, At what hour he intended to take the Report on the Colonial Office Vote—when it was proposed to discuss affairs in Zululand? Would it be taken that night?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, the Vote would not be taken that night; but it was intended to proceed with the Local Government Bill, the Committee on which might be com-

  1415
  pleted in the course of to-morrow. The Colonial Office Vote would be taken as the first Business after that.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (IMPRISONMENT OF A MEMBER) (MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN).
  MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House, That he had received the following Letter, relating to the Imprisonment of a Member of this House:—
  Kilkenny,
  12 July, '88.
  Sir,
  We beg leave to inform you that, at Goresbridge Petty Sessions, on 8th February 1888, we convicted Mr. Patrick O' Brien, a Member of the House of Commons, of the offence of that, on the 8th day of January 1888, at Goresbridge, in the co. of Kilkenny, being a district proclaimed under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," he did incite certain other person and persons unlawfully to take part in a criminal conspiracy to compel and induce certain other persons, tenants of farms of land in Ireland, not to fulfil their legal obligations, to wit, to refuse to pay and not to pay to John Smithwick, an owner of land in Ireland, the rents which said tenants were lawfully bound to pay, and which the said John Smithwick was lawfully entitled to receive and to be paid, under "The Criminal Law and Procedure Act, 1887," and sentenced him to three months imprisonment without hard labour; that this sentence having been confirmed on appeal, at Thomastown Quarter Sessions on 10th April, 1888, and appellant having been ordered to be detained as a first-class misdemeanant, we issued our warrant accordingly for his arrest, and that on that warrant he was arrested on 11th inst., and was committed to Kilkenny Gaol, where he now is.
  We have the honor to be,
  Sir,
  Your obedient servants,
  HEPP. F. CONSIDINE, R.M.
  D. G. BODKIN, R.M.
  To the Right Honble. the Speaker of the House of Commons.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (METROPOLIS)— MEETING IN TRAFALGAR SQUARE, JULY 14.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
  1416
  a Question. It is, Whether he will make inquiry whether, during the gathering which took place in Trafalgar Square on Saturday—[Ministerial laughter]—hon. Gentlemen will not laugh when they hear this Question—whether, during the gathering which took place in Trafalgar Square on Saturday, certain men, roughly dressed, but whose hands were white, and who wore rings, mingled with the crowd and struck several men and women; and whether, when remonstrated with, they said they were plain clothes constables, which, judging by their action and bearing, was manifestly untrue. I wish also to ask him, whether he prefers to institute inquiries into these allegations; or whether he prefers that I should, by means of private inquiry, endeavour to find out these miscreants' names, and hold them up to public obloquy in this House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The hon. Gentleman's Questions are somewhat vague, and I have a difficulty in knowing what inquiry he demands; but I gather from him that some persons were alleged to have seen these ringed and white-handed gentlemen. If the hon. Member will put his Question before me in a definite form I shall at least have an opportunity of forming a judgment upon the matter.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: I shall have great pleasure in doing so.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether the proceedings on Saturday in Trafalgar Square had been brought under his notice; whether they took place by his authority or sanction; and, whether they bore out his promise that persons should not be interfered with when they went peaceably and quietly to the Square?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no Report on the subject; but if the hon. Member will put a Question down I will answer it.

NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE, 1882— RULE 2 (ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE).

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (METROPOLIS)— MEETING IN TRAFALGAR SQUARE, JULY 14.
  MR. CONYBEARE, Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, rose

  1417
  in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the violent attacks made by the Metropolitan Police upon peaceable and unoffending persons in Trafalgar Square on the afternoons of Saturday the 30th June, and Saturday the 14th instant.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have to say that there is on the Order Book of to-day a Bill dealing with Trafalgar Square, and the regulations for meetings there. At the same time, I must observe that any specific acts of' ill-treatment which the hon. Gentleman alleges to have been committed by anybody, he is at liberty to bring before the House if the House consents.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that was precisely what he wished to do.
  The pleasure of the House not having been signified,
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen,
  MR. CONYBEARE, continuing, said, that it was the first duty of the Government to take some measures with the view of preventing what might, if they did not bestir themselves, result in scenes of bloodshed and danger to the Metropolis. The facts, which he felt it his duty to bring to the notice of the House, made it perfectly clear that it was not the peaceably disposed inhabitants who happened to gather in Trafalgar Square who were responsible for whatever might have taken place in the way of disorder, or who would be responsible for what might take place in the future. He had to complain that whenever they placed anything before the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) on this subject, they were met with insolent flippancy. This flippancy was exceedingly ill-placed and ill-timed under the present circumstances, and if the right hon. Gentleman did not take the trouble to keep his moral miracles under control, he would be responsible for whatever scenes of bloodshed took place. These proceedings had resulted in an estrangement between the people and the police, which he should deeply regret if it
  1418
  were not desirable to enable the people of London to realize the odious tyranny which was being practised in Ireland. Sir Charles Warren had issued an illegal proclamation which required the police to assault, bully, and treat with violence everybody against whom they had a suspicion or a spite or a grudge.
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that he must confine himself to the specific cases on which the Adjournment of the House had been moved, and not go into general questions which were irrelevant to the subject of the Motion.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that he was about to refer to what happened to himself on June 30. He was on the parapet in Trafalgar Square with his friend Mr. Saunders; there was no obstruction, but suddenly he saw a woman roughly used by the police, who made a rush on them with a view of dislodging persons from the parapet. They did not, however, touch Mr. Saunders or himself. These persons were perfectly justified in standing where they did. A gentleman named Borgia, who was also standing close to the parapet, was alleged to have said, "The police have insulted and assaulted a woman. Friends, will you stand this?" He believed it was a fact that Mr. Borgia did make a statement of that kind, but that did not justify the conduct of the police, who bore down upon him, two or three at a time, tore or wrenched his arms from the parapet, seized him by the collar and scratched his neck, which drew blood, had his coat torn off his back, and was otherwise illtreated. The hon. Member proceeded to read copious extracts from The Star and Lloyd's Newspaper, describing the occurrences and commenting in severe language upon the conduct of the police, and the arbitrary tactics of Sir Charles Warren. The hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) then went to Bow Street and asked for a summons. As the hon. Member was explaining the circumstances, and how he had been insulted, an Inspector of police outside remarked, "Serve him right." Even Londoners would soon learn to resent such conduct as that of the police on this occasion. If men, women, and children were struck without provocation by the police they were entitled to return the blows. The hon.

  1419
  Member for North-West Lanark had gone to the steps of Morley's Hotel and was supporting himself against the railings, when a rush of police was made at him, and he received a kick as he fell. The hon. Member, after reading extracts from Lloyd's Newspaper, said that these occurrences illustrated the indecent flippancy of the Home Secretary. He was in favour of suspending all meetings in the Square, so as to avoid all this disorder, which would before long result in something worse than disorder. But the Government would not suggest a reasonable solution of the matter. Mr. Saunders had written to the right hon. Gentleman, but no reply had been vouchsafed. All he asked was that proper control should be exercised over meetings, and he should be glad if facilities could be given for the discussion of the Bills on the question which was already before the House. But if the Government would not meet the matter in a fair and conciliatory spirit, and give an assurance that the police should act within the law, and not like Bashi-Bazouks, there would be scenes of disorder and bloodshed in Trafalgar Square, and he would take every opportunity of going to the Square, and would not hesitate to say whatever he could to make the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and Sir Charles Warren odious and detestable to the people of the country.
  DR. CLARK, in seconding the Motion, said, that the speech of his hon. Friend showed that the people were getting warm. He was an onlooker in Trafalgar Square last Saturday, and saw Mr. Graham rushed off by about 40 policemen. They came behind him and pushed him at a run into the street. He saw Mr. Saunders rushed out in a similar manner. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to know who took charge of Mr. Saunders in this affair, it was a sergeant of the G division, and his number was 13; he and about 20 others got possession of Mr. Saunders and rushed him into the street, and then Mr. Saunders very quietly and very wisely took a cab and went home. The Rev. Stewart Headlam was rushed off in the same way; but he was not so wise, for he very foolishly came back, when he was seized by three or four policemen and rushed out again. After having had his hat smashed and his
  1420
  clothes torn, he then wisely went home. He (Dr. Clark) thought it was time this sort of thing should cease. If the police crushed hats and tore coats others would follow their example. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would deal with the question in a practical spirit. If the meetings were illegal, the police should take proceedings against Mr. Saunders and Mr. Graham for a breach of the law. At first the police behaved well; they were chaffed, and they made good humoured replies; but after a time they got warm and lost their tempers. It was time that some one responsible for the police should prevent them from doing these illegal actions.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  MR. HUNTERsaid, he did not wish to enter on the discursive questions which had been raised by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), but he desired to raise his protest against the needless roughness of the police. As a witness of what took place in Trafalgar Square on Saturday afternoon, he could corroborate the statement of the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) as to the good conduct of the police at first, and their violence afterwards. Near a fountain he saw a miserable, ragged old man walking, when some remark was addressed to him by a constable. Something was said which he did not hear, and then he saw a burly constable plant his fist in the face of this old man and knock him down with a violent blow. He heard his head crack on the pavement. The old man rose, evidently dazed, and further altercation took place, and the man was arrested and taken off down Parliament Street. He (Mr. Hunter) should certainly have made an effort to be at the Police Court that day to say what he had seen, but as be had to attend certain Committees of the House he could not do so. A very violent assault was made on Saturday by a posse of police on a number of journalists and others who were standing on the steps of Morley's Hotel, which, he apprehended, was private property. The persons on the steps were perfectly quiet and peaceable, and for the police to go

  1421
  and assault them when they were standing on the steps of the hotel was an assault for which there could be no kind of justification. In all these cases it was very difficult to bring home to individual constables any proof of actual misconduct, but there were two policemen to whose conduct he invited the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. One was Constable 29 L, who assaulted four persons without any provocation. He had the names and addresses of these four persons who were assaulted under his own observation. Constable 9 LR. also made a most violent and altogether unprovoked assault upon two ladies at the corner of the Square. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that proper inquiry should be made into these cases. The great majority of the police behaved very well under the trying circumstances to which they were exposed. If the Government believed that the holding of meetings in the Square was a violation of the law, why did they not prosecute? The persons who held the meetings and spoke were perfectly well known, and he could not understand why they were not prosecuted. By his present action the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was demoralizing the police of London, and exciting in the minds of the people feelings of intense and bitter hostility towards the police. If the right hon. Gentleman would grant an inquiry, he would not vote for the Adjournment, which otherwise he would be compelled to do.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, he could have wished that the whole of the debate had been conducted in the tone and temper which had been exhibited by the hon. Member (Mr. Hunter) who had just sat down. The hon. Member who moved the Adjournment of the House (Mr. Conybeare) certainly did not exhibit the same calmness of language, and, moreover, the hon. Member placed him in a position of some embarrassment as to the facts, which were at the present moment under judicial decision. The hon. Member alluded, for instance, to a case which had been twice adjourned. The whole matter was therefore sub judice, and it would hardly be proper for him to comment
  1422
  upon the facts of the case or to state what view he took of that particular transaction. In like manner, the case of the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) had been referred to.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMsaid, he had withdrawn those summonses, as he did not wish to appear invidious against men who were acting under orders. He had now applied for a warrant against Sir Charles Warren.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that it would obviously be improper for him to express an opinion on the facts. One hon. Member who had spoken assumed that the police were necessarily in the wrong, and that the people were necessarily in the right, and it was demanded that the Government should make some inquiry in order to satisfy themselves as to the truth of the assertions. Now, it had been established by at least two decisions of superior Judges that there was no right of meeting in Trafalgar Square. That was the law of the land, and he, who respected the constituted Courts of the country, must accept it as final. He was sorry to say that some of the hon. Members who brought on debates of this kind were among the ringleaders of disorder. If they were not content with the decisions twice given by the Superior Courts of Law, the proper course for them to pursue would be that which had been taken by the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart), who thought that this law ought to be altered by legislation, and that some machinery should be provided by which meetings in Trafalgar Square might take place lawfully and peaceably.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMsaid, in self-justification, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he, as well as the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division, had introduced a Bill dealing with the same subject.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he did not wish to do any injustice to the hon. Member. But was it a reasonable course that hon. Members, who ought to be the first persons to respect the law, should go Saturday after Saturday into Trafalgar Square and incite those wretched and ignorant men to disorder?
  MR. CONYBEARErose amid loud cries of "Order!" when—
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House.
  MR. MATTHEWScontinuing, said, that he also had received information from eye-witnesses and bystanders, and he learned from them that Mr. Saunders and the hon. Member for the Camborne Division were the persons who had done everything in their power to provoke conflicts.
  MR. CONYBEARE: That is absolutely false; I was not in the Square on Saturday.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to draw Mr. Speaker's attention to the fact that the hon. Member had stated that what the right hon. Gentleman had stated was absolutely false. He desired to know whether that language was Parliamentary?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member used that expression, I hope he will withdraw it.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he would certainly withdraw it if he had said that of the right hon. Gentleman's words; but he said it with reference to a statement which the right hon. Gentleman had brought before the House from witnesses whom he did not name. He (Mr. Conybeare) had said that that statement was untrue, and so it was absolutely.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he wished to repeat, in the face of the House of Commons, that Saturday after Saturday Gentlemen who ought to know better went to Trafalgar Square, where they were surrounded, of course, by a mob consisting partly of idle persons and partly of sightseers drawn there by curiosity; and these Gentlemen endeavoured to come as near holding a meeting as they could without violating the law. They held what they called a conversazione. One of them stood up and appeared to be about to make a speech. They occupied their leisure moments by jeering the police and hooting them without bringing themselves within the reach of a summons for holding a meeting. Having done their utmost to look like breaking the law and to provoke the police to disperse them, they came to the House of Commons and made statements which it was impossible to test with anything like accuracy and precision, because the statements were not made upon oath and were not liable to cross-examination. The hon. and learned Member
  1424
  for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) had brought two cases under his notice. That of the old man had, it seemed, been brought before the magistrate to-day. If the hon. Member had been present at the hearing and made his statement there it would have been much more to the purpose.
  MR. HUNTERsaid, he had explained that the reason he had not done so was that he had to attend a Committee of the House at half-past 11 o'clock.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that the hon. Member might have asked for an adjournment of the case. Another case he mentioned was that of police-constable 29 L, who was said to have assaulted four persons whose names and addresses the hon. Member had. Well, every one of those four persons could bring a summons for assault, and the hon. Member's evidence would be available. He repeated that the law was now settled as regarded meetings in Trafalgar Square. He admitted, however, that it was quite regular and legitimate to bring in Bills on the subject. Gentlemen who ought to know the law and to know better incited ignorant persons to come into conflict with the police in the endeavour to heap discredit on the force and to evade the decisions of the Courts of Justice by which the law had been laid down. It was idle to endeavour by discussions in that House to raise a prejudice against the law and against the police, who were only acting in obedience to a proclamation which had been held by Courts of Law not to be illegal, and by highly coloured ex parte statements in the House to seek to raise a feeling against those charged with the administration of the law. If hon. Members thought the law was unjust, then their proper plan was to do as two hon. Members had already done, and bring in a Bill to amend it, and not to make wild, random charges against policemen who were engaged in carrying out orders which had been proved in Courts of Law to be legal.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, that the question was not whether meetings in Trafalgar Square were statutably permitted or not, but whether under the proclamation Sir Charles Warren had the right to hinder them. Not only the hon. Member for the Camborne Division felt that there was a certain amount of arbitrary injustice in the action of the Police Authori-

  1425
  ties with respect to Trafalgar Square, but a large number of other persons felt aggrieved by the situation. The circumstances were not so clearly determined in law as the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to make out. Mr. Saunders had endeavoured to bring a case before the Law Courts with a view to have a decision as to how the matter exactly stood, but the Solicitor to the Treasury had taken his stand upon a point of law and defeated that effort. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman as being responsible for the confidence felt in the police of London whether he would not take some step for the solution of the matter? If Sir Charles Warren was a strong man, and had the conviction of his position, he would allow some case to go forward so as to have the question decided in its full legal aspect. Sir Charles Warren should withdraw the proclamation prohibiting the meetings, and if they were an obstruction or disorderly he should prevent them. He would also appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give facilities for the discussion and passage through the House of the Bill he had introduced with reference to the right of meeting in the Square. He begged to support the Motion for the Adjournment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he trusted that the House would now think this debate had gone on long enough. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had been informed by his right hon. Friend that these cases were at present sub judice, and that their proper course, if they thought they had grievances, was to take them to a Court of Law to get relief. Under those circumstances, as the House was not a Court of Appeal on which questions of fact and of law should be decided, he claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes 249; Noes 128: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. 216.)
  Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 255: Majority 137.—(Div. List, No. 217.)

