Commons Sitting of 19 June 1888

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—John Sinclair, esquire, for the Ayr District of Burghs.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Third Reading—Alabama Great Southern Railway *; Birmingham and Henley-in-Arden Railway*; Bristol Port Extension Railways*; Oxford, Aylesbury, and Metropolitan Junction Railway.*
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Bishop's Authority Regulation* [300].
Committee—Local Government (England and Wales) [182] [Eighth Night]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Customs (Wine Duty) [293].
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS—Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) (Coleraine, &c.)* [297].
Considered as amended—Tramways (No. 2)* [242].

QUESTIONS.

  PASSENGERS ACT—HOSPITALS OF PASSENGER-CARRYING STEAMERS.
  DR. TANNERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Under what circumstances are hospitals on board Transatlantic and foreign-bound passenger carrying steamers permitted to be used, and for what purposes other than hospital purposes; by what means can the Board prevent and detect infringement of its Rules on such vessels after the steamer has left port; on how many Transatlantic steamers are there dispensaries properly fitted up and apart from the hospital or surgeon's room; are precautions always taken
  576
  that the hospitals are so situated that sick and injured can always, and in all weather, be readily taken there without undue risk or exposure, and do any Rules exist having regard to the location of such hospitals; and, are precautions taken by the Board of Trade Inspectors with respect to the relative positions of the surgeon's cabin and hospitals, that the latter shall be in every weather easy of access to the medical officer?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, he had no knowledge of any cases in which the hospital spaces in the vessels coming under the Passengers Act had been permitted to be used for other than hospital purposes; but in cases of emergency—such as the rescue of a crew and passengers of another ship—any space not required for patients might possibly be so utilized. The Board of Trade had no means of preventing or detecting infringements of its Rules after a vessel had left port; but if any evidence was brought to his notice which would justify a prosecution he would certainly act upon it. The Board of Trade had no power to institute any requirements as to the fitting up or situation of the dispensaries on the Transatlantic steamers; but he understood that the Rules laid down in the Passengers Act were complied with, and that dispensaries were so situated that patients could, in all weathers, be readily taken there without undue risk or exposure. He could give the hon. Member no information as to the relative positions of surgeons' cabin and hospitals. The Board of Trade had no power in the matter.
  DR. TANNERasked, with reference to the first portion of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, whether it was only under such circumstances as he had described that hospital accommodation would be used in these vessels?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that was his belief. He had made the best inquiry in his power into the matter, and he had told the hon. Member all he knew. He would promise the hon. Member that if any infringement that would warrant a prosecution were brought under his notice a prosecution would be at once begun.
  DR. TANNERexplained that he had asked repeatedly this Question, in the hope that the Rules of the Board of

  577
  Trade would be carried out; and he did it for the benefit of poor emigrants who could not possibly have time to get their grievances remedied themselves.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not at all complain of the hon. Gentleman's Question. He should be happy to have his attention called to any infringement of the Rules that occurred, and would do everything in his power to enforce the law.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—INTERFERENCE OF THE POLICE WITH STREET NEWSPAPER VENDORS 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 Bride-well 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): A man named Denis Desmond, described as a porter, and who was a considerable time ago a newsvendor, was arrested by Constable Lambert on a charge of drunkenness, and subsequently committed to prison in default of payment of a fine of 5s. Denis M'Carthy and John Radley were arrested by Sergeant Power, not for refusing in either case to sell a copy of any newspaper, but for street obstruction and refusing to move on. Cornelius Coakley does not appear to have been arrested at all by Sergeant Power. He was, however, summoned by Constable Barber for stone-throwing in the streets, and fined 5s. Bartholomew (not Patrick) Bradley was arrested, not by Sergeant Power but by Constable Donoghue, for street obstruction, and discharged at the police-court with a caution. Patrick Carleton was not arrested by Sergeant O'Leary, nor can his arrest for any offence be traced. Michael Murphy states that some time ago a policeman gave his box a kick without any cause, but did not touch himself, and that it had nothing to do with the sale of a paper to the policeman. None of the persons named were, therefore, arrested in connection with the sale of, or refusal to sell, the papers, but for other offences; and on the occasion of two of these persons being before the police-court, one of the Local Justices is reported to have said that—
  "He took that opportunity of stating that the misconduct of newsvendors in the streets of the city was becoming intolerable, and should be put a stop to."
  MR. FLYNNsaid, arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, if he laid before the right hon. Gentleman affidavits by the following persons with regard to certain circumstances, would he then undertake to institute the independent inquiry which he had asked for—namely, that Denis Desmond, mentioned in this Question, refused to sell a copy of a newspaper to the constable mentioned. The constable said to him—"I will make you give it. Come along with me." He then took him into custody, and on the way to the Bride-well he asked him—"Will you give me the paper before I put you in?" and having taken the boy as far as the Bridewell he then released him. The

  579
  affidavit also of John Radley, 17 years of age, who has been selling papers in Cork for a number of years, stated that he was arrested by Sergeant Power, also mentioned in the Question, because he refused to sell him a copy of The Cork Examiner. He was arrested and taken to the Bridewell.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now exceeding the limits of a Question. He is simply making a counter statement.
  MR. FLYNNasked the right hon. Gentleman if he laid these affidavits before him would he grant the inquiry?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he should be delighted to consider any information the hon. Member laid before him.
  MR. SHEEHYasked, what was the meaning of the expression "street obstruction?"
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, it was a well understood definition; but he did not like to give any express meaning to it.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, with reference to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that these arrests were made for street obstruction, he wished to ask him if it were not the fact that the question of obstruction of the streets had been always left by the Authorities in the hands of the Corporation of Cork; and, also, whether it was not a fact that the arrests on various pretences of men and boys selling newspapers had only begun since the right hon. Gentleman desired to suppress the sale of certain newspapers in Ireland; and, further, whether the arrests of newspaper vendors in Ireland had been discontinued or not?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he did not quite catch the drift of the Question. He apprehended that it was the duty of the police to see that street obstruction did not take place.
  MR. FLYNN: Arising out of that answer—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! Mr. Harris.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)—A TOWN HALL, &c. FOR BALLINASLOE.
  MR. SHEEHY(for Mr. HARRIS) (Galway, E.) asked 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
  580
  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 CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Town Clerk at Ballinasloe states that inconvenience is felt for want of a Town Hall; also that the two Halls referred to are used for commercial purposes; and further, that the landlord of the Agricultural Hall had refused to dispossess the present tenant when the Town Commissioners asked him to rent the building to them. The Local Government Board will give due attention to any application made to them by the Ballinasloe Town Commissioners to sanction a loan to provide a building for a Town Hall. The Board have no further power in the matter.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)—A PUBLIC NUISANCE IN BALLINASLOE.
  MR. SHEEHY(for Mr. HARRIS) (Galway, E.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that 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

