Commons Sitting of 14 June 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Copyhold Acts Amendment* [298].
Second Reading—Customs (Wine Duty) [293]; Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act (1877) Amendment [281].
Referred to Standing Committee on Law, &c.—Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen [145].
Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [Fifth Night]—R.P.; Clerks of the Peace [185]—R.P.
Considered as amended—National Debt (Supplemental) [264].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Electric Lighting Act (1882) Amendment* [233], and passed.
Withdrawn—Justices of the Peace* [20].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Coleraine, &c.)* [297].
Third Reading—Gas and Water* [247]; Water (No. 2)* [246], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  UNITED TELEPHONE COMPANY BILL
  (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading of the Bill be deferred until Monday next."
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he had been told that if the Bill appeared upon the Paper that day there would be no doubt that it would be taken. He had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the Bill. He understood that the hon. Baronet whose name was on the back of the Bill was not able to be in his place, and on the distinct understanding that the Bill would be taken on Monday, or some arrangement made for a day on which it would be brought forward, he would not oppose the Motion for Adjournment.
  Question put, and agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  ARMS (IRELAND) ACT—MR. W. COTTER —REFUSAL OF LICENCE.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. William Cotter, of Breenymore, County Cork, was recommended for a gun licence by a local magistrate; and, why the licence was refused?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Sir, as I have already explained to the hon. Member, the licence was not recommended by a local magistrate resident in the neighbourhood. It was refused by the licensing officer in the exercise of his discretion.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Upon what ground was it refused?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot go into the ground of refusal. The discretion rested with the licensing officer.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Is he not responsible if he makes a mistake?
  [No reply.]

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—DISMISSAL OF CONSTABLE DEANS.
  MR. W. REDMOND(for Mr. J. E. REDMOND) (Wexford, N.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state the reasons for the recent summary dismissal of Constable John S. Deans, who had served seven years and nine months in the Royal Irish Constabulary in County Clare, and for a period of three years had held confidential positions in the offices of District Inspectors Kidd, Wynne, and Teddal to the satisfaction of these officers; whether, on the 18th of March last, Constable Deans was summoned to the County Inspector's office in the police barrack at Ennis, and questioned as to the fact that he had given evidence for the defence in the prosecution of the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. Cox) under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; whether such evidence was of a purely technical character as to the posting of public notices in police huts; whether County Inspector Heard informed him that he had received a letter from Colonel Turner on the subject, and that he was now obliged to
  90
  report to headquarters the fact of his (Constable Deans) having given such evidence on behalf of the hon. Member for East Clare; and, whether, without any further warning and without any other reasons having been assigned, Constable Deans was within a week afterwards summarily dismissed from the Royal Irish Constabularly?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The County Inspector of Constabulary reports that he did not question the man as to the fact alleged; that he did not inform him that he had a letter from Colonel Turner; nor did he say that he would have to report to headquarters the fact of his having given the evidence referred to. No special reason was assigned on the discharge of this man other than that his services were no longer required.
  MR. COX: If this man makes an affidavit before a magistrate as to the exact nature of the conversation that did take place, will the right hon. Gentleman take any further action in the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that any further action is required.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how it was that the Constabulary Authorities in Ireland only arrived at the conclusion that this man was unfit for service directly after he gave evidence for the hon. Member for East Clare?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not quite understand the purport of the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. W. REDMOND: My Question is, whether, as a matter of fact, this man was not dismissed because he gave evidence in favour of the hon. Member for East Clare at his trial, and that nothing else has been alleged against him?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member has been wrongfully informed.
  MR. COX: I beg to give Notice that on the Police Estimates I will raise this Question.

  POOR LAW REMOVALS—J. WATERS AND T. MORONEY.
  MR. P. J. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that John Waters and Thomas Moroney, after a residence of 40 years

  91
  in Cardiff, have been deported as paupers from a locality which for that long period was benefited by their labour and expenditure to Waterford, which place they originally were compelled to leave owing to want of employment; whether John Waters and Thomas Moroney have become a permanent charge on a Union to which is attachable the mere accident of birth; and, whether it is competent for Guardians of the poor in Ireland to send to the Unions in which they have been born paupers from England, Scotland, and Wales, who may be in receipt of Poor Law relief in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The facts are substantially as stated in the first two paragraphs. The reply to the third paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. P. J. POWERasked, as this was a great grievance, if the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to introduce a measure removing that grievance?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers would be a Bill which would enable Irish Unions to export to England poor Englishmen who, as it were, had to be supported out of Irish rates. Neither that nor any other Bill of the kind has a chance of passing this Session.
  MR. P. J. POWER: May I ask—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The first Question of the hon. Gentleman did not fairly arise out of the Question on the Paper.

  INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL LOANS.
  CAPTAIN SELWYNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is a fact that a Treasury Minute allows foreigners residing abroad to have their coupons of Foreign and Colonial Loans cashed in London free of income tax; whether the Board of Inland Revenue refuse the same privilege to British subjects permanently residing abroad, although the moneys are not derived from any source in Great Britain, but exclusively from foreign sources; and, whether, if such is the case, he will consider the advisability of extending to British subjects residing abroad the same privileges as those enjoyed by foreigners?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: Yes, Sir; the privilege spoken of by the hon. and gallant Member is allowed to foreigners residing abroad, and, I conceive, quite fairly. We have no right to tax foreigners as such, or to impose a duty on Foreign and Colonial Bonds as such where they are not held in this country. The accident that the coupons are payable here is not, I think, sufficient reason for taxing the foreigner who holds them abroad. But with British subjects the case is different, and I see no reason for extending this privilege to them. It by no means follows that because a British subject resides permanently abroad he ceases to have any concern in or to derive any advantage from the various objects for which taxation is imposed in this country. He profits by our Diplomatic and Consular services; and it is not exclusively those who live in this country who derive advantage from our expenditure on the Army and Navy, which again means taxation. I do not, therefore, think that the British subject resident abroad has a good claim to exemption from the small amount of Imperial taxation which he pays in this form.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS COMMISSION—ATTENDANTS, &c. AT THE SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
  MR. WHITMOREasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, pending the inquiry of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service Establishments into the case of the attendants and messengers at the South Kensington Museum, the Rules relating to their sick pay, which had been in force for upwards of 20 years before their withdrawal by the Treasury Minute of 1885, might be allowed to apply to those attendants and messengers who entered the Office before that date, and who now, after long and meritorious service, find themselves subject to a much lower rate of sick pay?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The Treasury does not admit that the attendants and messengers are entitled to the privileges which they claim; and I do not think that, pending the inquiry of the Royal Commission on Civil Service Establish-

  93
  ments, it would be advisable to make the concession indicated by the hon Member.

  WAR OFFICE—5TH BATTALION ROYAL SCOTCH FUSILIERS—MAJOR ROE.
  MR. TOMLINSON(for Mr. DIXON - HARTLAND) (Middlesex, Uxbridge) asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the officer commanding the 5th Battalion Royal Fusiliers, who is stated to have reported unfavourably upon Major Roe, is the commanding officer under whom he actually did the duty of major during the years 1886–7; and, if not, whether it is upon the adverse Report of an officer only recently appointed to the command that Major Roe is deprived of the step in rank to which he is properly entitled by long service; and, whether, assuming that Major Roe is not able to do duties which he has actually performed for three years, it is a fact that the remaining seven captains are so inefficient that none of them are fit for promotion, although the drill and discipline of the battalion has been reported to be in the highest state of efficiency up to the date of the honourable Charles Edgcumbe's resignation of the command in 1887?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The selection of officers for promotion is made by the Commander-in-Chief, on information which appears to him to be proper for his guidance, after careful consideration. As I have already stated, in the opinion of the officers commanding the battalion, the officers commanding the Regimental District, and the General Officer commanding the District, it would not be for the good of the Service to promote Major Roe. No decision has yet been come to as to how the vacancy shall be filled.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASS—COSTERMONGERS' DWELLINGS—ST. LUKE'S.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSasked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works has granted a site in the parish of St. Luke's for costermongers' dwellings; and, if so, what are the terms upon which it has been granted?
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: The Board has sold to a committee of costermongers a plot of ground on the south side of Dufferin Street, in the parish of St. Luke,'s for costermongers' dwellings. The ground was sold for 21 years' purchase, at a rent computed at 1d. a foot, and on condition that the ground should be used for the erection of costermongers' dwellings.

  WAR OFFICE—ARMY ACCOUTREMENTS—THE 3RD BEDFORD REGIMENT.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the new valises supplied to the 3rd Bedford Regiment in the autumn of 1885 have been officially reported as unserviceable; whether, by Regulation, these 870 valises should have lasted for 20 trainings, whereas they have only been in wear three trainings; whether, besides being reported unserviceable, the paint has dropped off and ruined the men's coats; and, who is the officer responsible for passing these valises, and the name of the contractor?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Report of a Board of Officers stating that the valises of the 3rd Bedford Regiment were "not waterproof and therefore unserviceable" was received at the War Office this morning. This is the first Official Report that has been received on this subject. Nothing is said in it about damage to the men's coats. Valises should last the Militia 20 years; but those referred to in this Question were of a new kind, and their issue was of an experimental character. Until some of them have been received and examined I cannot say anything more about them.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: But who was the contractor?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: How in the world can my hon. Friend expect me to tell him this until I have read the Report, which was only received this morning? I must have time to examine the Report.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS—THE EXPENDITURE.
  MR. KENYON (, &c.)asked the Secretary of State for the Home

  95
  Department, Whether, in view of the recent evidence given before the Royal Commission on the Metropolitan Board of Works, he can suggest any method of limiting their powers as to expenditure of ratepayers' money during the existence of their present functions?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): No, Sir; I am unable to suggest any method of limiting the existing statutory powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works. I apprehend that the legality of any expenditure of public money by the Board can be called in question before the Auditor on the complaint of a ratepayer.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE(IRELAND) ACT, 1887—EVIDENCE ON CHARGES OF CONSPIRACY.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can assure the House that, in every case where an individual has been convicted under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," of conspiracy to compel or induce some person not to deal with or work for some other person in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation, evidence has been taken to prove not only the refusal of the individual to work or deal as above, but to prove that he was implicated in a conspiracy for some one of the said purposes?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): In all the cases described by the right hon. Gentleman evidence has been taken to prove the conspiracy referred to. In one case, that of Sullivan, the evidence so tendered did not appear to the Court of Exchequer to be of a character to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy. This arose from an error, not of substance, but of procedure, in the Court of First Instance; where evidence implicating five men in the charge of criminal conspiracy, though given in Court, was not, as it should have been, entered separately against each of the defendants.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am afraid that some misapprehension has arisen between us as to the meaning of my Question. Is it not the fact that
  96
  evidence of conspiracy was not given, but simply of refusal to deal with particular cases? But I shall bring the matter to an issue by asking the right hon. Gentleman, not to-day, but I will put the Question down for to-morrow or Monday, whichever he may think best—Whether, in the case of Thomas Bailey, who was convicted on the 31st of May, at Castlemartyr, of conspiracy, and sentenced by Resident Magistrates—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; but there is a Rule of the House against giving Notice in this way.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon. I will give Notice for Monday.
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask the Chief Secretary whether, as a matter of fact, the only evidence of conspiracy in any single case has been the evidence of the refusal of the person prosecuted to supply the goods?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that is not so; but if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper, I will be in a position to answer him.
  MR. CLANCY: Most decidedly I will.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE(IRELAND) ACT, 1887—CHARGES OF CONSPIRACY.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether, in cases of conspiracy under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, it is compulsory on the Magistrates to state a case if required? Perhaps I may be allowed to mention that the Question has been altered since I sent it in, and words have been left out showing that I put the Question because of certain language held by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour).
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The reason why the Question was altered was that it asked one Minister if what another Minister had stated on the previous day was true. Therefore, there was something invidious—or it might be taken to be invidious—in the form of the Question.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): Yes, Sir; the statement is perfectly correct. The Justices are bound

  97
  by statute to state a case on the application of any person dissatisfied with their decision as being erroneous in point of law, unless they are of opinion that the application is merely frivolous; and their judgment as to this latter matter is liable to be controlled by the Queen's Bench Division, which may order them to state a case.
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask the Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether, as a matter of fact, the magistrates did not refuse to state a case in the case of Brosnan, the newsvendor, of Tralee, not on the ground that it was frivolous; and also in the case of the Kerry blacksmith; and may I ask, also, whether the then Solicitor General for Ireland did not, before the Court of Queen's Bench, oppose those applications?
  MR. MADDEN: I am not aware of the facts of the particular cases to which the hon. Gentleman alludes; but if he wishes to get more specific information as to either case, I shall be prepared, if he gives Notice, to answer him. The Question was addressed to me as to the law, and I stated the statutory requirements; but if the hon. Member wishes information as to particular facts I will give it to him on Notice being given.
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask, whether there is a single case in which magistrates have refused to state a case on the ground that the application was frivolous?
  MR. MADDEN: I must request the hon. Gentleman, if he asks me a Question on a matter of fact, to put it on the Paper.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Arising out of the Questions put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, of which I have given him private Notice, Whether it is a fact that out of the 58 Resident Magistrates who have tried cases under the Crimes Act, including cases of conspiracy, 12 only have been called to the Bar, and of these 12 how many have been practising barristers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wholly fail to see how the Question arises from the Questions put on the Paper, and the Question itself has only been put into my hands five minutes ago. I believe,
  98
  as a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman will find most of the information which he requires in the Return already laid before Parliament with regard to Resident Magistrates. If that Return does not give all the information, I will be happy to give it to him if he gives Notice.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I will.

  INDIA—FRONTIER DEFENCES—RUMOURED LOAN.
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as stated in The Times, that the Government of India contemplate the raising of a special loan to meet the cost of the Frontier defences?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The Government of India do not propose to raise a special loan in order to meet the cost of the Frontier defences. It has been decided not to impose taxation for this purpose, and hence the Financial Statement shows a deficit in the Budget for 1888–9; but the charge can, according to the Estimate, be met from the cash balances.
  MR. SLAGG: Then the statement in The Times is incorrect?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I have not seen the statement in The Times.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—"SMYTH v. MADDEN AND CURREY."
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the certificate given by the Recorder of Dublin to Constable Currey, of the F Division, Dublin Metropolitan Police, on the occasion of the trial of the action
  "Smyth v. Madden and Currey" at the Quarter Sessions held on April 15, 1887, at Kingstown; also the amount of the costs paid by the Crown for the defendant Currey; and, whether the nominal verdict of 10 s. and the fee to the jury is included therein?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Commissioner of Police informs me that the costs referred to amounted to £13 68. 10 d., which included the sum of 10 s. 6d. awarded as damages, and afterwards, by direction of the Recorder, given to the jury. With regard to the certi-

  99
  ficate, I am informed that application has already been made for a copy of it, with a view to its use in private litigation, and that it has been refused. On these grounds, and under these circumstances, I do not think I should state the terms of the certificate on official authority here.
  MR. CLANCY: Under what Act of Parliament are those costs paid by the Crown?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman must put that Question on the Paper.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—KILLARNEY PETTY SESSIONS—CHARGE AGAINST CONSTABLE KEARNEY.
  MR. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether at Killarney Petty Sessions, on the 5th instant, on the hearing of a charge of assault against Constable Kearney, the complainant, Timothy Cronin, and four witnesses, deposed to the constable having struck Cronin, and pushed him off the flag-way, for no apparent reason; whether the presiding Justices, Messrs. Herbert and Orpen, while avowing there was no obstruction of the foot-way by Cronin, still dismissed the case against the constable, without requiring his solicitor to make any defence, on the sole ground that they considered the assault trivial; and, if these allegations are true, would he cause the re-hearing of this case
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Inspector General reports that the complainant and three witnesses did not depose to the constable having struck Cronin; but they did swear to his having pushed him off the foot-path. Cronin, however, admitted that he did not feel the assault. The magistrates considered that there had been no real assault, and dismissed the case. The charge against Cronin was not heard before the magistrates at Petty Sessions, but before the Town Court.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTONasked whether, when the case was before the Petty Sessions, a previous case had not been before the Town Court, and that, at the instance of the policeman, a summons was served for obstruction of the foot-path; and,
  100
  whether the magistrates did not admit that the assault had been committed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the facts were as he had already stated.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the charge against the sergeant was not heard at Petty Sessions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had stated the information he had received. If the hon. Gentleman would put a Question on the Paper he would inquire.
  MR. SHEEHANsaid, he would repeat the Question on Friday.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE(IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCEEDINGS AT LANESBOROUGH.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a report in The Freeman's Journal of June 6, of the proceedings of a Special Court held at Lanesborough, under the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, for the trial of prisoners on a charge of intimidation, in which evidence was given by a sergeant of police that he saw the local band drumming before the gate of a Mr. Russell, which was a sign that he was Boycotted; whether it is true, as stated in the report, that Mr. Hill, one of the Resident Magistrates who composed the Court, threatened the prisoners and everyone listening to him that if there were any more drumming at these places, or at evictions, or at Courts, he would have their drums smashed, and every man present sent to gaol for six months; in making use of this threat from the Bench, was Mr. Hill acting in his judicial capacity as a magistrate, or as an agent of the Executive Government; and, is Mr. Hill one of the Resident Magistrates who have been in attendance on the Chief Secretary in Dublin Castle.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Resident Magistrate reports that the band referred to had, on the occasion of evictions and trials at Petty Sessions, collected disorderly crowds, which interfered with the administration of the law; and he took the first opportunity which was presented by the occasion in

  101
  question of warning them against continuing their course, and the probable consequences which would ensue should they disregard this warning. He gave this warning advice in his judicial capacity, not as a threat.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPLICATIONS FOR FAIR RENTS—CO. ANTRIM.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)(for Mr. M'CARTAN) (Down, S.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state how many applications to fix fair rent in the County of Antrim were remaining unheard on the 1st instant; how many of these applications are from the Poor Law Union of Ballycastle; when a sitting was last held to hear applications from this Union; on what date, and in what town, the first sitting of a Sub-Commission will be held for the County of Antrim; and, whether he can give the names of the gentlemen who will constitute the Sub-Commission?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform me that 2,057 cases remained unheard on the 1st instant, of which 378 were from the Union of Ballycastle. The date of the last sitting at which cases from the Ballycastle Union were heard was July, 1887. The Commissioners are not in a position to state the date at which the next sitting for cases from the Ballycastle Union will be held; nor can they at present say the names of the gentlemen who will constitute the Sub-Commission. The place of sitting will be Ballycastle. I answered the Question only a few days ago.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BALLYMENA BOARD OF GUARDIANS—COLONEL STUDDERT.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)(for Mr. M'CARTAN) (Down, S.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a Resolution of the Board of Guardians at Ballymena, County Antrim, on the 2nd instant, expressing want of confidence in Colonel Studdert, the Local Government Board auditor, and requesting that another auditor should
  102
  be sent down there instead; whether Colonel Studdert had publicly certified that the sureties of Relieving Officer Duffin were alive, and whether he had since written to the Board of Guardians on Saturday last to know if these sureties were alive; whether he can state if these sureties are dead or alive; and, if dead, the dates of their deaths, and also the date of the last certificate in which this auditor certified that they were living; whether the Guardians telegraphed to the Local Government Board on Saturday last, calling for a new auditor to be sent down to them; whether a new auditor will be sent there, and if he can give the name of the new auditor; and, whether Colonel Studdert is the same gentleman who audited last year, and for some years past, the accounts of the Belfast Town Council?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Local Government Board would not be prepared to take so serious a step as the supersession of an auditor upon the vague grounds suggested by the Ballymena Guardians; but they have asked the Guardians to state the specific grounds upon which they base their complaint of careless audit, and they are willing to investigate the matter, if the Guardians are prepared to substantiate their charges. With regard to the case of the Relieving Officer Duffin, it appears that the auditor was misled by false information given to him by the late clerk of the Union (who has become a defaulter), and who reported to him, at successive audits, that the man's sureties were living, notwithstanding that they had been dead for some years. The answer to the last paragraph is, Yes.

  CRIMINAL LAW—RELEASE OF ALBERT TRAVIS, CONVICTED OF MURDER.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as reported in the papers of Tuesday, that Albert Travis, sentenced to death in 1886, has been proved to be innocent of the crime of which be was convicted; whether it is true that he has been unconditionally released; and, if so, whether the Government intend to compensate him for his unmerited imprisonment; and, whether it is true, as reported, that the police at the time of the

  103
  trial had information in their possession showing that Travis was not guilty?
  MR. TATTON EGERTONalso asked, Whether, as stated in The Pall Mall Gazette of Tuesday, it is true an unconditional release of the convict Albert Travis has been made, and on what grounds; whether it is true, as also stated, that at the time of trial the police knew that Travis did not commit the murder; and, whether the release is due to reconsideration of the same papers in the Home Office at the time of the commutation of the capital punishment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS)It is true that the remainder of the sentence on Albert Travis of penal servitude for life on a charge of murder has been remitted after two years, on the ground that there is too much doubt in the case to justify his further detention in prison. There is no intention to grant him any compensation. It is not a fact that at the time of the trial the police knew that Travis did not commit the murder, or that they had information in their possession showing that he was not guilty. Since the commutation of the sentence of death fresh information has been received, which has led me on two occasions to reconsider the whole of this most intricate and singular case. I arrived at my final decision after consulting more than one eminent Judge, from whom I have received valuable assistance. The difficulties of the case are shown by the fact that the learned Judge who tried the case is still satisfied with the verdict.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to a statement made by Major Barker, Chief Constable of Birkenhead, to the effect that it was known to the Police Authorities, after the case had been fully investigated before the Justices, that Travis did not commit the murder, and that it was against the judgment of the Police Authorities that a prosecution was instituted at the Assizes?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not seen that statement, nor am I aware that it is authentic. As far as I know, the only matter in the knowledge of the police that did not come out at the trial was evidence which the police have since laid before me, contradicting unexpected statements of a woman named Platt.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Rule is still observed by which, in all cases of capital charges, the prosecution shall be under the direct control of the Public Prosecutor?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware of any case in which that Rule has not been observed; but, off-hand, without searching for documents at the Home Office, I should be sorry to say positively that the Rule has always been observed. The Public Prosecutor is directly responsible for such cases, although, in many instances, he has employed local agents as his representatives.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked, whether it was not usual in cases where a man had suffered unmerited imprisonment, to give him compensation?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; on the contrary, to give compensation is without precedent.
  MR. O'HEAasked, if it was not a fact that compensation was given to a man named Habron, whose case stood on exactly parallel lines with the present one?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I would like Notice of that Question.

  MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS (IRELAND)—BALLINASLOE.
  MR. HARRISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the inhabitants of Ballinasloe suffer great inconvenience for want of a Town Hall that could be used as a place for the transaction of public business; that there are two halls in the town—namely, the Agricultural Hall and the Farming Society Building, both of which were erected for public uses and in a great degree by public money, but have now passed into the hands of the ground landlords, who have rented them to private individuals; and, whether he is aware that the Town Commissioners have been unable to secure the Agricultural Hall as a Town Hall, though they offered to give the same rent for it as is paid at present; and, if so, would the Local Government Board, by their advice or otherwise, aid the townspeople of Ballinasloe in their legal efforts to get possession of this hall? The hon. Gentleman also asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that

  105
  in the most central position in Ballinasloe there are sheds which are used as slaughter-houses, which emit a most offensive odour, dangerous to the health of the town; that the inhabitants of Ballinasloe and the Town Commissioners signed a requisition asking Lord Clancarty to remove those sheds, on the ground that they were a public nuisance, an impediment to the traffic, and a disfigurement to the town; that his Lordship refused, on the ground that they were a market house, in which his family had a vested interest of such a nature that he had no legal right to disturb it, especially as it had relation to the tolls and customs; and, if so, would the Local Government Board interfere and cause the removal of these sheds, and thus prevent the expense of a law suit?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that these Questions required local inquiry, and he would, therefore, ask the hon. Member to postpone them until Tuesday.
  MR. HARRIS: I shall be engaged next Tuesday at the Law Courts.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR, said, he might put down the Questions for Monday; but he could not promise to be in a position to answer them by that day.

  MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS (IRELAND)—TOLLS AND CUSTOMS OF BALLINASLOE.
  MR. HARRISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the tolls and customs of Ballinasloe, which, owing to the great fairs held in that town, come to a large amount of money, are paid to Lord Clancarty; that, out of the money thus received, his Lordship contributes nothing towards the cleansing, lighting, or other municipal expenses of the town; and, if so, will the Government give an instruction to the Royal Commission on Market Rights and Tolls to hold a public inquiry in Ballinasloe?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I have no knowledge as to the matters of fact referred to. I understand that Ballinasloe is one of the towns selected by the Royal Commission at which a public inquiry will be held by the Assistant Commissioners for Ireland in due course.

  MERCHANDIZE MARKS ACT, 1887—SEC. 3, SUB-SEC. 2.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Section 3, Sub-section 2, of "The Merchandize Marks Act, 1887," is intended to apply to domestic as well as to foreign manufacturers; and, whether, under Section 2, a man would be liable to imprisonment who sold goods of British manufacture, bearing his name, but not actually manufactured by him?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said: The hon. Member asks me to place an interpretation on an Act of Parliament. I have no power to do so. I am not, however, aware of any such limitation of the application of Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Merchandize Marks Act as he alludes to in the first part of his Question. With reference to the second part, I would call the hon. Member's attention to the words "or merchandize" in the last line of the subsection, which were, I understand, inserted to meet the contingency referred to.