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

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 13th July.]
  [NINETEENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

PART V.

  FINANCE.
  Property, Funds, and Costs of County Councils.
  Clause 63 (Transfer of county property and liabilities).
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's), in moving, in page 53, after "county," to insert "or treasurer or Commissioners," said, the object of the Amendment was to provide that—
  "On and after the appointed day all property of the Quarter Sessions of a county, or held by the clerk of the peace, or any justice or justices of a county, or treasurer or commissioners,' for the public uses and purposes of a county, shall be held in trust for the council of the county."
  Amendment proposed, in page 53, line 12, after the word "county," to insert the words "or treasurer or commissioners."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. AMBROSE, in moving, in page 53, line 13, to leave out the words "or any division or part thereof," said, he objected to those words on the ground that they would have a wider operation than was desirable or necessary or than was really intended. The clause transferred to the County Council all the county property; but, as it now stood, it would transfer to the county at large property which at present only belonged to part of it. The words of the clause were these—
  "On and after the appointed day all property of the quarter sessions of a county, or held by the clerk of the peace, or any justice or justices of a county, or treasurer or commissioners, or otherwise for any public uses or purposes of a county, shall pass to and vest in and be held in trust for the council of the county."

  1427
  The Committee would observe that, by the first part of the section, all the property of the Quarter Sessions was to be transferred. There was no difficulty about that; but the clause went on to say—
  "Or held by the clerk of the peace, or any justice or justices of a county, or treasurer or commissioners or otherwise"
  That is to say, having exhausted, by the description given, all the ordinary trustees, the words "or otherwise" are introduced to include trusts vested in trustees not previously mentioned. The clause then goes on—
  "for any public uses and purposes of a county, or any division or part thereof, shall pass to and vest in and be held in trust for the council of the county."
  The effect of the clause would be that property belonging to a district in a county would be transferred to the County Council. He failed to see why the property of a parish, or of a Local Board district, or of a sub-district in a parish, should be transferred to the Council of the county, and why it should not be given back to the trustees who had managed it before. He might say that a case which had occurred within his own knowledge would prove that that was no mere theoretical distinction. He, therefore, moved the omission of the words "or any division or part thereof."
  Amendment proposed, in page 53, line 13, leave out the words "or any division or part thereof."—(Mr. Ambrose.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he concurred in the view taken by his hon. and learned Friend of the point which had been raised; but he did not believe any risk would be incurred of the words being improperly interpreted. It would be better, however, to consider the Amendment when they came to Clause 96—the Interpretation Clause. Words might be inserted in that clause to show what was meant by the expression "division of a county," so as to exclude the possibility of including a small area, such as that of a parish or a Local Government Board.
  MR. AMBROSEsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RITCHIE, in moving, in page 53, line 20, at the end of the 1st sub-section, the object of which was to secure that, when such property is transferred from the Quarter Sessions to the County Council, it shall be held by that Body subject to the same covenants, conditions, and restrictions as if the Act had not passed, to insert the words—
  "Provided that the existing records of the Court of Quarter Sessions shall, subject to any order of that Court, remain in the same custody in which they would have been if this Act had not passed."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 53, at end of line 20, to insert the words—"Provided that the existing records of the court of quarter sessions shall, subject to any order of that court, remain in the same custody in which they would have been if this Act had not passed."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 53, line 20, after the word "Act," to insert the words—"Provided nevertheless that any property, pictures, or chattels which have been presented to the justices of the peace for the county of Middlesex, or which have been purchased by them out of their own funds, or by subscriptions from members of their body, shall be retained and be held by the justices of the peace for the county of Middlesex (as altered by this Act) in trust for the justices for the time being of the same county."—(Mr. Bigwood.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government could hardly accept the Amendment as it stood on the Paper; but he thought he understood what the hon. Member meant, and he would suggest an alteration to provide that the matter should be referred to the Commissioners appointed under the Act, and if it was considered desirable that the property should be retained, that it should be retained by the Commissioners for the benefit of the county.
  MR. DUGDALE, who had Amendments on the Paper to Mr. Bigwood's Amendment, the object of which was to extend the provision to all counties, and not confine it to Middlesex, accepted the

  1429
  suggestion of the President of the Local Government Board.
  Question, that the words—
  "Provided nevertheless that any property, pictures, or chattels which have been presented to the justices of the peace for the county, or which have been purchased by them out of their own funds, or by subscriptions from members of their body, shall be retained by the commissioners for the benefit of the county,"
  be there inserted, put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 53, line 23, after the word "Justices," to insert the words "or Treasurer or Commissioners."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  BARON DIMSDALE BARON DIMSDALE (Herts, Hitchin), in moving after "power" in line 28, to insert "to acquire for county purposes, &c.," said its object was to enable the County Council to acquire as well as to manage, alter, and enlarge, and with the consent of the Local Government Board, to alienate land and buildings transferred by the clause or otherwise vested in the Council.
  Amendment proposed in page 53, line 28, after the word "power" to insert the words "to acquire for county purposes and."—(Baron Dimsdale.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he wished to point out to his hon. Friend that this Clause dealt simply with the transfer of property, and it would be altogether impracticable to deal with property hereafter to be acquired. Clause 78 made provision for the acquisition of property, and the subject was also dealt with in a new clause to be proposed by one of the hon. Members for Dorsetshire. At any rate, the Amendment was not applicable here, because the clause simply dealt with the transfer of property.
  BARON DIMSDALEsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RITCHIE, in moving, in line 32, after "rooms," to insert "and such furniture, books, and other things," said, the object was to empower the County Council to provide furniture, &c., for the rooms in which it was necessary to conduct the business of the
  1430
  Quarter Sessions and of the Justices out of Sessions.
  Amendment proposed, in page 53, line 32, after the word "rooms," to insert the words "and such furniture, books, and other things."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. BRUNNER, in moving to leave out, in lines 34 and 35, the words "or, in case of an equal division of opinion in that Committee, by a Secretary of State," said, that the object of the Amendment was to excise that part of the clause which gave power to the Secretary of State to determine, in the event of an equal division of opinion upon the standing joint committee what was necessary or proper for the due transaction of the business of the Quarter Sessions. He thought it would be a great pity to saddle the Secretary of State for all time with the duty of deciding minute differences of opinion among the members of the joint committee of Justices and County Council. The joint committee themselves would assuredly, after the lapse of a very short time, settle their differences, and to bring the power of the Secretary of State to bear upon the question whether a particular room was to be a foot longer or shorter was altogether undesirable. He thought it would be much better for the President of the Local Government Board to leave such matters in the hands of the joint committee.
  Amendment proposed, in page 53, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words "or in case of an equal division of opinion in that committee, by a Secretary of State."—(Mr. Brunner.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not think that such a division of opinion was likely to occur very often; but it was just possible, and, unless some provision were made for settling the difficulty, the joint committee might come to a deadlock. At the same time, he did not think it desirable to accept the Amendment.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked, whether, in the event of an equal division of opinion in the joint committee, the chairman would not have a casting vote?
  MR. RITCHIE: No.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 53, line 36, after the word "business," to insert the words "and keeping of the records and documents."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. TATTON EGERTON, in moving at the end of the clause to insert the following words:—
  "The county of Chester shall be the authority to receive all monies now received by the Court of Quarter Sessions, and to apply the same to the same purposes as at the present time;
  said, that in that respect the county of Chester stood entirely by itself. At present, monies were received from trustees by the Quarter Sessions to the amount of £15,000 a-year, which went towards the rates; and the object of the Amendment was to enable the County Council of Cheshire to receive that money. The trustees could not be compelled to hand it over to the County Council, but it was handed over by the trustees of their own option. They handed over just what amount they chose; and the only power the Quarter Sessions had was to audit the accounts of the trustees, who were a self-elected body—the remains of the riparian owners of the river Weaver. He thought it was important that the County Council should enjoy the same benefits as those which were at present enjoyed in regard to this money by the Quarter Sessions, and that they should apply it to the same purposes.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 53, at end of clause, to add the words "the county of Chester shall be the authority to receive all monies now received by the Court of Quarter Sessions, and to apply the same to the same purposes as at the present time."—(Mr.
  Tatton Egerton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that it might be necessary to insert some provision of the kind proposed, and he rather gathered that the hon. Member had moved the Amendment in place of another he had on the Paper, in line 12. That, however, was not the proper place for moving such an Amendment. No doubt, it was a proper matter for consideration; but the best way of deal-
  1432
  ing with it would be by extending, if necessary, the definition of the word "property" in Clause 96—the Interpretation Clause. The section of that clause which related to property ran as follows:—
  "The expression 'property' includes all property real and personal, and all estates, interests, easements, and rights, whether equitable or legal, in, to, and out of property real and personal, including things in action and registers, books, and documents; and, when used in relation to any quarter sessions, clerk of the peace, justices' board, sanitary authority, or other authority, includes any property which on the appointed day belongs to, or is vested in, or held in trust for, or would, but for this Act, have, on or after that day, belonged to, or been vested in, or held in trust for, such quarter sessions, clerk of the peace, justices' board, sanitary authority, or other authority."
  It would thus be seen that "property" was to include all property real and personal, all estates whether equitable or legal, and all registers, books, and documents. He would consider the matter before the Committee came to Clause 96.
  MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, he was quite willing to accept that arrangement. His only object was to make it absolutely certain that, before the powers of the Justices ceased, these monies, which were purely a gift from the riparian owners, should be handed over to the County Council.
  MR. BRUNNERintimated that, at the proper time, he should argue whether the money was rightfully paid to the Quarter Sessions or not, and he could assure the Committee that there was no subject on which he could be more eloquent.
  CAPTAIN COTTONsaid, he thought the definition which the hon. and learned Attorney General had read in reference to property was scarcely applicable to this money.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that if his hon. and gallant Friend was not satisfied with the definition of the word "property" which was given in Clause 96, the question could be raised when that clause was reached.
  MR. TATTON EGERTONsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In line 36, at the end of the clause, to add the words—

  1433
  "This section shall apply, with the necessary modifications, to the administrative county of Sussex."
  COLONEL GUNTER, in moving to insert at the end of line 36—
  "This section shall apply in the case of the property, debts, and liabilities which would, if this Act had not passed, have been under the control of or held in trust for or payable by the justices of all the ridings and divisions of the counties of York or Lincoln at their gaol sessions, in like manner as if it were herein reenacted with the substitution of gaol sessions for quarter sessions, and of clerk of gaol sessions for clerk of the peace, and as if the joint committee of the councils of the three ridings or divisions were the council of the county therefor; and the said joint committee shall, for the purposes of the said property, debts, and liabilities, and for the transaction of the administrative business or execution of their duties under this Act, be a body corporate, with perpetual succession and a common seal, by the name of the county committee, with the prefix of the name of the county,"
  said, the object of the Amendment was to simplify matters and to put the joint committee of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire in the same position as the County Council with regard to the property dealt with by the Gaol Sessions. He proposed to add to the Amendment the words "with power to acquire and hold land for the purposes of the county."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 53, at end of line 35, to insert the words:—"This section shall apply in the case of the property, debts, and liabilities which would, if this Act had not passed, have been under the control of or held in trust for or payable by the justices of all the ridings and divisions of the counties of York or Lincoln at their gaol sessions, in like manner as if it were herein reenacted with the substitution of gaol sessions for quarter sessions, and of clerk of gaol sessions for clerk of the peace, and as if the joint committee of the councils of the three ridings or divisions were the council of the county therefor; and the said joint committee shall, for the purposes of the said property, debts, and liabilities, and for the transaction of the administrative business or execution of their duties under this Act, be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, by the name of the county committee, with the prefix of the name of the county and with power to acquire and hold land for the purposes of the county."—(Colonel Gunter.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he believed that these were necessary words, and therefore he accepted them.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked, whether it was
  1434
  proposed that the joint committee created under Clause 29 should become a Body Corporate?
  COLONEL GUNTERreplied in the negative.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the Amendment did, in fact, convert the joint committee into a Body Corporate with a common seal.
  COLONEL GUNTERsaid, that would not be so. In Yorkshire the Gaol Sessions had certain property of its own, and his only object was to place that property on the same footing as other property, and to provide a common seal instead of requiring each member to sign his name.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he quite understood the hon. and gallant Member's object, but at present the joint committee had no corporate capacity at all. Why was it to be created under this Bill a Body Corporate with a common seal?
  COLONEL GUNTERsaid, that the rooms in York Castle were more or less the property of the three Ridings, and he was anxious that the joint committee should exercise the same rights and powers over it as a County Council would exercise over the property of a county.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked, If it was proposed that there should be two separate jurisdictions in the county of York; one the County Council, and the other the joint committee holding this property? If so, a serious question was raised.
  COLONEL GUNTERsaid, there were three divisions in the county.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he understood that; but what he was driving at was why the property of the three County Councils representing the three divisions that would be handed over to a joint commitee and such joint committees created Bodies Corporate.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that instead of one County Council there would be a County Council for each division. His hon. and gallant Friend had pointed out that there was certain property which must be vested in the county or in the three County Councils respectively, and, as it could not be vested in three County Councils, it must be vested in a joint committee chosen from the County Councils of the divisions; and it became, therefore, neces-

  1435
  sary to make such joint committee a Corporation. It was a mere matter of machinery.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 64 (Costs of Justices to be payable out of county fund).
  On the Motion of Mr. DUGDALE, the following Amendment made:—
  In page 53, line 38, after the word "county," insert the words "or by any justice, police officer, or constable in defending any legal proceedings taken against him in respect of any order made, or act done, in the execution of his duty as such justice, police officer, or constable."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 65 (Funds of County Council).
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made, in page 55, line 16, after the word "mentioned," insert the words:—
  "And will prevent any sums by law specifically applicable to any particular purpose from being applied to any other purpose."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  MR. LEAKEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would have any objection to insert the word "twelve," instead of "six," in line 24. There might be occasions when costs were incurred, or became payable within 12 months, and it had been represented to him that it would be desirable to make this change in the Bill in view of such contingencies.
  Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 24, to leave out the word "six," and insert the word "twelve."—(Mr. Leake.)
  Question proposed, "That the word "six" stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he thought it was not wise to extend unduly the period over which the authorities might allow their debts to run. He would, therefore, suggest that the Amendment should not be pressed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 66 (Borrowing by County Council.)
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he hoped the debts of the counties would be consolidated once for all, and that the new debts would be for such short periods that it would not be necessary for them to be continually re-arranged. He had put an Amendment on the Paper, which he hoped the Government would accept, in order to show that, when the debts were consolidated, it was not intended that the Council should agree to borrow again for long periods.
  Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 32, after the word "county," insert the words "existing at the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, the Government could hardly accept the proposal of his hon. Friend. If it were a good thing that the debts should be consolidated, he thought it would be a bad thing to limit the authority in the manner suggested. When, however, they came to the powers of the County Council, he thought he should be able to satisfy his hon. Friend still further on the point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTONsaid, he thought that, as the sub-section (b) now stood, it was somewhat premature, because the Government had agreed to drop all the clauses relating to the District Councils, and consequently the Committee was ignorant of the powers and constitution of the authorities to which County Councils were empowered under this sub-section to lend money. Another point had been taken with reference to this sub-section since the Bill had been in Committee. He saw that the Government had put down an Amendment proposing to alter the extent to which the County Council might go in borrowing money from two years' annual rateable value to one-tenth only of the annual rateable value of property in the county. He thought that Amendment was a very important one, on the ground of doing justice to the county itself. On the other hand, with reference to his Amendment, it had prevented the County Council from being a great lending authority, which this sub-section presupposed. The right hon. Gentle-