  581
  Board interfere and cause the removal of those sheds, and thus prevent the expense of a law-suit?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): It appears that the Town Commissioners have made representations to the landlord of the nature indicated in the Question, and that he has declined to act on them for the reasons stated. The Town Clerk, however, reports that at present no offensive odours are emitted from the premises referred to, as the owner has taken steps to keep them in a cleanly condition. The Ballinasloe Urban Sanitary Authority have extensive powers under the Public Health Act to deal with the case of nuisances arising within their district, and it is their duty to remedy any such state of things.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, would the Assistant Commissioner be making any inquiry at Ballinasloe as to the market tolls there?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he could not answer the Question without Notice.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—IMMIGRATION OF DESTITUTE LABOURERS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that the Toronto Trades and Labour Council complain that the immigration into Canada of destitute labourers from Great Britain is encouraged by persons in England describing themselves as Government agents; whether William Barlow, of 106a, Market Street, Manchester, correctly describes himself as "Government Immigration Agent," and as "appointed passage broker by the Board of Trade;" and, whether representations circulated by William Barlow as to the state of the labour market in Canada have any official sanction?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, he could give no information as to immigration to Canada. That was rather a Question for the Colonial Department. He gathered from newspaper reports that the Toronto Trades and Labour Council had made the complaint referred to in the Question. The person named William Barlow mentioned in the Question was not, as far as he could learn, included in the records of the Office in
  582
  the list of licensed passage brokers, who were licensed by the local magistrates under the sanction of the Board; but he was informed that several licensed passage brokers had appointed Barlow as their agent.

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION—EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
  MR. HOZIERasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the sum of £1,429, referred to in last Tuesday's evidence before the Joint Committee on Private Bill Legislation, as having been paid to the Glasgow Boundaries Commissioners and their clerks, was paid by the Treasury or by the City of Glasgow?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The sum in question was paid by the City of Glasgow.
  MR. HOZIER: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the Lord Advocate whether it is customary for one of the parties interested in the decision of a Commission to recompense the Members of the Commission?
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I am not aware.

  INLAND REVENUE—ENGLISH-GROWN TOBACCO.
  MR. CRILLYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been directed to an exhaustive experiment made by Messrs. Cope and Co. in the manufacture of an extensive crop of English tobacco grown by Messrs. Carter and Co.; and, whether he will cause an inquiry by experts into the results attending the experiment, with the view, if possible, of relaxing the fiscal restrictions upon the culture of tobacco in Great Britain and Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Experiments have been made by Messrs. Carter and Co. in the manufacture of cut and roll tobacco from English-grown leaf. Great care appears to have been exercised in the manufacture of the article; but according to the best information which I have been able to obtain, the result has not been very satisfactory. The tobacco is stated to

  583
  be deficient in flavour and character; but I should be sorry to use any words which would discourage such experiments being tried. I think that it is only experience which will show the value to smokers of this tobacco. No inquiry by experts would be so valuable as a practical test by hon. Members accustomed to smoke; and if hon. Members wish it a sample of this tobacco will be placed in the Smoking Room. I am afraid there can be no change in the Fiscal Regulations, which are not at present unnecessarily stringent. I am anxious to facilitate the progress of these experiments; but the revenue from tobacco is so large that it is impossible to make any form of relaxation that would in no way threaten the Revenue.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—REMOVAL OF SHERIFF CLERK DEPUTE FROM TOBERMORY TO OBAN.
  COLONEL MALCOLMasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is a fact that the Sheriff Clerk Depute has been removed from Tobermory to Oban, and has taken with him all the ordinary business, or processes in existence, or connected with the Crofting Registry; and, if this is correct, whether he will direct such business to be returned to Tobermory?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The Sheriff Clerk Depute who was formerly at Tobermory is now removed to Oban, which is to be the seat of the Court for the district; but there will be a Sheriff Clerk Depute at Tobermory, and I shall make inquiry as to the arrangements to be made to prevent any avoidable inconvenience in consequence of the change.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPLICATIONS FOR FAIR RENTS IN BANTRY DISTRICT.
  MR. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether 400 originating notices to have fair rents fixed have been served in the Bantry District on or about last September; whether only 24 have been listed for hearing; and, whether, in view of the fact that
  584
  several of the landlords in that district have taken legal proceedings to recover the present exorbitant rents, he will provide a remedy for this state of affairs?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The Land Commissioners inform mo there were 214 applications to fix fair rents lodged with them during the month of September last by tenants in the Poor Law Union of Bantry. A Sub-Commission has been working in the County of Cork since November 1 last, and will continue there until the end of July; but the Commissioners have been unable, consistently with the claims of other Unions, to list more than 25 cases from the Bantry Union. That number includes all applications lodged up to September 26 last. As regards the concluding portion of the Question, the District Inspector of Constabulary reports that, so far as he can at present ascertain, no landlords have taken proceedings to recover rent in the Bantry District in the manner alleged.
  MR. GILHOOLYsaid, he was in possession of information to the effect that landlords were taking legal proceedings against these tenants for the recovery of the exorbitant rents.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he should be happy to receive any information that the hon. Gentleman could lay before him.