  COAL MINES—COLLIERY ACCIDENT AT UDSTON, LANARKSHIRE.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD(for Mr. PHILIPPS) (Lanark, Mid) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Udston Colliery Inquiry?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): If the hon. Member will refer to pages 10 to 14 of the Report he will see that they contain an abstract of the evidence given by the principal witnesses, both as to the facts and the causes of the explosion. Under these circumstances, I hope the hon. Member will not press me to incur the serious expense of printing a verbatim copy of the evidence, which is very bulky. I shall be happy to show it to the hon. Member.

  BRITISH GUIANA—THE SILVER CURRENCY.
  MR. WATTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether representations have been received from British Guiana

  107
  with reference to the worn-out condition of the silver currency in use throughout the Colony; and, if not, whether, in the event of such representations being made, the Government will favourably consider the question?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Secretary of State has received no official representations on the subject; but the Colonial Government have the remedy in their own hands, as arrangements were made by the Treasury in 1879 by which new coin would be shipped to any Colony using British currency free of charge. The Imperial Treasury will also pay the full nominal value of all worn British silver sent in to the Mint.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)—MEDWAY UNION WORKHOUSE— CASE OF THOMAS WARD.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can now state the result of his inquiries into the case of Thomas Ward, a pauper inmate in the Medway Union Workhouse?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): I have made inquiry respecting Thomas Ward, an inmate of the workhouse of the Medway Union. He was allowed leave of absence from the workhouse on the 1st of November last. He returned about 8 o'clock and went to his ward. He was while there drunk and disorderly, causing a great disturbance, swearing and using bad language. The circumstances were reported to the House Committee the next day; and they, having examined several of the men in the ward and ascertained the facts, directed that he should be charged before the magistrates. He was accordingly, on the following day, given in charge of the police. Before leaving the workhouse he was requested to change the workhouse clothing for his own; but he refused to do so, and the clothing was forcibly changed. This took place at 12·30 in the daytime, and not at 12·30 at night, as suggested. Ward was charged before the Justices, was convicted, and sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment with hard labour. The wife of Ward died in the infirmary in March, 1886, having been an inmate for many years. Ward was with her till late in the evening, the
  108
  matron having given permission that he should visit his wife at any time during the day until 8 o'clock, and he had been continually in the infirmary. As there were 21 other patients in the ward, the matron did not feel justified in allowing a male visitor after 8 o'clock. Ward was informed of his wife's death early in the morning. It does not appear to me that any further inquiry as to the management of the workhouse is necessary.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—INTERFERENCE WITH NEWSVENDORS AT CORK.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that the following cases of police interference with, and intimidation of, street newspaper vendors have occurred in the City of Cork—namely, Denis Desmond (young lad), who refused to sell to a policeman a copy of United Ireland, arrested by Sergeant Kennedy, and detained for a short time in Bridewell; Denis M'Carthy (young lad), refused to sell a copy of The Cork Examiner to Police Sergeant Power, arrested by Sergeant Power, taken to the Bridewell, and detained there for some time; John Radley (young lad), refused to sell a copy of United Ireland and Cork Examiner to policeman, arrested by Sergeant Power, taken to Bridewell, and detained there for some time; Cornelius Coakley (young lad), arrested for refusing to sell to policeman a copy of United Ireland and Cork Examiner, by Sergeant Power, taken to the Bridewell, and detained there for some time; Patrick Bradley (young lad), arrested under circumstances similar to the above by Sergeant Power; Patrick Carleton (young lad), refused to sell a copy of Cork Herald to policeman, arrested by Sergeant O'Leary, and lodged in Bridewell for some time; Michael Murphy (an old man of 70), he refused to sell a copy of The Examiner to policeman on beat, and the policeman kicked the old man's box about, scattered his papers, cuffed the old man, and warned him against selling the newspaper; and, whether, in view of these occurrences he will order an independent inquiry into these matters?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Sir, I am making special inquiries into the cases;

  109
  and if the hon. Member will put the Questions on Tuesday next I will try to give him an answer.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked whether, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made his speech at Battersea on the 16th of May, he was unaware of the circumstances there detailed, which took place in December last.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It has yet to be proved that the circumstances did take place.

  EGYPT—RAILWAY BETWEEN WADY HALFA AND SARRAS.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the present position of the railway (of about 100 miles in length, between Wady Halfa and Sarras, in Egypt) constructed by War Departments at a cost of about £140,000; who is in control; is the railway worked or abandoned; and, what has become of the rolling stock provided for it?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E.STANHOPE): The hon. Baronet is under some misapprehension as to this line of railway from Wady Halfa to Sarras. It is only 33½ miles in length, and was constructed by the Egyptian Government between 1873 and 1877. At the time of the Nile Expedition, and for military purposes, some expenditure was incurred in improving the line; but nothing approaching the sum named in the Question. On the abandonment of the country south of Wady Halfa the line was transferred to the control of the Egyptian Government, to whom the rolling stock was lent, so far as it had been provided from British funds. The sale of the stock is now under consideration.

  COAL MINES—EXPLOSIONS—EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CORONERS' JURIES—THE ST. HELEN'S EXPLOSION.
  MR. W. CRAWFORDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that some of his Predecessors have had printed and issued a verbatim report of the minutes of evidence taken before Coroners' Courts in cases of explosions in mines; if he is aware that in the case of Seaham, in the County of Durham,
  110
  where 168 lives were lost, and the inquest lasted 12 days, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had printed in a Blue Book a full report of all the evidence taken before the Coroner and jury, although the workmen had not, or ever did attribute negligence as the cause of the disaster; if he knows that in the case of the explosion at St. Helen's Colliery, in Cumberland, the workmen do allege negligence of management as the direct cause of so many lives being lost, and that they contemplate taking legal action under the provisions of the Employers' Liability Act to recover compensation for the relatives of the deceased; and, whether, under these exceptional circumstances, he will order a verbatim report of the evidence tendered before the Coroner's Court or Courts in the St. Helen's inquiry?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. I am not aware that the men allege negligence of management as the direct cause of loss of life, or that they contemplate taking legal action. I am unable to lay a verbatim report of the evidence upon the Table, as there was no shorthand writer present at the Coroner's inquest; but the Report which I have just received and will shortly lay on the Table of the House specifically refers to the important witnesses, and to the facts to which they deposed.

  COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION ACT 1887—SPECIAL RULES.
  MR. FENWICKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received from the Leicestershire district objections to Special Rules; and, whether he intends to take any steps to see that the wishes of the workmen are duly and properly attended to?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; I have received such objections. With the view of meeting the wishes of the workmen in this district certain amendments of the Special Rule were prepared by the Inspector, approved by me, and proposed to the owners, by whom they have generally been accepted.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—COLLECTION OF MONEY IN SOUTHWARK PARK.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the fact that a summons has been served on a Mr. Fairbairn for collecting money after a political speech in Southwark Park; and, if this is the first summons that has been served under this bye-law of the Metropolitan Board of Works?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; I am informed by the Metropolitan Board of Works that the fact is as stated. Mr. Fairbairn is the first person who has broken the bye-law, and, consequently, he is the first person who has been summoned under it.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM: Seeing that the Government apparently are about to suppress political meetings in London under pretexts, had we better not pass a Coercion Act for London, as for Ireland?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Mr. Fenwick.

  POST OFFICE (CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE)—PAYMENT OF SALARIES.
  MR. FENWICKasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will give the staff of the Central Telegraph Office an opportunity of expressing their wishes as to the present system of payment of salaries, in the same manner as was done recently on the question of long and short duties; and, whether, if a large number of the staff are found to be in favour of weekly, instead of fortnightly, payment of wages, he will take steps to comply with their request?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES), in reply, said, that any officer in the Post Office was at liberty to apply to him through the usual official channel; and should the staff at the Central Telegraph Office submit an application he would give it attentive consideration. It would, of course, be premature to give any promise as to future action until the requirements of the Service and the wishes of the officers had received fuller consideration.

  POST OFFICE (SCOTLAND)—SORTIN VANS BETWEEN BURNTISLAND AND DUNDEE.
  MR. PRESTON BRUCEasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the discontinuance at the beginning of this month of the sorting van, which for the last two or three years has been running between Burntisland and Dundee, and which has proved to be a very great public convenience in respect to the interchange of letters locally in the County of Fife; whether the discontinuance of this van is the act of the North British Railway Company, and connected with differences between that Company and the Post Office, now the subject of arbitration; whether the Post Office has made any attempt to arrange temporarily for the continuance of this van, so as to obviate the derangement and delay of mails which must result from its suspension; and, whether, failing agreement, he has power to compel, and will compel, the Company to restore this sorting van?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The facts generally are as stated by the hon. Member. The Post Office did attempt, but unsuccessfully, to arrange for the continuance of the sorting carriages in Fifeshire. Until the umpire in the pending arbitration has made his award, I shall not be prepared to re-enter on the consideration of this Question. I believe the last sitting of the umpire and arbitrators is fixed for the latter part of this week, so we may hope before long to have the award.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—SEC. 1—STATE OF DUBLIN COUNTY.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been directed to the following extract from the report in The Freeman's Journal of the charge of Mr. Justice Johnson, on the 5th instant, to the Grand Jury of the County of Dublin:—
  "The County Inspector had furnished him with a list of the criminal offences that had occurred since the last commission, and he reported that the county was in a perfectly satisfactory state;"
  and, whether the Report of the County

  113
  Inspector referred to correctly represents the state of Dublin County as regards crime; and, if so, what is the reason for applying to the County of Dublin the 1st section of "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887?"
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The general state of crime is not abnormal. But I would remind the hon. Member that the section cannot be put in force unless a crime has been committed; and, further, that the necessity for using the section does not depend on the amount of crime committed, but on the character and circumstances of the crime which has to be investigated. The Government desire to be in a position to put the section in force without delay if the necessity for it should arise.
  MR. CLANCYasked, if he was to understand that the reason why this section had been applied to the County of Dublin was that possibly something in the way of crime might arise in future requiring the aid of the section?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman must not be too hasty in his inferences.
  MR. DILLON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can now explain to the House why this provision of the Crimes Act has been applied to the City of Dublin, when, since it was applied to the City of Dublin four weeks ago, no steps have been taken under the section? Now, as I think its application to the City of Dublin is extremely unnecessary, I think we are entitled to some explanation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was applied to the City of Dublin as included in the County; and my answer as regards the City of Dublin is precisely the same as the answer to the hon. Gentleman in relation to the County of Dublin.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has given absolutely no answer to the Questions put to him. The right hon. Gentleman has given a purely hypothetical statement that possibly the Government might require the power of the section in case necessity might arise. I think we have a right to press the right hon. Gentleman for some statement of the reasons why the County and the City of Dublin are included under this section; because we are entitled to suppose that the Coercion Act would not be applied without some reason for it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that I can give the hon. Gentleman the information he desires; but I may say that the County of Dublin is in an exceptional position in Ireland, as offences might be committed there which would blossom into crimes in other parts of the country.
  MR. MURPHYasked, whether the object of this section of the Crimes Act was not to discover crime; and whether Mr. Justice Johnson, on the same occasion, did not say that the amount of crime in the City of Dublin was very inconsiderable?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the necessity for using the powers of the section does not depend on the amount, but on the character and circumstances of the crime which has to be investigated.
  MR. DILLON: But what is the crime? Will the right hon. Gentleman say that there is any crime in the City or County of Dublin of such a character as requires to be investigated under Section 1?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I should not be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman with any answer I might give. I have nothing to add to what I have said.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBTIN (Mr. SEXTON): Will the right hon. Gentleman, by a plain answer, enable the House to understand, with regard to the County of Dublin, whether or not any information has been sworn that a crime has been committed; or whether, in fact, any crime has been committed which renders it desirable, in the opinion of the Government, to apply the provisions of Section 1 of the Coercion Act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is aware that if information had been sworn that a crime had been committed there would be an investigation under Section 1. I am afraid beyond that I have nothing to add.
  MR. CLANCY: Are we to understand, then, that no crime has been committed in the County of Dublin?
  [No reply.]

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—JOHN MAGUIRE.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether John Ma-

  115
  guire, of Swords, County of Dublin, against whom a warrant for arrest was issued for the second time early in March last, but who still remained at large at the end of April under the protection of the police, has yet been committed to prison; if so, when was Maguire arrested; and, what is the justification for delaying the execution of the warrant?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Maguire was arrested on the 10th of May. The execution of the warrant was delayed pending the result of inquiry by the Lord Lieutenant into a Memorial by Maguire. The magistrates ordered that the arrest should not take place until the Lord Lieutenant gave his decision on the Memorial.
  MR. CLANCY: May I ask, is there any precedent for delaying the execution of a warrant on such grounds?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot answer that Question without Notice.
  Subsequently,
  MR. CLANCYsaid, as he did not hear the answer—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must call the attention of the House to the practice, which is a growing one, after the Questions have been twice gone over, of Members reviving Questions which have been answered some time ago, and raising a series of further Questions upon them. I think that practice is causing serious inconvenience to the House.
  MR. CLANCY: With your permission, Sir, I may state that I was about saying that I had not heard the answer of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!That is hardly a reason, under the circumstances, for repeating the Question.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—RETURN OF CARETAKERS.
  MR. A. E. PEASEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Return of Caretakers evicted in Ireland, promised in February, and stated subsequently to be almost ready for presentation, will be placed upon the Table of the House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The
  116
  Return was presented on May 31, and circulated this morning.
  MR. A. E. PEASEasked, whether that Return was not one that dealt solely with evicted tenants—tenants reduced to the position of caretakers under Clause 7 of the Land Act; and, whether it was not a different Return to that which the right hon. Gentleman promised in February last?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension. The Return in question did deal with caretakers.
  MR. A. E. PEASE: Not with the eviction of caretakers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Return, he will see, on the first and second pages of it, that it does refer to the eviction of caretakers—of ex-tenants who are caretakers.

  MINES—CERTIFICATES OF UNDER MANAGERS.
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to complaints that persons who have acted as under managers of mines for many years have been refused certificates of service; whether it is true that in cases of refusal to grant such certificates no reason or explanation has been given to the applicant; and, whether, considering the dissatisfaction that exists and the interest that is taken in the subject, he will state the method of procedure and the principles that guide the Home Office in dealing with certificates of service?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; I have received such complaints. In the first instance no reason for refusal is given; but if remonstrance is made the reasons are set forth in detail. I consider my duty to be limited to ascertaining whether the candidate possesses the statutory qualification—namely, whether he has exercised functions substantially corresponding to those of an under manager. I have no right to exercise any discretion as to whether the candidate is otherwise personally qualified. The method of procedure is to refer each application to the Inspector of the district, who reports to me whether, in fact, the candidate possesses the statutory qualification.

  117
  The two main principles, speaking generally, by which I have been guided are—first, that the applicant shall have been next in authority to a certificated manager; and, secondly, that he shall have exercised control over a separate mine, or such part as might, under the Statute, have constituted a separate mine.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)—ARREST OF JOHN MARA.
  MR. CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If a man named John Mara, a printer, was arrested on June 2, in Hyde Park, by two detectives, on suspicion of being a pickpocket; if at the time of his arrest he was dressed in his working clothes, his hands being covered with printer's ink, with other marks of his trade to show that he was what he represented himself to be; if he stated at the Police Court that he has been employed by Mr. T. Sharp, 17, Great Titchfield Street, W., for the last 10 years, whose foreman has been to Marlborough Street Police Court to testify to his good character and respectability and to offer bail; if this bail was refused by Mr. Newton; and, if so, for what reason; if John Mara is under further remand till Saturday next, to enable the police to bring forward witnesses who "saw him walking about in a suspicious manner;" if, as the matter stands at present, John Mara remains in prison on suspicion only, the only charge against him being the unsupported evidence of two detectives; and, if he will at once order John Mara release on bail?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the magistrate that the facts as stated in the Question are substantially correct, and that the prisoner is under remand on the evidence of two reliable witnesses, while other witnesses are to be produced on Saturday. I have no authority to order his release on bail.
  MR. CAINE: Does it require a fortnight for two detectives to produce corroborative evidence of picking pockets in Hyde Park; and is there anything beyond the suspicion of those detectives that this man was engaged in picking pockets?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have given the hon. Gentleman all the information that I possess.
  MR. CAINE: Well, I shall put down other Questions on this subject tomorrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE LICENSING CLAUSES—THE COUNTY COUNCILS.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he intends to persevere with the proposal to hand over to the County Councils the proceeds of the licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): We do not intend, Sir, to make any alteration in our proposals in this regard.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—THE READING ROOM.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will place some additional furniture in the Reading Room, so that the newspapers may be arranged in a convenient and available manner for the use of the Members of the House?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): Yes, Sir; I will endeavour to see whether better arrangements cannot be made in the Reading Room.
  MR. ADDISONasked, whether it might not be possible to get a better newspaper room altogether; and, also, whether the First Commissioner could not cause a more adequate supply of newspapers, particularly French and Belgian newspapers, to be procured?
  MR. PLUNKET: The supply of newspapers does not come within my Department. I should like to see a better Reading Room; but I am afraid it is not possible to obtain one, considering the accommodation of the building.

  WAR OFFICE (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE YEOMANRY—LIMITATION OF AGE.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will extend to the Yeomanry the Order recently issued to

  119
  the Volunteers, which limits the age for service in that Force to the years between 17 and 50?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): It is proposed to fix a limit of age for service in the Yeomanry, subject to exceptions in very special cases.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—REFUSAL TO GIVE EVIDENCE.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following in The Daily News:—
  "At Falcarragh Crimes Court yesterday four prisoners were remanded for the fourth time to Derry Gaol for seven days for refusing to give evidence. An old man named Shane O'Donnell fainted on his third journey from gaol. He was with great difficulty resuscitated, and was eventually discharged;"
  how long has this old man O'Donnell been in prison altogether; and, has he been charged with or convicted of any crime?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that the Question only appeared on the Paper that morning; but if it were repeated on Monday he would endeavour to answer it.

  UNITED STATES—SHIPPING CHARGES—DECLARATION FEE.
  MR. O. V. MORGANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has yet received an answer from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington as to the reason why shippers from England to the United States are charged a declaration fee of 2s. 6d. on each invoice in addition to the Consul's fee, while shippers from Germany to the United States pay no declaration fee?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: A letter containing the substance of the Report on the subject received from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington was addressed to the hon. Member yesterday. If he requires any further information I would suggest that he should communicate again with the Foreign Office, where the matter is receiving attention.

  VENEZUELA—DUTIES AD VALOREM.
  MR. HOWELL(for Mr. WATT) (Glasgow, Camlachie) asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the additional 30 per cent ad valorem duty upon all goods imported is still enforced by Venezuela; and, whether it is a fact that the trade between Trinidad and Venezuela has now virtually ceased to exist?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: We have no information that this additional duty has ceased to be levied. It is not a fact that trade between Trinidad and Venezuela has now virtually ceased to exist; but there was a falling off in 1887, as compared with 1886, of £10,246 in value of imports to Trinidad (excluding bullion in transit)—namely, from £179,274 to £169,028; and in exports of £26,722—namely, from £168,585 to £141,863.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—BRITISH AND FOREIGN MINISTRIES OF COMMERCE.
  MR. CAUSTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have instituted any inquiry, or obtained any information from Foreign Governments, showing the difference of organization between the Board of Trade in this country and the Ministers of Commerce of Foreign Administrations; and, if not, whether they will do so?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)(who replied) said: No such inquiry has been recently instituted; but if the hon. Member will furnish the Foreign Office with particulars of the information he desires to obtain, and the countries from which it should be procured, Reports will be called for.

  NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION—REMOVAL OF THE VOLUNTEER CAMP FROM WIMBLEDON.
  MR. NORTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the removal of the Volunteer Camp from Wimbledon, and in consideration of the great advantage

  121
  to the country and the Volunteers generally if the annual meeting could continue to be held near London, and also the desirability of having a permanent range available for the Metropolitan Corps, Whether the Government will take steps to inquire as to the suitability of the Richmond Park site?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I understand that a deputation from the National Rifle Association waited upon my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works this morning on the subject to which my hon. Friend refers. It will be the duty of the Government carefully to consider the representation which was made to the First Commissioner, and they will to do so with as little delay as possible, having regard to the importance of the question. But I must point out to my hon. Friend, that if only the annual rifle meeting is sanctioned in Richmond Park, it will involve the exclusion of the public from a portion of the Park for a fortnight every year, and necessitate the removal of a large number of trees in the line of fire; while if the butts were to be available as a permanent range, the public would have to be permanently excluded from an area amounting to about one-half of the entire Park.

  THE ADMIRALTY AND THE WAR OFFICE—HYPOTHETICAL INVASION OF THIS COUNTRY.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB (, &c.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Royal Commission to be presided over by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) will inquire into the relations between the Admiralty and War Office, as regards the conflicting statements made by the First Lord of the Admiralty and Adjutant General of the Army, respecting the transport required and available in French ports for the sudden invasion of this country by 100,000 men; whether the Commissioners will inquire into the relations between the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury, with a view to ascertaining the grounds upon which the Treasury sanctions an annual expenditure by the War Office of over £14,000 a-year for military intelligence, besides over £4,000 a-year for military attaches, while the annual expenditure
  122
  by the Admiralty for naval intelligence is under £5,000 a-year, and under £1,000 a-year for a naval attaché, as shown by Parliamentary Returns recently presented to the House?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): My hon. and gallant Friend is aware of the terms of the Reference to the Royal Commission on the Admiralty and War Office; and it is for the Commission, as a body, to determine what points they will or will not deal with. No Member of Her Majesty's Government can give any instructions to or interfere with the proceedings of a Royal Commission; and, under these circumstances, it is impossible for me to give my hon. and gallant Friend any definite information on the point which he has raised.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE LICENSING CLAUSES—SUSPENSION OF NEW LICENCES.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the withdrawal of the Licensing Clauses of the Local Government Bill, the Government would be willing to introduce into that Bill a clause, or to bring in a short Bill to suspend for 12 months the issue of all new licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors, as was done in 1871, pending further consideration of the question?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to state that the Government are not prepared to enter into any arrangement or engagement with the House to introduce a Bill suspending for 12 months the issue of all new licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors.
  MR. COBB: Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask him whether, after the declaration made by the President of the Local Government Board in introducing the Local Government Bill, the House is to understand that the Government intend to postpone indefinitely dealing with the questions of Local Option, Sunday Closing, and the conferring of powers for granting licences upon Bodies to be elected by the ratepayers?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman must draw his own inference from the course which the Government have been compelled to take.
  Subsequently,
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With reference to the Notice given by the Government of their intention to omit certain clauses of the Local Government Bill, I beg leave to give Notice that when a Motion is made to omit Clause 9, relating to Sunday Closing, I shall oppose the omission of that clause.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ESTIMATES.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Greenwich Hospital Estimates will be referred to the Select Committee on Navy Estimates?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Greenwich Hospital Estimates will not be within the terms of the Reference to the Select Committee on Navy Estimates.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that, in the present condition of Public Business, it was impossible for the Government to fix a date for taking the two Bills dealing with the subject of tithe rent-charge.
  In reply to Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby) and Mr. BRADLAUGH (Northampton),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, there would be a Morning Sitting to-morrow for the Local Government Bill. It might be necessary to take Supply one day next week—he hoped not more than one day—and the other days would be devoted to the Local Government Bill; but he would state definitely to-morrow if it would be necessary to take Supply, and, if so, on what day it would be taken.

  GERMANY—HEALTH OF HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY FREDERICK III.
  MR. HOWORTH: In view of the alarming news about the German Emperor's health, I should like to ask the Government whether they have received any information of a more
  124
  re-assuring character than is contained in to-day's newspapers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I regret deeply that it is not in the power of the Government, nor in my power, to give the House any re-assuring information. We have not received any telegram from Berlin since the early morning, and all the information that has reached us is of the character to which my hon. Friend refers.
  Subsequently,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid: About an hour and a half ago I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford a Question with reference to the condition of the German Emperor. At that time Her Majesty's Government had received no telegram from our Ambassador at Berlin; but we have since received a telegram, dated 3 o'clock to-day, from Berlin, informing us, I regret to say, that the Emperor's condition is much worse than it has been, and that there is now very little hope entertained of his recovery. Inflammation of the lungs has set in; but the Ambassador informs us that His Imperial Highness's intellect is perfectly clear, and that he is suffering no pain. It is with very great regret that I make this communication to the House; but it is, at least, some consolation to know that His Imperial Highness is free from pain, and that his intellect remains unclouded.