  1437
  man the President of the Local Government Board had already, owing to the pressure of borough Members, taken the large towns out of the purview of the Bill. In doing so, he had withdrawn the most valuable property from the rateable capital of the County Council, and what remained to the County Council was the property of the smaller boroughs which were left. He (Viscount Lymington) was afraid that the County Council would have to confront, on the one hand, the pressure which would be brought to bear from many of the bankrupt and insolvent towns to get it to take up their own loans; and, on the other hand, that the County Council would have to resist the importunities of speculative and small rising towns for loans for speculative purposes connected with the improvement of those towns. He feared that in some of the seaside towns, and such like places, persons might get on the Town Councils who were interested in land, and that they would use their position on the Town Councils to get loans started, and having done that, that they, acting in concert with the representatives of other towns, would go to the County Council, and exercise considerable pressure to get the County Council to back their loans. He thought that would place the County Council in a very difficult position. It was a notorious fact at the present moment that the rural districts were paying very small rates as compared with many of the towns, and it would be very hard if, through no fault of their own, but owing to the importunities of such towns as he had referred to, the county rate should be appreciably increased. What would be the security to the County Council? It would be the security of the rates. But supposing that some of these local loans turned out bad; supposing that the towns became bankrupt, what would be the position of the County Council? The County Council could not exactly re-enter upon their property, which might consist solely of gas and water rates or town improvement rates, and the County Council would have, as it were, to take over the business and manage the various concerns. That, he thought, would lead to a great deal of confusion, if it did not lead to a great deal of jobbery, as he feared it would, and accordingly he considered it as a danger
  1438
  which it was their duty to guard against. He ventured, therefore, to move the Amendment standing in his name; because, in the first place, the provisions of the sub-section were premature, inasmuch as the District Councils, having been struck out of the Bill, were not constituted; in the second place, because the provision might land the County Council in a rather perilous condition of finance; and, thirdly, because the local towns could, if their security were good, borrow, as many of them had now most successfully done, upon their own rates without involving the security of the County Council itself. He hoped his right hon. Friend would consider these objections, which were made in no Party spirit, and that he might see his way to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 55, line 33, to leave out Sub-section (b).—(Viscount Lymington.)
  Question put, "That Sub-section (b) stand part of the Clause."
  SIR JOHN DORINGTONsaid, he desired to support the Amendment of the noble Viscount opposite. The question had been discussed not only at Quarter Sessions generally, but also by the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions assembled in London, who were all unanimously opposed to this power being given to the County Council; they were all agreed that it should not be given. The only ground on which this proposal had ever been supported was that it would be a profitable business for the Councils to undertake these loans. But he (Sir John Dorington) thought it far more probable that loss would result to the county in the way which the noble Viscount opposite had described, and he believed that it would land the County Council financially in a most undesirable position. For these reasons he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to remember that he had struck out the clauses relating to District Councils. He could see no sufficient reason for taking this dangerous power. He thought it was a responsibility which ought not to be put on the County Councils. He had yet to learn that the

  1439
  County Councils desired to accept such a responsibility, and that they should derive any profit under the proposal would be altogether outside the idea of the Bill.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he ventured to hope that the Amendment of the noble Viscount would be accepted. He believed that no one who had had to deal with county finance would like to undertake the large responsibility of burdening the county rates with loans for special local purposes. He thought the localities would be better left to their own resources. They might be told that the County Councils would be able to borrow money for the localities at a lower rate of interest; but, on the other hand, he would point out that they would have no knowledge as to how the money would be expended, and as to whether the work could not be done at a less cost than might be proposed.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, there was no doubt that a good deal of argument could be adduced in favour of the subsection being disapproved of by the District Councils themselves; but, at the same time, he thought that if the Committee were disposed to intrust this power to the County Council, it might have resulted in some decrease of burden on ratepayers in all parts of the country. There was no intention, of course, in making the proposal, that the County Council should derive any profit from the transaction; but the Government rather regarded the County Council as being interested not only in the county as a whole, but also in local areas of the county, and that a proposal which would be for the advantage of those areas would also be for the advantage of the county at large. They had thought that, on the most absolute security being given to the County Council, they might lend money to the District Councils at a somewhat cheaper rate than the latter could, even with the strongest security, borrow it for themselves. Although it was true that the Government had not created District Councils, yet there had existed what were practically District Councils within the area of the county, and he might say, although they had no reason to suppose that the counties desired to have the responsibility cast upon them, yet they had received applications from
  1440
  Liverpool and other districts to include these borrowing powers, so that it might be possible for the County Council to borrow at a smaller rate than the districts could themselves borrow. As he had said, he believed the power might be exercised without the smallest risk to the county. He might explain, however, that no County Council would be able to raise money to lend to Local Authorities without the consent of the Local Government Board, and without inquiry. The Local Government Board would not sanction the lending of money to any Local Authories that were not authorized under their existing powers to borrow; and no District Council could be authorized to borrow money without inquiry by the Local Government Board as to whether or not they were within their borrowing powers. He thought, therefore, the provision was so hedged around by these securities, that there would be no appreciable risk in the County Council lending money under the sub-section; at the same time he admitted that if in the circumstances the Committee should be of opinion that it would be wise to defer a provision of this kind, the Government would not be prepared to insist on the retention of the sub-section. He had said that the power might, in their opinion, be exercised with advantage to the counties; but they also thought that the somewhat small contingent advantage which might be derived might possibly be purchased too dearly if the suspicion were created that the county funds would be imperilled.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction that the Government did not intend to press the sub-section. With regard to the Local Authorities being able to borrow money on easier terms through the County Council, he maintained that there was nothing so dangerous as the fatal facility of borrowing money. It was that facility which had led many of the Urban Authorities into serious debt, and he thought the House would do well to pause before it took any step whatever that would do anything to facilitate the accumulation of urban indebtedness.
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, he thought it would be a great advantage to the Local Authorities

  1441
  to be able to borrow money from the County Council. The Union in which he acted had saved a very large amount of life in the past 10 years by the exercise of its borrowing powers. They had provided water supply and other sanitary works in the villages, by which means alone they had succeeded in reducing the amount of zymotic disease by two-thirds, and therefore he trusted the Government would not give up this useful sub-section. He protested altogether against the intrusion of the spirit of jealousy between the rural and urban parts of counties. He greatly approved the provision in the sub-section; and he was of opinion that even if there were no existing authorities to lend to before next year, it would be well to retain the sub-section in the Bill as a direction to the authorities, which they might consider 12 months beforehand, so that when they began to lend they might lend wisely. He wished to point out that this power did not at all increase the facility of borrowing on the part of Local Authorities; it only enabled the authorities to borrow more cheaply. The facility for borrowing came from the Local Government Board. Now, if the Local Government Board had made up its mind that the Local Authorities ought to borrow, and that the security which they offered for the money was good, he should feel at perfect liberty to advise the County Council to assist the Local Authorities, in order that they might borrow at a cheaper rate. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the position and retain this useful sub-section.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he regarded with apprehension, if not with alarm, the proposal contained in this sub-section. It had been his portion to take some part in the work of the Police and Sanitary Committees. They had had to deal with applications from towns to borrow money, and there was nothing which required more vigilance, and he might say severity, on the part of a Parliamentary Committee, than these applications for power to incur loans. He had arrived at the conclusion that when they came to deal with the borrowing powers of Local Authorities those must be kept under the most severe control. He took it that anything in the nature of facilitating the incurring of debts was a signal disadvantage. His second objec-
  1442
  tion was that if they mixed up loans to Local Authorities with loans for county purposes the public mind would be perplexed by such an arrangement. They had one example of the lamentable result of this procedure in the Metropolitan Board of Works; and he thought it would be a strange thing if the House of Commons, in dealing with this Bill, should take the Metropolitan Board of Works as a pattern for the County Councils. The Debt which was now owing by the Metropolitan Board of Works was divided into Debt incurred for their own purposes, and Debt incurred by them as lenders and bankers to other authorities, and he ventured to say that few who had not made a study of Metropolitan affairs were aware how much of the Debt belonged to the Metropolitan Board of Works alone, and how much of it belonged to the minor authorities. He thought that any mode of keeping accounts or dealing with funds which confused the public intelligence and obscured the exact state of finance was a hazardous operation to which that Committee ought not to consent. He did not think that the statement that the county would incur no risk was a recommendation of the proposal of the Government, but that in one sense it was dangerous, because if the county incurred no risk the Council might be disposed to lend more freely and tempt the other Local Authorities into debt which would be injurious to them. For those reasons, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment of the noble Lord.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, that that was another attempt to emasculate the Bill, and take out of it one of its most useful provisions. He hoped the Government would be firm and retain the sub-section. He did not at all agree with profuse and easy borrowing; and he looked at the clause as being an absolute restraint. A Local Body wanting to borrow money would have to go to the County Council, and the County Council would have the option of refusing to lend the money, if they thought that the object in view was not a right one; and he would point out further to County Members that the Local Government Board would then have a second veto. On the whole, he thought the clause might be very useful indeed, and if the creation of District Councils was really

  1443
  only postponed, he certainly hoped the Government would retain it, because, without it, he did not see that the District Council would be able to do anything in the way of improving their portions of the county.
  MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, he saw nothing in the Bill to enable the County Council to hold any inquiry as to the usefulness of any scheme on account of which money might be sought to be borrowed. His own opinion was that borrowing ought not to be made too easy, either for the County Council or the District Council.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had listened carefully to what had been said on the Amendment by Members in all parts of the Committee, and he concluded that there was a considerable consensus of opinion against the retention of the sub-section; among others, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had advised the Government not to adhere to this sub-section. Having regard, therefore, to the opinions expressed, Her Majesty's Government would consent to the omission of the sub-section. At the same time, he might say that he did not withdraw anything he had said as to the advantage which, in his opinion, might result from this power to lend to the Local Authorities being given to the County Councils, if not now, at some future time.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, he could imagine many arguments in favour of the small towns not being included in the county at all. But either they ought to be left alone and retain their powers, or else they ought to be allowed to share in the advantage of the borrowing powers of the County Councils. He hoped the sub-section would not be withdrawn.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked if he was to understand that the borrowing powers were to be postponed, and that the right hon. Gentleman, in a measure, pledged himself that when the District Councils Bill was introduced this clause would be included in it? If that were not so, he certainly agreed with hon. Members who were in favour of the sub-section being retained. If the District Councils were established, they must have some work to do, and unless they could borrow money that work could not be done. His own experience of municipal life was that all
  1444
  this fear about Municipal Authorities squandering money had no basis when they were under the control of the electors. The whole aim of the Bill was that necessary work should be done in the rural districts as it had been done in the boroughs, and unless there was power to borrow money he did not see how the District Councils would be able to do what was necessary. Of course, it was indispensable that care should be taken with regard to the wise expenditure of the money, and it was well understood that the money which had been expended by municipalities had resulted in promoting the happiness, health, and welfare of the people for whom it was spent; and the ratepayers were beginning to find out that if Local Government meant a little increase of expenditure, it also meant an increase of general comfort and advantages to themselves. That had been already found out in the boroughs, and he ventured to say that it would be before long found to be the case in the rural districts. If the Government were going to eliminate this sub-section, he thought the right hon. Gentleman should give an undertaking that it should be reinstated in the District Councils Bill; otherwise he should feel it his duty to vote for its retention.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham appeared to confuse borrowing with lending powers. This was not a borrowing sub-section. The Sanitary and Local Authorities were now able to borrow; but the question was whether the County Council should be authorized to borrow money in order to lend it to the Local Authorities. As far as he was concerned, he saw no reason for imposing responsibility of that kind upon the County Councils who did not wish to undertake it, and he himself would be unwilling to involve them in such responsibility, as well as possibly enabling the borrowing authorities to call then to account, if they did not exercise their powers in their favour.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, that the distinction pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Stansfeld) was a distinction without a difference. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a lending and not a borrowing section; but he (Mr. Lawson) contended that it must be

  1445
  read with the 1st sub-section of the clause, where it was laid down that the County Council might borrow for a certain purpose, and that purpose was to lend to the Local Authorities. He ventured to think that his right hon. Friend did not in the least represent what he (Mr. Lawson) believed to be the opinions of hon. Members sitting behind him, because they contended that all that the Government asked the Committee to do was to improve the security on which money could be borrowed; the security was not increased, but improved by the sub-section, and it was intended to indicate a mode by which the Local Authorities might be able to borrow at a lower rate of interest. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) had declined to give any pledge that he would reintroduce this sub-section when he came to deal with the District Councils Bill; he only said that the sub-section might possibly be introduced by others. That was an enabling power alone, and it was perfectly clear that any County Council would make proper inquiry before the money was lent; the clause being enabling and not compulsory, it was to be supposed that the County Council would act in a common sense way, and satisfy themselves of the worthiness of the objects for which this money might be lent to the subordinate authorities. He hoped that the Committee would divide against the Amendment of the noble Viscount.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked, what course the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take when Clause 68 was reached? He would like to know, in all seriousness, what benefit would be left to the small boroughs after the election of the County Councils, if this clause were omitted?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that if the Committee decided to cut out that sub-section, Clause 68 must, of course, be cut out also. He was asked whether the Government would bring in the sub-section again when they brought forward the Bill for the District Councils? He could not give any pledge; but he hoped that hon. Members who were opposing the sub-section now would reconsider the question, and when they came to deal with the District Councils Bill next year, that they would be relieved from the fear which now oppressed them. But if the clause were brought forward
  1446
  again, it was not one which the Government would force upon the House in opposition to its wish.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, the clause meant that if the County Council could borrow cheaper, as being the larger authority, it should exercise that power in favour of the smaller Bodies. That was the very thing which hon. Members in that House had complained of before—namely, that the Government used its large powers of borrowing for the purpose of lending to other Bodies. If hon. Members thought it dangerous in the case of a Government, much more did they think it dangerous in the present case, and he was very much inclined to leave these smaller Bodies to go to the market and borrow for themselves, which he believed would be the much safer course to take.
  An hon. MEMBER said, that the sub-section proposed to give the security of the whole rating of the county for the expenditure applicable to one or more districts of the county. It seemed to him that they ought to insist that what-ever Body borrowed, that Body should be the ratepayers of the district alone, and that they ought to be responsible for the repayment of the money. For that reason alone, he felt it his duty to support the Amendment of the noble Viscount for the omission of the sub-section.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, they had transferred by the previous clause all the jurisdiction and powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works to the new London County Council. Now, the Metropolitan Board of Works had always been in the habit of raising loans, out of which money was lent for local purposes, including school boards; and he asked what would be the effect of striking out the sub-section in that respect?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the school boards were specially excluded from the control of the County Councils.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 173: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 218.)
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 55, line 41, leave out Sub-section (e).
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he rose to move the omission of Sub-section (f), which dealt especially with emigration, and which provided that the County Council should have power to borrow money, in order to send away emigrants from the county. The subject was so very important and so large, that he thought it would more properly form the subject of a Bill to be fully debated on its own merits in that House. It was necessary that such a provision as this should be adequately safeguarded, or otherwise he felt they might land the county in serious responsibilities. He regretted that they had not the opportunity of debating a Motion which had been on the Paper for some months; and although it was not desirable to initiate a general debate on the large question of emigration and State colonization on this occasion, yet he thought it was the proper time to say a few words upon the matter. He ventured to think that the power of borrowing money in order to create emigration, and enable counties to send away their surplus population, was a very dangerous one to confer. It was often supposed that State emigration was a means by which they could do away with the want of employment in this country; but he ventured to think that that was extremely doubtful. They were now emigrating about 200,000 persons a-year from the United Kingdom; but in spite of that reduction the population of the country was increasing at something like 360,000 persons, or 70,000 families a-year, which meant that if they were to affect the labour market of England by emigration they must manage to get rid of these 360,000 in addition to those who were now emigrated. Now, he thought such a state of things as sending away several hundreds of thousands could not be contemplated at the present moment with satisfaction, yet any measure which fell short of that would not really affect the great problem of unemployed labour which they had to solve. In order to get rid of that large number of persons, some had suggested that they should have what was called a Colonization system; and Papers had been presented to Parliament, some of which suggested that they should spend £125, £150, or even £300 per family, in order to get rid of the superfluous population and send it to other parts of the world. He
  1448
  would point out that if they were to get rid of the 70,000 families at the rate of £125 per family, the cost would be something like £9,000,000; and if the cost were £300 a family, it would amount to something like £20,000,000 a-year. But that money must come from the wage fund in some way or other; and he would like to know how many families there were in England, Ireland, and Scotland who would not be placed in a position of comparative affluence, if they had in their possession the sum of £125, much more £300? Therefore, he protested against the idea that they should spend these enormous sums to get rid of families, who, if such sums were spent on them here, might be prosperous in every sense of the word. Again, the expenditure of so large a sum in promoting emigration would leave the remainder of the people poorer than they were at present. It was a strange anomaly that they should be proposing in this measure to pass a clause enabling the County Councils to borrow money for the purpose of transporting persons out of the country, while, at the same time, they were importing into England large number of foreign paupers. It was said that some of these foreign emigrants were employed in Cheshire, and even by an hon. Member opposite. Under the clause it would be possible for the County Council of Cheshire to arrange, by a payment out of the rates, to lend money for the purpose of transporting a portion of the population to the Colonies and elsewhere; while, at the same time, the foreign paupers he had referred to were doing the work of English artizans. There was one firm alone in the country he referred to who employed 100 of these foreign hands; and while that was going on, as he said, the county, on the other hand, might borrow money at a large cost in order to send our own people away. He contended that this was a very wrong and dangerous system. Now, as regarded the statistics of population in connection with emigration, he could tell hon. Members who supported the clause that they would find those statistics a very useful study. He had himself gone through them carefully, but did not wish to take up the time of the Committee by considering them at great length. He would, however, point out that in