  WAR OFFICE—FOLKESTONE JUBILEE HOSPITAL—SALE OF LAND IN THE BAYLE.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in respect to the Folkestone Jubilee Hospital, he will decide, without delay, either not to sell the site of the disused battery on the "Bayle" at Folkestone for any purposes whatever, or to sell it for the purposes of the much-needed hospital at a price to be stated, or to put it up to auction; and, whether he is aware that the provision of this Jubilee Hospital has been delayed, for want of a site, for a year and a quarter?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD Of the TREASURY)(who replied) said: It is not yet decided whether the site of the battery on the

  585
  Bayle shall be sold or not; but if it is, it will be sold by public auction.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—COUNTY COURT DEPARTMENT, WARWICK—FAILURE OF MESSRS. GREENWAYS' BANK.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any, and what, funds belonging to the Warwick County Court Department were in the hands of Green-ways' Bank at the time of its stoppage; whether such funds stood in the bankers' books as a public or private account; and, whether any loss to the public will arise therefrom?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The sum of £362 8s. 11 d. belonging to the Warwick County Court Department was in the hands of Green-ways' Bank at the time of its stoppage. It stood in the bank books in the name of the Registrar quâ Registrar; and only Court moneys were paid into the account, and only drafts in respect of the Court were drawn upon it. The amount of loss to the public will depend upon the realization of the estate.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked, whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that the Registrar of the Court was a partner of the defaulting bankers?
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he did not know whether that was so or not. He was having the whole of the circumstances investigated, with the view of ascertaining whether any further steps should be taken.

  POLICE COURTS (METROPOLIS)—ACCOMMODATION OF PRISONERS AWAITING TRIAL.
  MR. T. FIELDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has yet received a Report from the Committee which he appointed to inquire into the accommodation of prisoners awaiting trial at the Metropolitan Police Courts and at other Courts of Summary Jurisdiction; and, if so, whether he proposes to lay the Report before Parliament?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS), in reply, said, he had received the Report, which should be laid on the Table.

  THE CONSTABULARY FORCE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE FIRST REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS IN 1839.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether in view of the importance of circulating correct information as to the County Constabulary and the principles on which the present establishments were founded, he will order the First Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the best means of establishing an efficient Constabulary Force in the Counties of England and Wales, presented in 1839, to be reprinted?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said, the Report was of a voluminous character, and its production would be very costly. In view of the fact that all questions affecting the Constabulary in counties would be settled by the House before it could be published, he did not think any advantage would accrue, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not press for it.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTION AT CLOGHER.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following account of an eviction in Ireland, which is taken from a London paper:—
  "An eviction was carried out yesterday on the property of Mr. Montroy Gledstanes Fardross, Clogher, telegraphs our Dublin correspondent. Nearly 40 police were in attendance. The evicted family numbers six members. One, a blind boy, received the last sacrament last evening, and the father, an old man of 80 years, was so weak and ill as to appear utterly unconscious of what was going on around him. Another son besought the Sub-Sheriff (Mr. McKelvey) to delay the removal of the father from bed till the parish priest might be sent for, as the arrival of McKelvey had taken the family by surprise, but the officer was inexorable. The old man was then transferred from his bed to a cart, in which he was conveyed to the house of a son-in-law, where he received the last sacrament immediately afterwards from the parish priest;"
  and, whether it is not in the power of the Government to refuse to allow the forces of the Crown to be used in evicting persons under such painful circumstances?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he was making local inquiries, and had not yet heard the result. His experience was, however, that these sensational reports were invariably grossly inaccurate.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MESSRS. GARDINER AND REDMOND, R.M.—CASTLEMARTYR.
  MR. MACNEILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lientenant of Ireland, Whether Resident Magistrates Gardiner and Redmond, who on the 31st of May, at Castlemartyr, convicted Thomas Renny of conspiring not to supply goods to a member of the Irish Constabulary, and sentenced him to the fullest term of imprisonment permissible without appeal, were before their appointments as Resident Magistrates officers of the Irish Constabulary; and, for what periods, respectively, did Messrs. Gardiner and Redmond serve in the Irish Constabulary, and what rank did they hold in that force?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Both the Resident Magistrates named served in the Constabulary as officers. Mr. Gardiner served from February 2, 1867, to January 27, 1881; and Mr. Redmond from July 10, 1850, to September 10, 1860. Both held the rank of Sub-Inspector. That title is now changed to District Inspector. Both were declared legally qualified under the Prevention of Crime Act of 1882, and have been likewise declared qualified under the Act of last Session.
  MR. MAC NEILLasked the Chief Secretary, whether he would in future try to make some provision when an offence against the Constabulary was tried under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, that ex-Constabulary officers should not exclusively compose the tribunal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I see no reason why such an arrangement should be made.

  INLAND REVENUE—EXEMPTION FROM THE INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.
  MR. KELLYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whe-
  588
  ther he will allow the terms of the Rule recently made with a view of extending the interpretation of the Treasury Minute of February, 1884, giving exemption from the Inhabited House Duty to tenements under the annual value of £20, to be made public?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The extension which has been made in the concession granted by the Treasury in February, 1884, is as follows:—Where several tenements each structurally separate, and which taken together fall short of £20 annual value, are occupied by the same tenant, they are exempted from payment of duty, just as they would be severally exempt if inhabited by several tenants.