  EXCISE DUTIES (LOCAL PURPOSES)BILL.
  MR. BARTLEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he proposes to take the Wheel Tax Bill; or whether they were to understand the right hon. Gentleman meant to give it up?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I thought I had several times informed the House that that tax has not been given up. The time when it will be taken will depend on the progress of the Local Government Bill. It stands in the same category as other measures.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL—THE COUNTY COUNCILS.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) announced that he hoped a Paper would be in the Vote Office this evening giving the suggested numbers of the County Councils. This might be a convenience to hon. Members in view of the discussion on the subject.
  In reply to Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe),
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that he hoped the Amendments to the Bill would be laid on the Table to-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  NATIONAL DEBT (SUPPLEMENTAL)BILL.— [BILL 264.]
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Jackson.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, upon the third reading of this Bill, he will tell the House what he proposes to do with that portion of the Three per Cent Consols which still remains unconverted? At present, there is a considerable difference between the price of the old Consols which have not been converted and those which have been converted, so that the persons who did not take the advice to convert have got a good deal better treatment than the people who did convert. Therefore, there is a considerable portion of Stock, the amount of which I do not know, which is worth 20 s. more than the converted Stock.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I cannot admit that because for a few weeks the converted Stock has fallen below par, therefore it is true that those who have not converted have got a better thing than those who have converted. The Three per Cent Stock is now in such a position that it can be paid off on 12 months' notice. Whether they will be in as satisfactory a position as those who have got a Stock on which 2½, per cent or 2¾ per cent is guaranteed for a certain number of years is a question for the right hon. Gentleman and others to determine. If they are paid off at par in the course of a year, and should not be
  126
  able to invest as well as they can at this particular moment, I should say that they will not be in so favourable a position as the holders of the New Stock. I think it is premature for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to attempt to mar the success of the operation.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that there is no Question before the House. No debate can arise at this stage, and the third reading will be taken to-morrow.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman specifically and exactly on another occasion; but I may say now that out of a total of about £590,000,000 and more, the amount still outstanding is about £47,000,000.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in connection with the Bill, Clause 1, which spoke of the market price of the Three per Cent Stock, referred to annuities or assets in the case of the National Debt Commissioners, in respect of trustee savings banks?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!There can be no discussion upon this stage of the Bill.
  DR. TANNERintimated that he would put the question to-morrow.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

COMMITTEE.
MATTER—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of remuneration to Railway Companies for receiving and forwarding traffic under the authority of a Secretary of State or the Admiralty, and of compensation to any person suffering loss for anything done under such authority, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make better provision respecting National Defence."—(Mr. Secretary Stanhope.)
MR. PICTONsaid, there had been no explanation of the necessity for this Resolution. There was nothing to justify such a Resolution, except some expectation of invasion

127
that appeared to him to be a most improbable thing. Such a Resolution was calculated to excite a great deal of alarm. If such a monstrously improbable contingency were to arise, he supposed that any Government would seize the railways in case of necessity, and ask for a Bill of Indemnity afterwards. He presumed it would be impossible that there would be any invasion of this country without some amount of previous rumour or expectation. If such a difficulty were to arise, Bills could be passed through the two Houses within 24 hours, or even less, in case of necessity. He could not see that any good ground had been shown for the Resolution, and he hoped the Secretary of State would give some information to the House upon the subject.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE): This is only a formal Resoulation on which a Bill would be founded. When the clause comes on in Committee, the hon. Member will have an opportunity for raising the question. Although we certainly do not anticipate an invasion, we believe that the best way to prevent the possibility of such a thing is to be prepared. We are only asking for such powers as we deem reasonable and necessary, and which we might have to use in the case of emergency.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

CUSTOMS (WINE DUTY) BILL
(Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson.)

[BILL 293.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): In moving the second reading of this Bill, I may, perhaps, be allowed to call the attention of the House to the circumstances which have rendered it necessary to introduce it. It will be in the recollection of the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen), in introducing his Budget, asked the House to sanction a tax upon bottled wines to the extent of 5s. per dozen. The House on that occasion was good enough to grant my right hon.
128
Friend's demand; but in the course of the discussion, and on the Report stage of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Craig) moved a Resolution and initiated a discussion, suggesting the exemption from the tax of all wines under 30 s. a dozen That proposal met, I may say, with a very large amount of acceptance in the House, and it met also with what I may venture to call a benevolent reception from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was pointed out most forcibly that the proposal to tax all bottled wines at the same rate of 5s. per dozen would fall very heavily on a very considerable portion of wine which was imported into this country in bottles of a very useful character, but which comes in at a very moderate price. It was quite recognized that if any plan could be found by which exemption, or partial relief, could be given to this class of wines, it was the duty of my right hon. Friend to consider it, and, if possible, to give effect to it. As the result of that discussion, my right hon. Friend promised to the House a plan by which some relief might be given to wines of that character. The difficulties were recognized by my right hon. Friend when he had to consider them previously to the introduction of his Budget to this House. It was pointed out at the time that there were at the disposal of the Government very few figures which enabled my right hon. Friend to form a very accurate estimate, either as to the quantity of bottled wines imported into this country, and still less of the quantity of the proportions of those bottled wines which would have to be exempt because they were less than 30 s. a dozen. I believe that for some considerable time there have been no separate statistics kept at the Customs with reference to the importation of bottled wines. But the opportunity which had been offered has enabled some figures, which I believe may be taken to be reliable, to be obtained, showing not only the total import of bottled wines into this country, but also affording an approximate estimate as to the proportion of sparkling wines and still wines comprised in that total. I have said that there were no statistics, and perhaps it may be thought by some hon. Members that my right hon. Friend and the Department over which he pre-

129
sides are to blame because those statistics are not forthcoming. Let me point out to hon. Members what the obvious answer to that is. After the statement I have made that no separate statistics have been kept of the quantity of bottled wines imported into this country, it is obvious to every Member of this House that to have entered into an investigation, and to have called for statistics from all parts of the Kingdom, would have been most effectually to have informed the public beforehand what was in the mind of my right. hon. Friend previously to the introduction of his Budget, and I think that I may say that there is not the smallest evidence to show that in the inquiries which have been made, necessarily limited as they were, the secret was not well kept by the Department, and it was absolutely unknown to the public that my right hon. Friend contemplated imposing a duty on bottled wine. The investigation which has taken place, and I may say that it took place both at home and abroad—has not only furnished us with what I believe to be reliable figures, but it has also, I may say, at the outset, considerably facilitated the task which my right hon. Friend had set before himself. The figures which have been obtained show that the original estimate was under the mark, and that my right hon. Friend had a considerable margin in which to work in his endeavour to find a method of giving exemption to those wines which are under 30 s. a-dozen. I will give to the House a few figures which have been obtained as the result of the investigation. These figures, although an estimate only, have been checked in various ways, and are believed to be approximately accurate. It is estimated that the total import of bottled wines into this country is in round figures 2,500,000 gallons. Of those 2,500,000 gallons, about two-fifths or 1,000,000 gallons are represented by still wines, and about three-fifths, or 1,500,000 gallons may be taken to represent the quantity of sparkling wines. Of the still wines, of which the total is said to be about 1,000,000 gallons, it is believed that, at a liberal estimate, about one-fourth—or about 250,000 gallons—consists of wines worth more than 30 s. per dozen, while the remaining three-fourths, or 750,000 gallons will, it is estimated, come in
130
below the limit of 30 s. per dozen. Then, Sir, with regard to the sparkling wines, at which the total import is estimated at 1,500,000 gallons, about two-thirds, or 1,000,000 gallons will, it is estimated, come in over the limit of 30 s. a-dozen, while about one-third, or 500,000, will come in below the limit of 30 s. I should like to point out to the House one very important fact that has come to our knowledge and been impressed upon us in the course of these investigations—that is, that the customs and the habits of the people of this country in the direction of drinking wine appears very largely to have changed, and changed not only in regard to the particular wines which they drink, but also with regard to the Quantity of wine they drink. While the total quantity of wine—not bottled wine only—imported into this country and retained for home consumption is now only about the same as it was in the year 1866 the proportion of sparkling wines which is imported into this country has enormously increased. Therefore, the importation of sparkling to still wine imported in bottle bears today a much larger proportion to the total than it did in 1866, or in any subsequent year. This change which has been going on appears from the figures to be, at all events for the present, continuous, and so far as we are able to judge it is likely to continue. I will give the House the figures. While in 1866 the total white wine imported into this country was taken at 958,000 gallons, in 1887 it had risen to 1,538,000 gallons, or an increase of very nearly 60 per cent. This, as I have pointed out, was the case notwithstanding the fact that the total of wine imported into this country for home consumption was in 1866, 13,226,000 gallons, and in 1887, 13,694,000 gallons. These figures go to show that the quantity of sparkling wine imported into this country, and of course imported in bottle, has shown a very considerable tendency to increase to even a larger extent than my right hon. Friend had estimated. Now, Sir, on these figures my right hon. Friend had to ask himself how he could grant relief to the cheaper wines, and thus meet what he believed to be the wishes of the House, and I hope I may also add the claims of Bordeaux. My right hon. Friend had to consider, first, how to protect and preserve his estimated

131
revenue; secondly, how to relieve the cheap wines; and, thirdly, how to do this without giving the least incentive to fraud and friction. Several plans were suggested and were open to him. The first which I will mention was one which naturally presented itself—namely, to exempt generally all wines from the tax which were under the value of 30 s. a-dozen. But when this question came to be examined it was found, in the first place, that a general exemption of that kind would, as far as still wines were concerned, leave but a very small proportion of the whole upon which the tax could be calculated. I would remind the House that a general exemption of that kind, or even a special exemption, as applied to some wines would necessitate, of course, not only that an examination with endless forms of procedure should be gone through with regard to wines on which the duty was to be calculated, but also an examination of all the wines imported which were exempt. It would follow, therefore, and I think the House will agree with me, that for the purpose of raising the comparatively limited amount of revenue which would have been obtained from still wines, it was extremely undesirable to impose upon the traders any more irksome condition of dealing with it than was absolutely necessary in the interests of the Revenue. I will point out, further, that so far as still wine is concerned there is the greatest possible difficulty in fixing or making regulations by which, in a reasonably easy manner, the value of the wine can be readily determined and a tax levied. In the first place, in regard to still wine, it is not even enough to rely on the brand, even though that brand be Château Lafite, or Château Latour, or Château Margaux, because, I am told, that it happens that the vintage in certain years is not worth nearly so much as in others. These wines, which are known as high class vintage wines, have their bad seasons, and the wine of a particular vineyard might be inferior and not worth so much as wine grown outside of it in the same year. Perhaps I may be allowed to point out also in regard to these still wines that there is this important difficulty. There are, practically, none of these wines which cannot be imported in cask into this country, and, therefore, if you impose a duty of 2s. 6d. a gallon,
132
or 5s. a dozen on all wines over 30 s. a dozen in value, you will be offering a strong temptation, in the first place, to fraudulent declaration, and a strong temptation, in the second place, to import such wines into this country in casks and so evade the duty altogether. My right hon. Friend has come to the conclusion, taking all these circumstances into consideration and also the important fact that he had a margin, to give an exemption to all still bottled wines. With regard to sparkling wine the case is very different. In the first place, a much larger portion of the whole comes to this country as wine of a value beyond 30 s. a dozen, and, in the second place, it is believed that such wine cannot be imported into this country except as bottled wine. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received many suggestions, even from high authorities, that if this duty is imposed as it is proposed, attempts will be made to evade the tax by sending sparkling wines into this country with false corks and replacing them when they come here with corks representing their real character. But I do not attach very much importance to that, and my right hon. Friend has arrived at what, I believe, to be a happy solution of the difficulty—namely, to put a tax of 2s. 6d. per gallon upon all sparkling wine over 30 s. per dozen in value, and a tax of 1s. per gallon on all sparkling wine under 30 s. per dozen in value. He is of opinion that that will fairly meet the difficulty, because, in the first place, it secures the Revenue, and, in the second place, removes all temptation to fraud, because the difference between 2s. per dozen and 5s. per dozen does not leave a sufficient reward or a sufficient incentive to induce anyone to undergo the enormous risk which would be involved in attempting to evade the Revenue and in incurring penalties by falsely declaring the value of wine. I may also remind the House that while we hear so much about temptation to commit fraud, no business firm of reputation could lend themselves to such fraudulent practices without placing themselves entirely at the mercy of their servants by whom the practices would have to be performed. The Bill now before the House makes two alterations in the existing conditions of things. It corrects what I cannot but feel was a mistake in the previous Bill—namely,

133
that the duty was imposed upon the dozen bottles instead of the gallon of wine. That has been remedied in the present Bill. The other alteration is that it changes the method of imposing the duty, that it exempts altogether all still wine from the additional duty, and that it moderates and modifies the duty upon those cheap champagnes of which we have already heard something in this House. I hope that the proposals of my right hon. Friend will meet with the general acceptance of the House. I will only say, in conclusion, that I shall hope to have the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), because the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say on the Report stage of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and in reference to this particular question—
"If the right hon. Gentleman undertook that in the course of the present Session he would introduce some legislation which, under the authority of Parliament, would carry out the principle of relieving the lower class wines, that would be most satisfactory."
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was also good enough to say—
"If the Government would undertake to bring in a Bill as rapidly as they could after they had obtained information as to which particular wines, if imported in bottle, would pay the lower rate of duty, they ought to place confidence in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that that would be done, but the matter would not bear much longer delay. If his right hon. Friend gave an assurance that no time should be lost in formulating a Bill under which the cheaper wines should come in at a cheaper rate, he thought the House might be satisfied."
The Government have endeavoured to carry out that undertaking. They have formulated this plan, which they submit to the House with confidence, and I beg now to move the second reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Jackson.)
MR. CHILDERS: The quotation which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has read from my speech is not strictly accurate. What I did say was that I hoped the Bill would be formulated as soon as possible by my right hon. Friend, that it would be acceptable to the
134
House, and that we would do what we could to build a bridge for him, considering the retreat which he has to make. The position in which we stand at this moment is that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day gave the House at some length the new plan he proposed with respect to the Wine Duties, and when he had placed that new plan at great length before the House, I ventured to say that I thought so novel a proposal ought to be accompanied by some Paper laid before Parliament. My right hon. Friend said that it was not a novel proposal, and he justified that statement by a reference to what was done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) in 1880, and also by a reference to the first arrangement of the Wine Duties for some years after 1860. Now, those proposals, and particularly that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, had reference generally to bottled wines, and there was nothing novel, however it might be objectionable, in the first proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the novelty of the present proposal in the first place is, that the additional duty is only to be imposed on sparkling wines, and the other and more important novelty is, that all sparkling wines are not to bear the same duty, but there are to be two duties—one with respect to the more valuable wine, and the other with respect to the wine which is of less value. Both of those proposals contain elements of absolute novelty in our recent legislation on this subject. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was only brought in and circulated this morning, and I regret that it has not been accompanied by some document which would have been of interest to all of us. Of course we have not had time to consider the statistical statement which has just been made by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. Let me state in a few words how it appears to me that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman should strike hon. Members. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a proposal in the Budget of a perfectly plain and simple character—namely, to add 5s. a-dozen, or about 2s. 6d. a gallon, to the duty on all wines coming into

135
this country in bottle. Let me remind the House of the reason for taking that course, which the right hon. Gentleman gave at the time the proposal was made. He said—
"It is very possible that an extra tax imposed upon these high-classed wines may lead to some remonstrances from Foreign Powers; but I am bound to say that remonstrances of ours to Foreign Powers with regard to impositions of duties on British goods have not been so entirely successful as to make it necessary for us, more than is absolutely compatible with our own interests, to look beyond the fiscal merits of the question."—(3 Hansard, [324] 313.)
That was the first excuse of the right hon. Gentleman, and it was not unnaturally cheered by Fair Traders and others who looked upon retaliation as not an unwise act. Without in the smallest degree approving of retaliation, I am not at all surprised that that feeling was exhibited. Then my right hon. Friend went on to say, further—
"I propose a tax of 5s. per dozen on bottled wines, which is equivalent to 2s. 6d. a gallon. I estimate this tax to bring in an additional revenue of £125,000. I take note, in making this estimate, of the probable—nay, certain—diminution of the amount of wine which may at present be imported in bottles, and which will in future be imported in casks. It is possible that the bottling trade in England may receive a certain impetus, but I cannot conceive that that is an objection to the plan. I trust hon. Members will not grudge the imposition of this tax; but I admit that the greater portion of this additional tax will have to be borne by sparkling wines."—(Ibid. 313–14.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The right hon. Gentleman has left out the reasons I gave for imposing the tax.
MR. CHILDERS: I am stating the right hon. Gentleman's answers to the objections which he anticipated would be made, and to objections which had already come. He made a statement on bringing forward his proposal, and in anticipation he met the objections to it. I would point out to my right hon. Friend that his present proposal will not give one iota of encouragement to the bottling trade. All that has gone entirely. No additional duty is to be imposed on still wines, however valuable, and of course sparkling wines always come to this country in bottle; so that the bottling trade, to whose support he appealed, will gain by the present proposal. Then, at any rate, the
136
advantages which were so much cheered in a particular quarter of the House have disappeared altogether. Then, in respect of foreigners, let me point out how different is the tone of my right hon. Friend now from the language he used before. Although he anticipated that objections would come from Foreign Powers, and particularly from France, he made very light of those objections. But now everyone knows that this fresh proposal has been made in consequence of the objections of the French Government. The French Government are now satisfied with the arrangement made by my right hon. Friend; and, therefore, all that he said about our being entitled to disregard the remonstrances of Foreign Powers because they disregard ours was mere tall talk. The arrangement has been made, as everybody knows, after the most careful communications with Foreign Powers, and especially with the French Government, and it is no secret that the French Government are perfectly satisfied.
MR. GOSCHEN: That is the first intimation that I have received that the French Government is perfectly satisfied.
MR. CHILDERS: I think I can inform him that if he is not aware of it, it is apparent to 99 out of every 100 persons who are interested in the matter, and is perfectly notorious in France. What I wish to point out, however, is that all the boast of disregarding the protestations of Foreign Powers has now gone, and so has everything in reference to the encouragement of the bottling trade. The House will fully understand that we have now to deal with my right hon. Friend's proposal on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has stated to-night, and we have to cast aside the Budget speech and come to the simple fact whether it is desirable or not to pick out a certain class of wine—namely, sparkling wine, and to say that because that wine contains a certain amount of carbonic acid gas it should be taxed at a higher price than other wines which do not contain that amount of gas. It is also to be taxed at a higher rate if it is above a certain value, and at a lower rate if it is below that value. I do not think the House will be very well satisfied with the further explanation of the hon,

137
Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. Let the House remember this—we abolished, not off-hand, but after careful consideration, the whole of our system of ad valorem duties. The results of a century's experience of the evil working of ad valorem duties are now to be forgotten, and the system is to be applied to an article probably the worst fitted for the change. But in one point the former system is altered for the worse. When ad valorem duties were in force, the value was set by the importer; but to protect the revenue, the Customs had the power of purchasing the goods at an addition of 10 per cent to that value. This is the rule adopted by all foreign countries which still levy ad valorem duties. But if we claim to purchase without any addition to value declared, will not they retaliate? I do not know whether that point has occurred to my right hon. Friend, but, to my mind, it is one worthy of consideration. What will be the result of the plan now put before the House? The plan of the Budget, though, in my opinion, grievously objectionable, and glad as I am that my right hon. Friend has given it up, had, at any rate, one advantage, that it had the support of the trade, and also that it added simply so much to the duty on all wine in bottle. The change now proposed by my right hon. Friend, instead of having the support of the trade, has its strong opposition; the trade has expressed its opinion that the plan is practically unworkable. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury doubts whether it is unworkable, but he will not deny that the trade has expressed that opinion. If carried into effect, we shall have three classes of duty on wine—namely, a duty varying with alcoholic strength on all wine not in bottle, a higher rate on all wine imported in bottle below a certain value, and a third rate on all wine imported above a certain value. Further, if my right hon. Friend's original proposal, as contained in the Budget, had been carried out, he would, no doubt, have received a large amount of revenue. But is it worth while to disturb our Customs system for the sake of so small a sum as this will produce, and to bring back for such a trifle the ad valorem duty principle? Besides, if you introduce this principle as affecting wine, will you not
138
be asked to treat spirits similarly? Brandy imported from North Germany is worth only a few pence a-gallon, whereas brandy imported from the Charente is worth as many shillings. I know the answer to that will be that that is a much more difficult matter, because we have home-made spirits to deal with also, and it would be necessary to disturb the Excise as well as the Customs' system. I presume that the same thing can be said in regard to beer; but there are two in our list of dutiable articles to which the answer would not apply—namely, tea and tobacco. If for the purpose of raising a small amount of revenue you are to introduce the ad valorem principle with regard to wines, you will certainly be asked to introduce the same principle in the case of tea. The higher class teas are worth several shillings per pound more than the inferior qualities, which may not be worth more than 6d. a pound, and if you disturb the rule which has been hitherto adopted for such a small matter as this, you may have ad valorem duties in regard to tea, by which the higher class tea would be taxed at double and treble the rate paid by the lower class tea, instead of the present uniform duty. Again, with respect to tobacco, experiments have been tried recently in reference to growing tobacco in this country. There is no doubt now, after those experiments, that tobacco cannot be grown in this country with commercial advantage if it pays the regular rate of duty. Then, what may follow? The result of my right hon. Friend's proposal may be that you will be asked to tax tobacco ad valorem. The inferior kinds of foreign tobacco are, I am aware, for the most part now imported into Germany, whereas the more expensive kinds come to this country and France; but, for the sake of encouraging the inferior home produce, you may have the strongest pressure to do what would ruin the revenue—namely, to impose two or three different duties on tobacco, varying with its value, to the utter destruction of the present trade. For these reasons, I warn my right hon. Friend that his proposal for the purpose of raising so small an amount of additional revenue is not worth the disturbance it will create. I hope that he will even now see the necessity of withdrawing it.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished to state the objections which he entertained to the Bill, and which were also urged not only by the trade associations which the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had mentioned, but also generally throughout the country It was a great misfortune that the right hon. Gentleman should have departed from his original proposals which had been accepted by the trade universally, and, as far as he knew, by the country generally. There might have been a question whether or not the duty should be levied so high as 5s., but he believed that everybody throughout the country would have been glad to accept the principle. But, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to deal with the opposition of right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite, who would, no doubt, have objected to any proposal made by the Government. Their great object was to get his right hon. Friend out of Office and secure it for themselves. That was a very natural feeling; but after having read very carefully the debate which took place on the subject, and having studied the official records of that debate, he (Mr. Bentinck) had come to the conclusion that there had been only two trangible objections made to the original proposals. The first was the fear of offending France and other foreign countries, and the other was lest injustice should be done to the consumers of the cheaper and lighter wines. Now, nobody had greater respect for France than he had, and he had no desire to say anything in disparagement of its Government. He was one of those who had always endeavoured to maintain the entente cordiale, and to promote a good understanding with France. At the same time, he did not agree with the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), who appeared to be always wanting to run away from France. He had seen a good deal of that sort of thing in his time, and, no doubt, the hon. Member had also; but we ought always to stick up for our rights, and he believed that if we took that attitude in this matter, there would not have been any with the French, which had much more to lose than we had, and would find the retaliation policy disadvan-
140
tageous in the long run. If the French took offence, they would have to give way in the end, and the views of his right hon. Friend would have prevailed. He believed that the wine introduced from Germany was comparatively small, but might there have been some complaint from that country. He very much regretted that his right hon. Friend had not stuck to his guns. He now came to the other objection, which was raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Craig), and that was, whether any injustice or injury would be done to the consumers of cheap wines. He maintained that no injury or injustice would be done. He thought it was a most unfortunate thing that his right hon. Friend had given up his proposal to tax still wines, especially when they were told that one-fourth of the still wines now imported were worth more than 30 s. a-dozen and three-fourths were under 30 s. a-dozen. If that were so, there was a stronger reason for adhering to the original proposal. If the figures of the Secretary to the Treasury were absolutely correct, on his own showing, of the still wine introduced into this country 1,000,000 gallons, or three-fourths, were under 30 s. per dozen in value, and therefore, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had kept to the original proposal, three-fourths of that wine would have escaped duty. He thought the Government had committed a great mistake in the matter, without giving any advantage whatever to the consumers of light wine. He was informed by those who were acquainted with the subject that there was no reason whatever why still light wines should not be imported in cask, and that it was very much better that they should be. The importation of still wines in bottle was nothing more than a premium upon adulteration. Many cheap wines which were imported in bottle were the result of mixture; whereas it was more difficult to deal in that manner with the wine imported in cask.
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No; they came principally in cask.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he was informed that there was at Cette, in France, a large manufacturer of cheap still wine for importation to this country which consisted of a mixture of three descriptions—a wine

141
grown in France, mixed with a Spanish port, and a coarse wine imported from Naples. These were all mixed together, and came to this country under the name of—perhaps, it would be hardly fair to state the name, but the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian would be familiar with it. It was difficult to adopt that course in regard to wine imported in cask. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stuck to his original proposal, there would have been an advantage to the consumer as well as to the Treasury. With regard to the proposal as to sparkling wine, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). The present proposal was for an ad valorem duty. It made it 2s. 6d. per gallon in one case, and 1s. in the other, according to the value. He believed that to be an unsound principle, and he was very sorry that it should have emanated from the Treasury Bench. He could not imagine for the life of him how the Custom House officers were to discriminate between the value of wines. He was old enough, he was sorry to say, to remember the time when works of art coming into this country from the Continent were subject to an ad valorem duty, and in that case, if there was any difficulty, the owner declared the value, the Custom House officers charged 10 per cent upon it, and there was an end of the matter. How that was to be done in the case of wine he could not imagine. The right hon Gentleman had adopted a very unfortunate principle, and one which he could not support. He should not pretend to divide the House against the second reading of the Bill; but he should feel it his duty to bring forward some Amendments in Committee, and he hoped, therefore, that his right hon. Friend and the Secretary to the Treasury would give ample time for that purpose. He could assure his right hon. Friend that the matter was being gravely considered by the whole trade throughout the country. It was no light question, or one that ought to be decided in a violent hurry; but while he entertained objections to the Bill, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not give way to the suggestion of the right hot. Gentleman the Member for South
142
Edinburgh, that he should withdraw his proposals altogether, because he thought it was possible to amend the Bill in Committee, and it was better that only sparkling wines should be taxed than that there should be no taxation at all. He thought there might be some advantage to the bottled trade, and he did not hesitate to say that the principle established was not at all inconsistent with the principles of Free Trade to put small taxes upon manufactured articles for purposes of revenue. He wished that the proposals of his right hon. Friend had remained as they originally stood; because he believed they would be acceptable to the country at large. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House when he proposed to take the Bill in Committee.
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: What the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down complains of is this—that, as the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer first appeared before us, it undoubtedly contained a protective element, and that protective element has now disappeared. Hence arises the hostility of the right hon. Gentleman to the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman thought that he had obtained from a distinguished supporter of Free Trade a concession which was a sort of incipient conversion, and that right hon. Gentleman was acting contrary to the principles of which he had always been a distinguished advocate. His hopes had been disappointed, and consequently he now opposes the plans of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I need not say that that is not an inducement to those who sit on this side of the House to vote with the right hon. Gentleman. But the right hon. Gentleman appears to me, with a singular absence of tact, to do everything in his power to prevent us from voting with him; because he has taken occasion to introduce into his speech the unnecessary expression of his conviction that on this side of the House we never open our mouths to criticize any proposal of the Government, either great or small, except for the purpose of putting the Government out of Office. The right hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to lash us with the indignation which he has used on many previous occasions, even on this somewhat insignificant occasion. I wish now to say a