  1449
  the five years ending 1887, as compared with the five year ending 1882, our population had increased at the rate of 360,000 persons, or 70,000 families a-year, which meant an increase during the period named of something like 2,000,000. But it was a most remarkable thing that, although the population of the country was increasing at that enormous rate, the marriage and birth rates were decreasing. The marriage rate for the last five years was 1 in 136 of the population, as against 1 in 132 of the population during the five years ending in 1883. Again, the birth rate for the five years ending in 1887 was 1 in 30·6 of the population, whereas, in the five years ending 1883, it was 1 in 28·9 of the population. Although, the marriage and birth rates were decreasing, the emigration rate was increasing. Yet, as a matter of fact, the population of the country was increasing, which was due largely to the reduction in the death rate, which had gone down from 1 in 49·1 to 1 in 52·3 in the periods mentioned. That showed that, in dealing with this subject from the point of view of population, it was so difficult that he hoped the Government would not attempt to deal with it in an accidental clause in the present Bill. As a typical example, he would refer to the statistics relating to the town of Southport, and he found that in eight years ending in 1878 the birth rate was 24·5, whereas in the eight years ending 1886 it was only 21·2. The statistics showed that, in spite of the birth rate and marriage rate decreasing, the death rate was decreasing in so much larger a proportion in Southport, that since the year 1878 there were no fewer than 1,433 persons living in Southport, who would not have been living if the same death rate had continued which existed previous to 1878. This latter decrease was due entirely to improved sanitary arragements; and, therefore, they came to the conclusion that one cause the flood of industrial population and the scarcity of work was due to their having taken such precautions to improve the sanitary condition of the country. That, of course, was a most desirable result; but it showed how dangerous it would be to attempt by means of the clause to settle so extremely complicated a question of surplus labour off-hand. It might be asked what course should they
  1450
  pursue? But that was not the time or the place to consider the great question of over-population, and the means that should be adopted to diminish the scarcity of work which existed; and he had now only to express his opinion that it would be extremely injudicious to give to the County Councils the power of borrowing money for the purpose of transferring the surplus population to other parts of the world. The words of the sub-section were that they were to borrow this money; nothing was said about the period of repayment; they were to borrow the money, presumably in large sums, in order to get rid of the surplus population. He would not discuss the wording of the clause, which was extremely loose and dangerous, because he sincerely hoped the Government would withdraw it. He did not concern himself at this moment as to whether the money would be repaid or not; what he was particularly desirous of knowing was that they should not let the public suppose that wherever there was a surplus population in any district all they had to do was to clamour that the County Council should ship the surplus away. If there was a scarcity of work, the moral effect of this sub-section would be very serious. There would be no inducement to self-restraint; there would be inducement to delay matrimony; there would he no inducement to promote energy; there would be no inducement to promote thrift; and there would be no inducement to that assimilation of individuals to the changed circumstances of life which, after all, was the one great means by which a country could progress. People would go to the County Council, and expect a loan to be raised in order that they might be sent abroad. That was certainly not a matter which ought to be dealt with in a sub-section of a Bill like the present; if they were going to provide machinery for emigrating the surplus population, it ought to be provided by a special Act of Parliament. He was far from saying that emigration, in some cases, might not be desirable; but, after all, real emigration was that which made people save up and become thrifty and energetic themselves. It was such people who were the right people to go abroad; but they wanted to keep men of energy and "go" in this country. If this clause would enable them to emigrate theintem-

  1451
  perate, the lazy, and the indolent of all classes, he should be glad to support it, even if the emigration were to cost £120 a family; but this clause would simply be used to get rid of the best of the people, and if it was not so used, then it had better be taken out of the measure.
  Amendment proposed, in page 56, to leave out Sub-section (f).—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'for making advances' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. S. SMITHsaid, he had all his life studied the question of emigration. He thought that a judicious system of State-aided emigration was quite practicable; but he felt that there would be great danger if they were to grant the Local Authorities the power to emigrate all they chose. He wished to call attention to one limited class of emigration which he thought might safely be entrusted to the Local Authorities; he referred to the emigration of pauper children, and to one particular class of pauper children—namely, those who were at present maintained in workhouses and district schools at great expense to the ratepayers, children who were compulsorily maintained by the ratepayers, whom the ratepayers could not get quit of, whose cost was a very heavy charge, and who might be emigrated wisely and judiciously to our Colonies at a very great saving of cost to the ratepayers, and with very great advantage to the children themselves. He had for many years pressed the Local Government Board to give power to the Guardians to emigrate these children, and he was sorry to state that until recently every possible obstacle had been thrown in the way of the emigration of these children by the Local Government Board. But since the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) took Office a certain change of policy had taken place, and he recognized the right hon. Gentleman's willingness to meet them in this matter. In response to a Question he put last week, the right hon. Gentleman said that 677 children were emigrated in the course of last year. Now, there were at present about 60,000 pauper children maintained in workhouses and workhouse schools, at a cost to the country of about £20 per head per annum—that was at a
  1452
  total cost of about £1,200,000. That did not touch the enormous number of children who received outdoor relief—he believed the number of such children was about 250,000. He maintained that the emigration of the pauper children in workhouses was a matter which the County Authorities might very fairly take in hand. He spoke from a large experience of child emigration, having been connected for 15 years with some very successful experiments. In Liverpool they had emigrated 2,000 destitute children. These children had been, in many cases, taken from the gutter; they were certainly a miserable class of children; but no one could deny that the experiment had been remarkably successful. These 2,000 wretched children, who would otherwise have been left at home to inhabit our gaols, or workhouses, or penitentiaries, were now in Canada growing up prosperous and successful citizens. About 95 per cent of them were doing thoroughly well. Having watched these experiments most carefully for 15 years, he was prepared to say that there was no way in which this country could dispose of its pauper children at all comparable to this; it gave these children ten times as good a chance in future life as they would have here; it saved them from being poured back into the slums of the great towns, to which a large portion of workhouse children gravitated. What we in this country at present did was to train up these children at great expense for five, six, or seven years, and then plant them in the large towns. The Guardians exercised what care they could over the children, but a great portion of them, as he had said, gravitated towards the slums, and grew up confirmed paupers to beget another brood of paupers. He could not imagine a more senseless way of dealing with pauper children than this. His experience was that £15 would take a child out to Canada, pay all costs of outfit and preliminary training, and plant it safely on one of the Canadian farms. All that was asked was that the County Councils should have power to place these pauper children, before they entered the workhouse institutions, in charge of one of the many voluntary agencies established for dealing with such children. There were many agencies conducted by charitable and religious persons, who

  1453
  themselves contributed very largely towards the cost of child emigration. The County Authorities should have power to place pauper children in these institutions before they got the workhouse taint, and should have power to make a moderate grant for their maintenance during the one or two years in which they received preliminary training before going to Canada. That preliminary training was absolutely necessary; Canada would not take pauper children unless they had been adequately trained, unless they had been brought under religious and moral instruction, as well as manual and physical instruction. Let them give power to the County Councils to board these children out, and then to make any grant sufficient to place the children in the Colonies. This emigration had produced the very best results. It was only the other day he received a letter from one of the largest Homes which emigrated children to Canada informing him that a large band had arrived, and that so great was the demand for children that a telegram had been received in this country asking for 200 more. Such was the experience of Liverpool; for every band they sent out they had applications for at least four times as many. He thought that the responsibility involved in the emigration of these children might fairly be left with the Local Authorities.
  MR. RANKINsaid, he begged to thank the Government for having introduced this clause in the Local Government Bill. He certainly did not think the logic of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) was very good, because he did not see why a remedy which could not meet the whole evil should not be applied to certain cases. He could not conceive a more practical remedy for over-population than placing people in a position in which they could get an honest livelihood elsewhere. There was no method of dealing with our over-population which was more likely to conduce to their welfare than placing them in a position where they could earn an honest living. It seemed to him a very much sounder principle to lend money or to pay money, in order to place persons in a position where they could maintain themselves, than it was to pay money, as was done now in very large sums, to maintain persons in
  1454
  pauperism. He much preferred the plan of beginning at the other end, and advancing a little money for the sake of preventing persons sinking into a position of pauperism, rather than that of calling upon the people to pay large rates, something like £8,000,000 sterling a-year in England and Wales, to maintain them as paupers. He considered that this would be an especially useful clause in regard to the rural counties. They had to regret constantly the great outflow of men and women from rural districts into towns; the towns were overburdened with population, and they did not want more persons to come in from the country, because those persons pushed out other persons who were already in employment in the towns. The consequence of this influx was that constantly in towns a largo number of persons were unable to obtain employment. The persons who had gone through this stage of degradation were not persons who were able to make good Colonists; and he thought that it was a much wiser principle, or, at all events, much more loyal to our Colonists, that we should endeavour to help out of the country persons who were strong and able to make good Colonists. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley), speaking of over-population, seemed to advocate the abolition of the sanitary laws, so that a good number of persons might die off. He (Mr. Rankin) did not think that that would meet with general acceptance.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid he must protest against such a statement; he never even indicated such a policy.
  MR. RANKINsaid, he did not mean to say that the hon. Gentleman said so in so many words; but that was the only remedy he could glean from the hon. Gentleman's observations. He thought that it was a far better remedy to endeavour to put these persons in a position where they could help themselves. Moreover, he did not believe that anyone in the House need be alarmed at the dimensions to which this would grow; he did not believe that the County Councils would be called upon very largely to exercise their functions in this particular matter. He believed that if the County Councils were to do this work at all, it would be necessary for the Government to supplement the measure they had brought in, and form a

  1455
  Colonization Board. The duty of such a Board would be to negotiate between the County Councils, the Home Government, and the Colonial Governments. In his opinion, if the Government would throw their hearts into this matter, and make arrangements with the Colonial Governments to give facilities of land which would make any advances given by the County Councils or the Home Government absolutely certain of being returned, it would be as good an investment for loans from the County Councils as any investment could be, and, at the same time, it would save hundreds and thousands of men and women from sinking down to pauperism from want of work. Societies which were now being formed, like the Church Emigration Society, the Commercial Colonization Society of Manitoba, and other societies he could name, were societies which could do a great deal of good work in this direction if they had a little pecuniary assistance from such Bodies as the County Councils or the Home Government. He asked the Government to be firm in this matter; that as they had been good enough to introduce a clause of this sort to stick to it, and see that it was passed as part of this Local Government Bill. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) that, in regard to the emigration of pauper children, the County Councils could step in with very great advantage to the children and to the country at large. It was absolutely certain that the expense of sending these children out was less than that of keeping them for a long period in workhouses or workhouse schools. In conclusion, he entreated the Government not to agree to the omission of the clause, but to assist in every way the carrying out of the great scheme of colonization.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid, he hoped the Government would stand firm by this clause. His hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley) said that this was not a desirable opportunity for discussing the question of emigration; but in the very short speech he made he raised almost every conceivable point connected with the subject. He (Sir John Colomb) asked the Government to stand firm by this clause for this reason. It was a permissive power which was to be given; and if County Councils saw the necessity for
  1456
  assisting persons to emigrate, he certainly thought facilities should be afforded them to grant such assistance. He was entirely in accord with the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) and the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Rankin). Why, if it was necessary to enable people to escape from misery, was it necessary to force them under the operation of the Poor Law? They knew perfectly well the difficulties which had arisen in our Colonies in carrying out any system of emigration. We had insisted upon conducting emigration through the Poor Law; this clause afforded an opportunity in special cases of emigrating children to Canada or elsewhere. If the clause was not retained, the only means by which the transfer of children to Canada or elsewhere could be effected would be through the poor-house. That, he thought, was a very material point in favour of the retention of the present clause. He heartily thanked the Government for having recognized the necessity of adopting some mode other than through the Poor Law of effecting emigration. He assured his hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley) that if he looked into the matter, and studied the public opinion of the country, he would find there was not the least reason for him to be afraid that if this clause passed the people would be carted out by thousands. This power would only be used in rare instances, and where the necessity for its exercise had become a matter of public endorsement. They must not only look at the question as a means of relieving the labour market of the United Kingdom by enabling those who were pressed out of work to escape to a place where they could get work, but they must look at the other side of the question, which was the advantage that the transference of people to our Colonies secured in the way of markets for our produce. That was a point which his hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley) never touched upon, though it was a very important point, when they remembered that our great difficulty was to find an increase of markets, and when they knew, as a matter beyond dispute, that the increase of population in our Colonies meant the increase of the markets open to our produce. Just in proportion as our Colonies filled up did our trade expand with those Colonies. It was, therefore, not as a question so

  1457
  much of getting rid of our surplus population that this question must be regarded, but from the standpoint that we were one Empire, and that one portion was overcrowded, and that others were empty. Just in proportion as they relieved the overcrowding of the old portion and added to the population of the new portion, they increased the advantages of those who remained in the old portion by reason of creating new markets. Canada took 35 s. worth per head per annum of our produce. While the United States only took 7s. worth per head, and Germany 8s. worth per head, of our produce, the Australasian Colonies took from £6 to £8 per head of our produce during the year. This commercial aspect of the question was an important point, and for the reasons he had assigned, as well as for others, he trusted the Government would stand by their clause.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he heartily endorsed everything his hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) had said in regard to the very beneficial effect of emigrating poor children. Nothing could be more beneficial to poor children themselves, as well as to the community generally, than to send poor children out to our Colonies, to place them in such positions where they would have a much better chance in life than they had here. But this clause would not help them in the least. The clause ran—
  "Where there is a reasonable cause to believe that the amounts or advances will be repaid by the emigrants."
  The means so advanced would never be even promised to be paid by the poor children, and what his hon. Friend wanted was really not aid in emigrating pauper children. They had the power to emigrate such children, and such children had been emigrated from Liverpool. What his hon. Friend wanted was the power to train pauper children before sending them out, and that this clause would not give in any way. He could not help thinking that the proper course to pursue was to try these experiments privately, by private means and with private watchfulness, until they were successful. When they were successful, their promoters might fairly come to the public, and ask them to help them in carrying the experiments still further.
  1458
  He contended that in the case of pauper children the experiment had been tried, and that it had been successful, both from an economical point of view and from the point of view of good derived by the objects of the undertaking.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. RATHBONE, continuing, said, that in regard to the emigration of adults, he was sorry to say his experience was—and it had been considerable—that the promoters never did get repaid by the emigrants, even where the emigrants had received grants from the Government and every possible facility. He did not regret any money he had spent in this direction, because he thought it had done a great deal of good; but he was sorry to say that in no single case had the emigrants ever attempted to repay a farthing of the money advanced. He thought that in this case they ought to be able to show to the Government and to the people of the country a successful plan of emigration, and a plan on which the objects sought to be attained by legislation had been amply secured, before they asked for Government aid. That they had never been able to do as yet, and certainly before they passed such a clause as this they ought to be able to show there was some chance of using it usefully. While he would be very glad to support this clause if it would tend to promote child emigration, he did not think they were yet in a position to attempt to advance money in aid of adult emigration.
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he hoped the Government would not withdraw this clause. Personally, he looked upon the proposals of this clause as an important part of what some day he hoped would be a great national scheme of colonization. He was somewhat surprised to hear his hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley) raise almost the whole question of colonization. Having done so, the hon. Gentleman proceeded to argue to a very great extent in its favour, then to dwell upon the evils of over-population, and to conclude that colonization was no remedy for over-population. The hon. Gentleman said that colonization was a dangerous remedy, that it was not a good remedy, and he attacked its financial side. He