  SWITZERLAND—ENGLISH DOCTORS.
  MR. CAUSTON(for Dr. FARQUHARSON) (Aberdeenshire, W.) asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any further information to give the House as to the result of the negotiations he has been carrying on with the Swiss Government regarding the rights of English doctors to practise in that country?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I am glad to say that, since the hon. Member last inquired on this subject, it has assumed a more hopeful appearance. There is reason to expect that temporary measures will be adopted by certain Cantonal Authorities, by which British physicians will be enabled to practise, and I hope that a permanent and reciprocal arrangement may be arrived at.
  MR. CAUSTONasked, whether it was probable that the more favourable arrangement would apply to the whole of Switzerland, and not merely the excepted parts?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, no effort would be spared to conclude a satisfactory arrangement. There were, as the hon. Member was aware, considerable difficulties in consequence of the Swiss doctors requiring complete reciprocity, which they could not obtain, unless they were allowed to practise in the British Colonies.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE(IRELAND) ACT, 1887—ARRESTS AT CURASS, KANTURK.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received any information concerning the arrest of six tenants—namely, Denis Fitzpatrick, P. Murphy, John Field, Thomas Frawley, Timothy Daly, and Daniel Daly, at Curass, near Kanturk, a short time after midnight of Wednesday last, on a charge of unlawful assembly and criminal conspiracy, alleged to have been committed on March 23 last; if he can state why these men were summarily arrested and taken from their beds at this time of night, and not proceeded against in the ordinary way by summons; if he is aware that these men were kept in the police barrack all day on Thursday, from 2 or 3 o'clock a.m. to 7.30 p.m., and then released on bail by Mr. Seagrave, R.M.; and, if these facts are correct, whether he will take steps to prevent untried prisoners in Ireland from being exposed to similar treatment in future?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): The District Inspector of Constabulary reports that the prisoners were arrested at about 2 a.m. The matter referred to is, I understand, one that rests in the discretion of the magistrate before whom the informations are laid. The delay in granting bail was due to the absence of the Resident Magistrate at Buttevant Petty Sessions, from which he was unable to return until about 6 p.m. on the day in question. I have given to the House all the information I have been able to obtain, but I will cause further inquiry to be made.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)said, with reference to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that these men were arrested and taken from their bed at night, he wished to ask him why it was that the Government had waited about three months, and then arrested these men and took them from their beds at night, though they immediately afterwards assented to their release on bail?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have stated just now that I have given all the in-
  590
  formation I possess to the House; but I am making further inquiries.
  MR. FLYNNasked, was not the town of Kanturk in telegraphic communication with London, and had not the Question been down on Friday afternoon?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the hon. Gentleman was paying him an overpowering compliment; because, in spite of assurance that he had given all the information he could, the hon. Member still refused to believe his ignorance.
  MR. CRILLYasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Resident Magistrate, though absent in this case, had been conveniently present at midnight in other cases to send men to gaol?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: said, he knew the Resident Magistrate had been at Petty Sessions.
  MR. SEXTONgave Notice that he would repeat the Question on Monday, as he did not believe in the right hon. Gentleman's ignorance.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—HARBOUR AT ROSSLARE.
  MR. MACLUREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the facts that upwards of £110,000 of public money has been expended on the harbour at Rosslare and on the railway leading thereto; that the Select Committee of this House on Harbour Accommodation reported in 1884 that the case of Rosslare Harbour was deserving the attention of the Treasury; and that the Royal Commission appointed by the present Government has also reported in favour of its completion, the Government will take a Vote for that purpose during the present Session?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: The recommendation of the recent Royal Commission on Public Works was qualified by the condition that the Harbour of Rosslare should be brought under the same management as that of Wexford. I have no information as to whether such a course would be acceptable to the Local Harbour Authorities at Wexford; and at present, therefore, I do not see my way to re-open the question of a further advance for an extension of the works at Rosslare.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.— [BILL 182.]
  (Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Long.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 18 th June.]

  EIGHTH NIGHT.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

PART I.

  COUNTY COUNCILS.
  Powers of County Council.
  Clause 7 (Powers as to police).
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 11, leave out from the word "nothing" to the words "constables and," in line 13.—(Mr. Brunner.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Nothing in this Act shall affect' stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE)said, he thought that, in discussing this clause, an arrangement might be made by which the opinion of the House might be taken first upon the question of the control of the police before the question of the appointment of Chief Constable was disposed of. He would, therefore, suggest to the Committee that, in his opinion, this would be best done by striking out the words, "Nothing in this Act shall affect." His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would then move to insert the Amendment of which he had given Notice—namely, to insert after the word "respect," in line 12, the words "county police or." The sentence would then read—"The powers, duties, and liabilities of Quarter Sessions with respect to the county police or," and the whole question of the control of the police would then be raised by a subsequent Motion to leave out the words, "giving the Quarter Sessions power of appointment, controlling, and dismissing the Chief Constables." By adopting that mode the Committee would get rid of a good deal of confusion, and would be able to come to a conclusion on the matter which was discussed last night.
  592
  Under these circumstances he proposed to assent to the Amendment now before the Committee to omit the words, "Nothing in this Act shall affect." By taking this course the entire question would be raised as to who should have the control of the county police and the appointment of Chief Constable. If the words giving the "appointment, control, and dismissal of Chief Constables to the Quarter Sessions" were omitted, it would then be better to omit the following words down to the word "to" in line 18, namely—
  "And the powers of quarter sessions under section seven of the County and Borough Police Act, 1856, to direct and require constables to perform any duties in addition to their ordinary duties, may be exercised both by quarter sessions and by the county council; but subject as aforesaid, the powers, duties, and liabilities of quarter sessions with respect to."
  The clause would then provide that—
  "The duties and liabilities of quarter sessions with respect to the county police shall be, on and after the appointed day, vest in and attach to the quarter sessions and the county council jointly, and be exercised and discharged through the standing joint committee of the quarter sessions and county council appointed as hereinafter mentioned."
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he thought if the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, it would carry out the views of the Government, but how was it proposed to deal with the "appointment, control, and dismissal of chief constables?"
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that provision would have to be made in that respect afterwards. He was only afraid that they might get confused if they were to attempt to amend the words between. The course he suggested would obviate that difficulty.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that he had an Amendment on the Paper to insert, after "chief constables," the words "or assistant chief constables." He desired to know how that Amendment would be affected.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, if the words proposed to be struck out were omitted, there would be an understanding that they were not struck out adversely, and could be re-instated.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked if the President of the Local Government Board could not state to the Committee what the ultimate intention