143
word upon the proposal of the Government as it now stands before the House, as I feel it my duty to take part in the discussion and to express a very decided opinion on the plan as originally submitted. I cannot quite share the superlative exuberance of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson). Does he really suppose that there has been some wonderful new device formulated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by which he has extricated himself from a serious and awkward dilemma? The now invention is simply in itself a retractive measure—a falling back on the measure of ad valorum duties, which, after much experience, was abandoned as the principle of our trade legislation. I cannot, therefore, go the length of the Secretary to the Treasury, or say that I am pleased with the proposal of which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh has pointed out the inconvenience and danger. I should be glad indeed if the speech of my right hon. Friend could persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to recede from the plan altogether, which I believe to be by far the best way of dealing with the subject. It is only fair, however, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that, as between two evils, he has chosen the lesser. For my own part, I regard the mischief contained in the proposal as of an entirely different order, and of a very much milder character than the danger and mischief which seemed to attend the original plan. What we had then in view was the serious apprehension of the disturbance of our trade relations with one of the most important countries of the Continent, and, possibly, by example and by contagion, with other countries on the Continent also. I am very glad indeed to be able to congratulate my right hon. Friend sincerely on the fact that he has so modified his plan that we may, I think, dismiss all apprehension of this kind from our minds. The danger which was to be feared from the first proposals arose in part from the augmentation of the duty which was imposed, and partly from the protective element involved. The original plan appeared to bring those very serious dangers into view. The danger which we have now to consider amounts to this—that the proposal may lead, or, at least, it is conceivable that it may lead, to undervaluing and fraud, and to the disturb-
144
ance and confusion of trade which is connected with fraud, and indirectly in that way to the loss of revenue sooner or later. The Secretary to the Treasury has told us that of the sparkling wines, two-thirds are above the value of 30 s. and one-third below that value. I take it for granted that an inquiry has been carefully made, and we may take those figures to be absolutely correct. But I think it will not be at all hazardous to predict that in future years, the proportion of wine entered below that value will increase; while the proportion of that above will have a tendency to diminish. But what I should like to say, however, is that having had very great and serious injuries in view on a former occasion, I now find those evils reduced and brought within a manageable compass. I do not know whether the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman will last long or not; but, at any rate, if inconvenience is found to arise, it will be within our own discretion to remove it, as the proceeds he expects to realize are not of a very important character. We shall not be creating disturbances in our relations with trade in a foreign country, which, when once created, it would have been impossible for us to escape from, because it would not have depended upon our free will and independent agency to abandon the proposal—but once the mischief had been done, the mere abandonment under such circumstances may have been totally ineffectual. Well, what the House has now before it is an experiment of some hazard. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows all about the history of the wine trade, and how the difficulty of the ad valorem duty was always regarded as an insurmountable difficulty. I am inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend that the difficulty would not be so great in the case of sparkling wines as if the duty were applied to wine in general. Still, I cannot dismiss the apprehension that the ingenuity of trade would not be satisfied by this imposition upon wines of a higher value than 30 s. a dozen if there was nothing of a magical or even of a determinate character in the kind of value so fixed. It may be, and I think it is far from improbable, that it will be found that a door will be opened to fraud under the modified scheme; but I am glad to think that if that be

145
so, the necessity of retracing our steps, although perhaps inconvenient, will not be a national misfortune. In my opinion, at an earlier stage of the matter, we were really within danger of a national misfortune, and that danger has only been removed in consequence of the judicial changes made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the direction in which he has moved. Should Parliament find that objectionable practices are resorted to, it will be in its power to apply a remedy. I, therefore, offer a relative congratulation to the Government upon the plan they have proposed, and, undoubtedly, a a portion of my own anxiety having been removed, I am not disposed to offer any opposition to the plan of the right hon. Gentleman as it now stands, and I venture to hope that it may be found to work well.
MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he was sorry that he was unable to find himself in accord with his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) with respect to the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer removing the objections which were raised to the scheme in its original form. Now, it would do so partly, but it would still remain a considerable drawback and disadvantage, and he should be glad indeed if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, even at the eleventh hour, be induced to withdraw the Bill. He had hoped that the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh would have proceeded with a little more vigorous decision, and would have moved the rejection of the Bill at this stage. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been at his wit's end how to raise the money on a great emergency, he could not have fallen into a worse plan than the form in which the Bill was originally presented to Parliament. What was it that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to accomplish. He was trying to scrape together from most objectionable sources a sum of money that would enable him to make up a surplus whereby he would be able to reduce the Income Tax by 1d. in the pound. He (Mr. Illingworth) could not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman seriously meant to retain the proposition that was contained in the original scheme, and he should like to ask the right hon.
146
Gentleman whether its inception had anything to do with the construction of a weapon which might he used against France in reference to the Sugar Duties? [Mr. GOSCHEN said, the Government had no such desire.] He was glad to find that there had been no such desire on the part of the Government. He was, nevertheless, at a loss to conceive why the right hon. Gentleman should have imposed a tax of this character. It was said that this was an ad valorem tax, but it did not even stand on that footing pure and simple; because if it had been a tax on wines above a certain value, it would have applied to still wines as well as to sparkling wines, whereas it was a tax which was to be levied only on a certain class of wine. Hitherto, the tax had been levied on foreign wines according to their alcoholic strength, but a new principle was was now about to be introduced. In reality, this tax would be known in the future as the bubble tax. The right hon. Gentleman had discovered where the bubble lay in the wine, and had made it a basis of increased taxation. It was said on that side of the House that the French Government were satisfied; but, curiously enough, the Government did not seem to be aware of the fact that the alteration of their scheme had given satisfaction to the French Government. He confessed that some of the objections to the original scheme had been removed; but it was impossible to say that the French Government or the French people could be entirely satisfied with a proposal which imposed increased taxation upon French wines, and not on the wines of Germany or any other Government. He thought the French people had a right to complain, and the fact that the imposition of the tax might produce a coolness in our international relations was a question which could not be lightly passed over. He still entertained a hope that the Government would find an easy way of withdrawing their proposal, seeing the objections that were taken to it, and having regard to the fact that it was in the teeth of all the previous convictions of the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would listen to the appeal which had been made to him from that side of the House, and the opinion which had been expressed by Gentlemen on the other side that it was

147
not a satisfactory measure. In that case, he might find a method of escaping the difficulties and inconveniences which might possibly arise from standing by the measure. Nothing could be more injurious to this country, standing as it did at the head of the commercial world, than to set an example that would operate injuriously upon the trade of any country. We had adopted Free Trade principles, and he appealed to the House either to stand by them, or in a straightforward manner to abandon them. The present scheme did neither one nor the other, and it gave no satisfaction to anybody. It invited a spirit of retaliation from other countries, and the right hon. Gentleman in levying the tax did not attempt to give any counterbalancing advantage to France. The right hon. Gentleman had given no explanation, or entered into any details, as to the objections which had been raised by France, but it was satisfactory to find that a better feeling had now been established, and that the most obnoxious part of the proposal had been removed.
MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that the Bill was a concession by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as far as it went, to objections raised from that side of the House and initiated by himself on the earliest mention of these wine duties. Without entering upon the question of sparkling wines, of which he would say nothing whatever, he felt bound to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having made this concession as to still wines, more especially as, from communications which had reached him, he had reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman had been subjected to pressure from the trade not to make it.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.)said, that quite apart from the main question of these duties he wished to express his satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to make the change proposed in the Bill, which was to introduce an experiment in the direction of an ad valorem duty. He rejoiced at what had been done, not only on account of the wine trade of the country, but also on account of the wider reasons mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. He had always thought it was
148
right to differentiate between the wine of the rich and the wine of the poor. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer carried out this experiment with regard to wine, in which he sincerely hoped he would succeed, and in that event the principle of ad valorem duty, which had on account of practical difficulties only not been applied before, might be resorted to with regard to other articles also. He approved the system under which the officers of the Revenue might take wine at its declared value, which system had been in use in India in his time and was found to be a most useful check.
MR. GOSCHEN: I have to thank the various speakers who have addressed the House for the conciliatory tone which they have adopted towards this proposal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), although he objects entirely to the changes made, was still very conciliatory in his language, and I would especially thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) for what he called his relative congratulation on my proposal. My right hon. Friend objects on the whole to taxes on bottled wine, but less to the present proposal than that which was previously made. There are three points which have been discussed with reference to this matter of duty; one bearing on the wine imported from France, another the introduction of the ad valorem principle, and the third the exemption of cheap wine from duty altogether. The main objection urged in letters received from the wine trade is that the modified proposal is too favourable to cheap wine. It appears for the most part that the trade do not like cheap wines at all. But I understand that there is a feeling in the House that cheap wine should be admitted on as favourable terms as possible. It has been stated to me by wine merchants that they liked the previous tax of 5s. on cheap wines because it discouraged the importation of a great deal of nasty stuff which ought not to be sold. I am bound to say that this has not made a strong impression on my mind, because I believe, however much we may wish to reach what is legitimately called a luxury, there is no disposition in the House to tax unduly what are called cheap wines. My original proposal would have had

149
the effect of taxing the cheaper bottled wines, but I am glad to say that I now feel able to exempt all still bottled wines and to reduce the duty on Saumur. It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) suggested, that by this method some high-class still French wines will escape, but if the duty had been left upon them the result would have been so small, as explained by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, that it would not have been worth while to touch all still wines for the sake of the small duty that would have been derived from the high-class portion of them. We have calculated that no more than one-tenth of the still wine now coming to this country in bottle would henceforth have paid duty, if everything under 30 s. a-dozen were let off. Therefore, nine-tenths of the still wines would have been subjected to all the difficulty of proving their claim to exemption in order to tax the other one-tenth. For this reason we propose now to tax only sparkling wines, two-thirds of which are above 30 s. value, and one-third only below that value. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian says that these proportions will diminish as time goes on, and that more wine will come in of less than 30 s. a-dozen value. But it seems to me, as my right hon. Friend has stated, that it will be easier to detect the value of sparkling wine than that of still wines. It is infinitely easier to detect the value of sparkling wine, because the whole of the trade is in much fewer hands than in the case of Bordeaux. The great champagne houses have reputations to lose, and you can follow their wines with much greater ease than you can the ordinary red wines. In the case of champagne, the corks in most cases bear the brand of the firm and the year of the vintage, and it would not be worth while for the sake of 2s. a dozen to dispense with those marks which stamp the wines in the London market and secure for them the prices which they obtain. Now, with regard to the ad valorem principle, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh has asked whether for the small amount of revenue derived from this duty it is worth while to introduce such a novel principle. But, Sir, I do not admit that £125,000, the amount to be derived from sparkling wine, an article of luxury,
150
is an item to be disregarded. My right hon. Friend suggests that it is dangerous to introduce this principle, and that pressure might be used to extend it to other articles. I am not at one with my right hon. Friend, and I do not object to the ad valorem principle, so far as its equity is concerned; I object to it, when I object at all, on account of the difficulty of working it out. But even if you found it could be easily worked out in this case, it would be no argument in favour of its application in the case of tea and tobacco for instance. If you could discriminate between the tobacco smoked by the poor man and the fine cigar of the rich man, I should be only too glad to introduce such a change in our revenue, and the same with regard to tea; but there are no marks indicative of value in these cases which are very easily discoverable, as there are in the case of sparkling wines. There is one point remaining to which I have to ask the attention of the House, and that is the question of the attitude of France. What I stated on this subject to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh was perfectly true. We have had no negotiations with the French Government on the subject; they have acknowledged from the first that we have entire fiscal liberty. I have had one or two conversations with my friend M. Waddington; I am more or less acquainted with what is going on in France. But our conversations were entirely unofficial, and what M. Waddington has said had been that he had no instructions to express approval or disapproval of any particular modification, though he might express his own individual opinion about it. The English Government have claimed, and will continue to claim, entire freedom in this matter, and that claim has never been disputed. After the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian I do not want to say anything controversial; but, at the same time, I must point out that our position with regard to the original tax was rendered more difficult by the debate which took place, in which the French people were informed on the authority of a right hon. Gentleman of great position that there was a protective character in the Bill. We asserted from the beginning that there was no Protection whatever in our proposal, but I admit it was far more likely to be quoted as a prece-

151
dent for Protection in France after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) appears to regard with unction the prospect of international difficulties on this question, but the House will be glad to know that there is not the least reason to believe that the tax on sparkling wine will interfere in the slightest degree with the friendly commercial relations with France which Members on both sides of the House desired to see maintained. I have now only to thank the House for the way in which they have generally accepted this proposal, and I think that it would be generally for the interest of the trade that the Bill should now be pushed forward with all possible speed.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not wish to prolong the debate for a single moment, and would not have intervened but for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought it necessary to complain of the conduct of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Benches. If they had not pointed out the danger and mischief of the right hon. Gentleman's original proposal, he would have gone on with proposals which he now himself admitted were founded on an entirely erroneous estimate; he would have discovered that the tax would have been double the amount which he had placed in his Budget. In the Budget the right hon. Gentleman assumed that the tax would produce £100,000, but he now found, on reference to the Customs, what he did not know before—namely, that the tax as originally proposed would produce £300,000. Therefore, their objection had enabled the right hon. Gentleman to ascertain the true facts with regard to the trade, and which led him to review his scheme. It was true that they regarded this plan of the right hon. Gentleman's as less objectionable than the one which he first brought forward, and they were extremely glad that the course which they had taken had brought about an amendment of that scheme, but as the right hon. Gentleman had stated he must not assume that hon. Members on that side approved the imposition of this tax even as altered. The right hon. Gentleman was not going to interfere with the trade in bottled still wine. Of course, it was
152
always inconvenient to have to put an increased duty on wine; but he could not now see any justification or reason for interfering with sparkling wine by imposing this additional duty. He believed the amount expected to be raised was so small compared with the inconvenience, that it was not worth while to impose the duty at all. Whether the ad valorem system was good or not remained to be seen. He had been informed that the ingenuity of the trade had already begun to discount this question of high and low priced wines, and that a plan had also been started to average them and bring them under the 30 s. value. If that were so, it was plain that they would in vain endeavour to impose this ad valorem duty. In any case it would, for a very small advantage, cause a great disturbance in the trade, and he regretted the right hon. Gentleman had ever brought forward this proposal. He did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any protectionist proclivities, although an unfortunate phrase, which he did not believe was intended, had been seized upon by persons addicted to those doctrines.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

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. [FIFTH NIGHT.]
[Progress 12th, June.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

PART I.

  COUNTY COUNCILS.
  Clause 2 (Composition and election of Council and position of chairman).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 5, after paragraph (d), to insert—"(d.) Every councillor shall be entitled to claim a sum in payment of the expenses, if any, actually and reasonably incurred by him in travelling to and from the place of meeting of the council."—(Mr. Arthur Acland.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he need hardly state that there was every sympathy on the part of the Government with the desire given expression to by the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the Rotherham Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland). The Government desired that every facility possible should be given to those who desired to become members of the County Council. But the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was one which was more far-reaching than even he (Mr. Ritchie) anticipated. The Government thought that the facility which he desired should be afforded to certain people to attend the County Council ought to be made as it was made under other circumstances, privately rather than from the rates. So far as he knew, there was no precedent whatever for a proposal such as that which the hon. Gentleman made, and they felt that if it were assented to at all, it ought not to be dealt with under an Amendment in connection with this Bill, but by means of some general measure. Even if Her Majesty's Government could agree to the principle, it would certainly be most undesirable to accept the principle of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment in the Bill now before the House. It was impossible, if such a proposal were accepted, that it would stop at the County Council; it would be demanded that the same principle should be carried out in all local matters, in the case, for instance, of Poor Law Guardians. They knew quite well that persons had often to travel as much as 10 or 15 miles in order to reach the place of meeting, and that, with very few exceptions, the workhouse was as accessible as the town in which the County Council was likely to meet, and, therefore, sometimes expenses would be incurred by members of the Board of Guardians in reaching the scene of their labours. Again, the meetings of a Board of Guardians were very much more frequent than those of the County Council would be. Then there were the Highways Boards and the Burial Boards. The members of those Bodies were often put to no inconsiderable expense in fulfilling the duties of their office, and there was no means of providing the expenses necessary for
  154
  the fulfilment of their duties when they were carried out within the area of their election. But not only, in his opinion, if this principle were accepted, would it have naturally to be applied to most other local institutions, but it would also form a very strong argument in favour of its application to Members of Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"] That cheer which met his observation only showed its great importance; it was clear that hon. Gentlemen who supported this proposal were prepared to carry it out very much further, and the argument he used was, therefore, very much increased in force. Clearly this was only the thin end of the wedge by which the burdens ultimately to be borne by the ratepayers and the taxpayers would be increased. If there was one thing which many hon. Members feared with reference to those County Councils, and the proposal to extend municipal institutions throughout the country, it was the extravagance and expense which might possibly result. That he believed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) the other day admitted when he said that in all probability the new plan of the Government would be attended with more expense. But if this principle was to be accepted, he thought the legitimate fears of hon. Gentlemen would be greatly intensified, and that a prejudice would be created against these County Councils which ought not to be set up. Therefore it was not only the question of payment of expenses of members going to the County Councils, but also of expense connected with all local institutions. Again, it was unfortunately perfectly clear that the difficulty of working men coming to the House of Commons was greater than it was likely to be in the case of members going to County Councils. It might be said that the original proposal was a very moderate one, and that only those who were willing to accept payment of their expenses should receive such payment. But it was impossible, if the principle of this Amendment were acknowledged, to say that a member should go in formâ pauperis to claim payment of his expenses. Therefore the legitimate outcome was that every member should be entitled to be paid his expenses. [An hon. MEMBER: Why not?] He did not himself believe that the ratepayers

  155
  of the country were prepared to do that, and he believed, further, that if ratepayers were to think that these institutions were to be made the means of inflicting increased burdens on the rates, they would lose their interest in this measure. Believing, as he did, that this appeal was to be met, not out of the purse of the ratepayers, but by other arrangement which could easily be made, the Government were not prepared to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Rotherham.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he could understand the right hon. Gentleman objecting that the Amendment proposed was bad in principle. But, on the contrary, he understood him to say that it was right in principle. [Mr. RITCHIE: No, no!] He was going to say what he understood, and to explain why he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was right in principle that working men elected to the position of Councillors or as Members of the House should be indemnified for expenses, or even remunerated for the services which they rendered. To use the right hon. Gentleman's own words, however, it was proposed that the expense should be met by private arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that the principle was wrong; he only objected to the thing being known and done openly.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I expressed the fullest sympathy with those who desire to see facilities given to gentlemen to attend the County Councils, but I did not recognize that the principle of payment out of the rates was right.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman recognized the principle of payment if it were done privately. If he did not mean what he said, it was unfortunate, that he had said it. But what other private arrangement could be made which did not involve private payment? He could understand the right hon. Gentleman objecting to any kind of payment, whether or not thrown upon the rates, but words ought to have some meaning, and the words of the right hon. Gentleman were that the expense should be met privately rather than out of the rates. He (Mr. Bradlaugh) said,
  156
  that any payment made should be made publicly. Private payments were unfortunate payments; payments made by societies of men to those who represented them in the House of Commons or on the County Council were retainers to the people who were paid, whereas he maintained that those who sat in that House should represent the interest of the whole of those by whom he was elected and not the interest of the men who made private payment for the purposes suggested. He said that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was an immoral suggestion. It might be said that his (Mr. Bradlaugh's) suggestion was immoral; but, then, he was not ashamed of his views, although he found often that the right hon. Gentleman was ashamed of his when they were put to him in clear language. There might be a local objection to the payment of members, but the effect of non-payment would be to exclude from the County Councils, as it had excluded in a great measure from that House, a number of men who might be of great service to it. He had always thought that Members of Parliament, or of any Public Body, ought to be paid for the services rendered to the public who elected them. He did not believe that many Members worked for nothing. He thought they all worked for some object; with some it might be personal ambition, more or less praiseworthy, or it might be the desire to have a place in the Government, which he thought a laudable aim for any man to seek in politics. But he put it, that to exclude from these Councils, which they were trying to make representative, men who could not, on account of the expense, reach the place where the Council was to be held was wrong. And, moreover, it was not correct to compare these County Councils with Boards of Guardians, school boards, and other institutions meeting close to the homes of the members. The very essence of this matter was that men must come from a long distance to the centre where the County Council met, and if they excluded all kinds of indemnity for the expenses of the persons elected, they limited the candidates to one class of men only—namely, that which could bear the expense of attendance. He did not shrink from accepting the consequences of this Amendment. He admitted that this

  157
  was the assertion of the principle that men who were ready to give their services to the State in various forms should be indemnified not in a fashion which laid them open to a sneer. The proposal was a rough and ready way of meeting a difficulty which at present prevented poor men from sitting on the Councils. There was no dishonour in private payment, but it was an objectionable mode of proceeding; and, as he had said, payment should be made openly. The right hon. Gentleman said it was undesirable to raise the principle of the Amendment now. Why? It must be raised at some time, and it was undesirable now only because the right hon. Gentleman would have to face the discussion on this Bill instead of leaving it to be faced on some other. That was the only objection. The right hon. Gentleman thought that private payment was moral, but he (Mr. Bradlaugh) thought it immoral, and it was for that reason he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rotherham, and should not shrink from the consequence of doing so.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he was glad that the Government was going to resist this most dangerous proposal. No one who was conversant with public business could doubt that, whatever might be the mode of administration by County Councils, there would be very great increase of expense. It was admitted that the present system had worked well on all hands, and a Minister of the Crown had stated that it had been most admirable and most economical. He could not help thinking that there were some who viewed this Bill with very great misgivings, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was accurate when he said that these misgivings were due to the fact that they foresaw a great addition to the burdens on the rates. It appeared to him that, if this Amendment were passed, it would only be a sample of what they might expect in future. [Cheers.] That cheer undoubtedly forshadowed that this proposal, if carried, would be followed by another to pay members not only their expenses, but for their services on the Councils. He saw that there was already on the Paper Notice of an Amendment, the object of which was the payment of the Chairman. But if the
  158
  Chairman was to be paid, why not the County Councillors? Undoubtedly the effect of this Amendment would be greatly to burden the rates, and further greatly to increase corruption and jobbery. He trusted the Government did not intend that this point should be reserved, and he hoped they would put down their foot against it in order that a settlement of the question might be at once arrived at.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, that he had no difficulty in understanding the position the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had taken up, and the feeling on the opposite side of the House which he now represented with regard to the Bill as a whole. The hon. Gentleman said that he viewed this Bill with great misgiving; that being so, it was perfectly natural that he should resist a proposal, the effect of which would be to make the Bill what the framers had expressed their desire that it should be—namely, an effective means of bringing into the County Councils representatives of all classes. He was amused at the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman sympathized entirely with the object with which this Amendment was framed; but he opposed it because it was the thin end of the wedge. He (Mr. John Morley) wondered whether any proposal had ever been brought before the House or the country, however beneficent and wise, which had not been condemned, especially by the Party opposite, as the thin edge of the wedge. He did not discuss whether it was, or it was not, the thin edge of the wedge; but the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was no dissuasive from supporting the Amendment. The question was not whether Members of that House should ultimately be paid. That question was one which, no doubt, would be raised one of these days, probably an early day, and when it came before them they would know how to deal with it. The present proposal was a very much smaller one. It was not a proposal to pay members of County Councils for their services; it was merely a proposal to enable a certain class of men, whose services the Government admitted they desired to have on these Councils, and whose knowledge would be a public ad-