  1459
  (Mr. Seton-Karr) challenged every one of the hon. Gentleman's statements, and he trusted that before very long the House would have an opportunity of discussing the whole question of colonization, and of coming to a decision upon it. At present, he protested against what he might call the libel perpetrated upon the case of colonization by the hon. Member (Mr. Bartley). Of course, while he hoped that the Government would adhere to this clause, he admitted that its operation would not be very large. The clause was merely a step in the right direction; the County Councils would not spend very large sums of money in promoting emigration. They would have plenty of other work on their hands, and, furthermore, they were not the right authority to negotiate with Colonial Governments respecting the reception of emigrants; but, at the same time, he did not see what possible harm would be done by giving County Councils this power. The power was amply safeguarded, because, in the first place, they were to receive the consent of the Local Government Board; and, in the second place, they must have reasonable cause to believe that the amount advanced would be repaid by the emigrants. One must put a certain amount of confidence and trust in the County Councils; it was only a permissive power which was proposed to be given, but there was a precedent for it. At present, Boards of Guardians had power to use the ratepayers' money in the emigration of adults, and it was a very great regret to him that they had not used the power more largely. What had been done by Boards of Guardians in this direction was a very great argument against the assertion of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) that this was a dangerous power to give Local Authorities. The hon. Member for Islington adduced figures as to the increase of population, and then went on to assume that under this clause, or under some scheme of colonization or emigration, the Committee was about to sanction the expenditure of large sums of money—several hundreds of thousands of pounds—in emigrating families. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, he had only to say he was convinced that when the time came for laying the scheme of colonization before Parliament it would be found to bear inspection. In no scheme of colonization
  1460
  would they ever dream of advocating that large sums of money should be spent out of the Imperial Exchequer, or by the County Councils, in emigrating adults until they had tested the soundness of the scheme. The hon. Member had estimated the cost of emigrating families at £300 each; but he (Mr. Seton-Karr), however, believed that the average cost would be found to be about £150 per family. Suppose Parliament was in favour of a scheme of colonization, and that, in the first place, 100 families were emigrated—100 families at £150 each would be £15,000. Suppose that that money was raised at 3 per cent. either by an agency or by the County Council, or by the Imperial Exchequer—the whole liability that would be incurred in trying a colonization scheme affecting 100 families would be £450 a-year. Suppose the 100 families were not to be emigrated, but to be left in this country; suppose, too, that they were out of employment for a period of 10 years, and that they numbered 450 paupers, upon a very moderate computation £10 per year per head would be spent; therefore, they had at once an expenditure of £4,500, which was ten times the sum which would have to be paid, whether the emigration of the 100 families was a good experiment or not—whether it succeeded or not He maintained that it would be a far better experiment for this country to make, than to leave the people at home to breed paupers at a cost to the country of £10 per head per annum. The hon. Member for Islington said that we allowed foreign paupers to be immigrated to this country, and argued that, therefore, we ought not to emigrate any of our adults. He (Mr. Seton-Barr) never heard a more extraordinary argument. He asked why should they stop a useful remedy for the home population, because the home population was aggravated by the influx of pauper immigrants? He was as strongly opposed to the immigration of foreign paupers as anyone could be, but he did not see what that immigration had to do with the colonization of our waste Colonial lands. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Sir John Colomb) alluded to a most important point, which he trusted would never be lost sight of in the discussion of this question. He said that besides the question of reducing the population at

  1461
  home, there was also the question of utilizing and colonizing our great waste Colonial lands. How long did this Parliament suppose the Colonies were going to keep their fertile agricultural lands open to suit our convenience? If we did not utilize our surplus population in peopling these lands, the lands would soon be occupied by foreigners. The result would be that we should wake up some fine morning, and find our vast Colonial Empire colonized by an alien race. This question was one of the utmost importance, and he earnestly hoped that the Government would stick through thick and thin to the clause.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHTURsaid, he joined in the hope that the Government would stand by the clause. He granted that no successful experiment of this kind of emigration had as yet been made; but he believed that such an experiment was a perfectly feasible one. He believed that State-aided Colonization was practicable, and he was in hope of seeing some of the experiments now in process turning out successfully. But, whether those experiments proved successful or not, it would be a very unfortunate thing if the Committee, by rejecting this sub-section, were absolutely to prevent the County Councils in the future from engaging in any such schemes without fresh legislation. They had now the chance of giving to the County Councils power, which would not be used immediately, but which might be of the greatest use hereafter to the agricultural population.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCEsaid, he was afraid the discussion was likely to drift into one on the question of emigration or no emigration. He was in favour of emigration, but he demurred to the section now under consideration. He could not think that emigration was a fit subject for a local loan. Local loans ought to be raised to meet the present wants of the ratepayers, and to benefit those who came afterwards; and, in the second place, they ought to be certain in their results. Now, it was by no means certain that if emigration benefited the present ratepayers it would benefit future ratepayers. Furthermore, the expenditure under this head was altogether indefinite. He had no objection to the emigration of children, but he had the strongest objection to the emi-
  1462
  gration of adults by Local Bodies. He asked the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Seton-Karr) what would be the result if it got known in that town that the County Council intended to emigrate 100 families? Would not people flock into the town in the expectation that the Local Authorities would do one year what they had done in the previous year? What good would the emigration of so small a number as 100 families, or 1,000 people, do in the case of a great population like that of St. Helen's and that of similar districts? It seemed to him that this expenditure was entirely speculative. The expenditure necessary to make emigration successful must include the expense of transit and maintenance during transit, and the expense of settling the people for the first year, at least, in the new country. Then, again, this was a most dangerous power to give to a Local Body. How many ratepayers would willingly vote that money should be raised on the rates, if they had to meet it by taxation? He disagreed with this clause on principle, and he also objected to it because it was thoroughly indefinite. In his opinion, to treat the great subject of emigration in this haphazard and casual manner was altogether undesirable; and in the event of this clause being retained in the Bill, he intended to move an Amendment providing that, in the case of adult emigration, no advance should exceed in amount one-half of the expenses of the transit of the emigrant from his then place of abode to the destination specified by him at the commencement of the journey.
  MR. KIMBERsaid, he thought the Committee had forgotten how the clause originated. This was a Local Government Bill—a Bill by which the House of Commons professed to trust something to Local Bodies. But the whole tenour of the debate had been based upon the supposition that nobody was to be trusted to carry out the plan of emigration except the House of Commons itself, not even to the extent of advancing £10 towards the passage of an emigrant to one of our own Colonies. The hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) objected to the clause, because it gave to the County Councils power to make advances, not to emigrants necessarily, but to any persons, or bodies of

  1463
  persons, even under the condition that there was reasonable cause to believe that the amount advanced would be repaid. The clause said "repaid by the emigrants;" but it might well stop at the word "repaid," and he had an Amendment upon the Paper providing that it should stop there. The County Councils would, it was hoped, be a body, not only with the same sense of responsibility as the House of Commons, but be possessed of equal reasoning power—perhaps greater in some cases. Were the Committee to suppose that the County Councils would recklessly run away with the notion that this clause was to enable them to raise amongst them £9,000,000 sterling for the purpose of exporting the whole of the surplus population? The clause was purely permissive, and it might or might not be exercised. The object of the Bill was to delegate from this House the necessity of examining cases, such as might arise under the clause, of persons whom it would be desirous, not only in the public interest, but in their own interest, to assist to one of our Colonies. There was this reason why assistance should be given to our fellow-subjects who had no means themselves, and whom it was necessary to give assistance to, if they were to be saved from pauperism—that our Colonies were an integral portion of the British Empire. They happened to be separated physically by water; but nobody could doubt that if they were not separated by water, but adjoined England, and if the people had not the means to betake themselves to those remoter parts of the Kingdom, it would be the duty of the Government to make roads of communication for them to proceed by. The simple fact which raised the difficulty in our fellow-subjects emigrating were that the roads were over the water instead of over the land. By assisting men to emigrate they did the best thing they could possibly do for the men themselves, and at the same time they did the very best of services for the Colonies, inasmuch as they enabled the Colonies to be what they had hitherto been, the best customers of the Old Country. The Australian Colonies were customers to the extent of the value of £60,000,000 sterling a-year. It was evident that this country had too many people to support out
  1464
  of its own internal resources. [Cries of "No!"] Then, if hon. Gentlemen were right, he asked how it was that there were large numbers of people who were not so supported? During the last three or four years our trade had fallen very considerably, though it was now reviving; and, therefore, it was obvious that one of the best things that could be done for the people at home was that some should go abroad and create new wants, which could be supplied from the Mother Country. The hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) gave two reasons why he objected to this clause. One reason was that the power had never been given before. If that were true, it was no reason why it should not be given now. But the power had been given before. There was power now; [Mr. BARTLEY: Not to borrow money.] The power existed to emigrate people, but it was accompanied by the ban of pauperism, and that was manifestly a ban which honest working men did not care to come under. The other reason the hon. Member gave was that, the object of the clause being to get rid of the want of employment, that object would not be effected unless we exported 70,000 families a-year. He (Mr. Kimber) did not see why, because they could not accomplish all they desired, they should not accomplish as much as they could, if the object was good, and the result to be obtained was also good.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that the hon. Member seemed to be discussing this clause as if it formed some great emigration scheme or some great State colonization scheme. It did nothing of the kind. This clause was simply to enable the County Councils to assist emigration in cases where they deemed it necessary. There seemed to be some disposition on the part of the Government to unload it or emasculate it, and it was time that that proceeding should be protested against. The scheme was an important one on account of the enormous responsibilities that they were placing upon the County Councils, and it was only to the extent to which those responsibilities and powers existed that they would get the best men to come forward and do the work of the County Councils. Therefore, on principle, he would vote for any responsibility or duty proposed in the Bill being kept there

  1465
  and imposed upon the County Councils, as he was sure that that was the right policy. Nearly every one of these powers was described in turn as dangerous to commit to the hands of the Local Authority. It seemed to be forgotten that these County Councils were an elected Body under the control of the ratepayers, and hon. Members seemed to lose sight of the fact that they could trust the ratepayers to see that these powers were exercised in a proper manner. Therefore, he hoped that the Government would give up no more of the powers they proposed in the Bill to entrust to these Councils. As a matter of fact, there were many cases which happened which it would be very useful for the County Councils to have the power of discussing. Let him illustrate a case which came under his notice and which he examined in the county of Warwick. There was an able-bodied widow above the age at which women were assisted to emigrate, but she had a son in Queensland who was ready to maintain her, and she herself was anxious to go out to him, but the money was not forthcoming to pay her passage, although this was one of those cases in which he was perfectly sure that if the money had been advanced and time had been allowed for repayment, repayment would ultimately have been made. He knew perfectly well that the woman had no prospect in England, and that if she remained here, at some time or other, when her health failed, she would become a pauper. Here she had a home offered her in one of the Colonies, and with a little assistance from a County Council great good would be done to her personally, and a reasonable thing would he done so far as the community at large was concerned. It would be a hardship to deny this power to the County Council; but, independent of that, this and every other power could be safely entrusted to such a representative authority as they knew the County Council to be. All this talk about emigrating 70,000 families and relieving congested districts was beside the question, for nothing of that kind was involved, It was only a question of giving this great representative authority power, if it thought fit, in certain cases to do certain things. That being so, he should certainly vote—especially as there were certain powers existing to help people when they become paupers—for
  1466
  helping people who were very poor and unable to help themselves in the direction of emigration, but who were not paupers and were not likely to become paupers. If they omitted this clause he was sure they would be doing that which was wrong. They had already denied the right of the new Councils to borrow money cheaply, and had insisted upon their borrowing it at a high rate, and he trusted that they would not take away this power from them, which he was sure in many cases might be used with great advantage, and which he had said there was no fear of being abused, as the Councils were the representatives of the ratepayers, who would always keep an eye to the public purse. If the County Councils were lavish in their expenditure it would be the fault of the ratepayers themselves.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that a great deal too much importance was being attached by the Committee to this clause. It seemed to be supposed by some hon. Members that the Government were asking the Committee to embark in some great scheme of State-aided emigration. Well, but nothing of the kind was to be found within the four corners of the Bill. They were not asking the Committee to commit itself on this great question as to whether or not emigration ought to be assisted by this measure. It was evident, if they desired to raise such a question as that, it would have been most imprudent of them to have attempted to do so in such a complicated Bill as this. The Bill itself was of a very large character, and it would have been obviously impossible for them to hope to pass the measure through in anything like reasonable time if they complicated it with such great questions involving such enormous differences of opinion as State-aided emigration. On the question of emigration itself he did not think there could really be two opinions. It must be admitted, on all hands, that there were certain conditions and circumstances which rendered it desirable that some easy process should exist by which emigration should be assisted, if it could be assisted without danger to the State. Every Member of the Committee knew, from circumstances within his own knowledge, that the condition of things arising in particular localities and counties that the only

  1467
  choice sometimes seemed to be between emigration and pauperism. Well, if the question had to be decided as between one and the other, he had no doubt in his own mind as to the way in which the immense majority of people would decide it. He knew perfectly well that there were large numbers of people and large numbers of Members of Parliament who thought they had schemes which it would be well to adopt, and which would be found better than emigrating the people. But those measures were not before the country at present, and he ventured to think that it would be unwise for them, if they saw an opportunity of bettering the condition of the people rather than to pauperize them, not to take advantage of the opportunity than wait for the time to arrive when their condition might be ameliorated by legislation—legislation which, in his opinion, would have a very doubtful result, and which, in any case, could not be passed without a considerable amount of time and trouble being devoted to it. Therefore, he was certain that as between emigration and pauperism there could be no doubt whatever as to the merits of the former. What they proposed under this power was to provide some means by which County Councils, who would be freely elected Bodies, would be able to assist in emigrating people to places where they ought to desire, in the interests of those people whom they sought to benefit, to send them to. They did not impose any obligation on the County Councils. They had attempted to set up, and he hoped they would succeed in this Bill in setting up, a large and powerful organization freely elected by the people in every county. They would have large funds to dispose of, large financial arrangements to make, and the Government simply said in this clause that amongst other things they should, if they thought right, assist in this work of emigration—[An hon. MEMBER: With borrowed money?]—Yes; but a great deal had to be done in the Bill, and the hon. Member who interrupted him knew perfectly well that if they were to limit what was to be done by providing that the cost should be defrayed out of current receipts for the present year it would be no use giving these powers. A great deal had been said about this power of borrowing money,
  1468
  but there were two ways of looking at the question. If the Legislature imposed duties upon Local Bodies—duties which it was for the public good that they should perform—it would be enormously hampering the operation of those Local Bodies in the performance of their duties if they were to require that the expense should be defrayed out of money raised during the year. Therefore, naturally, there was a great deal to be said in favour of strictly limiting the borrowing power. It would be an unwise thing to say—"You shall provide duties for the Local Bodies when providing them with the means of raising the necessary funds." The obligation would be so onerous that it would be perfectly impossible to discharge it. As he had pointed out, they did not impose a duty upon the Local Authorities with reference to this matter; but they conceived a condition of things under which the County Councils should have power to assist people if they desired to emigrate, and he could not conceive how hon. Gentlemen who had confidence in the County Councils and believed they would be productive of good, and that the work they had to do would be well administered—he could not conceive how they could refuse to give them this power if they desired to exercise it. He would point out to the Committee what had already been pointed out by more than one speaker—namely, that a power would exist, in reference to emigration, in Boards of Guardians. Boards of Guardians might, and did, emigrate people; but how did they emigrate them? They emigrated them by converting them first into paupers. He had heard an hon. Member say that the Boards of Guardians lent the money for emigration purposes; they did nothing of the kind. It was not a loan, but a gift—it was a payment which reduced the people emigrating to the state of paupers. Looking at the fact that that could be done by Boards of Guardians, surely it was not a strong power to allow the County Councils, where they thought it desirable, the power of helping people to emigrate, which emigration would not only be good for the people themselves, but also good for the localities in which they lived. It was surely desirable to enable the County Council, within reason, to assist people to remove from a district where they