  593
  of the Government was in regard to the control of the police and the Chief Constable.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, his only object in the suggestion he had made was to afford facilities for coming to a conclusion upon both of these points. He understood from the tone of the discussion last night that it was considered desirable to arrive at a conclusion in reference to the proposal to transfer the control of the police from the Quarter Sessions before they dealt with the question of the appointment of Chief Constables. As the hon. Gentleman asked him what the intentions of the Government were, he might say that they proposed to recommend to the Committee to adhere to the proposals of the Bill.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, the Committee were to understand, then, that the Government adhered to the proposals contained in the Bill, and that all other points beyond were left open for the ultimate discussion of the Committee.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the Government intended to adhere to the proposal for vesting the control of the police in a joint committee of the Quarter Sessions and County Council.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT, in moving, in page 5, line 12, after the word "respect," to insert "the county police or," said, he was glad to have this opportunity of placing, as clearly as he was able, some considerations before the Committee why he thought the county police should remain entirely under the control of the magistrates, as they had hitherto been. He was strongly fortified in that opinion by the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). That right hon. Gentleman, in one of the clear and lucid speeches he generally delivered, had stated that he believed it would be for the interest of all parties concerned that the police should be under one control. If, then, they could not get the one authority be desired, he presumed the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to accept the other. The House had already decided by a majority, upon the Motion of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), not to
  594
  accept the control of the County Council. Therefore the matter remained now in the position in which the Government first introduced the Bill—namely, that the police, as far as the Chief Constable was concerned, should be in the hands of the magistrates; but as far as the management of the police was concerned that it should be in the hands of a joint committee of the magistrates and the County Councils. He was of opinion that that was an unwise proposal, and it was because he thought that it would be far more to the interests of the country that the police should be under the undivided authority of the Quarter Sessions that he was glad to have an opportunity of stating his views upon the subject. When the question of the divided control was last under discussion nearly every Member who got up to take part in the debate, from both sides of the House, thought it would be a most unwise change. If it was unwise then, assuredly it was unwise now, and it should not be said because it was the control of the magistrates that they were now discussing that there were any more grounds for dividing the control than there had been previously. Looking at the case broadly, he thought he had good authority for saying that there had never been any accusation brought against the conduct of the police or of the magistrates over the police, but, on the contrary, they had hoard, and they heard it when the Bill was first introduced, that not only had the magistrates done their duty, but that in all they had done, both as to economical management and the maintenance of order, there was nothing to find fault with in reference to their control of the police. Such being the case, before Parliament consented to take the management out of their hands and hand it over to another authority, surely they ought to consider carefully all the circumstances of the case. He had no wish to enter into very grave and debatable matters, but still this was the only opportunity they would have, and he would ask any man whether there were not parts of the country in which, if the police were in the hands of the County Council, very grave effects might be produced upon the police. He thought that was one of the matters they were bound to consider—namely, whether the handing over of the police to the

  595
  County Councils would be the wisest and most prudent step they could possibly take. His own view was that it would not be the wisest or most prudent course to hand over the control of the police to any elected and fluctuating body like the Town Councils, and thus remove them from the control of the magistrates, who were magistrates for their lives, and who carried on their duties from day to day and from year to year upon the same footing. There was another matter which he ought to mention which he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton would regard as germane to this subject. His own opinion was that the question deserved more consideration than was given to it at the time it was previously discussed, and that it required more careful consideration than ever now. No doubt they would be able to discuss it very fully when they came to a subsequent clause. But it was now proposed to take out of the counties all towns with 50,000 inhabitants. The effect of that was to get rid of one of the reasons why County Government had been given—namely, that they would have the towns that were situated in the counties associated with the rural portions of the counties. They were now going to have the county without any of the large constituencies, and he should like to know whether the men, other than magistrates, who would be left to carry on the business would be persons who were most fit and proper to undertake it. There was another and most serious matter, with regard to which he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite a question. There were certain duties which would have to be collected in the district. Would the police have anything to do with the levying and collection of such duties? Would they be so employed or would they not? It was a very serious question in the administration of the law whether these men were to be employed to raise the duties which were to be handed over to the Councils by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially when it was considered that the large towns were to be struck out. He had no wish to detain the Committee too long, but there was another question which he desired to mention, seeing
  596
  that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) was in his place. The right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee a good many dissertations on this great question. Only the other day the right hon. Gentleman said, and if he were not much mistaken something of the same kind was repeated a short time ago by one in whose authority the right hon. Gentleman placed implicit trust—namely, that if these proposals were carried by the Government and the appointment of Chief Constables were left in the hands of the magistrates, when the Liberal Party came into power again they would reverse the decision of the majority. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] He was delighted to hear that cheer. He trusted it would go forth to the country with all its force that the House of Commons, in the year 1888, for the first time in history, declared that it would not accept the decision of the majority of the House, but that it would do all in its power to reverse that decision, notwithstanding the fact that it was come to by a large majority. But hon. Members remembered how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) brought forward his great measure with regard to Ireland. What did the right hon. Gentleman state then? He said upon every point that it was a vital question, and that if he were not supported he would throw up the Bill. It would have been far better if the Government had taken the same course in regard to the present Bill. Much as the Conservative Party disliked the legislation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when he was in power they had loyally accepted and carried it out. It was an entirely new and unconstitutional doctrine to get up in that House and state that if they were unfortunate enough to be defeated on the other side they would take the earliest opportunity of reversing the decision when they came into power again. He had thought it right to say so much. The Conservative Party always took their beating when they were beaten; but, at the same time, they were always ready to defend the lines of conduct they pursued, and, believing that the best interests of the country depended on the control of the police remaining in the hands which had