  159
  vantage, to enable them to take part in the government of their districts. There were considerable bodies of men interested in these proposals, miners and labourers, and there were, he thought, in some of the poorer counties, considerable bodies of farmers to whom it would be a consideration and a real object to be spared the expense of going three or four times a-year from their own localities to the place were the County Councils were held. Again, there were in many counties ministers and clergymen of the Church of England, whose services the Government had admitted they were desirous of having on these Councils, to whom these travelling expenses would be undoubtedly an object. If the Government were to be consistent in carrying out the principle of the Bill he could not see how they could fail in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. A. H. Dyke Acland). The right hon. Gentleman had said they did not pay the expenses of members of Boards of Guardians, School Boards, and other Local Authorities. However right that may have been formerly, they were now creating Bodies of much wider scope and importance; and what might have been a very wise and necessary exception in the case of smaller Bodies might be perfectly unwise and undesirable in the case of the Bodies which they were now about to create. His hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham had already stated, with reference to his Amendment, that there might be one or two additions that might be made to it. He (Mr. John Morley) thought it might be desirable to limit the concession of travelling expenses to the journey strictly from the place where the men resided to the seat of the County Council—he meant that the members should not be entitled, if they were in London, for instance, to claim expenses for the whole of the journey to the County Councils. But all these were matters of detail, which he believed his hon. Friend was willing to meet, and it only remained for him (Mr. John Morley) to say that if his hon. Friend went to a Division he would cordially support the Amendment.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, there was one matter in connection with this subject on which the Committee were left in doubt—
  160
  namely, the fund out of which this payment was to come. They were not told in the Amendment whether it was to come out of the rate of the whole county, or whether it was to be met from the rates of the particular district for which the County Councillor was returned. He thought this a most important consideration, and that the matter ought to have been set forth clearly on the face of the Amendment, because it seemed to him monstrous to suppose that a body of the ratepayers at one end of the county should be asked to support a County Councillor who came from another part of the county, and who might represent a very different interest indeed from that of the main body. He could not imagine a proposition which would be more distasteful to the main body of the ratepayers than this. He was only too glad that the Government put down their foot firmly against this proposal. They had been plainly and honestly told in the course of the debate that this was but the beginning of what hon. Members opposite hoped to come about in the end. Hon. Members had shown that this was clearly the thin end of the wedge, and that they were only to look at this as the beginning of the proposal, and that if the principle were admitted not only County Councillors but Members of Parliament would have to be paid for their services. He trusted that this would be distinctly understood, not only inside the House, but that every ratepayer throughout the country would know what was going on. [Cheers.] He was glad to hear those cheers, because at every public meeting which he had addressed he found that the ratepayers had taken a very considerable interest in this question of payment of expenses, and because this was only one of the Amendments out of many which, if they were carried, would add enormously to the expense of the working of the Bill. They had in that House at the present time Gentlemen who had been sent up by some of the great trade bodies in the North, and if it should be the case that the great Trade Unions in the North should wish to send members of their body to the County Councils, he knew that the County Councils would most gladly welcome them. If those men were sent they would be paid for by those whose special interest they repre-

  161
  sented. In that case, why should this claim be made on their behalf? He, for one, agreed with the Government in resisting the Motion, and he protested against the attempt to cast this burden on the ratepayers.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he feared that hon. Members opposite did not really understand the object of the Amendment. The object was to diminish the burdens borne by the ratepayers by enabling them to send poor men to the County Councils; the idea being that poor men would scrutinize the expenditure which rich men were prone to sanction. He must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board on the speech he had just made. It was conceived on fine old Tory lines. It was precisely that kind of speech they so often heard in that House from Tory Ministers when Liberal measures were proposed. The right hon. Gentleman commenced by expressing his strong sympathy with the objects of the proposal; he then said, "but,"—and he (Mr. Labouchere) then know perfectly well what was coming. He had heard the argument used again and again. The proposed change, the right hon. Gentleman intimated, was not a change which ought to be introduced at that particular moment. "Bring in a Bill dealing with the subject generally," the Representative of the Government always said on these occasions, "and then we will consider it." Would the Government give facilities to him to bring in a Bill to enable every Member of Parliament to be paid his expenses during the time the House was sitting? If the right hon. Gentleman would do that, he would engage to bring in such a Bill; but he knew then that the counter argument would be used. The Government would say then—"We must learn by experience what would be the effect of the change, it will be better to try it in a single case, and then we shall see the result." That was always how Her Majesty's present Ministry met any proposal which might be brought forward on the Liberal side of the House, either in Committee or in general discussion on a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no precedent for such a proposal as this. Was the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in times gone by—those fine old times Conservatives
  162
  were so fond of alluding to—in times gone by Members had received payment for their expenses up to London and for their expenses while in London, and, what was more, they did not receive it from the Imperial Exchequer, but received it, as suggested in the present Amendment, from the local rates. Therefore, there was no new precedent in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that a Member of the House of Lords had got a right, a legal right, whenever he came to fulfil his duties in Parliament, to step aside into the New Forest—probably the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) occasionally saw Peers strutting about the New Forest—a Member of the House of Lords had a legal right, on his coming to Parliament, to step aside into any of Her Majesty's forests and to kill a buck. He and his hon. Friends merely wished to apply to the case of the poor men who were sent to County Councils a principle which applied to the Peers of the Realm. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to him not to have read his own Bill, for he said—"You will have to extend it to other cases, to burial boards, and highway boards." Why, did the right hon. Gentleman not know that his own Bill did away with burial boards and highway boards? The right hon. Gentleman finished by protesting against what he called "extravagance and expense." He seemed to think extravagance and expense were entirely identical; that as this would involve expense, it would, therefore, involve extravagance. He (Mr. Labouchere) admitted it would involve, primarily, expense; but the great object in view was to enable people to send men to the County Councils who would prevent extravagance.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISsaid, he desired to draw the attention of the Committee to the singular fact that this Amendment was vague in the extreme. They might believe it was intended to be vague; it provided that—
  "Every Councillor shall be entitled to claim a sum in payment of the expenses, if any, actually and reasonably incurred by him in travelling to and from the place of meeting of the Council."
  Nothing was said about the meetings of the committees of which there would be very many. It seemed to him it might well be within the terms of this Amend-

  163
  ment that members of the Council coming to and from the Council upon any public business might claim their expenses. So far with regard to the vagueness of the language of the Amendment. With regard to the principle of the Amendment, he thought that all of them must be glad that in this country we had hitherto avoided the dangers and corruptions from which municipal institutions in the United States, had suffered. The whole difference between the practice in the United States, and in this country was that public men in England had hitherto always been distinguished by the fact that they had given their services; whereas in America the contrary rule had prevailed, members of public bodies being paid for the services they rendered. It had been freely admitted that those who were the strongest supporters of this proposal desired that there should not only be a payment for expenses, but also a payment for loss of time. The payment of members would, in his opinion, sap the foundation of political and municipal life, and, therefore, he should give to the proposal his strenuous opposition.
  MR. BURTsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Lewis) had been remarkable for the characteristic of desiring always to work for nothing. However, he (Mr. Burt) wished to say a few words on the general question now before the Committee. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. A. Acland) had done good service by bringing the subject forward. The proposal seemed to him to be a very moderate one, and the hon. Gentleman stated very clearly and strongly the reasons which induced him to make it. Now, he (Mr. Burt) did not consider that the Bill they were discussing was in any sense a Radical measure. It professed to be so, but many of its provisions were calculated rather to diminish than to extend direct popular representation on municipal bodies in the country. He felt that unless some provision of the kind suggested was inserted in the Bill, the Bill would go very far in the direction he had indicated. For instance, his hon. Friend the Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland (Mr. Fenwick) pointed out that at the present time workmen had direct representation on Local Boards and Town Councils and
  164
  school boards. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board laid stress upon the want of precedent. But there was a precedent, although it might be a small one. He believed it was the case that Boards of Guardians had the power to pay the representatives whom they might send to conferences upon Poor Law questions. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the case of Local Boards and Town Councils and Boards of Guardians. He (Mr. Burt) was bound to point out that in the case of Town Councils, and in the case of school boards also, the members lived within a comparatively short distance of the meeting place, but the membership of County Councils would necessitate a very considerable amount of travelling and a good deal of expenditure. His one very decided feeling was that the representation would be in a very large measure confined to the well-to-do classes unless some such Amendment as that under consideration were adopted. Very kindly and friendly references had been made to the workmen who had Representatives at the present time in the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ripon Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Wharton) declared that the Trades Unions of the North had their Representatives here, and he was good enough to say that the Members of the House were very glad to welcome those Representatives, and to have them amongst them. [Ministerial cheers.] He was very glad to hear that assenting cheer, for it quite accorded with the treatment he himself had received during the whole period he had had the honour of a seat in the house. But the Trades, Unions were not represented. The Members who were called labour Members were elected, and they came into the House of Commons exactly on the same footing as any other Member. They came as politicians; they appealed to the electors as politicians, and whatever might be their connection with, and, however, qualified they might be to represent the workmen on special labour questions, not one of them would be here if it were not for his political opinions. The other arguments which had been addressed to the Committee had been so completely dealt with by his hon. Friend the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) that he did not need to enter upon them.

  165
  In conclusion, he had only to say that if there was not a precedent, as the President of the Local Government Board said there was not, the time had come when a precedent should be made. He quite agreed that they were, to a large extent, endeavouring to assert a new principle. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might depend upon it that this was a proposal which would be made in the House again and again until it was, as it would be before long, carried to a successful issue.
  MR. MILVAINsaid, he objected to the spirit and the principle of this Amendment. The expense of the representatives going to the Council meetings had been referred to as only a moderate expense, and that, therefore, they might get in the thin edge of the wedge. But he objected entirely to admitting the thin edge of the wedge when they ought not to admit the thick end of the wedge. What he maintained about the principle of admitting paid representatives to any representative assembly was that it would create so many individual prizes for the ablest and most unscrupulous demagogue who could catch what he believed to be the popular vote of the mob. Upon that ground alone he objected to the principle of the Amendment. The immediate Amendment before the Committee was, according to the professions of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. A. Acland), to enable working men and lower-class tradesmen to take a greater interest in politics and the affairs of their county. He asked, assuming they were not paid their travelling expenses, was there anything to prevent their taking that interest in the affairs of their county and of their country by voting for men whom they thought fit to represent them on the County Council? He thought not; and what was more, he believed that, no matter what it was—insignificant or not insignificant—the expense of going to and returning from the County Council would not deter a man of honour and virtue from seeking election and obtaining representation. He denied altogether that this matter had been placed before the electorate yet. He denied that there was any demand for the payment of representatives; and he maintained—and he was prepared to be judged by his words—that where there had been such a demand,
  166
  the demand was rapidly diminishing. He asked, why were we to pay the members of County Councils, or of any other representative assembly, when they could get the services of men of equal honour, of equal ability, and of equal education, who were prepared to do the work without a single penny of remuneration? The services rendered by the County Magistrates up to the present time in conducting the financial business of the counties had been rendered gratuitously, and no one would deny that that business had been conducted with efficiency and economy. What more could they expect from hon. Members who sought to be paid for their services upon County Councils? Let him put before the Committee the case of two persons seeking election to a County Council. Let them suppose that the men were of equal honour, equal ability, and of equal virtue—that one was prepared to do the service gratuitously, while the other sought to be paid for his services. Why, he asked, were they to saddle imperatively upon the ratepayers the additional expense of paying for the performance of services when they could be equally ably, equally efficiently, and equally economically performed by a person without the payment of his expenses? What was the foundation of the Bill—upon what principle was the Bill formed? The principle of the Bill was that taxation and representation should go hand-in-hand; and the ratepayers believed, and the counties believed, that if they had their representatives upon a Council supervising the expenditure of the revenue of the county, it would be conducted with greater economy than at present. But why, if economy was the object of the Bill, were they going to begin by saddling the ratepayers with a rate for the payment of the travelling expenses of the representatives? This Amendment would defeat the very object of the Bill from an economical point of view; and, furthermore, he maintained that paid representatives were not representatives who were calculated to conduct the business of counties with efficiency.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Milvain) had made it very obvious why he opposed the principle of this Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman approved entirely of the

  167
  existing administration of counties by magistrates, which, he said, was gratuitous. But the object of this Bill was to remove the administration of the counties from that particular class of which the hon. and learned Gentleman entirely approved, and to throw open the administration of the counties to all classes of the community. Yet the hon. and learned Gentleman objected to an Amendment which was absolutely necessary in order to admit every class of the community into that administration, so, in point of fact, what he objected to was that the Amendment would not keep up such a condition of things as would confine the administration of the counties in the future to the same class of people who had monopolized it in the past. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made quite plain the real basis of his objection.
  MR. MILVAINsaid, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would pardon him for interrupting him. He did not say, neither did he infer what the right hon. Gentleman had attributed to him. What he said was, that the necessary expense of coming to and from the County Councils would not deter any man of honour and virtue from seeking a seat.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had the highest opinion of honour and virtue, but he did not see that they defrayed travelling expenses; but he would not pursue that point. The hon. and learned Gentleman put a suppositional case; he said there would be presented to the ratepayers two men for election, they were to be of equal honour and virtue and of equal capacity, one of them could pay his own travelling expenses and the other could not. Surely, it was for the ratepayers to determine which they would elect. This Amendment would not compel the ratepayers to elect a man of honour and virtue who could not pay his own travelling expenses; it left to the ratepayers the option. [Mr. MILVAIN: No, no!] Yes, it did.
  MR. MILVAINasked the right hon. Gentleman to forgive him, the right hon. Gentleman was not present when this Amendment was moved.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was.
  MR. MILVAINsaid, he begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, he did not think he was present. Anyhow, the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division
  168
  (Mr. Fenwick) seconded the Amendment, and also insisted upon the payment being imperative, as was shown by the Amendment which followed the present one.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that he was speaking to the present Amendment, and the present Amendment did not make it compulsory that everybody should receive payment. It would be perfectly well known to the ratepayers whether the person they elected was or was not a person who would be likely to require to make a claim for payment. The ratepayers, therefore, had a free choice whether they would incur this expenditure or not. If they incurred this expenditure, and paid the cost of the travelling of a representative, when they might take a man who would not require his travelling expenses to be paid, it would be because they believed that the poor man would answer their purposes better, would represent their opinion better than the richer man. Therefore, this question of saddling the ratepayer against his will with unnecessary expense was one of those bogus arguments which were always raised against reform. The ratepayers would be perfectly able to judge, and they would be perfectly competent to judge whether or not it was worth their while, and convenient to their interests to elect a man whose travelling expenses they would have to pay. That was all the present Amendment proposed. He thought it was a perfectly reasonable Amendment; he thought it was an Amendment entirely in conformity with the professed object of the Bill—namely, that the representatives of all interests should come upon these County Councils, and he for one would give it his cordial support.
  MR. FENWICKsaid, he did not wish to occupy the time of the Committee more than a few minutes, but he desired it to be distinctly understood that he did not second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. A. Acland), but that he had put down an Amendment to that Amendment. He was not sure whether he would be in Order in moving his Amendment now. In his opinion the Amendment of his hon. Friend did not put the question sufficiently forcibly—to his mind, at least—before the Committee. What he

  169
  wished was that it should be imperative upon each member of the Council to receive payment. He was sure no Member on the Opposition side of the House would charge the hon. and learned Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Milvain) with being a demagogue or with in any way attempting to catch the vote of the mob. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed, however, to insinuate that some of the Members on the Opposition side of the House were in the habit of doing such a thing. He (Mr. Fenwick) uttered his most unqualified protest against any such insinuation. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Ripon Division of Yorkshire (Mr. Wharton) asked them why, if a Trade's Union was disposed to force one of its members upon a constituency, another portion of the community should be compelled to pay the expenses of that member? The answer was very simple—namely, that the other portion of the community would propably have a member of its own whose opinions were different from those of the members of the Trade's Union who sent a working man to the Council meeting. The Trade's Union, as the hon. and learned Gentleman was pleased to term it, would have to pay, under this Amendment, a portion of the expenses of the representative of their opponents. The burden, therefore, would be equally divided. The President of the Local Government Board had said there was no precedent for the payment of such services, but the hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that we paid the members of Royal Commissions their travelling expenses when they were called upon to perform services in the interests of the nation. The services of the County Councillors were analogous to those which Royal Commissions were called upon to give. He very much regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had met this Amendment with a non possumus, because what was asked for was a very moderate concession indeed. As he pointed out in the course of the debate the other night the effect of the Bill without the Amendment would be practically to disenfranchise a large number of working men who now served on Town Councils, on Boards of Guardians, and on school boards. Let him instance the case arising in his own Division. There, probably, half of the
  170
  members of the Local Board were working men. That was in a purely working class constituency, and if the Committee did not accept the principle of his Amendment, they would certainly debar these men from taking any part whatever in the Local Government of their own district. Though the working classes were five-sixths of the population they would be compelled to take as their representative a man whose sympathies were not in harmony with their own. He regretted exceedingly that the President of the Local Government Board had not seen his way to accept the principle of this Amendment. If he was in Order he would move his Amendment now.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 199; Noes 243: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 149.)
  MR. J. S. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, he rose to move the insertion at the end of the clause of the words—
  "(e.) The Members of Parliament for the Division of the County, and of the boroughs therein, shall be ex officio members of the County Council."
  He knew there was a great objection, as there had always been, to there being ex officio members of any board; and he, for his own part, had always had a certain sympathy with that objection, and on Boards of Guardians, wherever he found the elected members taking a strong part, he had always hesitated to offer any opposition to their wishes. But with regard to the provision that Members of Parliament should be members of the County Council, he did not think the statement that they were to be ex officio members was quite a true statement. As a matter of fact, they were elected by the ratepayers of the county for the very highest office it was in the power of the ratepayers to appoint them to, and there could be no doubt, he thought, that if a person who was a member for the county, or for a division of the county were to come forward as a candidate for the County Council he would be elected. With regard to this Amendment he was able to say what the mover of no other Amendment probably would be able to say. He would have the practically unanimous opinion of the Committee that Members of Parliament

  171
  were, at all events, fit and proper persons to sit upon the County Councils. He took it that there was no Member of the Committee who had not that confidence in his own abilities to think that he was competent to sit upon a County Council. He (Mr. J. S. Gathorne-Hardy) thought a Member of Parliament was not only a fit and proper person to sit upon a County Council, but one who ought to sit upon such a Council; and it was an extremely hard matter in these days that a person in that position should be forced to fight two contested elections in order to obtain two positions for which he was eminently qualified. He had heard that the opinion had been expressed that this Amendment might be accepted were the Member to sit upon the County Council, but to have no vote. He did not at all agree to that proposition, for, in his opinion, it would be an extremely mischievous one. The fact that a Member of Parliament was entitled to sit on the County Council without voting would very much militate against his being elected, if he thought fit to come forward as a candidate for any division. Voters would say he had already got a seat on the Board, and they might refuse to vote for him if he came forward as a candidate. Under such circumstances, Members of Parliament would really be put into the position of servants of the County Councils rather than of efficient members of it; therefore, he could not assent to any such suggestion. He earnestly hoped the Committee would take this Amendment into serious consideration. He was sure that, unless hon. Members were very different from himself, there were not many of them anxious to fight more contested elections than they were obliged to. He was confident hon. Members would agree with him that County Members and the Members for boroughs were fit and proper persons to sit upon the new County Councils, and that, indeed, they ought to be on the Councils. He thought that when a man was elected by the ratepayers to the highest position in which they could place him, he might be relied upon to represent them fairly upon the County Council.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 5, at end, insert (e) "The Members of Parliament for the divisions of the county and of the boroughs therein shall be ex
  172
  officio members of the County Council."—(Mr. J. S. Gathorne-Hardy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, that the great charm of this Bill in the opinion of everyone was, he thought, that from beginning to end there were to be no ex officio element under it. Personally, he was very glad to find from what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), in explaining the Bill, had said that there was no loophole by which any ex officio element might be introduced. To his mind, it was a question whether Members of Parliament would make the best members of County Councils; there would be a great deal of work to do, and he knew that a Member of Parliament who attended Westminster regularly could not also attend regularly to county business. If he were to put himself forward, and to be elected as a County Councillor, it would be a question with him whether he could be of more use in the House of Commons or in the County Councils; certainly he could not discharge both duties efficiently. He did not wish to detain the Committee on this question; but still, as this suggestion had come from the Ministerial side of the House, he desired to say that, as far as he was concerned, the suggestion of the hon. Member was one which ought not to be entertained, because he believed mischief would arise if any ex officio element were introduced into the County Councils in any shape or form.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. J. S. Gathorne-Hardy) would not press this Amendment. He entirely agreed with what his hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. Llewellyn) had said—namely, that it would be most inconvenient, if they were to accept this Amendment, to give an expression of their opinion that there should still be retained the ex officio element upon these Councils. He felt very little doubt that Members of Parliament who were the Representatives of counties could very easily become members of these Councils in the proper way, if they desired to do so; but it would be an invidious distinction to say that certain gentlemen should have the right to be members of County Councils.

  173
  He did not think it would add to the efficiency of the Councils, neither did he think it would really tend in the direction his hon. Friend (Mr. J. S. Gathorne-Hardy) desired. He therefore trusted his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
  MR. J. S. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, that, of course, after the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board, he would not press his Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that, no doubt, to the Amendment, as drawn, there was considerable objection, because it was quite possible to conceive that men would become members of Councils in counties in which they had no stake whatever. Of course, it frequently happened that a man was elected to represent a county or a division of a county or a borough with which he was in no way otherwise connected. If his hon. Friend would consent to the insertion of the words "and otherwise qualified" after the word "therein," he (Mr. Chaplin) must say he could not for his own part agree to the objection which had been raised to the proposal. Everybody desired that the best men in a borough or a county, as the case might be, should become members of the Council. He thought it was very exceptional indeed if a man, who had undergone a hotly contested Parliamentary election, were willing to undergo, immediately afterwards, another equally hotly contested election for the County Council. He was told it would be impossible for Members of the House of Commons to do their duty upon these Councils; but what did they see in the House? Over and over again they saw among county Members men who were the most regular attendants in the House, men who never missed a Division, but were always in their place, yet, somehow or other, they managed to attend Quarter Sessions also. He could name Gentlemen who attended here most regularly, but who had never missed a Quarter Sessions in their lives. He supposed, however, that there was no use in arguing the matter if the Government were not willing to accept the proposal.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?
  MR. J. S. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, he had no objection to withdraw it; but he totally differed from the opinions
  174
  expressed in regard to it. It was one thing to have ex officio members appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and a totally different thing for the electors of the county to elect their own ex officio members of the Council.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNEsaid, that the object of the Amendment he had put upon the Paper was to endow County Councillors with the functions of Justices of the Peace, and he proposed it because he believed it would, at all events, afford a partial remedy for what was, at the present time, a very great grievance. The present system of appointing Justices of the Peace was unsatisfactory to those Gentlemen who had an honourable aspiration to attain such a position, and it was also unsatisfactory to the people at large. That dissatisfaction had frequently found expression at the meetings of the Trades Unions Congresses, and it had also found expression, from time to time, in the House of Commons. It was very desirable that all classes should have confidence in, and respect for, our Courts of Petty Sessions; and he held that in order to secure that, Justices of the Peace should be men of all classes. The present system of nomination and property qualification was a system by which class was set against class, because it inferred the idea that there was a class of rich men who were entitled to rule, and that there was a class of poor men whose fate it was to be ruled over. That, he maintained, was entirely inconsistent with our present democratic institutions. What was the result of appointing only men of property and nominees of the Crown to the magistracy? It was this, that offences against property were dealt with with a severity out of all proportion to the measure of justice which was meted out for offences against the person. Every day one observed in the newspapers reports of the extraordinary sentences which were given for trivial offences against property, and the attention of the House was frequently called to them. He had made a collection of these reports, and he believed they had been published in a pamphlet; they were certainly most striking. He tried to ascertain whether

  175
  there was any rhyme or reason for these sentences. He did not wish to enlarge upon them; but the calculation at which he had arrived was that the average cost of indulging in the luxury of kicking one's wife, and blackening her eye, or pouring hot water over her, or biting a piece out of a policeman, was about 10 s.; whereas, on the other hand, the cost of stealing a pocket-handkerchief, or a cotton shirt, or any similar article, was a term of imprisonment, varying from two or three months to five years penal servitude; and should, by any accident, a labouring man be found in possession of a dirty rabbit net he had better be tried by a court martial at once than by a bench of rural magistrates. He knew that the objection which would be urged against his Amendment was that it would be a system of elected magistrates; but the system was nothing new in this country. Mayors of boroughs were elected at the present time; in Scotland the baillies were elected; moreover, coroners were elected officers, and were ex-officio magistrates, and there were places where the Aldermen and Portreeves were also elected, and also exercised the functions of magistrates. At the present time Magistrates were elected, not by the people, but elected by a small clique of wirepullers. Most hon. Members knew how these gentlemen were elected; the Party wirepullers of those who were in power at the time selected, generally from among themselves, some gentlemen whom they wished to endow with the dignity of magistrates, and they sent up the names of these gentlemen through what was termed the ordinary channels to the Lord Chancellor, and then the Lord Chancellor went through the farce of sending to the Town Council to know whether the gentlemen nominated were acceptable or not to them. If the Town Council happened to say that they objected to these gentlemen, and to suggest anybody else, then the Lord Chancellor said that they were going outside their province; and he, in fact, snubbed them. This sort of thing had taken place over and over again; it had taken place within recent times at Winchester, West Ham, Poole, Wrexham, Hanley, Bradford, and other places. And then, to wind up this comedy, some Gentleman generally got up in the House and asked a Question of
  176
  the Home Secretary, and that right hon. Gentleman was content to use the tu quoque argument, that it had been done by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he did not see why they should not do the same thing. If he (Mr. Seale-Hayne) were to endeavour to touch upon how magistrates were elected in the counties, he might perhaps be proceeding beyond his depth. A portion of the county magistracy might be regarded as hereditary. Some of the county magistrates had no claim to a seat on the Bench other than that their fathers had sat there before; others had acquired the dignity by purchase, as it frequently happened that if a gentleman came into the county, and bought a large estate, he was straightway put on the Bench, irrespective of any personal qualification. Other gentlemen got on the Bench simply because they happened to be of the same political complexion as the Lord Lieutenant; they merely took the position because it gave them a certain amount of social position, and got them into the charmed circle of county society. Now, he could not believe that this was a satisfactory way of appointing gentlemen to exercise the important functions of Justices of the Peace. Then, let him say a word in regard to the general objection that those who exercised judicial functions should not be elected. He was perfectly ready to admit that it would be a great evil if the Judges of the land were elected, because they had to deal with large pecuniary interests, and because it was necessary they should have great legal learning and experience.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKErose to Order, and asked the Chairman whether the hon. Gentleman was in Order in discussing the present method of appointing magistrates?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that inasmuch as there was a provision in the clause respecting the Chairmen of County Councils, he was not prepared to say that it was not permissible to discuss the proposition that members of County Councils should also be ex-officio Justices. But the hon. Member was certainly supporting his proposition with arguments a long way beyond the necessity of the case.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNEsaid, he bowed to the Chairman's decision. He had been merely enlarging upon the question of the existing evils, and he had started