  1469
  could not earn their own living to a country where there was every chance, not only of their earning their living, but of bringing up their families in comfort and prosperity. He did not believe himself that the power which would be conferred by this clause would be exercised by the County Councils in the indiscriminating and wholesale way which some people imagined. Nothing of the kind. The Local Government Board would have to give their sanction, and would have the right of saying whether or not the powers asked for were those which should be sanctioned. The hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) was not unwilling that there should be some powers of this kind; but he desired to limit it to the emigration of children. The hon. Member had been good enough to say that since he (Mr. Ritchie) had come into the Local Government Board Office something had been done in the way of removing restrictions. Well, he (Mr. Ritchie) was glad it had been in his power to remove restrictions in these matters, and he desired to do that even still more. He would point out to the hon. Gentleman, whom he knew was very deeply interested in this subject, and was most anxious that the welfare of the poor people of the country should be secured, that any distinct instructions as to the emigration of pauper children in this clause might lead to considerable difficulty. The emigration of pauper children was by no means shut out of the clause—it was, on the contrary, included. But there was a great difference between including it in the general principle and specifying distinctly that pauper children should be emigrated. If such distinct specification were to be made, and County Councils were to take it as an instruction that it was especially desirable that pauper children should be emigrated, it might be a great evil. There was nothing that required more careful safeguarding than the emigration of pauper children. Though he had every desire that pauper children should be emigrated where possible, he had no wish that there should be anything like a wholesale attempt at the deportation of these children. Such emigration ought to be carried out with the utmost care and anxiety. The children should be previously prepared for emigration; and, in the next place, care should be taken that, whether
  1470
  they were sent to Canada or elsewhere, they would be properly taken care of on their arrival. The utmost care should be taken, not only that the children should be carefully trained before they went, but that there should be proper organization on the other side to receive and care for them when they did arrive. He (Mr. Ritchie) was as anxious as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Smith) for the emigration of pauper children; but he was desirous of seeing this emigration grow naturally, and not to see it forced into an unnatural growth, which result, it seemed to him, would be brought about by the adoption of the Amendment proposed. The Government did not propose this clause with a view of opening up the whole question of State-aided colonization; nothing of the kind. They had proposed this clause simply because they thought this was one of the powers which might safely be entrusted to the County Council, and because they believed that it was that which, if carefully used, would be productive of considerable good It had been pointed out that the clause, as drawn, was very wide; and he was prepared to admit that there was some force in the objection so raised. They did not desire to proceed by "leaps and bounds" in this matter. What they desired was not to make the clause so wide as to render it possible that the powers given would be abused. He confessed that he had listened carefully to what had been stated, and the impression left upon his mind was that the clause might be somewhat restricted with advantage—that some alteration might be made to facilitate the County Council dealing with the question of emigration without giving any ground for the fears expressed on the other side of the House. He should be willing to amend the clause so that it would read that the County Councils should be empowered to borrowed money—
  "For making advances which they are hereby authorized to make to any person or bodies of persons, corporate or incorporate, in aid of the emigration of the inhabitants of the country, with a guarantee for repayment from any Local Authority or the Government of the Colony, and."
  That would undoubtedly considerably restrict the operation of the clause. It would bring it within safer limits, and he hoped it would satisfy the Committee

  1471
  that the Government were not desirous of embarking with that wholesale system of emigration which some hon. Members seemed to fear. The Amendment would mean that any Local Authority within the county desiring to assist the emigration of any individual from the locality who applied to the County Council might assist the emigration with the guarrantee of the Local Authority, or, it might be, of the Government of one of the Colonies which might be desirous of receiving a certain number of emigrants, and to enter into an arrangement with the County Council for guaranteeing such a sum of money as would have to be granted for the purpose of the emigration. He trusted the Committee would see that this was a reasonable limitation, and that the clause, as amended, should be adopted.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he could not believe a scheme involving the principle of borrowing powers could be considered of little importance. If the persons to be elected on the County Councils would be as free from error as some hon. Gentle men seemed to think, there could be no harm in giving these powers, which would serve to make the Councils as important as possible; but they must bear in mind that they were dealing with a Council who would have great pressure put upon them by the ratepayers in the direction of extravagance, and there was nothing, perhaps, upon which they would be more likely to be extravagant than this emigration when appeals would be made to them ad misericordiam. They should, therefore, be careful in protecting them from the pressure which would thus be brought to bear upon them. He was very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman had consented to strike out of the clause words inadvisedly put in which allowed money to be advanced on a guarantee that it would be repaid by the emigrants. The words of the clause now retained seemed to him to be perfectly sufficient—namely, that the money that was advanced should be repaid by the Local Authority of the county. With those words inserted he should agree to the proposal.
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, he thought he might say, not only for himself, but for a good many Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House that their anxiety
  1472
  for this clause of the Bill had not been lest the County Councils might commit itself beyond what might be financially prudent, but that the whole tendency of the clause was to foster a desire in the County Councils for the promotion of emigration and seemingly to enforce, by the sanction of this House, that the view of the country was that emigration should be encouraged by the County Councils. That was the way he took it, and he thought he was sustained in the view by the speeches which had come from the Benches opposite. They were all largely in agreement as to the fact of the existence of pauperism and the desirability of getting rid of it, and he should not have risen at that late hour if it had not been for the suggestion that no positive scheme for that purpose had been proposed from the Opposition Benches. In the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board there seemed to be an idea that the proposal of this clause was one which should meet the case; and it was because he (Mr. Halley Stewart) believed there were other ways of solving the problem of pauperism that he desired to take part in the discussion. It was because he thought there were better means of remedying pauperism that he felt very reluctant indeed to accept the clause proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, even as improved and amended. His opinion was that the Land Laws of this country were the cause of the pressure upon our town population, and also the cause of the sparsity of population in our rural districts. He believed that most moderate calculations went to show that the agricultural land of this country would sustain, at least, double the number of persons which it at present sustained. [Cries of "No!" from the Ministeral Benches.] Yes; maintain in comfort, at least, double the number of persons it now sustained, and when the hon. and gallant Member for Bow and Bromley (Sir John Colomb) spoke with enthusiasm of the new markets which would be opened to us in Canada and Australia, and the customers that would come to our looms and mills and manufactories if only we would emigrate these people—of the custom their industry would create for us—and when he said that they would be customers to us to the extent of at least £17 a-head—
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I did not say anything of the sort.
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, the figures the hon. and gallant Gentleman had put before the Committee were, he believed, to the effect that per head of the population of Australia some £17 was spent in the home country.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid, it was another hon. Member who had used that figure. What he (Sir John Colomb) had said was that, taking the average throughout Australasia over a long period of time, the amount would probably be about £6 or £7 per head.
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, he begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It was a Gentleman behind the Treasury Bench who had used the figure; but the figure used by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley, after all, only emphasized the argument he had been going to use. If every individual in Australia was a customer of this country to the extent of £6 or £7, the argument would apply to a much larger extent than if the sum were £16 or £17. What he maintained was that if they found employment at home for that part of the population who were now a burden upon the rates they would be customers to our manufacturers to a much larger extent per head than they would be if sent to the Colonies. The amount spent by them in home manufactures would be doubled and quadrupled. If it were a matter of Colonial trade there might be some force in the contention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Colomb); but it was not merely a trade question. He imagined that in getting rid of our population and exporting the people as proposed, they were getting rid of the strength and sinew of the country. They never sent out the sick, the halt, the blind; but they sent out the best brain and sinew of the country. Of a family of eight or 10 it was never the laggard, the lazy, or the fool who went out, but the best man, the one with most courage and endurance; and the reason he and his friends objected to the system proposed in the Bill was that it would be bringing about weakness in this country just in proportion as it increased strength in the Colonies. He objected to the clause as it originally stood, and much preferred the Amendment as proposed by his hon. Friend on
  1474
  his right. The clause as now presented was less objectionable; but he certainly felt strongly opposed to favouring the system of emigration until they had developed the allotment system and made experiments in the direction of small holdings, which he believed would before long be established law, and he should not be surprised if the law were passed under the auspices of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. By this system new power would be given to village life, and the bestowing of this power was almost within the right hon. Gentleman's reach under the new District Councils. It was because he believed some such system should be adopted that he could not give his sanction to the system of emigrating our best sons. The hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) had something to say about the "lightening of the ship;" but it was rather a singular circumstance, in view of his observations, to reflect that he was not present when the lightening of the ship was going on, and when the District Clauses were being disposed of.
  MR. TOWNSENDsaid, he should like to say a word or two in support of the sub-section, particularly as now amended by the Government. He did not think the country need fear even if the County Councils had this power given to them that advantage would be taken of it, at any rate until the lapse of a considerable period, as the labourers of the agricultural districts were averse to emigration. In time, however, there would be some who would take advantage of it, no doubt. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) in thinking that this Emigration Clause would discourage thrift at home; on the contrary, he thought it would put a premium on skill and industry, but they should only send out those men of whose power, skill, and industry they were certain, and who would be likely to succeed. We should soon find out our mistake if we emigrated the thriftless and the idle, for they would be retnrned on our hands. We, no doubt, had in our rural population a large number of people who were willing to work and who were capable workmen, but who were not able to get work. He had witnessed this himself during

  1475
  the past winter. He had known these men, more capable and better workmen than many who were in employment, unable to earn a living, not through any fault of their own, but because there was not sufficient work for them in this country. He thought emigration would be an immense advantage to such men as those, and also to those who wore left behind.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTH COTEsaid, he should like to point out to the hon. Member for the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Halley Stewart) that when he spoke of alternative schemes for the improvement of the condition of the agricultural classes, the Government proposal to promote emigration would not interfere with any alternative scheme for improving the condition of those who remained at home. The proposal of the Government was for an entirely permissive scheme—merely a proposal for enabling the County Council when appointed to advance funds to people willing to emigrate whom, in their judgment, it would be desirable to emigrate. He had heard with some regret the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, for the alteration of the clause, as he had stated specifically that he wished to amend it so as to make it operative only in cases where a guarantee was received for repayment from the Local Authority in the county or the Government of a Colony. It would be hard on a Colony, he thought, to hold it responsible for the repayment of the money necessary to emigrate people from this country. The hon. Member for the Spalding Division had said that it was only the best class that would emigrate, and that the worst class would stop at home, or, at all events, would be useless in the Colonies. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) conceived that if people really wanted to emigrate, the District Councils, if composed of wise people, would not undertake to spend the ratepayers' money in emigrating merely the cream of the working classes, but would take care in spending it on emigration to provide that with the bone and sinew which the hon. Member opposite had spoken of should be emigrated also a fair proportion of old and young persons—the older generation who were past work, and the younger generation who were
  1476
  not yet able to work; in short, he believed that if the Government asked the districts to support them in providing emigration they would provide that a certain number of useless hands should accompany the skilled and able workers who went out at the public expense. He thought there was great advantage in the proposal of the Government, for the reason that there was no doubt a very natural jealousy on the part of the working classes of anything in the nature of an Imperial scheme of colonisation. The scheme was advantageous, inasmuch as if any emigration scheme was to be carried out at all it would be carried out deliberately by directly elected representatives of the ratepayers, men who would be elected with a full knowledge of their views on this question. It was better that a man should emigrate, thrive, and become a consumer of this country's manufactures, than that he should become an inmate of the workhouse and a mere burden on the ratepayers. He trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) if he went to a Division, and thereby return good for evil, for the hon. Member had rather gone out of his way to cast upon him (Mr. Brunner) a charge which, at this moment, was one of the most odious which could be thrown upon a person in his position. The hon. Member had charged him with being one of those employers of labour who imported foreigners in order to keep down wages—a class of persons who just now, and very rightly, were under the ban of public opinion. Now, he (Mr. Brunner) was not amongst these—
  An hon. MEMBER was understood to intimate that the hon. Member for Northwich was not referred to in the sense stated.
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, the hon. Member for Islington, if he remembered his words correctly, had said that he had heard within the last few days that the hon. Member for Northwich employed foreigners in this way; and he (Mr. Brunner) spoke in the recollection of the Committee. He happened to have heard within the last two or three days that this statement was made last Friday before the Committee, of which the hon.

  1477
  Gentleman was a member, and whether or not the hon. Gentleman's statement to-night was a hash of that evidence, he was not prepared to say. He did not know whether there was any connection between that evidence and the statement of the hon. Member to-night. The hon. Member was at liberty to explain where he got his information from if he pleased; but, for his (Mr. Brunner's) part, he had only to say, in reply to the charge made against him that of all the 2,000 men in his service there were not more than two or three in a 1,000 that were foreigners. He only, at present, knew of one, and all he knew of him was that he was an excellent musician, and that the ladies in the neighbourhood recently subscribed to present him with a piano. The children of this man were also all musical, and the only thing "sweated" in the neighbourhood was the piano.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said as distinctly as possible that he had some employés who were foreigners, and all that he (Mr. Bartley) had ever said was that he employed foreign workmen in a country where a scarcity of work existed for English workmen. He had said he believed the hon. Gentleman did employ such people, and now the hon. Gentleman distinctly told the Committee that such was the case. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Withdraw!"] Well, did the hon. Member say that he did not employ foreigners? With reference to this Amendment of the Government he must say he thought it met the case by obviating the difficulties he had pointed out, and he had no objection to accept it in lieu of the Amendment he had moved.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn? [Cries of "No!"]
  MR. S. SMITHsaid, if he had an opportunity after this sub-section had been disposed of, he should move the addition of a new sub-section to the clause as follows:—
  "For making grants which they are hereby authorised to make to any persons or bodies of persons corporate or incorporate, in aid of the boarding out, training, and emigration of poor children, and."
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had introduced words which he regretted to say he could not support. They were to the effect that
  1478
  this power of the County Council to borrow money for the purposes of emigration should not be exercised without a guarantee on the part of the Local Authorities or the Colonies. He would submit that that proposal would very much embarrass the powers of the County Council.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANrose to Order, and pointed out that the Committee were not dealing with the subject on this Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The time to discuss that Amendment will be when it is before the Committee.
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he had only one other word to say. He wished to join issue with those who said there were plenty of remedies at home. At least no schemes had been put forward that were substantially sound, and, at any rate, there was plenty of room for both home schemes and Colonial schemes. They on that (the Ministerial) side of the House had got a cut and dried scheme of colonization which was financially sound, and he denied that on the other side they had ever produced any scheme which could be tried which was financially sound.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, that before the Amendment was put he should like to say one word on the main question as to whether local funds should or should not be given for purposes of emigration. He must say that he personally held a very strong opinion that this was not a proper application of the rates. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was a thoughtful Amendment, and, so far as it went, an excellent Amendment; but it still contained, in almost as dangerous a shape as ever, the principle of applying the rates for purposes of emigration. He thought the Amendment retained in almost as dangerous a way as before the principle of applying the rates in aid of emigration. If it were only a question of applying loans on the guarantee of the Government of a Colony it might be different; but he must say that his apprehension was not removed by any guarantee of the Local Authority, whether Town Council, or Board of Guardians, or the Council which under the Bill would take the place of these Bodies. Whatever these Bodies may be called, they are all composed of ratepayers, and they deal