  597
  hitherto so well administered it, he begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 12, after "respect," insert "the county police or."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. STANSFELDdesired to say a word or two in reply to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Baronet, although it was difficult to do so, he was afraid, consistently with Order. As he understood the position, it had been decided against hon. Members on that side of the House that the control of the police and the appointment of the High Constable should not be handed over to the County Councils, but he trusted that he might be allowed to say a word or two in reply to some of the arguments and statements of the hon. and gallant Baronet. The hon. and gallant Baronet was held in the highest esteem on the Opposition as well as on the Ministerial side of the House. He spoke from very long knowledge of the hon. and gallant Baronet in that House. He had never been known to be otherwise than straight and decided and honest in the expression of his views, and he was a man for whom they naturally entertained an unwavering respect. He made no complaint of the course the hon. and gallant Baronet had pursued on this occasion. Everybody knew that the hon. and gallant Baronet did not like the Bill, that he strongly objected to the transfer of these powers from the magistrates to the County Councils in the future, and he was, therefore, consistent in the line he had taken. But the Government had taken another line; they recognized that there was a great demand on the part of the public for a representative county constituency; they had acceded to that demand, or intended to accede to it, in the constitution of the County Councils. They had not carried out that principle, however, in the present clause. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House differed from them, and had been beaten, but they had, nevertheless, a right to maintain their opinion. The hon. and gallant Baronet proposed that the police should be left under the control of the Quarter Sessions, and that
  598
  they should not be handed over to a joint committee of Quarter Sessions and County Councils. As far as the Opposition were concerned, they entirely agreed that it would have been better for the police and the Chief Constables to be left under one authority, if that authority were the County Councils, because they found under the existing law that the magistrates were called upon to perform duties in connection with the maintenance of law and order which they claimed in future for the County Councils, so that they should be modelled on the pattern of the Borough Councils in regard to the administration of police affairs. That was the position of hon. Members on that side of the House. At present they were left in this condition. They had been defeated in that respect, and the question was whether they should vote for the retention of all the powers relating to the police in the hands of the magistrates at Quarter Sessions, or whether they should prefer, although they did not like it, the Government proposal that the police and the Chief Constables should be supervised and managed by a joint committee of two Bodies. Of the two proposals he, at least, preferred that of the Government. He did not prefer it because he liked it. He disliked it exceedingly, and he saw no sufficient justification for it. It appeared to him to be entirely inconsistent with the principles right hon. Gentlemen laid down in the Bill, and he was perfectly justified in notifying to the House, judging as well as he could of the feeling and temper of the Liberal Party both inside and outside the House, that it must not be expected that these proposals wore to be permanently and definitely accepted without some attempt to reverse them on some future occasion. The hon. and gallant Baronet said that this was the first time—namely, the year 1888, when such a doctrine had been propounded. He differed entirely from the hon. and gallant Baronet. If he had used it in the way of a threat in order to induce hon. Members to vote with him rather than with the Government, he might have been open to that remark; but his argument was not in the least in the nature of a threat, and he was sure the hon. and gallant Baronet would know that he was not disposed to offer a threat on any occasion. His object had

  599
  simply been to point out that as far as the Liberal Party, not only in the House, but in the country, were concerned, they were deeply convinced in their own mind of the truth of the principle that the control of the police, whether in the boroughs or in the counties, subject to the proper authority of the magistrates in calling upon them to fulfil the duties laid down by law, should be vested in the hands of those who paid for them—namely, the representative bodies of the towns and counties. He, therefore, could not hold out any expectation that the arrangement would be a permanent one, and that a future opportunity would not be taken for amending these proposals. He had yet to learn that there was anything unconstitutional or novel in announcing to the House that when they got the opportunity they would seek to amend the Bill in a direction which they so greatly desired. He had, therefore, nothing to apologize for or correct in the statement he had made. He had no doubt that the opportunity he desired would occur, and it was a fundamental article of the Liberal creed, whether in the Metropolis in the provincial boroughs, or in the counties that the police should be nominated, appointed, controlled, and paid by the representatives of the people. Although they might be beaten on this occasion he repeated his assertion that on some future day an endeavour would be made to amend the Bill.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had said that it was a fundamental article of the Liberal creed, whether in the country or in the Metropolis, that the police should be in the hands of the ratepayers. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman how long that had been a fundamental article in the Liberal creed, because he remembered a Bill being brought in a very few years ago, when it was quite true that the Liberal Party were not identified with all the opinions and views of the Liberal Party now, for the Government of the Metropolis by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) which proposed to ignore its fundamental article altogether. Therefore he might assume that this fundamental article was one which had been grafted on the Liberal creed since the introduction of the Bill of the right hon.
  600
  Member for Derby. He did not express any astonishment on that fact. He knew perfectly well that many other articles besides that had now become fundamental articles of the Liberal creed which at that time were being denounced by the Liberal Party of the day. He did not intend to make any further remarks on that point, but he had thought it worthy of comment that this article which was now set up as essentially a part of the Liberal creed, was deliberately set aside in the legislation inaugurated by the right hon. Member for Derby. The right hon. Gentleman recognized that there were circumstances in which it was not desirable to transfer the control of the police force to a body elected by the ratepayers. That was practically what the Government suggested now. In their proposal they recognized that the police had hitherto been under the control of a body of gentlemen who, as his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said, had performed their duties in a manner which had received the commendation of all parties in the country, and they did not think it would be right or prudent all at once, at any rate, to alter entirely that condition of things, and take away from that Body which had so effectively controlled the police in the past the powers they now possessed in order to hand them over to the new Body about to be created. The question now before the Committee was the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend that the entire control of the police should remain in the hands of the magistrates. He could quite understand his hon. and gallant Friend having that view. He found no fault with him for entertaining it or that many of his hon. Friends should agree with the hon. and gallant Baronet in his opinions. He could readily understand that there were arguments of an extremely strong character which might be used in support of the proposal of the hon. and gallant Baronet. Certainly no charge could be substantiated or even made against the administration of the police by the Quarter Sessions, but the Committee were aware that the Government were proposing to set up in the counties a Body elected by the ratepayers for the purpose of performing many of the duties within the counties which had hitherto been performed by