  177
  by saying that he advocated his Amendment because it afforded a partial remedy, as he believed, for those evils. Now, Judges were in a different position also to Justices of the Peace, because they had, on matters of fact, a jury to assist them. Justices of the Peace, on the other hand, had to be both Judge and jury in their own Courts. He held, therefore, that the two cases were entirely different, and that the same arguments did not apply to them. The objection might be urged that these elections might degenerate into a Party fight. Well, he had no doubt that that might be so in some instances, but he did not think it would be of such frequent occurrence as hon. Members in the course of this debate had assumed. His answer to that was this. Were not nominations at the present time—especially of borough magistrates—entirely political, and if there was to be a political fight over the appointment of Magistrates, was it not better that that fight should be carried on in open day, and not on the backstairs of the Lord Lieutenants and in the back parlours of the wirepullers in the boroughs? He believed that in these elections of the County Councillors, if they were endowed with the dignity of Justice of the Peace, it would bring out far better men. It might be said—"What evidence have you that the elected magistrates will be as good as those who sit on the Bench at the present time?" Well, his answer was that no evidence was required. His position was this—that if the decisions of the elected Magistrates were bad, at the end of six years the ratepayers would be able to get rid of them, and that, under the existing system, if the decisions of nominated Magistrates were bad, there was no means of getting rid of them. The people were saddled with them for all time. He (Mr. Seale-Hayne) felt convinced, speaking on this subject with some knowledge as a county and borough magistrate, that if the Government would confer upon elected Councillors the dignity of justice of the peace, not only would better men come forward as candidates, but they would do much to strengthen the hands of the law by giving more confidence to the people in the impartiality of our Petty Sessional Courts. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, after line 5, to insert—"(e) They shall, by virtue of their office, be justices of the peace for the county."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Chairman had stated that in his opinion both the Amendment and the speech in which the hon. Member had put it before the Committee came very near being outside the Bill, and certainly, under the circumstances, he (Mr. Ritchie) should not inflict any lengthened remarks upon the Committee with reference to this question, which, to his mind, was altogether outside the four corners of the Bill. He would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, whom he believed were desirous of passing this measure, or a measure of the kind, to limit somewhat their observations and their Amendments to what might fairly be considered to come within the scope of the provisions of the Bill; because it was evident, if they were to discuss on the Bill such fundamental changes as those sought to be introduced by the hon. Member, there would scarcely be any limit to the period of time necessary to spend on the measure. He need hardly say that the Government could not assent to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. He regarded it as not only a thing bad in itself, but, as he had said, outside the provisions of the Bill altogether. The Chairman had told them that there was a provision in the measure which gave colour to the Amendment—the provision that the Chairman of the County Council should be a Justice of the Peace—but in that the Government had followed strictly the analogy of the Municipal Corporations Act. The Chairman of a Town Council in that case, that was to say, the Mayor of a town, was a Justice of the Peace. That was the analogy the Government had followed; but to propose that County Councillors should also be Justices of the Peace was a suggestion altogether outside the analogy to the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act. He would appeal to the Committee to be good enough not to spend any lengthened time in discussing the matter, which was clearly beyond the scope of the measure.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to press this Amendment to

  179
  a Division, although I am bound to say I think he is perfectly justified in placing it before the Committee. I am very willing to take this opportunity of saying that, whether in this form or in some other form, it is absolutely necessary that a change should be made in this matter as affecting both boroughs and counties. The present system is simply a scandal. Magistrates in boroughs, and still more so in counties, are appointed without the smallest reference to their fitness for their judicial duties. They are appointed simply out of political considerations—
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in the observations he is making?
  [No reply.]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The system is perfectly indefensible. I dare say the noble Lord and his Friends do not like to hear these things; but, if he will allow me to say so, that is exactly why I state them. In my opinion, it is clear that a reform must come. It will come, I believe, through the County Councils. I would not recommend my hon. Friend to press his Amendment on this occasion, because I feel quite certain that when these County Councils are formed, they will ultimately demand that they should have a voice, and a potent voice, in the appointment of the Magistracy. It is quite impossible where a power like this Council Council is established, which is to be representative of the public opinion of the county, that they will any longer tolerate the administration of Justice in counties being dependent on the nomination of the Lord Lieutenant. That power has been, and is at this time, so grossly abused that it must be reformed. [A laugh.] The hon. Member who laughs I dare say is himself a magistrate appointed by a Lord Lieutenant. Doubtless for that reason he has a very high opinion of the nominations. But I have observed this matter, and I have some means of knowing about these appointments, and the manner in which justice is administered under them, and I would, therefore, ask my hon. Friend to rest content with the certainty that in the future, when this power which we have been frankly told is to be a democratic power, is estab-
  180
  lished under this Bill, one of the effects, which I hope will be beneficial effects, will be a complete revolution in the system of appointing magistrates both in counties and boroughs. Under the circumstances, I would ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment to a Division.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMSsaid, that considering the observations of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he could not refrain from expressing his entire approval of the spirit of the Amendment before the Committee. He (Mr. Williams) had ventured himself to put upon the Notice Paper an Amendment which would have involved the principle which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt), with a truly prophetic spirit, declared would be adopted as soon as they got these County Councils into working order. He had put upon the Paper an Amendment in the spirit of the clause in the Act of 1835, which proposed to give—and he was sure they would soon have it—the power to nominate justices for the county to direct representatives of the people. He ventured to rise on this occasion because there was no part of the United Kingdom in which this scandal was more disgraceful than in the Principality of Wales. He had taken some pains of late to find out what was the composition of the Bench in the various counties of Wales. He need not say that there was only one class there. He looked in vain amongst the magistracy in some counties for members of the Nonconformist Body, and he looked in vain for members of the trading classes. He should have liked to have seen some chance of pressing this Amendment to a successful issue—he honestly confessed he should have liked to take part in such an attempt. What would be the state of things under this Bill in his division if this Amendment were passed? Why, in the division for which he was a Member, and in which he was a justice, he would, at all events, have the satisfaction of finding one or two farmers, certainly one or two tradesmen, sitting by his side on the bench. He was not at all sure that they were wise even at this stage in refraining from pressing the Amendment to a Division.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHURsaid, he desired to say a

  181
  word to the Committee, not for the purpose of delaying the discussion on the Bill, but merely to state that he sympathized to a great extent with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Seale-Hayne), and that he agreed that the present method of appointing magistrates was a crying scandal; but he should, however, feel himself bound most strongly to oppose the Amendment, if the hon. Member sought to force it to a Division. He could not imagine anything that would be more likely to have a disastrous effect upon the respect of the English people for law than the proposal to submit those who were to administer the law from time to time to the turmoil of contested elections. He should very strongly support, and he hoped very shortly to have an opportunity of supporting an Amendment which was to be moved by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), which would give the County Councils about to be appointed the power of nominating the magistrates, or, at any rate, of recommending magistrates for nomination; but he should feel it impossible to support the proposal that magistrates should be appointed by popular election.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, he was glad the Government had determined not to assent to the proposal before the Committee, because he would point out that, if they had done so, they would have given a preference to the County Councils over the Town Councils, which would have been most invidious. For the Amendment did not contemplate giving to Town Councils the appointment of justices, which it would accord to members of County Councils. He would also point out that the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was a good one—namely, that as a general rule, they should endeavour to follow the main lines of the Municipal Corporations Act. He thought on that ground, therefore, the attitude the right hon. Gentleman had taken up was eminently satisfactory. He was glad to hear the protest of the hon. Member for St. Austell (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur) that in this country the people were determined to adhere to the principle that our Judges and Justices of the Peace should not be elected. The hon. Member had spoken of his experience of one
  182
  part of the world, and he (Sir Albert Rollit) had had experience of another. No one could become aware of what took place in those countries where elective Judges existed, without a lively knowledge of the fact that not unfrequently people went into politics to get a Judge made in order that he might afterwards decide a certain case. Such a principle as that was not one which this country was likely to yield a ready assent to. It was pointed out that this principle of making an elected Councillor a magistrate was carried out in the case of the chairman of a Town Council—that was to say the mayor of a borough. He ventured to think on that matter, that if there was one point on which the Mayors of boroughs had been less successful than another, it had been in regard to the performance of their judicial duties. He had heard of one Mayor who, at the very commencement of his term of office, declared that during the period he sat on the bench, it should be his constant endeavour neither to be partial nor impartial. He (Sir Albert Rollit) did not know whether that effort succeeded or not, but that was his that extraordinary declaration, and he (Sir Albert Rollit) did not think it would be difficult to find other illustrations of the peculiar fitness—or unfitness—of elected gentlemen to perform the delicate functions of the magistracy. The borough magistrates were, it was true, appointed in a manner to which some exception might occasionally be taken. On that point, at some other time—though he knew in saying this, he should lay himself open to the retort on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt), that some of them on that (the Ministerial) side of the House were always prepared to do something or other, but never made an effort to begin—something no doubt should be done, as there was room for considerable improvement. But he would remind the Committee that even now improvement was taking place in the shape of the appointment of the Stipendiary Magistrates, though that system only existed in the boroughs, and had not been extended to the counties.
  MR. RITCHIEdesired to appeal to the hon. Member (Mr. Seale-Hayne) as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had appealed to him, not

  183
  to push this Amendment to a Division. It seemed to be the general wish of the Committee that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and he would therefore appeal to hon. Members, either to permit that course to be adopted, or to go to a Division at once, so that they might get to the consideration of questions which were of very great importance.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that although the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur) might not move his Amendment, he trusted that the suggestion of the hon. Member would not fall stillborn, but that there would be an opportunity given to the Committee for considering this question again before the Committee stage was disposed of. It seemed to him (Mr. Illingworth) that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board should rather receive with favour than otherwise the proposal to entrust new duties to this grand creation of his, the County Councils, because by the announcement he had already made, he would be depriving them of such a large amount of work that they would really have very little to do. From a very wide experience in the North of England, he (Mr. Illingworth) could say that there was no scandal in connection with justice in this country so great as that with reference to the appointment of the magistracy in our boroughs and counties. In his own neighbourhood, magistrates had been put on the bench at the age of 21, merely because they happened to be the sons of prominent members of the dominant class, while leaving men on the other side in politics to be passed over. He spoke on this matter disinterestedly, and, therefore, he claimed some weight for his opinion, because he was neither a magistrate for a borough nor a county. It seemed to him that the work of the administration of justice in the country would be greatly improved, and that a much better feeling would be created throughout the towns and boroughs with regard to Courts of summary jurisdiction, if the Amendment proposed were adopted.
  MR. WARMINGTONsaid, that before this Amendment was withdrawn, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board wished to press the
  184
  analogy of the Municipal Corporations Act, he should like to know whether the County Councils were going to be consulted with regard to the appointment of magistrates in the same way as the councillors or corporations were consulted with regard to the appointment of borough magistrates? And before the Amendment was withdrawn, allow him to say this—He did not think that there was any matter which people in the counties regarded as more important than that of the local administration of justice. There was no matter in regard to which people in the counties felt that a greater scandal existed. There was no doubt that there were many counties in England and in the Principality of Wales in which the people were entirely without a representative of their way of thinking upon the magisterial bench. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would say that the appointment of Justices of the Peace for the counties would henceforth be dealt with on the same lines as the appointment of the magistrates in boroughs, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman might then gracefully ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seale-Hayne) to withdraw his Amendment; but until they had some such guarantee as that, they certainly had a right to complain of the present system and to endeavour in this Bill to bring about a more satisfactory state of things.
  MR. CREMERsaid, he desired to say that after the expression of opinion they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), he hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed to a Division. He trusted, however, that they would have some guarantee from the Government other than that to which allusion had been made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. What he (Mr. Cremer) hoped Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House would contend for, and if necessary divide the House upon, was that power should be given to County Councils not merely to nominate, but to elect the magistrates. He thought nothing short of that would satisfy the people out of doors.
  CONYBEAREsaid, that as his name had been mentioned in the course of this discus-

  185
  sion, he desired to be allowed to say just one word. He was entirely in favour of the Amendment, and he thought the hon. Gentleman who submitted that Justices of the Peace should be elected was entirely right in his contention. He, however, was perfectly well aware—especially after the recommendation which had come from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby—that it would be perhaps better tactics on their part not to press the Amendment to a Division at the present moment. The hon. Member for the St. Austell Division (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur) had done him (Mr. Conybeare) the honour to refer to an Amendment which he had on the Paper, No. 126, which was as follows:—In Clause 2, p. 2, at end, to add—
  "(6) From and after the passing of this Act every Justice of the Peace should be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of the County upon the recommendation of the County Council, and every parish should be entitled to nominate, and through the elected representatives on the County Council, to demand, the appointment of one or more of such persons as they may deem fit to act as resident Justices of the Peace for the said parishes. And the selected councillors should in every case be taken from among the local Justices of the Peace so nominated and appointed as aforesaid."
  He certainly concurred with the hon. Member in charge of the Amendment in his withdrawal of it, on the understanding, however, that it should not be summarily dismissed, or shut out by the Government from being again considered on his (Mr. Conybeare's) Amendment. He was not going to discuss that Amendment now, and he only wished to say in regard to the statement of the hon. Member for St. Austell that he did not concur in the sentiments he expressed as to its being a bad thing to elect people as Justices or "injustices" of the Peace. At any rate, the electing of magistrates could not place things in a worse condition than they were at present, because nothing could be more disgraceful and scandalous than the manner in which these functionaries were appointed at present.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that before the discussion closed, it ought to be made clear that he and his Friends did not share in the grave attack made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby as to the administration of justice by the county magistrates.
  186
  The right hon. Gentleman for a long time had held the Office of Home Secretary, and was largely responsible for the appointment of many of the magistrates whom he attacked. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Government to which he belonged had ever proposed to make any change in the mode of appointment of those gentlemen when in Office, but now in these later days apparently the right hon. Gentleman had become so accustomed to make attacks on the administration of justice in the Sister Island that he could not keep his fingers off the magistrates of this country. It was not, however, for him (Viscount Cranborne) to reprove the right hon. Gentleman, but he really thought that, considering the high office the right hon. Gentleman had held, he ought to think twice before, in the course of a debate like this, he levelled an attack upon the whole administration of justice throughout the country districts of England in the way he had done. Let it be clearly understood—and in saying that he was quite sure he spoke for all hon. Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House—that they did not share the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, but entirely and absolutely repudiated them.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Perhaps it may relieve the anxiety of the noble Lord to inform him that I neither intended to, nor did I make an attack upon the administration of justice, though I attacked most strongly the method in which the county magistrates are appointed.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me—[Cries of "Order!"]
  SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURT: I will state what I did say, or what I intended to say. I intended most strongly to attack the method in which the county magistrates are appointed.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me. He not only attacked their appointment, but he spoke of many gross decisions they made.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I never said that, nor anything like it. I am quite certain that the noble Lord did not hear what I said.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNEsaid, that in deference to the expression of opinion from that (the Opposition) side of the

  187
  House, and from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, by the leave of the Committee he would withdraw his Amendment. He hoped, however, that at the same time he might be permitted to say this. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board complained that the Amendment travelled outside the scope of the Bill, and he (Mr. Seale-Rayne) would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he had a Bill before the House at the present time dealing with this special question, and that, therefore, if he withdrew this Amendment, he was entitled to have some facilities given to him for going on with that measure.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGEsaid, the next Amendment stood in his name, and was as follows:—in clause 2, page 2, after line 5, to insert, "Provided, that in the London County Council there shall be no selected councillors or aldermen." As he understood that it was considered that that Amendment could be more conveniently taken when the provisions dealing with London generally were discussed, he would, by the permission of the Committee, ask leave to postpone the Amendment until they came to Clause 36.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, that on this matter, he hoped that before the hon. Gentleman postponed the Amendment, the Government would give an undertaking, or give the Committee to understand that the whole question as to London, so far as it was affected by the clause, would be left open. He (Mr. Firth) hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would on this question take the opinion of hon. Members interested in London. Could the right hon. Gentleman say that the whole question as to Aldermen, who were not wanted in London—they cherished the few they had, but did not want any more—would be left open?
  THE CHAIRMAN(interrupting): The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to go into this matter.
  MR. WARMINGTONsaid, he now begged leave to move the Amendment which stood in his name—that was to say—in page 2, line 5, at end, to insert—
  188
  "(e.) No person shall be capable of being elected as a member of more than one County Council."
  This Amendment was in accordance with one which had been accepted by the Government, and moved by the hon. Member for one of the divisions of Somerset—
  MR. FIRTH(interrupting) said, he wished as a matter of Order, to ask whether he was to understand from the Chairman that his Amendment was to be considered as withdrawn, because as yet he had said nothing about it.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Amendment was in the same category as that of the hon. Gentleman (Sir Roper Lethbridge), and would come more conveniently on Clause 38. He could not say, if the hon. and learned Member persisted with his Amendment, that it would not be in Order, but he would point out that in that case the subject could not be again gone into on the 38th clause.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he did not insist upon the discussion of his Amendment; but it seemed to him that as a matter of courtesy it should have been suggested to him either that he should move his Amendment, or that he would be out of Order in moving it, or that it would be more convenient for it to be postponed. In that case he would have withdrawn it, without a word.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, he had an Amendment in the same terms upon Clause 36; but he understood the Chairman to say that the subject was to be raised on Clause 38.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That was a mistake, I meant Clause 36.
  MR. WARMINGTONsaid, the next Amendment stood in his name, and was as follows:—Clause 2, page 2, line 5, at the end, to insert—
  "(e.) No person shall be capable of being elected as a member of more than one County Council."
  This Amendment was placed on the Paper before some decisions at which the Committee had arrived, and after those decisions it seemed to him that it would be better to move the Amendment in this form:—
  "(e.) No person shall be capable of being a member of more than one County Council."
  He would move the Amendment in that

  189
  form. It had been now decided by the Committee that it was not necessary in order to qualify a person for a seat on a County Council that he should be a resident within the county. He might not be a resident within the county at all. If he had what was called the property qualification, he might be elected as a member of the Council. They knew perfectly well that there were many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and others who had property and were rated in many counties, and he submitted that it would not be well for the good working of the Council itself that a member of one Council should also be a member of another. The County Council would be an important assembly, and each Council ought to have an important individual and separate influence, and it would detract from that power and influence of the Council if one of its members was a member of another Council. As those persons who were likely to be members of both would have considerable property, he ventured to suggest that it was desirable that each Council should be self-contained, and not number amongst its ranks those who were members of other Councils. It seemed to him that a Council would lose force if it possessed a member in common with another County Council, and that it would give to individuals an influence which they ought not to possess.
  Amendment proposed,
  "In page 2, after line 5, to insert the words, No person shall be capable of being a member of more than one County Council."—(Mr. Warmington).
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG)said, that some of the Amendments on the Paper seemed to show that fear of the people which hon. Members opposite declared the Government showed. Above all things that which could be and might well be entrusted to the electors was the choice of the men who, in their opinion, ought to be elected, and it should be left to them to decide whether they should elect as Members of their own Council gentlemen who were qualified, though they might be members of adjoining Councils. Those who were engaged in County Business know very well that
  190
  gentlemen living on the boundaries of two counties were most valuable members of Quarter Sessions. Such gentlemen were frequently of the greatest assistance in the administration of the affairs of the two counties. He submitted that that was a point which should be left to the Councils themselves. There was no reason to think that the work of the Councils would be imperfectly done through the clause remaining as it stood, or that any inconvenience would arise to the ratepayers. The Government, therefore, would be obliged to resist this Amendment.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he did not think it would be well to trouble the Committee with any remarks upon the Amendment in the present state of the House. It would be more pertinent, perhaps, to call the Chairman's attention to the fact that there were not 40 Members present.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. CREMERsaid, he presumed the present Amendment would meet with the same fate as other Amendments from that (the Opposition) side of the House. He thought the Government might, however, accept the Amendment, seeing that they had rejected the very reasonable proposal made just now as to the payment of the travelling expenses of the County Councillors. By the rejection of that proposal, the choice of the electors had been very much restricted, and the chances of persons possessed of property being elected on the County Councils had been greatly increased. They were entitled to ask that this clause should receive some consideration from the Government, seeing that they (the Government) had admitted the property qualification. It was quite possible that a Councillor under the circumstances, might be a candidate for one county under a property qualification, and might seek election upon another Council because he happened to be a resident in the county. It was a very wholesome and very wise and very useful proposal that was made by the hon. Member, and he sincerely hoped that the Government would give it their serious consideration.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 173: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 150.)
  MR. WOODALLsaid, he wished to propose the Amendment on the Paper, No. 70—that was to say, in page 2, after line 7, to insert—"(a) Every borough shall return at least one Councillor." He would appeal to the Government to constitute every municipal borough a separate electoral area, for the purpose of returning a Councillor. Within the last few hours they had been furnished with a proposal as to the number of Councillors the Government proposed should permanently form the County Council, and according to that, in the main, the suggestion he made in this Amendment was conceded. There were some exceptions, however, which would be made, and they would be in the case of small but ancient boroughs. He hoped that, inasmuch as this Paper which had been circulated was not considered the final decision of the Government, the appeal he now made would be favourably considered, and that a consequential Amendment a few lines further on would be also conceded. He begged to move the Amendment in his name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, after line 7, to insert the words, "(a) Every borough shall return at least one councillor."—(Mr. Woodall.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LONGsaid, he need hardly assure the Committee that the Government fully understood and appreciated the reasons which the hon. Member had adduced for proposing this Amendment—namely, that some of these boroughs were very ancient boroughs, and had for a very long time so successfully exercised their rights and privileges that they deserved separate representation. He might point out that the Amendment would not fall within the lines of the Bill. If it were adopted, the result would be that every town, which was a municipal borough, whether ancient or not, and no matter how small its population, would be entitled to have separate representation, whereas those large urban sanitary districts of great importance and with enormous populations, which did
  192
  not happen to be boroughs, would be left to the Quarter Sessions. He had not the least doubt that the representation accorded to the boroughs would be fair and sufficient, but it had been thought by the Government that those of them which had not a sufficient population to entitle them to special representation should be left to the Quarter Sessions. He would remind the Committee that the subject was not a very important one, and did not necessarily involve a very large issue. There were only 30 boroughs in England and Wales which would be affected by the Amendment, and their populations varied very much, some of them falling as low as 900. When it was laid down that the representation on a County Council should only be one in 5,000, 6,000, 7,000, 8,000, or 10,000 it hardly seemed in accordance with the principles of the Bill that a borough having a population of only 900 or 1,000 should possess a representative. A place with a small population should not receive a privilege merely because it was ancient, whilst a new place with a large population was denied it. Those were the reasons why the Government could not accept the Amendment, and, in stating them, he had no wish to condemn the views of the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the proposal, nor to say anything derogatory to the position of the small boroughs. The Government must adhere to the clause as it stood, and, if necessary, must divide the Committee against the Amendment.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, he did not propose to press the Amendment to a Division, and, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Member, who had just spoken, he still hoped that there would be some concession made—at any rate with regard to some of those boroughs which were not at present provided for. He urged that because the boroughs in question were important and useful for many purposes—for registration for instance, and for rating. They would continue to have separate existence, for it was not proposed to interfere with their rights to self-government and with the privileges they had enjoyed for centuries. He ventured most respectfully to urge that it would considerably improve the prospect of the successful working of the Bill, if the Government accepted his Amendment, and the

  193
  boroughs were allowed to be, so far as separate representation on the Councils was concerned, separate areas instead of being merged in large districts.
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, he should like to point out to the Mover of the Amendment and to the Government that there were a few populous places of the magnitude of boroughs, which had been allowed under Improvement Acts to constitute themselves into Town Commissions, which would come under the same category as the boroughs for whom the hon. Member (Mr. Woodall) spoke. If there had been any prospect of the hon. Member being successful in getting his Amendment adopted, he (Mr. Halley Stewart) would have asked the Government to enlarge the scope of it, so as to include the towns under the Government of the Town Commissioners.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he wished to point out that there were a considerable number of boroughs of under 2,000 population in counties where there were 400,000 or 500,000 inhabitants; and the result of carrying this Amendment would be, it seemed to him, either to increase unduly the number of Councillors, or to give over-representation to these small towns. The small limit which it was understood was to be fixed to the number of Councillors on a County Council could not be adhered to if the Amendment were adopted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he desired to move the following Amendment:—In page 2, line 18, after "determine," insert—
  "Provided that as far as possible the electoral division shall be a parish or township, or an aggregate of parishes or townships."
  The Amendment, if carried, would give power to the managers of the Quarter Sessions to cut the counties into electoral divisions. He imagined that these electoral divisions would, in the future, play a considerable part in Local Government. He should like to call the attention of the Government also to the Amendment next but one on the Paper, which was in these terms—
  "Provided, that, subject to any modifications approved of by the Local Government Board, an electoral division of a county shall consist of a parish, or a part of a parish, or an aggre-
  194
  gation of entire parishes, or an urban sanitary district or part thereof, or an aggregation of entire urban sanitary districts."
  He did not wish at all to re-open the question of the parish so far as the reform of the Vestry was concerned, the Committee having already decided that point; but he thought the Government, during the second reading debate, admitted that it would be well to make the electoral division units of the common wants and sympathies and conditions. Now, the difficulty of making the parish a unit was its inequality. In some parts it was very populous, in others it had only a few inhabitants; but he thought that if, by this Amendment, they gave an instruction to the magistrates, as far as possible, to keep to the boundaries of a parish, they would obtain not merely a system of grouping parishes by people who were very well acquainted with the circumstances of the county, but would lay the foundation of that great system so much desired, and gradually make the parish the electoral unit, To make the parish the electoral unit would be valuable when they came to deal with the question of valuation—of simplifying and consolidating the areas and authorities in the matter of valuation. He moved the Amendment which stood in his name in the strong hope that the Government would be able to accept it. If they would not accept it here, would they give an undertaking that they would agree to its introduction on a later clause?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, this appeared to him to be a supplementary direction which would come in better on Clause 52.
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he would move his Amendment merely to elicit some expression of opinion from the Government. It was important, he thought, that they should know definitely what were the principles on which the electoral divisions were to be fixed. It would have materially assisted the deliberations of the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had been able to give them a Paper showing the number of Councillors it was proposed to have on these Councils when they commenced their proceedings.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he must point out the inconvenience of discussing a question of this character upon what was really a very general clause.