  1479
  with rates. His objection was to placing any burden on the local rates for the purpose of emigration. The benefits of emigration were not local, but national, and if money was to be given or burdens and risks were to be imposed for emigration at all, they should be undertaken by the nation as a whole. The Government to which he had belonged introduced a scheme for the emigration of the Irish peasantry, but they did not propose to place any burdens for the purpose on the localities. It might be said that those localities were too poor, but if emigration were an economical advantage to the locality, the poorer the locality was the more they were bound to encourage and carry out emigration by means of the State funds and at the national risk. But in no part of the debate to which he had listened had he heard any hon. Member seriously argue that it would be an immediate or nearly immediate advantage to the county ratepayers to set on foot a scheme of emigration, limited or unlimited. He was extremely alarmed by this proposal, and when it was considered how much apprehension was caused by the addition of ½d. in the pound for a free library he could not but think that the Government was embarking on a wide sea of possible risk to the ratepayers. He hoped there would be a clear vote on the question whether or not emigration was to be assisted out of the rates.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had laid down the principle that emigration should not be assisted from the rates; but he would ask him why, on a former occasion, he had distinctly supported a measure of emigration for Ireland which was still being paid for by the ratepayers? Further, the right hon. Gentleman had raised the objection that the poorer the locality the more emigration there would be under the clause. But that was exactly what the right hon. Gentleman had carried into practice in Ireland under the Administration of which he was a Member.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would now appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this Amendment. He had made a proposal which reduced the question within narrow limits, and, looking to the many important matters which had to be dealt with he trusted the Com-
  1480
  mittee would enable them to make progress.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would find from statistics recently published by the German Government that it was estimated that the loss to the State for every person of the age of 14 years who emigrated was £100, and he ventured to say that with reference to this country the amount would be increased rather than diminished. He would, therefore, ask hon. Members to consider what that would amount to in the case of the emigration of any considerable number of persons of the age of 14; and he presumed if this power was intended to be used it would be for the purpose of emigrating not only hundreds but thousands of the population. The cost then to the State of every 100 persons emigrated would be £10,000. His view was that it was very much better to keep the people in the country, especially when, as was very well known, the Colonies and other countries would not take the scum of the population—paupers and criminals—but insisted on getting physically and intellectually the best of our people. If these were allowed to remain at home they would before long replace the money spent upon them from the national capital, whereas by getting rid of them a deadlock would be brought about. He objected strongly to this proposal, which was an inducement to those who wanted to get rid of poor persons in a locality, to send them abroad at the expense of the ratepayers.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 224; Noes 117: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 219.)
  MR. S. SMITHsaid, he rose to propose an Amendment for the purpose of authorizing grants in aid of the boarding out, training and emigration of pauper children. If this work was to be carried out it must be done by grants of money, and he asked the Committee to assent to his proposal, which would ultimately save to the rates more than the amount expended. £15 would serve for the training of a child for one year and for his emigration, whereas the cost to the country if he were kept at home would be £100. The scheme he pro-

  1481
  posed could be carried out in an admirable manner by means of the existing agencies, and he earnestly appealed to the Committee to accept the new subsection which he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 56, after line 8, insert as a new subsection, "and for making grants which they are hereby authorized to make to any person or body of persons, corporate or incorporate, in aid of the boarding out, training, and emigration of pauper children."—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, if the Committee were to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, it would empower the County Councils to borrow money in order to make these grants. He thought the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman went beyond what the Government intended, which was that if grants were to be made the money ought to be raised by rates; and the only reason for giving the County Council power to borrow was that the works to be done were improvements, or of a kind that would repay the advances made. Another criticism of the hon. Gentleman's proposal which he had to offer was that the existing Local Authorities—namely, the Boards of Guardians, had already the power of making these grants, and he was not aware that there was any indisposition on the part of the Boards of Guardians to assist this kind of emigration to the extent that might be right. He understood the hon. Gentleman to imply that this provision was not so much with reference to action of the Boards of Guardians as with reference to the action of the Local Government Board; but he pointed out that the regulations of the Department were absolutely essential for the well being of the children emigrated, by ensuring that proper arrangements were made for their care when they reached a foreign land; and if he had been able to make some modifications of those regulations, the substance was still maintained which imposed on the Local Authorities the legal obligation of seeing that proper care was taken of the children sent abroad. He did not think it was wise to make the County Council responsible for this as well as the Boards of Guardians, and he was, therefore, unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, he would suggest to his hon. Friend that his object might be attained by moving a separate clause at the end of the Bill to enable the County Council to raise money and pay out of the rates for the emigration of the children. For his part, he should certainly object to the narrowness of his hon. Friend's Amendment, because he thought it ought to include children in industrial schools and the children of prisoners who had committed gross assaults upon them. The course he suggested would avoid the objection to the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had taken.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, there was probably no man in the country who was so great an authority on the subject as his hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), and from his own recollection of former times at the Local Government Board, he regarded him as one who had addressed his mind to the best methods of carrying out emigration, not only with regard to poor children, but pauper children. He (Mr. Stansfeld) thought that the best way of dealing with the question, was not to confine the grants to those made by Boards of Guardians, because the children they wanted to be emigrated were those who had not yet become paupers, and therefore that the assistance should come rather from the County Council. He hoped that this proposal could be carried into effect by some plan that would not be open to the objections which had been urged against the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and if such a plan were suggested he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give it a fair and not unfriendly consideration.
  MR. S. SMITHsaid, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding that the question would be raised again.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, there had been many representations made to the Local Government Board, and to himself, in connection with the extent of the borrowing powers proposed to be given by the Bill to the County Councils. They had at first adopted the limit in the Municipial Corporations Act, but further consideration had convinced them that this was far too wide for any powers which the County Councils were likely to

  1483
  require, and on the whole they thought it would meet with most general acceptance if, when unduly large borrowing powers were required, Parliament should have the opportunity of examining into and passing an opinion upon the proposal which might be made. But they did not think the County Council should be so hampered as to be unable to exercise any borrowing power without coming direct to Parliament, and they, therefore, proposed to amend the Bill by placing this power within narrow limits and leaving the County Council to come to the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order to be confirmed by Parliament if they wanted to exceed the amount named in the Bill. They proposed then to restrict the borrowing powers to one-tenth of the rateable value of the property in the county. He could inform the Committee that no County Authority in the country had hitherto approached the proportion they proposed to name in the Bill, the largest amount borrowed being, he thought, equal to about one-fourteenth part of the rateable value, and that being so, he believed the proposal would be accepted by the Committee.
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked if this limit would apply to boroughs?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, it would not do so, as the Boroughs borrowed under the Municipial Corporations Act.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 56, line 18, to leave out from the word "of" to the end of line 26, and insert the words "one-tenth of the annual rateable value of the rateable property in the county, ascertained according to the standard or basis for the county rate; the amount shall not t e borrowed except in pursuance of a provisional order made by the Local Government Board and confirmed by Parliament—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed the alteration. Here was a large Body representing and elected by the electors of counties, possibly having work in hand, the necessity of which everyone was agreed upon; but if it happened to cost more than one-tenth of the rateable value of property in the county, or if that limit had already been reached, it would be absolutely im-
  1484
  possible to carry the work through without going first to the Local Government Board and to Parliament, at considerable expense, which would be incurred if there were any opposition. How would that restriction have acted, if such a rule had existed, in the case of some boroughs where improvements of the most desirable character had been carried out? It was proposed recently by the Authorities in Birmingham that there should be a supply of pure and wholesome water placed within the reach of the poorest people in the borough; and if this restriction had been in force, there would have been difficulties put in the way of that scheme. As the matter stood at present, the Authorities applied to the Local Government Board for the approval of a scheme, and when they were satisfied that it was good, they exercised no power as to the amount of money required for carrying it through. There was always expense when there was opposition. The limit here proposed was calculated to bar improvements which the County Council—a large and important Body—might think it desirable to carry out with the consent of the ratepayers. They wanted, by the present Bill, to decentralize. They had already recognized that the County Council was a very important Body, and the object was to encourage them, not to spend money needlessly, but to carry out the necessary work of improvement, and on the ground even that they were asked to take away from the County Council what he might call the dignity of the power of borrowing, he did not think the Committee would act wisely in passing the Amendment, As the clause stood before, the power was quite sufficiently limited, and ho certainly regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to alter it. They might be quite sure that the County Council would, under any circumstances, go to the Local Government Board for approval of their schemes. They might be quite sure that that safeguard, together with the watchfulness of the ratepayers, would be quite sufficient to prevent waste of money, particularly if this limit of two years, which was a very moderate one, was allowed to stand. He could only regret that such a small limitation as one-tenth of the rateable value should be put into the Bill, as an idea, so to speak, to set the

  1485
  pace to the County Councils—as a guide to them what they were to do, and that they were not to exceed a certain amount. That amount was very small. The feeling would be that when once indebtedness to that amount was reached, the Council should not spend any more money until a portion of the indebtedness was paid off. That should not be the governing idea. The governing idea of the borough or county should be what were the requirements of the locality. Take the Birmingham Improvement Scheme, upon which the Corporation spent £1,500,000 of money. If such a limitation as that proposed had been in the Act, he ventured to say that such an improvement would not have been carried out; but the effect of carrying it out had been to reduce the death-rate of the town very materially, which was evidence of the great advantage of not embodying too strong a restriction in the Act.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that his hon. Friend was under some delusion in this matter when he compared the borough of Birmingham with the County Councils under the Bill. The hon. Gentleman should remember that counties would be cut up into a number of areas such as boroughs, urban county districts, and rural county districts, and that these areas would provide such works as Birmingham provided for itself. The question of water supply, for instance, was not one of county expenditure, but of local expenditure; and there were provisions in the Act to enable Local Authorities to borrow for purposes of that kind, and the liability of Birmingham was no different to other Local Authorities.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he had mentioned water supply as an illustration of the sort of improvement that might be required. He did not mean to say that water supply would be a county undertaking, but he had meant that other improvements of equal value might be necessary.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the improvement the hon. Member had referred to, and which, no doubt, had cost a great deal of money, was not a matter with which the County Council would have to deal at all. These were matters for local areas which the Council would be separated from. It would not be a function of the county ratepayers to pro-
  1486
  vide water or drainage. It was for the local ratepayers to provide that, and the Government did not specify any limit in the Bill with reference to such matters. All they said was that for general county purposes it was not at all necesarry that enormous borrowing powers should be given. If he were asked, he should be unable to say in what way the County Council should spend in moderation money which was spent on improvements in such places as Birmingham and other local areas throughout the county. He ventured to say that for all local purposes adequate provision could be made under the proposal in the Bill, and if further expenditure was necessary there could be investigation as to the purpose for which the money was required, and whether the loans were borne out by the works required to be done.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 56, line 29, to leave out "(a) outstanding amount of loans lent both to the Local Authorities in the county and."
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, there was an Amendment which he proposed to move, providing that in estimating the total debt of a County Council there should also be deducted "the value of any assets which when realized will be carried to any sinking fund." He was advised, however, by an authority who had greater knowledge on this subject than he could pretend to possess, that those words were unnecessary to carry out the object of the section. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board considered the words to be unnecessary, he (Mr. Pickersgill) would not propose them.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would advise the hon. Member not to move the Amendment, which was unnecessary, and which the Government could not accept. The question of assets was one of such a precarious character that he was afraid if the Amendment were accepted it would lead to some confusion.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, then he would not move the Amendment.
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, he begged to move the insertion, after the word "or," of the words "liability for which is."
  Amendment proposed, in line 35, after the word "or," to insert the words "liability for which is."—(Mr. Brunner.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was very unwilling to accept Amendments of this kind which were not upon the Paper, and which therefore he had not had an opportunity of considering, He should much prefer that the hon. Member would move it on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, the following Amendment made:—In page 56, line 41, after the word "property," to insert the words "but does not include money previously borrowed for the purpose of repaying a loan."
  Amendment proposed, in page 57, line 6, to leave out the word "sixty," and insert the word "thirty."—(Mr. Wharton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'sixty' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIE: I believe this is the present Quarter Sessions limit, and therefore should be glad to accept it.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, 60 years was too long a period for the repayment of a loan, but 30 years was too short a period. It would mean this, that if a County Council had to borrow money it would find itself in the market handicapped with a high rate of interest, and be placed at a great disadvantage compared to the boroughs in the same county, which were all allowed to borrow for certain purposes for periods of 50 years, some being limited to 40 years. Thirty years was the old municipal limit, and he thought that by adopting that limit they would be crippling the County Councils very unnecessarily. He did not see why there should be a general opposition to the County Councils having any borrowing powers at all, as it would practically come to that. It would involve a very heavy burden to cover both the interest and the sinking fund.
  MR. BARING: No, no!
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the hon. Member was no doubt a great authority, and he did not like to contradict him; but he thought the Government rate for loans of 35 years was 5 per cent including interest and sinking fund, the interest being calculated at 3½ per cent. The Local Sanitary Authorities and the Town Councils would be able to borrow on better terms than they were going to allow the County Councils.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that no doubt, so far as the Town Councils and Local Authorities were concerned, the limit of borrowing powers was greater than 30 years, but it was within the competency of the Local Government Board to lay down a term for which money ought to be borrowed; and following the express intention of Parliament during recent years, the policy of the Local Government Board had been, as far as possible, to limit the time for repayment. Although it was true that in some cases as many as 60 years had been allowed, there were few instances in recent years in which such a term had been given. He had on one or two occasions granted a period of 60 years for the purpose of purchasing land and other purposes which were germane thereto, but he had always done so with considerable reluctance. When a large limit of borrowing powers was allowed the pressure brought to bear on the Local Government Board to extend the borrowing limit to the utmost was very great indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax knew. He (Mr. Ritchie) did not think they would be placing the county in a disadvantageous position by limiting the borrowing powers to the term named. If there were special reasons, the term could always be extended by local Acts.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked what would be the effect of this limitation on county boroughs?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the provision would not affect county boroughs.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked whether there was any medium between 60 and 30 years? If 60 years was considered too long, would not 30 years be too short compared with the time ordinarily granted to boroughs? What was the ordinary time granted to boroughs?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that 30 years was the ordinary term given by the Local Government Board.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that the proposal before the Committee did not say that 30 years should be allowed for repayment in all cases, but that that period was to be the maximum. It was now proposed that this was to be the maximum, and although the Local Government Board would be able to allow that period, it would not be able to go beyond it. At a proper time, if possible, he should move an Amendment to make this period 40 years.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, the object for which money was to be borrowed was the execution of permanent works which would not be exhausted in 30 years. The policy should be not to burden the present generation with the whole expenses of that which was done for the benefit of future generations as well as the present, and therefore he thought 40 years at least should be allowed.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he hoped the Government would stand to the term of 30 years. All who had had experience in county financial business desired that the limit should be 30 years. He was surprised at the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and others on that (the Opposition) side of the House on the subject, seeing that an Amendment in favour of adopting the limit of 30 years had been put on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld).
  MR. BARINGsaid, he should like to correct a little mistake which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had fallen into. He (Mr. Baring) had reason to know that a county could borrow at 3½ and 3¾ per cent. and he believed, though he was not sure, as he had not the figures by him, that a 1 per cent sinking fund would extinguish the debt in 30 years, but he thought that a limitation should be put upon the discretion of the County Councils to borrow money, as they might be tempted to do so too lavishly at first. No doubt they would not do so when they felt the shoe begin to pinch, and ultimately it might be well for Parliament to allow a longer time. Most of them were aware that young men were
  1490
  rather fond of borrowing, and he was inclined to think that young County Councils would in this respect be very like young men.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, he should like to know when they were going to find a point of resistance on the part of the right hon. Gentleman against the destruction of his own clauses. During the whole evening he had been running away from his own proposals, and consenting to the whittling down of the borrowing powers of the County Councils. It should be borne in mind that the Irish tenants under the Purchase Acts were allowed 49 years in which to pay off their instalments. If 30 years were adopted in the present case, the occupiers would bear the whole expenditure of the Local Authority, and the owners, as had happened in the Metropolis, would get the ultimate benefit. From some county Members they had heard nothing about this part of the Bill, but that the County Councils did not want these powers at all. What did they mean by "counties?" Why, simply the Quarter Sessions. These gentlemen were simply interpreting the views of the Quarter Sessions, on whose behalf they spoke. It had been said that the right hon. Member for Halifax had put down a similar Amendment to that now under discussion; but he (Mr. Lawson) thought he might say that that right hon. Gentleman had been rather too willing to give himself over into the hands of those against whom he should have been on his guard.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had to inform the hon. Gentleman who had been good enough to catechize him, that he had not thrown himself into the hands of anybody, but simply adhered to his own Amendments. Whatever he had advocated this evening, he had advocated from his own convictions. He knew from experience of years gone by at the Local Government Board what a strong temptation it was to Local Authorities to borrow money, and he did not intend to abandon views, which he believed to be sound, in order to agree with the hon. Gentleman or with anybody else.
  VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, that though he could not concur with the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) in running amuck against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), as he was sure that in the conduct of a