  601
  the magistrates. The question arose then, whether having set up such a Body—a Body representative of the ratepayers, was no share to be given to them in the management and control of the police? Having set up such a Body which was to have the control of the rates, and would have practically to find the money for the payment of the police, were they to say that they were not to give to it the management of the police for which the ratepayers had to provide the money? The Government did not think it was possible for them to make such a proposal as that, and, therefore, they proposed to associate with the Quarter Sessions elected representatives of the ratepayers. In that suggestion they believed they found a solution of the question as to what should be the relative shares of the old and new Bodies in the control of the police. That being their view, and that being the proposal of the Bill, he was sorry to say to his hon. and gallant Friend that the Government were unable to accept the proposals which he made, and which would relegate entirely to the Quarter Sessions the control of the police.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that as he had had an opportunity of speaking upon this question before, he would not detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but he was bound to say that when his right hon. Friend, in opposing the Amendment, dwelt on the fact that the Government were going to create by this Bill a new Body to be elected by the ratepayers, and asked how it was possible to give some share in the control of the police to the new Body. Surely, if that argument were good for anything at all it was good for giving the whole control of the police to the new Body. The Committee had three proposals before them. There was the proposal of Gentlemen on the other side of the House to hand over the police to the County Councils as a Body. Then there was the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend that the control should remain as at present with the Quarter Sessions, and, thirdly, there was the proposal of the Government by which he understood they intended to sub-divide the responsibility connected with the police—for while the Chief Constable was to remain entirely under the control of the Quarter Sessions, the police
  602
  themselves were to be handed over to the control of a joint committee. The proposal of the Government was that the appointment, dismissal, and control of the Chief Constable should remain with the Quarter Sessions, and his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had informed the Committee that the Government intended to adhere to that proposal. Now, he could perfectly understand both of the first two proposals. It was a perfectly logical proposal, and, perhaps, it might be one that might work well, that the management of the police should be entrusted entirely to the County Councils. Then, again, experience had already proved that the sole control left in the hands of the Quarter Sessions might be expected to work equally well in the future as in the past; but, he did not understand the proposal of the Government to give the control of the police to a perfectly new Body, but rather to place them under the control of three distinct authorities. The Chief Constable was to be appointed by the Quarter Sessions, the police were to be paid by the County Council, and were to be managed by a joint committee. Was it reasonable to suppose that an arrangement of that kind was likely to turn out to be a practical and business-like arrangement? The right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfield) said, that he preferred of the two proposals now before the Committee, that which was suggested by the Government. Why was that? Was it on the ground that it was a business-like proposal that was likely to work well? Nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman had carefully guarded himself against saying anything of the sort. He supported it on the ground of sentiment, because it was one of the new fangled articles of faith which of late years had become fashionable with the Liberal Party. For these reasons he intended to support the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend, and he hoped that he would be accompanied into the Lobby by many other hon. Members. He was bound to say that there was one other consideration which had great weight with him. When they were going to make a change of this kind they ought to be able to give some good reason for it. No Member of the House, sitting on any Bench, had as yet said anything which might lead

  603
  them to believe that there was any reason to be advanced in favour of the change. No complaint had ever been made by anybody as to the manner in which the control of the police had been conducted by the Quarter Sessions up to the present time, and althought that was the case, and although the Committee had definitely decided already that the control was not to be transferred to the County Councils—despite all that, it was proposed by the Government, and he confessed very greatly to his regret, to hand over the management of the police for the future to a dual control which he could not regard as anything but an unpractical and unbusiness-like proposal.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he cordially supported the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sussex. He could not help agreeing with a remark which fell from the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart) yesterday, when he said that, having heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Halifax, he was of opinion that it was an argument in favour of the existing system. So far as he had been able to hear that speech, and it was very difficult at times to hear the speeches delivered on the Front Bench, he had arrived at a similar conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of the nature of the duties the police had to perform, and he had spoken of them in such a way as to convince him that it was undesirable to make any alteration in the management of that body which, on the whole, was admitted on all sides to have worked remarkably well. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian appeared to think that some hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House were supporting the existing system simply because it was an existing institution, and had pointed out to the House, no doubt correctly, that the system itself was not founded on constitutional usage. He submitted, however, that the question for consideration was not so much how long the system had been at work, but whether it had worked well—and he ventured to say that there was no hon. Member on the other side of the House who would be bold enough to assert—and they were not unaccustomed to the making of bold assertions—that the management of the police by the magistrates had not been, on the
  604
  whole, as good as could possibly be desired. He supported the Amendment on behalf of a class of persons who were more deeply interested in the matter than any other—namely, the police themselves. He contended that if the proposal of the Government for a dual control were adopted the police would encounter great difficulties in the execution of their duties. Hitherto the police had performed those duties, arduous and difficult as they were, with patience, energy, and a scrupulous fidelity which was beyond praise. But they would be asking them to do what he maintained they had no right to ask any man to do—namely, to serve two masters. They had the highest authority for saying that it was impossible to do that. He thought that of the four courses that were open for the Commission to take the proposition of the hon. and gallant Baronet was decidedly the best; but if, unhappily, it should be beaten, he, for one, convinced as he was of the great danger which would attend dual control, would decidedly prefer that the duties should be undertaken by the Home Office. The worst course that could possibly be devised was that of the Government for subjecting the management of the police to dual control. They were asked to adopt a system and principle which not one of them would carry out in his own private affairs. Would any man employing a butcher, a baker, or a tailor, discharge anyone of them who had given him perfect satisfaction in order to employ someone else of whom he knew nothing. He hoped that, in the discussion which would take place, something would be done to avert the danger which would arise from the innovation proposed by the Government.
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, that the argument which had just been addressed to the Committee by the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was just the argument which was always adduced against every reform proposed either from the Ministerial or the Opposition Benches. Hon. Members were invariably opposed to all progress and all change, whether in relation to home government, or the government of the Empire at large. The arguments which had been adduced were the same as those which were always used, and amounted to this—that everything