  195
  Clause 52 was strictly connected with this question, and he was sure the hon. Gentleman would excuse the Government for not entering into a discussion now, which would, when that clause was reached, have to be gone over again. He thought, when the time came, that be should be able to show the hon. Member that this Amendment was not so much at variance with the provisions of the Bill as he supposed.
  MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire,)said, he thought it was rather a pity that the Government had not given them their views upon this subject, because, owing to the way in which the Bill was drawn, it would be difficult to discuss the question without having some notion of what the ideas of the Government were. In his opinion it would have been well if the Committee had had an announcement by the Government that this was a principle which they would keep in view, because he agreed that it would not be possible to make the parish the unit of any large district of administration, though they might be of consultation.
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he was not willing to postpone his Amendment until they had from the Government a more clear statement of the position they intended to take up with regard to this question. That he thought was necessary to the understanding of the case. He thought, besides, they should have some intimation that the Government agreed to the principle of the Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he must protest against the idea that it was desirable or convenient to press the Government for their opinion with regard to the clause which had not yet been reached.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMSsaid, the first decision of the area of the county was left to the determination of the Court of Quarter Sessions, and he could not help thinking that there ought to be some appeal against the decision of that body. He should have much preferred to have seen in the Bill a provision that an operation of this very important kind should have been performed by a Special Commission. He ventured to suggest to the Government that a great deal of time and trouble would be saved if the same experienced and able men were
  196
  appointed at once to do this business throughout the country who had so admirably performed their work in 1885 in settling the Parliamentary Divisions at the small cost of only £4,000. He desired to speak with all respect of his brother magistrates; but he suggested that work of this kind, in which a certain amount of political feeling would be involved, was not such as it was right to leave to bodies of gentlemen who were, by general admission throughout the country, naturally not without a distinct political bias in one direction. He had had experience in reference to redistribution in his own county, and he was bound to say that he should look with great concern on the present redistribution if it were to be conducted in the same way. He strongly urged on the Government that some Amendment should be introduced for the purpose of leaving this matter to Special Commissioners; and if the Government did not see their way to this, he should be compelled to move an Amendment for the purpose. Having put the case shortly and plainly to the Government, he sincerely trusted that they would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 22, at end, insert—"Provided always, that every decision of justices at quarter sessions as to the electoral divisions in the county shall be by order, notice of which shall be published once at least in every newspaper published in the county. Such order shall be submitted for confirmation to the Local Government Board. If within one month after publication of such notice as aforesaid not less than twenty county electors petition the Local Government Board to disallow the order, the Local Government Board shall cause to be held a local inquiry and determine whether such order shall be confirmed or modified."—(Mr.A.J. Williams.)
  MR. LONGsaid, the hon. Gentleman had put before the Committee two proposals, one of which was embodied in the Amendment he had just moved, and the other was that the same course should be pursued in the present instance as was followed in the case of the Parliamentary Electoral Division—namely, that of appointing Special Commissioners. While acknowledging, as he did most freely, the very moderate and fair way in which the hon. Gentleman had stated his case, he would point out why the Government could not accept the Amendment. The first objection to it was that, in order to constitute these

  197
  electoral divisions, it would be necessary that three distinct stages should be gone through. It was the desire of the House and the Government that if this Bill passed, as they were confident it would during the present Session, it should come into operation early next year; but if the Amendment were agreed to, it would be impossible that the Bill should come into operation when it was hoped and expected to do, and, moreover, its operation would be postponed for another year. The Government could not, therefore, contemplate the admission of the Amendment proposed. The next proposal was that they should adopt the procedure in connection with the last Reform Bill, by appointing Commissioners to settle the divisions. He might, he believed, endorse the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman as to the work of the Commissioners, which he believed had been done in the best possible way; but he would point out that there was a great difference between the work which they performed and that which had to be done now in connection with this Bill. In the county which he had the honour to represent (Wiltshire), the Commissioners had to constitute only five Parliamentary Divisions, and with respect to them several meetings had to be held, at which objections were taken. But in order to bring the Act into operation in his county they would have to set up 50 or 60 electoral divisions for the purpose of County Council elections; and he suggested to the Committee that the appointment of Commissioners would so delay the Bill as to make it impossible for it to come into operation by the time which the Government desired. The hon. Gentleman also expressed a hope that there should be some appeal against the decision of the magistrates; but he pointed out that this was in the Bill as it stood; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had stated that the provisions for the alteration and rectification of areas were as large and complete as they possibly could be. Not only were the powers for alteration and rectification of boroughs sufficient; but the hon. Member would find that the County Council was given sufficient power to enable it, if desirable, to make alterations which would constitute fair areas of election. For these reasons, the Government could not accept
  198
  the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman or the alternative which he suggested.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMSsaid, he was aware of the power given to the County Councils. But when the work of constituting the areas was done the mischief was irretrievable. He was bound to say he had great distrust of the County Justices in this matter, and he felt the absolute necessity of taking some steps to prevent the consequences which he apprehended. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, at all events, to give the right of appeal to the Local Government Board. With regard to the time necessary for fixing the areas, he undertook to say that the work with regard to a district could be done in one day, and that of a whole county in two.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not understand how the hon. Member could say that the mischief would be already done when the area was constituted by the Justices. The idea of the Government was to place in the hands of the County Councils full power over the area as far as it could possibly be done. It was essential that when a Bill of this character had passed, a long interval should not intervene before it came into operation, and they had not set up the machinery contemplated by the hon. Member, because it would undoubtedly take up a considerable amount of time; and he undertook to say further that if the Bill were not passed until the Session was well advanced, and if the plan were adopted, it could not come into operation in January as they proposed. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the practice of Quarter Sessions was inadequate to this matter. But that was not the case. There were distinct provisions in the Bill, in the way of precaution, with regard to the setting up of the electoral divisions; and it was not conceivable that gentlemen who would take so conspicuous a part in the new system would so neglect their duties, or discharge them in so partial a way, as to make the divisions which they constituted unfair to any part of the country, especially as they had clear instructions laid down as to the course they should pursue. Surely, therefore, they might be trusted to do what was right and fair in all the circumstances of the case. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board had pointed out that if there were any objections to

  199
  a scheme it was in the power of the County Council to consider not only the area, but the number of Councillors; and if an alteration was necessary in the county or borough boundaries they must come to Parliament for a Provisional Order. The County Councils would practically have the matter entirely in their own hands, and the Government, therefore, could not recognize that there was any real foundation for the supposition that the magistrates of Quarter Sessions would not do what was right in this matter, or that if they did wrong there was not ample power in the Bill for that wrong to be set right.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid, he wished to point out that Quarter Sessions were by no means in favour at the present time with regard to the principle on which they arranged the polling districts, and that great cause of complaint had arisen. What they wanted was some clear and distinct guarantee that there should be power of appeal, which could be enforced before it was too late, from the decision at which the Quarter Sessions arrived. The right hon. Gentleman said there was appeal to the County Council. But he said that this, in the great majority of cases, could only come into operation when it was too late, because where the Quarter Sessions decided unfairly a certain number of members of the County Council would have been elected on the basis of the electoral divisions, and then the work of the Council would be performed by means of the system of County Aldermen, and by a system of co-optation. Therefore, he said there should be some means of immediate appeal against the decision of Quarter Sessions.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he regretted that he was not in his place when his name was called in reference to Amendment No. 80, because it was the alternative Amendment to which his hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Williams) had referred. As the Amendment did not meet with the approbation of the Government, he would suggest a compromise that might with advantage be placed before the Committee as another Amendment. However much hon. Gentlemen opposite might think that the people in the counties placed implicit confidence in Quarter Sessions in a matter of this kind, he would only say that their experience
  200
  did not coincide with his own. There was the gravest distrust of that body in these matters. But they wished to make no charges against Quarter Sessions; they merely said there was a feeling that this important matter of redistribution ought not to be left in the hands of gentlemen who practically represented only one class, and in whose ultimate decision great numbers of the people, at any rate, had not that implicit reliance which was desirable. They desired to give a good start to the County Councils, to see them started with the confidence of all parties, and they were very far from admitting that this would be the case if these very important arrangements of boundaries was not effected in such a manner as would command the confidence of the whole of the people of the country. If delay were so necessary to be avoided, he did not think it would be difficult to adopt the suggestion that the magistrates should hold a special sessions for the purpose of this business of settling the electoral divisions, and that at such special sessions the ratepayers should be entitled to be represented, in order to place their views before the magistrates, before whom, under the present system, they were not represented. It would be remembered that in the case of the redistribution of seats the ratepayers were entitled to appear before the Commissioners, and express their views with respect to the boundaries. He accepted the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman that there would not be time for the Commissioners to be sent down to do this business, and also that it would cause too much delay if appeal were to lie to the Local Government Board; but he thought it would be found to be necessary for the magistrates to hold a special sessions for the purpose in view, because in the ordinary course of things no sessions could be held until rather late in the autumn at which this business could be dealt with. If it were desirable that such special sessions should be held, he thought it would be only fair that the ratepayers should be represented at them, in order that the authority might be in possession of their views.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he thought that after an examination of Clause 52 the Committee would be of opinion that the discussion at this stage of the Bill was somewhat premature.

  201
  He should be out of Order if he were to refer in detail to the provisions of that clause; but hon. Members who would refer to it would find that instructions were given in that clause of a character which defined the nature of the boundaries. It seemed to him that in case the Committee, when they reached that clause, thought the instructions there given were too vague, or left in an unfair manner room for the attainment of Party objects, they could make the instructions more clear, definite, and precise. He could not shut out from his mind what took place on the passing of the last Reform Act. At that time the creation of the new polling districts was left by the Liberal Government in the hands of the magistrates. He had the honour of being a member of the Bench of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and, although on the Bench there was a majority of Conservatives, the greatest care was taken that on the different sub-committees, to whom the making of the alteration of the polling districts was delegated, each of the two Parties should be equally represented, and he was sure the greatest pains were taken by those who served on those committees that every elector should have the best opportunity of coming to the poll. So far as he knew, there had not been one complaint of injustice or unfairness in respect to the arrangement of the polling districts in that great Division, the West Riding of Yorkshire. He felt the force of the argument founded on the shortness of time which had been raised, and he believed it to be entirely fatal to the proposition. He knew that in the year after the passing of the last Reform Act it was only by the most severe pressure that the machinery was set going in time for the General Election; and, warned by that experience, he must respectfully suggest to the Committee the expediency of now constructing such machinery that there would be no difficulty or delay. Hon. Members opposite very often talked about economy; but it was impossible that the Inspectors of the Local Government Board could visit the country without being a new cause of expense. The summary of his remarks was that this discussion was premature, that it would be better to deal with the subject when they came to Clause 52, and would be called upon to consider what safe-
  202
  guards ought to be provided in favour of equal justice to all sections of the people.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he did not want to dogmatize as to what might be the best method of accomplishing their desire; but he put it to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board whether it was not possible for him to reconsider his decision, and to find a way for them out of the difficulty? Now, he did not agree that the proposal in the Bill would be satisfactory; that was his first proposition. He expected that there would be a natural—whether just or unjust he would not say—but a natural dissatisfaction in the counties at the probable and actual decision of the magistrates. In boroughs the existing authority would have the settling of the polling districts; but in counties the County Councils could not have that, because they were not as yet formed. His argument was that it was not probable that the public, as a whole, would be entirely satisfied with the decisions of the Quarter Sessions; and that it was desirable that there should be an appeal against the decision of the Quarter Sessions, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman might find a way of giving such an appeal. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to have the work done in time. He (Mr. Stansfeld) was not quite sure about that. The magistrates might be directed to set about the work at an early date, so that there would be time to hear any appeal. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the officers of the Local Government Board were able men, and men who, upon the whole, the public trusted. It seemed to him that it was not advisable—he should think it was not necessary—if the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the subject, to expect and call upon the public to be satisfied with the decision without any appeal. He confined himself now to suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not give them some hope that they might devise a plan which would give an appeal. He could not think that that was impossible. Of course, it was most likely that the number of appeals would be very limited.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was very much afraid that if the right hon. Gentleman,

  203
  whose experience was infinitely greater than anything he could lay claim to, had been unable to suggest what the nature of the change which was desired should be, he could not hold out very much hope that he would be able to devise a method by which the desires of hon. Gentlemen would be satisfied. He could not but think that Quarter Sessions could be trusted, even by those who had some mistrust of them, especially in view of the provisions of Clause 52 to do something which was not, at any rate, conspicuously unfair. He could not imagine that the scheme of the Quarter Sessions would be of such a nature that the County Council, when constituted, would not be a fitting judge of it. The whole basis of the Government proposal was that the County Council should be the judge; that they should be able to put right that which was wrong. He was afraid he could not invent a method which would be more satisfactory than that they proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the Quarter Sessions should be pressed to take action early. But they could not commence the work until the Bill was passed, and the right hon. Gentleman knew that between August and September and the election in November there was very little time in which to arrange the polling districts. He was afraid he could not hope to propose a better plan than that, first of all, those gentlemen who were accustomed to county work should, under the directions of the Bill, set out the electoral divisions, and that afterwards the County Councils should have full power to reconsider the electoral divisions so as to amend them if necessary.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he thought the President of the Local Government Board had not correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). His right hon. Friend did not at all object to the County Councils having, eventually, to deal with this matter. So far, they were perfectly satisfied with the proposals in the Bill. But what they wished to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was that it could not be expected that the public would be entirely satisfied with the Quarter Sessions as the authority for settling the boundaries, unless an ap-
  204
  peal was given. What they asked for was a very simple thing. He quite admitted there were very clear directions laid down in Clause 52; that they would bind the Quarter Sessions to a considerable extent; and that Quarter Sessions would have to keep within those directions in the consideration of the electoral districts. But there would be very much greater confidence felt if there was a power of appeal. Probably, as Clause 52 set out so many directions, the appeal would only be exercised in a very few instances. The great safeguard would be in the power of appeal. With respect to boroughs, the right hon. Gentleman was able to give satisfaction to the Committee, because he had an authority already constituted; but if hon. Gentlemen looked at the last subsection of Clause 52, they would find, as regarded London, that the Local Government Board would constitute the authority for settling, in the first instance, the electoral divisions. Let him point out that in the Municipal Corporations Act, the guidance of which the right hon. Gentleman proposed in most respects to follow, it was provided that when a borough was established, or when the boundaries of wards had to be settled, a Commissioner nominated by the Home Secretary should be sent down to fix the boundaries. There might be difficulty in following that exact precedent in this case; but if the right hon. Gentleman followed that precedent, he (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) and his hon. Friends would be perfectly satisfied. They did not object at all as to the future; what they complained of were the arrangements for the election of the first County Council. The President of the Local Government Board would save a good deal of time in the discussion of this particular part of the Bill if he would at once concede that which seemed a perfectly reasonable demand—namely, that in the settlement of the polling districts there should be a right of appeal from the Quarter Sessions to the Local Government Board.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, he must protest against the idea that there should be any unfairness on the part of the Quarter Sessions. The Quarter Sessions had settled the polling districts for the County of Durham, and there had never been uttered one word of complaint. That Quarter Sessions were actuated

  205
  by Party motives in such matters was a suggestion he strongly repudiated.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had rested his argument very largely on the directions given in Clause 52; but he (Mr. Channing) desired to remind the Committee that the directions in Clause 22, except as regards the boundaries of sanitary areas, were more arithmetical. The clause did not contain any directions to the Quarter Sessions of the same character as the directions given to the Commissioners who had to settle the electoral divisions under the Redistribution of Seats Act. One of the directions under that Act was that the Commissioners should arrange the districts so that they should include a population of one type and common general interests and character, whereas Clause 52 simply directed the Quarter Sessions to adopt, as far as possible, electoral districts equal in population. Practically the hands of the magistrates were left absolutely unfettered; they could draw the lines wherever they chose. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Ripon Division (Mr. Wharton) said he never heard the action of the Quarter Sessions challenged. In the county he (Mr. Channing) had the honour to represent he had heard too many complaints of the action of the Quarter Sessions with regard to the arrangements of the polling districts in 1885 to acquiesce in that statement. In placing this power in the hands of the Quarter Sessions, the Government were placing a temptation in the hands of gentlemen, who, individually and as a class, were specially interested, to arrange the polling districts so as to obtain a majority favourable to their views at the first County Council. [Cries of "No, no!"] He should be very glad to hear the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the contrary. He thought that either by granting the right of appeal, or by setting out in Clause 52 more definite directions, the Government would do much to secure confidence in the impartiality of the arrangement of the electoral districts.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he could not help thinking that the opinions of some of his hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches were very much exaggerated. He entirely agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wharton)
  206
  as to the county of Durham. Durham was an intensely Radical county. It was a county, nevertheless, where a great majority of the magistrates were Conservatives—in fact, he did not know a place in England of which that was not true since the present Lord Chancellor came into power. But, notwithstanding this fact, the people of Durham had no reason to complain, and he did not believe they would have under the arrangement the Government now suggested. He was afraid when the last Reform Bill was under discussion that they would have some reason to complain; but after the experience they had had he was quite content. He knew it would be urged that their Commissioners were appointed. That was true. And it was said that now the arrangement of the polling districts rested with the Quarter Sessions. But what he particularly wanted to point out to the Liberals sitting near him was that the Quarter Sessions were closely bound up and regulated in the matter. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) referred to Clause 52. He could not think that the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken from the Front Opposition Bench had considered Clause 52 very carefully. He could not discuss the clause at this stage of the proceedings; but he might, perhaps, be allowed to state what were the regulations or conditions under which the Quarter Sessions must act. He found it was proposed that the first condition should be that the Quarter Sessions should arrange the divisions according to the population. More than that, he found that they must have regard to every present urban sanitary district and every rural sanitary district—that they must form their electoral divisions either by making one of these districts a division, if it were big enough, or by combining two or more if they were small, but it must not, and it should not, divide any one of these districts so as to jerrymander the constituency. Under these circumstances he said freely that there was no Quarter Sessions in the country he would not trust. He begged to suggest to his less Radical Friends that they should not get exaggerated fears on the point, but trust to Providence in the matter. Well, let him tell the Committee what happened in the County of Durham after the Reform Bill was passed. He did not—

  207
  a great many people did not—care what electoral divisions were made—they felt perfectly comfortable. They got eight divisions, and they felt perfectly sure that as long as the sun shone they would be able to send eight Radicals to Parliament. What happened? At the very first election two Liberal Unionists were returned. After that he came to the conclusion that it did not much matter what the Quarter Sessions or any body should arrange as to the polling districts. The opinions of a district were continually changing. There was nobody, not even the cleverest man amongst them, who would venture to foretell what would be the issue in the different counties. County matters would not be settled by considerations of Radicalism or Toryism. A great many other considerations would enter into the settlement. There would be plenty of opportunities of discussing all sorts of questions on this Bill, and, therefore, he suggested to his hon. Friends that this particular point might very safely be left to the Quarter Sessions.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had challenged him to devise a method by which it might be possible to do what they wished in the time which was permitted to them. In consequence of that challenge he would make a suggestion, and it was that Sub-section (c) should read in this way—
  "In the rest of the county the electoral divisions shall be such as in the case of a borough returning more than one councillor the council of the borough, and in the rest of the county the quarter sessions for the county, with the approval of the Local Government Board, may determine."
  All that would be necessary in that case would be that there should be a sufficient margin of time for the Local Government Board, using their own ample machinery, to revise, in the interests of the public, the determinations or the decisions of the Quarter Sessions of the various counties. He could not see that it would be impossible for the Local Government Board officials to perform their functions in the necessary time. He did not doubt the Quarter Sessions' impartiality, but he maintained that it was not advisable, under the circumstances, to put the Quarter Sessions in the position of having to act a judicial
  208
  part which some persons might think they performed with partiality. It must be borne in mind that the Quarter Sessions were the body who were going to be disestablished and displaced by the new County Councils, and it was not likely they would be considered by the public necessarily impartial in a matter of this kind. Why not save them from any possible imputation in the matter, which they could easily do by the insertion of the words "with the approval of the Local Government Board?"
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman knew well enough the multiplicity of duties which were at present placed on the shoulders of the Local Government Board; he knew perfectly well that the staff at the command of the Local Government Board was certainly not greater than was required to do the work. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed must mean either something or nothing. If it meant that, as a matter of course, the Local Government Board were to give their approval, it meant nothing. If it meant that they were to ascertain through their Inspectors, or by means of local inquiries, that the proposals for dividing the county into electoral districts were right and just as between one party and another, it meant more than the Local Government Board could possibly undertake. Therefore, he was very much afraid that the solution which the right hon. Gentleman proposed was one which would not get rid of the difficulty. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) had paid valuable testimony to the services which had hitherto been rendered by the Justices, and to the confidence which might be placed in their proper performance of the duties cast upon them by this clause. He (Mr. Ritchie) could hardly think that anyone who had studied Clause 52 could have the smallest fear either that Quarter Sessions would not do their duty, or that the way in which they did it would render them open to the slightest suspicion.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, the whole object of the Bill, as he understood it, was to take county government out of the hands of Quarter Sessions, and put it in the hands of the people. That was the broad democratic view Her Majesty's Government expressed, and yet one of their first