  1491
  Bill on that side of the House the right hon. Gentleman had only been desirous of making the financial position of County Councils as secure as possible, and he felt confident that the ratepayers would have to be very much on their guard whenever the hon. Member was found conducting a similar Bill through the House of Commons—though he (Viscount Wolmer) did not happen to agree with the hon. Member in all he said, he must unite with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) in pressing upon the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board the desirability of extending this term for repayment to at least 40 years. The right hon. Gentleman had limited the amount which the County Council could borrow, and had limited it very properly, but he (Viscount Wolmer) could not see why the right hon. Gentleman should render it necessary for the present generation to pay in 30 years the cost of improvements of a permanent character, the benefit of which would be derived by the next and following generations. He hoped that evening that the right hon. Gentleman would consider his proposal, and would accept the limit of 40 years as a compromise.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, he hoped that some concession would be made to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. He would point out what really was the nature of these loans. They were loans for the purchase of property on deferred payments, and he desired to know why the men of to-day, of the present generation, should make a free present to the men of 30 years hence. Take a case from the town from which he came. They were there just building Court of Assize Courts which would last for five generations. Why should those Assize Courts be paid for by one generation only? Why should the obligation be imposed on the ratepayers of the county differently to the way in which it was imposed on the ratepayers in the borough? Why should they insist that a county, which wanted to put up an Assize Court to last 100 years or so, the obligation of paying for the building within 30 years? He maintained that if the counties sat quietly down and accepted the limit of 30 years they would be accepting something
  1492
  which the boroughs would not look at for a moment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty' be there inserted."
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider carefully what he was doing. A 30 years' limit would discourage any improvement or work which was required to be done in the counties. It was not reasonable to expect the ratepayers in a county for the sake of any improvement, especially if it were in the nature of permanent works, to pay the whole money in one generation. He felt certain that the whole usefulness of the Bill so far as improvement in the counties went, would be taken away or rendered more difficult if this limit of 30 years was maintained. He thought the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton was too moderate. He must express surprise that his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax had proposed such a limit as this, though it was quite true that an excessive period for repayment was to be guarded against. If the Bill was to be of any good they should not have too small a limit. He would prefer that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would consent to the moderate modification of 40 years proposed. It was not fair to the County Authorities that they should be put under a great disadvantage as compared with boroughs. They could hardly expect the ratepayers of a county to assent to an improvement, no matter how important or necessary, when the cost to the present generation would be so enormous as it would be under the Bill as it now stood.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, that in order to bring this discussion to a prompt issue he would move as an Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman that the word "forty"—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question is that the word "thirty" be there inserted. If that is negatived another figure can be moved but not before.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that as such a high authority as the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Baring) had corrected him on a point connected with the matter under

  1493
  discussion, he had looked into the question, and he found that the hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension. He had said that the county could borrow at 3½ and 3¾ per cent. which no doubt was true, and that 1 per cent would be sufficient to repay in 30 years. He (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) would draw the hon. Member's attention to a precedent as embodied by the Treasury in the Land Act of 1881. The time allowed for repayment in that Act was 35 years, and the interest and sinking fund amounted to 5 per cent. He should be content if the right hon. Gentleman would accept this precedent of 35 years in order to prevent the necessity for a Division.
  MR. WIGGINsaid, he hoped the House would not be put to the trouble of a Division.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he calculated that the difference between 30 and 35 years would amount to something like ⅛per cent. He assured the Committee that the great bulk of the loans the Local Government Board had to sanction were for 30 years and less than 30 years. Numerous complaints had been made in the House as to the great accumulation of debts by Local Authorities and the enormous burden which, in consequence, pressed upon the people. Under all the circumstances, he thought an additional ⅛ per cent was a healthy pressure and one which the House of Commons ought to assent to.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 253; Noes 136: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 220.)
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 57, after line 33, to add the words—"(12.) Nothing in this section shall be taken to empower the Cheshire County Council to borrow on the security of any revenue estimated to accrue from the surplus funds of the River Weaver Navigation."—(Mr. Brunner.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

QUESTION.

  BANN, SHANNON, AND BARROW DRAINAGE BILLS.
  In reply to Colonel NOLAN (Galway, N.),
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, he hoped that, as there was really no opposition to these Bills, hon. Members would allow them to be taken after 12 o'clock to-morrow. After passing their second reading, the Bills would have to be referred to a hybrid Committee, where they would be thoroughly threshed out, and if they returned in a form which was not acceptable to hon. Members opposite, they would have an opportunity of opposing them.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in supposing that there was no opposition to these Bills; there was, and there would be, opposition.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  BAIL (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 286.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid, that in its present shape the Measure was highly objectionable to many hon. Members on that side of the House, and they were entitled to know what the Government intended to do with the Bill. It was extremely unsatisfactory that it should be brought on time after time, and he would suggest that, as the Government had already given facilities for it, they should name a day for its third reading.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, the hon. Gentleman had given him no Notice of his intention to put the Question. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) was not at all responsible for the appearance of this Order on the Paper that day. All that he had stated on a previous occasion was that it appeared reasonable that Bills which had reached the Report stage should have facilities afforded to them, and he would still consider what it was possible to do with regard to adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Consideration, as amended,deferred till To-morrow.

MOTIONS.
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in moving for leave to introduce a—
    "Bill to constitute a Special Commission to inquire into the Charges and Allegations made against certain Members of Parliament and other persons by the Defendants in the recent trial of an action entitled 'O'Donnell v. Walter and another'"
    said, the Commissioners were to have power to examine witnesses on oath, to compel full disclosure of all facts and documents, and to grant certificates protecting from all further proceedings, other than proceedings for perjury, witnesses who may have criminated themselves by such disclosures. The parties to be represented by counsel if they think fit.
    MR. PARNELL: I am very much surprised, Sir, to see the right hon. Gentleman move this Bill in silence, especially after his reply to my Question to-day in reference to the same matter. The right hon. Gentleman then stated that the Resolution of which he had given Notice had been introduced in response to the offer he made "to the hon. Member and those associated with him, and," he continued—
    "It is for him and them to say whether they will accept the proposal of the Government or not. We do not desire to debate that proposition, and I have put it therefore in this position in order that it may be either accepted or rejected by the hon. Member in the form in which it stands. If it is received and accepted the Bill will be immediately printed, but I may frankly say that I do not anticipate making any arrangements for a debate on the second reading of a Bill of this kind. It was an offer made by the Government to the hon. Gentleman and his Friends to be either accepted or rejected."
    I am surprised, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman should have moved this Bill in silence after having informed the House in his reply to my Question that he would expect us to accept or reject the Bill before it was printed. It turns out from his action, or rather non-action, to-night, that, in addition to expecting us to accept or reject the Bill before it is
    1496
    printed, he expects us to accept or reject it before he has even explained it or told us anything about it. A more monstrous proposition was never made by a Minister occupying the position of the right hon. Gentleman. [Loud cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) might conceal or repress his ill-timed levity. Although he has heard nothing from his Chief, he has not heard the end of my story. Now, Sir, I say this is not a question for me. It is not a question for the right hon. Gentleman. If these letters are true and genuine, if they were ever dictated by me, if they were ever signed by me, I, who am termed an honourable Member of this House, am dishonourable and dishonoured. The hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster), in dealing with this matter in his speech, and in referring to one of these letters, of which a fac simile was published last year, said—"That without doubt, if it was untrue, it was the worst libel ever published upon a public man." If these libels are true, if these letters are authentic, the right hon. Gentleman, if he believes that they are genuine—and he has the hon. and learned Attorney General at his elbow, who ought to know, if he does not know, and ought to have taken steps to know, whether they are genuine or not—the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, instead of talking about making a bargain with me, ought to have come down and said—"The Government are determined to have this investigation, whether the hon. Member, this alleged criminal, likes it or not—the Government will investigate this matter to its very source and very root." That would be the language to be expected of a Minister representing a great nation and a great country. The right hon. Gentleman, however, adopts very different language and tactics. He, as First Lord of the Treasury, the Constitutional Representative in this House of a great Party, of the Government, and of the nation, comes and says to me, this Bill Sykes—"It is for the hon. Member to say whether he will take this Bill or not." He asks me to accept the Bill before it is printed or even explained. He offers me this as a substitute for a jury. He asks me to accept this Bill, and he says I am to accept this tribunal without knowing the names of the

    1497
    Judges who are to be placed upon it, or whether the number is to be three, or five, or seven. Why, in the case of an ordinary jury we should, at any rate, have the chances of the ballot. In the case of the jury he proposes we have nothing except the vague terms of his Reference and a jury of Judges nominated by himself. Well, Sir, why should I trust the right hon. Gentleman, I, knowing that he and his Party and his Attorney General and his organs in the Press have made themselves accomplices in these foul, scandalous, and disgraceful libels? Yet I am, under these circumstances, to trust the right hon. Gentleman blindfold to do me that justice which he says he is so willing to do. I am not in a position of knowing what the Bill is going to be. I cannot criticize it. I cannot say to-night whether I shall accept it or reject it; but I say, judging from the terms of the Resolution, that it appears to me that the Government desire to put the cart before the horse, that they desire—following the example of their Attorney General in the recent trial—to keep in the background the question of the authenticity and genuineness of these forged letters, and to investigate every other question—what Tom did, and Dick did, and Pat did, and Harry did, all over the country—before they come to the investigation of the question of what I did. And then, Sir, this is no longer, even by the terms of the Reference, a question for me alone or for my Colleagues alone, because the terms of the Reference go to the doings of other people as well as to my doings. This has become a public question, and it is not one out of the investigation of which the right hon. Gentleman will be allowed to back. I shall hold the right hon. Gentleman to an investigation. I shall give him no chance of creeping out of it; but I shall claim my right, when this Bill reaches Committee, if I find that its details will not afford that fair investigation which I claim and demand. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"] I shall claim my right—
    THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of Order—[Cries of "Order!" and "Sit down!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. PARNELL: I have just finished, Sir. I shall claim my right, when this Bill reaches Committee, to influence the
    1498
    judgment of the House upon its details if I think it is necessary to do so; and I shall decline to make any bargain with the right hon. Gentleman beforehand that I will withdraw it from the judgment of this House as to its final shape and effect.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of not having caused this question to come before a jury. I wish to remind the hon. Member that I have stated, over and over again, that the view of the Government has been, and still is, that the proper tribunal to try the accusations which he declares to be foul charges against himself and his Friends is a jury and a Court of Law in this country. It is because the hon. Member has deliberately declined to avail himself of that tribunal, which is open to him and every one of Her Majesty's subjects, and because he claimed to have a tribunal of this House, which we have always declared to be absolutely unfit to try a question of this kind—that, in order that the facts may be ascertained, Her Majesty's Government have proposed a Royal Commission, with full powers to investigate the whole of the circumstances of the case. I have put upon the Paper the fullest description I can of the measure which we propose to introduce. It was perfectly useless for me to attempt to enlarge upon the description I have given in the Notice of the measure. I am most anxious to avoid expressing any opinion or judgment of my own; and it appears to me that the Government would be wanting in their duty if they sought to introduce into the discussion of a measure of this kind anything which, in the slightest degree, tended to show that we had prejudged the question, which they have proposed to refer to as high a tribunal as they think, under the circumstances, they ought to appoint. I refrain from replying to any of the observations of the hon. Member personal to myself. I can only say that the hon. Member will have the opportunity on the second reading of the Bill of what we believe will be an adequate discussion; and if he thinks fit to discuss the provisions of the Bill in Committee, it will undoubtedly be in his power to do so, and when the names of the Judges whom the Government think should be appointed to the Commission will be given.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am glad to hear these words of the right hon. Gentleman, for certainly the language we heard from him earlier in the evening conveyed to everyone the impression that this was a Bill that was not to be debated. ["No, no!"] I understand the right hon. Gentleman said, "the Bill we do not intend to have debated." ["No, no!"] It is very well for hon. Gentlemen to say "No, no!" but I do not hear the right hon. Gentleman say "No, no!" and he is the important person upon the truth of the statement. Well, it is quite impossible on a Bill of this character—a Bill extremely unusual in its nature—a Bill which is for the discussion of charges and allegations made against certain Members of this House and other persons—that is against any and everybody, should not be debated. Allegations made how? The allegations were made in newspapers, conveyed through a speech—I do not call it of the Attorney General, but of Sir Richard Webster. Now, that is the character of the inquiry which is to be made. Of course, that is a very important subject, and I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that, at all events now, the subject is one which ought to be fully debated in this House.
    MR. DILLWYN: I do not rise to prolong the discussion, but to protest against one word that fell from the right hon. Gentleman. He spoke of the proposed tribunal as a proper one; but I demur to that description. I cannot think this will be a proper tribunal. The House has already sufficient powers in their own hands to deal with a question of this kind. The plan they were now entering upon of always making new laws to meet new difficulties was a very unsound one. There was ample power in the House to investigate these charges; or the Government might either have arraigned his hon. Friend the Member for Cork for what he had done—which the hon. and learned Attorney General had declared he could prove—or, if they were not satisfied with the statement of their Attorney General, they might have remonstrated with him for taking the course of making such an unauthorized statement. He protested against the course now proposed, as throwing a doubt upon the power of the
    1500
    House to deal with this matter and bring it to a fair issue. He did not think that what was proposed was a proper way to bring it to a fair issue, because be did not think it would secure an impartial tribunal, which Her Majesty's Government will have the power of nominating in any way they liked.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): I do not rise, Sir, to address myself at this stage to any matter of controversy; but, as my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Colleagues are anxious to facilitate a thoroughly full and effective inquiry into the subject of the Motion before the House, I only rise for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with a view to that, he will circulate the Bill to-morrow; and whether he will set down the Bill for second reading at the earliest possible day, and what facilities for debating it he will afford on that occasion? I rise to ask him, in the interests of the time of the House and of the convenience of debate, whether he will not consider the propriety of naming the persons who will constitute the Commission when the Motion for second reading is made, instead of reserving it until the later stage of Committee?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: It would not be possible to circulate the Bill to-morrow, but I have every hope that it will be circulated the first thing on Wednesday, and I propose to take the second reading on Monday next. I will ascertain whether the suggestion of the hon. Member as to the names can be carried out?
    MR. SEXTON: What will be the opportunity of debate on Monday?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I stated this afternoon that there would be some discussion, but I trusted that it would not be a prolonged one.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: At the commencement of the evening the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said he would not consent to give any information as to the discussions which had taken place between himself and other Members of the Government. That we can perfectly understand; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. The right hon. Gentleman came down here last Thursday, and stated that he was

    1501
    willing to give a Royal Commission, while before that he had declared that it was a great principle of the Government that if a man was libelled he ought to go before a jury. But, as usual, the Government ran away from their principle. Now, he tells us that if a Member of this House is attacked in his honour, he ought not to appeal to this House and ask for a Select Committee, but that be ought to go before a jury, and that if he does not go before a jury, then, with his consent, a Royal Commission ought to be appointed. Well, what I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this—Before he came down to this House did he or did he not have an interview with any representative of The Times newspaper? And perhaps he will be good enough to tell us whether any sort of arrangement was made with the editor of The Times newspaper; and, whether The Times newspaper was consulted in reference to this matter, and, if so, if he considers it fair when there are two parties to a dispute like this, that before coming down and making a declaration to the House he should consult one of the parties, and have no consultation with the other?
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to constitute a Special Commission to inquire into the Charges and Allegations made against certain Members of Parliament, and other persons, by the Defendants in the recent trial of an action entitled "O'Donnell v. Walter and another," ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Secretary Matthews, and Mr. Solicitor General.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 336.]

    BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES) PREVENTION BILL.
    On Motion of Lord Randolph Churchill, Bill for the more effectual prevention and punishment of Bribery and Corruption of and by members, officers, or servants of corporations, councils, boards, commissions, or other public bodies, ordered to be brought in by Lord Randolph Churchill, Sir Robert Fowler, Mr. Jennings, Mr. Whitbread, Sir Henry James, and Mr. Richard Power.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 335.]
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.