  209
  operations in Committee was to give to the Quarter Sessions the duty of arranging the electoral districts, and to provide that there should be no right of appeal. In the constituency which he had the honour to represent, the Quarter Sessions had arranged, in their wisdom, polling places which had given universal dissatisfaction. [Cries of "No, no!"] He was speaking of his own district. Hon. Gentlemen said "No, no!" but they knew nothing about the matter. He was sure he should be borne out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), who did know something about the subject, when he said the arrangement of the polling districts was a most crying evil. His (Sir John Swinburne's) constituents had made representations upon the subject, but all to no purpose. What happened in 1885 would happen in this case. And yet Her Majesty's Government refused them the slightest appeal, even to the Local Government Board. He sincerely hoped the Government would reconsider their decision. He could not add anything to what had been said by hon. Members sitting around him, except that it was very illogical that when they were taking the government of counties out of the hands of the Quarter Sessions they should give power to Quarter Sessions and allow no appeal.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAMsaid, he would not stand more than a minute or two between the Committee and a Division. He only wished to say how cordially he agreed with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). Gloucestershire Liberals could trust the Gloucestershire Quarter Sessions. The Quarter Sessions were not a body, in his county, who would do the shabby things suggested; and it would not pay them to do such things if they could do them. Even if a Quarter Sessions acted on Party lines, and put all the blue districts together and all the yellow districts together, they would fail to effect their object. He believed the Quarter Sessions could be trusted to do this work fairly. Personally, he would rather leave it to the Quarter Sessions than to the Local Government Board, which, of course, must be governed by the political Chiefs for the time being.
  MR. H. T. DAVENPORTsaid, he merely rose in
  210
  consequence of the observations of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Swinburne). He had the honour to represent a Division of Staffordshire, and he had also the honour of being a member of the Quarter Sessions. He was a member of the committee appointed to arrange the polling districts throughout Staffordshire under the Redistribution of Seats Act, and he asserted most distinctly that if there had been any complaint in any part of the county as to the unsuitability of the electoral arrangements he should have heard of it. He had never heard of any sort of complaint. He, therefore, protested most emphatically against the imputation the hon. Baronet had cast upon the Quarter Sessions of which he was a member.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, that in support of his original statement he had only to say that hundreds of men—miners—had at the last election to walk four miles in a pouring rain before they could record their votes.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 178; Noes 256: Majority 78.—(Div. List, No. 151.)
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he had to propose the addition of the wordsߞ
  "Provided that quarter sessions shall meet for such purposes in special session, at which any ratepayer shall be entitled to be heard."
  He assured the Committee he did not move this Amendment in any hostile sense. He was not desirous of making any charge against the magistrates, either in his own county or in other counties; but there was a feeling, certainly in Cornwall, that the ratepayers should have something to say in this important matter, and he thought it was only fair that they should have the right to represent their views at the Sessions at which the matter was to be settled. The President of the Local Government Board would not deny it would be necessary that a special session of the Quarter Sessions should be held for the purpose of fixing the boundaries; and all he (Mr. Conybeare) asked was that the ratepayers should be entitled to make their views known to the magistrates on this subject, just as they were entitled to be heard, and just as they were heard, by the Commission who fixed the electoral divisions under the Redistribution of Seats Act.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 22, at end of sub-section, add—"Provided that quarter sessions shall meet for such purpose in special session at which any ratepayer shall be entitled to be heard."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought the Quarter Sessions could be trusted to take right and proper steps for fulfilling the duty cast upon them under this clause without minute and special instructions such as the hon. Gentleman wished to give. Quarter Sessions had long been in the habit of exercising most important functions in their various counties, and everybody acknowledged that this Bill was not necessitated by any failure on their part to perform their duty adequately and well. To give the magistrates such minute instructions as that now proposed would be to cast an unnecessary slur upon them.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. He did not propose any instruction whatever; he merely asked that the ratepayers, who were certainly concerned in the matter just as much as the Quarter Sessions, should be entitled to represent their views as to the different points which might arise in the discussion of what was evidently in some respects a delicate matter.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he desired to propose an Amendment adapting the single transferable vote to the case of single-member elections, where no candidate received a clear majority of the votes given. In almost every country where the single-member system was in operation, it had been found necessary to adopt a system of second ballot. At a recent German General. Election there were second elections in some 25 percent. of the constituencies. In our rural elections it was likely that in many cases more than two candidates would stand. The plan proposed would obviate the expense of a second election by practically taking the two together. Suppose, forinstance, three candidates were standing. The elector would be allowed to indicate the order of his preference by marking the candidates respectively 1 and 2.
  212
  Suppose that out of 1,000 electors 400 voted for A, 350 for B, and 250 for C. Then C would be declared not elected, and his votes would be distributed between A and B, as indicated by the electors. In that manner they would secure that the representative returned was really the choice of a majority of the electors. His (Sir John Lubbock's) Friends with whom he acted regarded this as a matter of much importance, and hoped it would receive the attention of the Government. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board did not see his way to accept the suggestion, he (Sir John Lubbock) would not press it to a Division; but he hoped the Government would consider it before Report.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the Amendment. They had already had a discussion upon proportional representation, and this Amendment was somewhat akin to that subject. Of course, everything the hon. Baronet said merited consideration, but he (Mr. Ritchie) was afraid he could hold out but very faint hope of the Government adopting the present Amendment.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had evidently not considered the Amendment which had nothing whatever to do with proportional representation; its object was simply that no one should be elected who did not receive a majority of the votes. He would not, however, press the Amendment against the wish of the Government.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNEsaid, the object of the Amendment he had now to propose was that the Chairman of the Council should always be one of the elected Councillors. It would be seen that if the Chairman was not one of the elected Councillors he might not be in accord with the majority of the time.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 30, insert—"(a) He shall be one of the elected councillors."—(Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that as the Committee had adopted the proposal in the Bill in reference to the aldermanic

  213
  element it would be casting a very unnecessary slur upon the Aldermen if they were to say that none of them should be the Chairman of the Council. It would be strictly unfair to say that a selected Councillor should not be able to rise to the highest position in the Council.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 282: Majority 131.—(Div. List, No. 152.)
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that when he put down the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper which would provide for enlarging the term of office of the Chairman of the County Council from three years to six, he had put another down dealing with the form in which the Council was to be elected; and as the Committee had rejected a similar Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), he did not think it would be advisable to enter into the question of the duration of the Chairman's term of office until they knew what the Government intended to do in regard to the decision arrived at on Monday night. He did not propose, therefore, to move his Amendment.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the next Amendment which was in his name was in principle directed to the same point as the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had just declined to move. His (Mr. Conybeare's) proposal was that the Chairman of the County Council should hold office not for three years but for one year, and should be eligible for re-election. This proposal was a very simple one, and he thought they were entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who was constantly quoting to them the Municipal Corporations Act, why he had not, in the case of the duration of the term of office of the Chairman of the County Council, followed the rule laid down in that Act with regard to the Chairman of a Municipal Council? The Chairmen of Borough Councils were elected for one year, and he had never heard that the system had worked badly. He had frequently heard of Mayors who had properly fulfilled their duties being re-
  214
  elected. He could quote many cases in Cornwall where they had been re-elected after having satisfactorily gone through their first term of office. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board could have no good reason for departing from the model he had chosen to follow in the whole of this Bill. If he did not adopt the principle of this or some similar Amendment, it would appear that the right hon. Gentleman had some hidden motive for not adhering to the popular term which hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House were disposed to advocate.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 31, to leave out the words "three years," and insert "one year, but he should be eligible for re-election."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman opposite for asking the question he had done, as to why he (Mr. Ritchie) had not followed the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act, and he trusted the explanation he would give would be satisfactory. He desired to explain that under the Municipal Corporations Act each electoral division had three members, and one of those retired each year. There was thus an infusion of one-third of the whole electoral body into the Council every year, which materially altered the constitution of the Council; and the reason why, under the Municipal Corporations Act, a Mayor retained office for only one year was to give an opportunity to the new members who had lately joined the Council to record their votes in the choice of a Chairman. As the hon. Member would see, the reason they had adopted the term of three years in the present Bill was that it had been so far decided by the Committee that the whole body of the Councillors should retire every three years. The analogy, so far as that point was concerned, between the present Bill and the Municipal Corporations Act was not complete.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.)said, it seemed to him that the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Go-

  215
  vernment Board for departing from the principle of the Municipal Corporations Act was a very unsatisfactory one. He desired to get a better reason from the right hon. Gentleman than that which he had given. The one-year system had been tried in England; but in Scotland, where they managed these things much better, they had adopted the three-years' system. That plan gave great satisfaction; it afforded greater stability to their Municipal Institutions; and under it they were not so much in the hands of Town Clerks and local officials. The Provost at the head of a Scotch Municipality was more independent than an English Mayor, who, being elected annually, fell more into the hands of the permanent officials.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he did not think the boroughs of England would be likely to favour the idea of departing from the time-honoured system of annually electing their Mayor, and he must express his astonishment that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had not followed the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act in the present Bill. He (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) desired to call attention to this point—that it was now the practice of that Body which governed our county affairs to elect its Chairman every year. The Annual Session of the County of Lancaster elected its Chairman every year. It was true that the Annual Session had chosen the same Chairman for many years, and if annual elections were adopted in the case of the Chairmen of County Councils no doubt the same practice would prevail. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply just now, had assumed that the arrangement of the Bill would result in the County Councils remaining intact for three years, when there would be a change in them. He (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth) thought, however, from what was proposed the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, they were to understand that that subject was to be reconsidered by the Government. He thought some hope was held out that a third of the Council would have to be re-elected every two years. If that were so, it would point to the Chairman holding office for a less period than three years. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman
  216
  to follow the precedent of the elections in connection with the Annual Session of Lancaster.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he quite understood that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury gave an undertaking that the Government would reconsider the term for which the County Councillors were to be elected; and, of course, if that point were reconsidered, and an alteration were made in that part of the Bill, he recognized that it was right and fitting that some proposal should also be made with reference to the term of office of the Chairman; but until the three years' term of office for Councillors was altered he thought it would be better to adhere to the proposal in the Bill.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment for the moment on a distinct understanding being come to on this point. He quite understood what had been pointed out by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth)—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had practically promised to reconsider the question as to the position of the County Aldermen, and had expressed himself in favour of the view that there should be Councils elected for a period of six years, a third retiring by rotation every two years. He mentioned that merely to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board what appeared to him very clear—namely, that if they retained the provision for a three-years' term of office by the Chairman, it would not square with the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury appeared to be prepared to recommend. He should like to ask whether the Government would place their final proposal before the Committee before they concluded Section 2, as he was not at all clear that it would be advisable to wait for the Report stage on the whole Bill, because, according to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, it would be a long time before they arrived at that stage. If the Government would promise to bring up their proposals as to the Councils generally, which would involve the determination of the question of the Chairman's term of office, before the Question was put that Clause 2 stand

  217
  part of the Bill, he would not press his Amendment to a Division. However, unless the Government were prepared to give the Committee an opportunity of considering and settling this important point, he should feel it his duty, if he met with any support on that (the Opposition) side of the House, to take a Division.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY) (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that what he had undertaken was to reconsider the question referred to between the Committee stage and the Report stage of the Bill, and to make a statement to the House on Report. He could not undertake to do more than that.
  MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, he could not see that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) was at all bound up with the tenure of office of the elective Councillors. If a Council which was elected for three years had to elect its Chairman for one year, the same Council could re-elect a Chairman if it thought him a suitable man. It seemed to him that it would be a more sensible plan that they should have the Chairman elected for one year, and eligible for re-election if he desired it. They would have entirely new Councils brought together, and largely composed of new men unaccustomed to work together, and there would be a great difficulty in finding out who was the best man for Chairman when they met. It would be a pity that they should be saddled for any length of time with an unsuitable man; therefore, the term of office should not be a long one. Of course, as he had pointed out, if the Chairman elected for a year was found to be suitable, he could be re-elected as often as it was thought desirable. He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division would persist in his Amendment and divide the Committee upon it, not only because the question of the length of the term of office of the Councillors was to be deferred for a long time—a fact which he was very sorry for—but also because he could not see that the two questions were in any way bound up with one another.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the
  218
  First Lord of the Treasury whether it would not be more convenient to the Committee, and quite as convenient for the Government, if he made his statement when they came to Clause 36, which dealt with the application of the Act to the Metropolis as County of London?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he certainly would endeavour to give the Committee the earliest information on the matter, but he only reminded the Committee of what was the understanding arrived at a few days ago, and he thought it always desirable that Parliamentary understandings should literally be adhered to.
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, the objection to frequent elections in the case of Councillors was that it would lead to great expense; but that objection could not apply to the election of a Chairman. He would put it to the Government that having established, in the first place, that the election of Councillors should not be frequent on the ground, of expense, it was inconsequent to insist that the Committee had come to a conclusion on this point, which was an entirely different matter.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, that the original proposal was that the life of the Council should be three years, and that that period should be the tenure of office of the Chairman, and he trusted the Government would not yield to pressure, but would stick to that.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, as there was some doubt as to the Scotch example, he desired to say that the Committee should consider that the County Councils were not only to be deliberative Bodies, but Bodies to replace the present deliberative Bodies of the counties. Well, it was impossible that they should have an efficient administrative functionary if they were continually chopping and changing. To have an efficient administrator at the head of their county they must have a man who had some chance of showing his administrative powers. He hoped the Government would very seriously consider this matter before they yielded to pressure.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, he had some hesitation in addressing the Committee after the very modest speech they had just heard from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy as to the value of the example he had placed

  219
  before them. The hon. Member did not seem to be aware of the fact that they had a custom in England, when a gentleman was elected to a responsible position, and gained the confidence of his fellows in that position, to re-elect him on the expiration of his term of office. But, by making the election an annual one, instead of having it every three years, it had given those on whom rested the duty of making the choice an opportunity of getting rid of a man who, instead of being capable of the discharge of the functions of his office, proved himself what was commonly called a bore. Annual elections enabled electors to get rid of persons they did not care for, and to try the experiment of putting other men in their places who might be more capable than those they succeeded. He thought this was one of those instances in which the Government had departed from their model—the Municipal Corporations Act—in a manner which they were not to be congratulated upon. It seemed to him that they were most unfortunate when they swerved from the principles of the Municipal Corporations Act, because such a departure was always in the direction pointed out by Conservative policy.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he hoped the Government would stick to the term in the Bill, and leave the whole question open to be decided when the Committee knew what the view of the Government was as to the term of office of the County Councillors.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid, that the Chairmanship of School Boards was a good example to justify the proposal of a three years' tenure of office by the Chairman of a County Council. But, supposing the term of office in the Bill for County Councillors was altered to six years, a third of them retiring every two years, he should strongly object to the Chairman being elected for six years. However, when they came to discuss the question as to whether the Councillors should be elected for three years or six years, they would be able to decide the question of the term of office of the Chairman with fuller information. If some understanding as to the course to be adopted was not come to by the Government he should not be able to vote with them.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that when the proposal in regard to County Councils came up, whether the proposal were adopted or not, that would be the time for the Committee to consider whether the three years' term of office in the case of Chairmen should remain or not. The Government were strongly in favour of the three years' term. They thought that good would be done by adopting the proposal as it stood in the Bill in giving stability. There would be greater stability given to a presiding officer by allowing him to hold office for three years than in making the term simply one year.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAMsaid, he wished to point out that Boards of Guardians and Local Boards of Health appointed their Chairman once a-year. He had the honour to be a member of a Local Board, whose deliberations were presided over by a Chairman who had held office for 16 years; but then he was re-elected annually. It seemed to him that it would be a greater honour to a Chairman to be elected annually than to be appointed for a number of years.
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, that where they would only be able to get one man who would serve as as Chairman for three years they would be able to get 10 to serve for one year. The difficulty would be to get men of honour and ability, and with spare cash at their command, who would take the responsible position of a Chairman of a County Council, and he was confident the Committee would be limiting the choice of the Councillors by making the term of office three years.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 260; Noes 178: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 153.)
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he begged to propose Amendment No. 103, standing in his name, which was as follows:—In page 2, line 31, after "and," insert "he shall by virtue of his office be a justice of the peace for the county."
  MR. RITCHIE: Agreed, agreed!
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 31, after the word "and," insert the words "he shall by virtue of his office be a justice of the peace for the county."—(Mr. Henage.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he begged to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), to leave out the following paragraph:—"(c) He must be qualified to be a justice of the peace for the county; and."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 32, leave out paragraph (c).—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he begged to move Amendment No. 116 standing in his name.
  MR. HENEAGErose to Order. He desired to move to leave out paragraph (d.), which was as follows:—
  "He shall, by virtue of his office, be a justice of the peace for the county, and if there is any liberty or borough in the county having a separate commission of the peace, for that liberty or borough also, and shall, unless disqualified to be chairman of the county council, continue to be such a justice during the year immediately after he ceases to hold his office."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 34, to leave out paragraph (d.)—(Mr. Heneage.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had received representations from many boroughs which would render it desirable that these words should not be retained. He would, therefore, agree to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he wished to know, as a matter of Order, whether it would be competent for him now to move his Amendment, No. 116, which had reference to the paragraph the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) proposed to leave out? The Chairman had called upon him just now to move his Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the paragraph is struck out, of course the hon. Member's Amendment will fall to the ground.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he had not the smallest objection to the omission of the paragraph; but he thought, as a matter of Order, that as the Chairman
  222
  had called upon him he ought to have been permitted to make his statement upon the Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the hon. Member's Amendment would be altogether unnecessary, as, by the omission of the sub-section, the object he had in view would be secured.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he thought there was some misunderstanding in the matter.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he now had to move Amendment No. 124—namely, at the end of Clause 2, to add—
  "(e.) He shall be entitled to receive as salary during the term of his office such sum, not exceeding pounds per annum, as the council may determine."
  He had left a blank for the amount of salary the Chairman would be paid supposing the Amendment were carried; but he certainly thought that the Chairman should receive a salary of some kind or other, as a great deal of work would be thrown upon his shoulders. He would, in all probability, be an ex officio member of all Standing Committees and most of the permanent Committees connected with the County Council, which would occupy a great deal of his time and impose upon him a large amount of labour; and, under the circumstances, it was very desirable that he should receive remuneration. He submitted the Amendment in the belief that it would be difficult to find men who would accept all the onerous duties of the office of Chairman unless there was something in the nature of emolument attached to that position.
  THE CHAIRMANasked how the hon. Gentleman proposed to fill up his blank?
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he was not so well versed in the question of salaries to public officials as some hon. and right hon. Members opposite. He did not wish to make the remuneration equal to that attached to Cabinet rank in the Ministry; but if the omission in the Amendment interfered with its admissibility he would get rid of the blank by striking out the words "not exceeding pounds per annum," which would make the Amendment read "such sum as the council may determine." If this was not acceptable he would fill in the

  223
  blank with a nominal amount, say £300 a-year.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, at end of the Clause to add the words:—(e.) "He shall be entitled to receive as salary during the term of his office such sum as the council may determine."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  MR. CONYBEARErose to move Amendment 126, as follows:—
  In page 2, at end, to add—(6) "From and after the passing of this Act every justice of the peace shall be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of the county upon the recommendation of the county council, and every parish shall be entitled to nominate, and, through the elected representatives on the county council, to demand the appointment of one or more of such persons as they may deem fit to act as resident justices of the peace for the said parishes. And the selected councillors shall in every case be taken from among the local justices of the peace so nominated and appointed as aforesaid."
  It would, perhaps, be rather dangerous for him to remark upon this Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment No. 126 is out of Order, and I therefore call upon the hon. Member to move Amendment No. 127.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that the next Amendment on the Paper, No. 127, was in his name, and he should certainly like to say something in explanation of the proposal contained in it, which he believed was a novel one. The Amendment was as follows:—In page 2, at end, add—
  "(5.) As respects the standing committee of the councillors—
  (a) The county council shall elect by ballot from among its own members a standing committee, for the purposes of superintending the administration of the county in the intervals of the sittings of the county council, and of regulating and controlling the county finance;
  (b.) The term of office of a member of the standing committee shall be three years;
  On the ordinary day of election of the member of the standing committee in every year, one-third of the whole number of the standing committee shall go out of office and their place shall be filled by election;
  The third to go out shall be the members of the standing committee who have been longest in office;
  (c.) If the county districts are less than in number, then so far as is possible one member at least of the standing committee shall be chosen from each
  224
  county district, that is to say, he shall be either an elective councillor returned by or a selected councillor residing in an electoral division comprised in or comprising or consisting of the county district from which he shall be deemed to be chosen. If the county districts are or more than in number, then the county council shall from time to time combine the county districts or some of them into groups for the purposes of this section, and so far as is possible one member at least of the standing committee shall be chosen in the manner before mentioned from each of the county districts (if any) which have not been included in any such group of county districts, and one member at least of the standing committee shall be chosen from each of such groups of county districts as if each of such group of county districts were a single county district;
  (d.) On a casual vacancy upon the standing committee arising, an election shall be held in the same manner as an election to fill an ordinary vacany, and the councillor elected shall continue to be a member of the standing committee until the councillor in whose place he is elected would regularly have ceased to be a member of the standing committee, and he shall then cease to be a member of the standing committee;
  (e.) The chairman of the county council shall be ex officio a member of the standing committee during his term of office;
  (f.) At every meeting of the standing committee the chairman of the county council, if present, shall be chairman. If the chairman of the county council is absent, then such member of the standing committee as the members of the standing committee then present shall choose shall be chairman;
  (g.) The standing committee shall from time to time make standing orders for the regulation of their proceedings and business, and may from time to time vary or revoke the same; but any standing orders so made, and any decision of the standing committee for varying or revoking the same, shall be submitted to the county council for their approval;
  (h.) There shall be paid to each member of the standing committee out of the county fund, as a general county purpose, a sum not exceeding one pound sterling per day during his attendance at the sittings of the committee."
  Though there was a great deal to be said for it, he would prefer to let the question stand over till to-morrow, as the hour for adjournment had almost arrived. He would, therefore, move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to press the Motion, as it seemed to him (Mr. Ritchie) that if the hon. Member desired to take the decision of the Committee on the Amendment it would be much more convenient to do so at a later stage of the Bill. It was hardly germane to the present clause, and would be more appropriately dealt with when they arrived at that part referring to the instructions given to the County Council. He understood that the hon. Gentleman desired to enact that there should be Standing Committees, and that point could be fairly discussed at a subsequent stage. If the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion they would probably be able to get through Clause 2 that night.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he certainly could not explain what he desired to effect by this Amendment in the three minutes which was left to them before the hour at which the House, by the new Rules, must adjourn. He was not sure that they could not have discussed the principle contained in the Amendment before proceeding to other parts of the Bill, and it seemed to him that it would have been desirable to have the principle of this Amendment in their minds before discussing the question of the control of the police; but he would yield to the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, asking him to be kind enough to state upon what clause his Amendment could best be discussed.
  MR. RITCHIE: I think Clause 78 (Incorporation of County Council).
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Motion?
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he would withdraw the Motion on the Paper, and would move it on Clause 78.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I mean the Motion for reporting Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCEsaid, the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for the Lonsdale Division of Lancashire (Mr. Ainslie) was an important one, and had been put down at the request of the Lancashire magistrates; but as it would not be possible to discuss it that night, perhaps the Government would undertake to consider it, with a view to its acceptance at a later stage.
  226
  It was as follows:—In page 2, at end, add—
  "As respects the vice-chairman of council, it shall be the duty of the chairman, as soon as may be after his election as chairman, to appoint a councillor to act as vice-chairman during the illness or absence of the chairman, and to till any vacancy which may occur in the office of vice-chairman. A vice-chairman may, while acting as such, do all acts which the chairman as such might do, and shall be entitled to take the chair at any meeting of the council at which the chairman is not present."
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that this was an important matter, in which a great number of people in Lancashire were interested. There seemed to be no power in the Bill, as it stood, to enable a County Council to appoint a Vice-Chairman, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of creating such a power on Report.
  MR. RITCHIEassented.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

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

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, he did not now propose to ask the House to proceed with the Bill, but desired to make a short statement. Some of his hon. Friends in Committee suggested that it would be only right that when an appeal was allowed to the Public Prosecutor that some allowance should be made to meet the costs of prisoners defending themselves against such appeal. It was a matter not quite within the discretion of the Lord Advocate; but he had communicated with the Treasury, and they saw no objection to costs in such cases being allowed.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKMEN BILL.— [BILL 145.]
(Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Attorney General Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Forwood.)

COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for going into Committee on the said Bill be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Law, &c."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
MR. W. ABRAHAMasked, was there any proposition for adding representatives of the working classes to the Committee in relation to the Bill?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that was a matter for the Committee of Selection.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLERKS OF THE PEACE BILL.
(Mr. Brunner, Mr. Tatton Egerton, Captain Cotton, Mr. Walter M'Laren.)

[BILL 185. COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. BRUNNERsaid, he desired to give the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) an opportunity of expressing his intention in regard to this Bill, and, to put himself in Order for the purpose, he would formally move that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair.
Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"—(Mr. Brunner,)—put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Appointment of deputy clerk of the peace in case of incapacity, &c., of the clerk).
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS), said, he hoped the hon. Member did not propose to go through the clauses now. [Mr. BRUNNER: No.] He (Mr. Matthews) was not opposed to the principle of the Bill, and had, indeed, intended to bring in a larger measure to allow deputies to be appointed, not only for Clerks of the Peace, but Stipendiary Magistrates.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Brunner,)—put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 281.]
(Mr. Chance, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Maurice Healy.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN) (Dublin Unisity)said, the Government did not object to the second reading of this Bill, which was to remove a technical difficulty found to exist in the working of the Court of Appeal. It might be necessary to propose certain Amendments in Committee; but, so far as he was concerned, he saw no objection to the second reading.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, might he ask what the Bill was about? It was somewhat unusual to take a second reading without the slightest explanation.
MR. MADDENsaid, it was rather for the promoters to state the object; but he might say, shortly, it was to enable the Court of Appeal in Ireland to enforce orders in certain cases by issuing writs. It was found in practice that where cases could not be remitted to the Court of First Instance to issue writs the case had to remain with the Court of Appeal, and the Bill was intended to supply the defect. So far as he had examined the Bill, it appeared to be a useful measure, introduced by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny (Mr. Chance). In matters of detail it might require Amendment, but he did not oppose the second reading.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he had a great objection to all Bills introduced by lawyers for reforming the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, though the Court needed reform. But if the object of the Bill was limited, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said and he approved, he (Mr. T. W. Russell) would not object.
MR. MADDENsaid, the hon. Member would understand that he did not introduce the Bill, nor assented to the second reading.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

ENNISKILLEN, BUNDORAN, AND SLIGO RAILWAY BILL [REPAYMENT OF DEPOSIT].
Resolution [June 13] reported.
"That it is expedient to authorise the repayment of the sum of Three thousand two hundred and seventy-five pounds Three Pounds per Centum Consolidated Annuities, being the sum deposited in respect of the application to Parliament for 'The Enniskillen, Bundoran, and Sligo Railway (Donegal Extension) and Enniskillen and Bundoran Extension Railway (Abandonment) Act, 1879,' which in pursuance of section thirty-six of that Act is now forfeited, together with any interest or dividends thereon."
Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Debate arising.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

BRISTOL PORT EXTENSION RAILWAYS [CANCELLATION OF BOND].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the release of the sum of Seventy-seven thousand and twelve pounds three shillings, the amount of the Bond, dated 29th July, 1864, entered into by the Bristol Port Extension Railway Company and Charles Waring (since deceased) and Henry Waring, under the provisions of Section 48 of "The Bristol Port Extension Railways Act, 1864," and that the Solicitor to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall deliver up to Henry Waring and the Executors of the late Charles Waring, or either of them, the said Bond in order to the cancelling thereof.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.