  605
  which now existed was satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman opposite had not, however, taken note of the fact that the people had now a voice in the government of the country. They had already received the electoral franchise, and the Government now proposed to transfer to them the administration of their local affairs. Could it then be contended, for a moment, that the taking of the control of the police out of the hands of the County Councils would be giving them that proper administration of their own affairs which was claimed for them? The only argument which had been used in favour of letting the management of the police remain in the hands of the Quarter Sessions was that the magistrates themselves were charged with the duty of maintaining law and order. That was a fair argument as far as it went, but it was a very limited argument, and altogether unequal to the gravity of the position. He admitted that the duty of maintaining peace was in the hands of the magistrates; but hon. Members opposite spoke of the maintenance of law and order as if the 60,000 inhabitants of a town were so many enemies of order, and were and were only to be kept in subjection by the control of the magistrates and their servants, the police. He wished to point out this elementary truth, that a few magistrates and a small body of police would be absolutely impotent to preserve order unless the remaining 59,990 inhabitants were equally charged with the maintenance of order. He maintained that every honest citizen had devolved upon him just as much as a magistrate or a policeman the duty of maintaining order and peace in a community. If the bulk of the people were in reality the enemies of law and order, the work undertaken by the police it would be impossible for them to discharge. An ordinary number of policemen was about one to 1,000 of the inhabitants, and there was scarcely a rural district in England where there was not one policeman to 2,000 inhabitants. If the people were allowed to manage their affairs for themselves, they could do that with half the number of policemen who were now required. By the way in which they were now employed they contrived to make crime instead of diminishing it. They were engaged in the most trivial and unworthy occupations, and many of them were spies and
  606
  game-keepers for the landed interest of the country. [Cries of "Oh!"] He spoke from a point of view from which hon. Gentlemen opposite had never observed these things. If they would lay aside their state and dignity and look at the question from the cottage point of view, instead of the palace and mansion point of view, they would be able to understand these things fairly enough. He intended to vote against the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex, simply because its object was to leave the control of the police in the hands of the magistrates. The Government had already defeated a far more logical proposition that the whole matter should be handed over to the County Councils, but he should now vote with the Government, because they recognized to a limited extent the right of the ratepayers to have a voice in the matter. He looked upon it as the thin end of the wedge, and hoped to see it driven home by-and-bye.
  VISCOUNT GRIMSTONsaid, he wished to repudiate the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member who had just sat down, and especially the accusation that the county magistrates employed the police as spies and game-keepers. He did not believe that anyone with justice could accuse the English county magistrates of having made use of the police force in the unworthy manner suggested. What was the prospect of any finality if the Government adhered to the clause as it stood? He asserted, without fear of contradiction, that, after what they had heard from the opposite side of the House, there would be no finality whatever in their proposals. The Opposition declared their intention, as soon as they possibly could, of using their utmost endeavour to secure that the police force should be placed entirely in the hands of the County Council. Therefore, they could reckon when the swing of the pendulum came round, as it inevitably would in the course of nature, and hon. Members opposite were sitting on the Ministerial side of the House, the present proposals of the Government would be brought under review, and there would be a fresh agitation on the subject. That, he thought, would be a very bad thing, and therefore he should support the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend. A short time ago he

  607
  had been given to understand, by the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board, that it was intended, in appointing a joint committee, to have a sufficient number of magistrates upon it, to insure that they would practically have the chief voice in administering the affairs of the police. All he could say was, that if that was the case, the County Councils, having found out that they were in a minority and that they had no real voice in controlling the police, would commence an agitation which would certainly be detrimental to the interests of that most useful body. The police were a body enrolled for the enforcement of judicial decrees, and they ought, therefore, to be under the control of a judicial executive. There were many matters which must inevitably come before the joint committee. Take the case of the pension of a constable, who might have rendered himself unpopular by the fearless discharge of his duties; or, on the other hand, too popular by the slack manner in which he discharged them. In such a case the pension awarded to that man might be materially affected by the popularly elected character of the tribunal before which the question would have to come. There was another point which ought not to be lost sight of. Most hon. Members had been speaking to their constituents, and assuring them that they wished for equal laws, both for the Sister Island and themselves. If such a state of things were to be brought about that the County Councils would eventually have the control of the police, were they prepared to carry out that matter to its logical conclusion, and hand over the control of the police to County Councils in the Sister Island? He admitted that the police in Ireland were paid from the taxes, and were under the Crown; and he was not prepared to say it would not be the best solution of the question if they were to be placed in the same position on this side of the Channel. Be that as it might, he quite agreed with the hon. Member who said that no man could serve two masters, and in this case there were not only two masters, but three. He was afraid that the chances of the success of this part of the Bill were very small indeed, and therefore he cordially supported the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex.
  MR. WIGGINsaid, that having had considerable experience in the management of the police as a member of borough Watch Committees, and as a county magistrate, he desired to say a few words. The police force of the county of Stafford was one of the finest bodies of men in England; but although that was the case, and although it was exceedingly well managed by the county magistrates, he, for one, would be quite willing to hand over the control of the force to the County Councils. By this Bill they were creating a new Governing Body, and it was always understood that this Governing Body would have a large amount of work imposed upon it. It seemed to him, however, that this Amendment was an attempt to reduce the amount of work that was to be placed in the hands of the County Councils. It had been urged that it was desirable to secure upon the County Councils men of high standing and of business habits, who would be qualified to do work; but if they were to whittle all the duties away in this manner they would not be able to attract good and efficient men to serve on the Councils. He should be glad to do away with the dual control, and to give the entire management to the County Council; but if that could not be done, he should support the Government clause as it stood.
  MR. S. HOAREsaid, that although he had the honour of being a county magistrate and of serving on the Court of Quarter Sessions, he felt that the Amendment would be a mistake in the future carrying out of the Bill. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Spalding Division (Mr. Halley Stewart), should have felt it his duty to make an attack on the magistrates. Although he was one of those who neither lived in a mansion or a palace, he believed, like all the other magistrates in his district, that he endeavoured to do his duty in the best way he possibly could. The hon. Member said that the action of the police increased crime; but if he attended the Petty Sessions of the country he would find that crime was decreasing on every side. These matters, however, did not fall within the scope of the present discussion, and, therefore, he would proceed at once to explain why he opposed the Amendment of the hon. and gallant

  609
  Baronet, whose experience was so much greater than his own. He was opposed to the Amendment, because he considered that, if it were carried, it would set up a dual control, and he knew that many hon. Members were opposed to the Government clause because they thought it would introduce a dual control. Now, he, on the contrary, thought that if some such plan were not introduced there would be dual control. The County Councils would have the voting of the supplies for the police which the Quarter Sessions would administer. It was clear that the representatives of the ratepayers would not be satisfied with merely voting the money, without having some account from the Quarter Sessions of their stewardship. In that House hon. Members objected to pass Votes in regard to matters upon which they were unable to express their opinions. That would be the case of the County Councils, and whenever a vote for the police was proposed a discussion would arise which could not be satisfactory. Although there might be members of the Quarter Sessions upon the County Councils, it would not be officially represented. Therefore, he felt that a difficulty would arise, because they would have the Quarter Sessions administering the money, while the power of raising it would rest with the representatives of the ratepayers, who would have no voice whatever in the matter. Small questions, such as pensions or dismissals and others, would be continually arising, and would cause considerable bitterness between the County Councils and the Quarter Sessions. It should, therefore, be their effort to prevent the irritation which might arise from a dual control, and, in his opinion, no such irritation would arise if the management were entrusted to a joint committee as proposed by the Government. He certainly believed that if the administration of the police were left entirely in the hands of the magistrates a considerable amount of irritation would arise outside, and there would be agitation both in the market place and upon the village green, both upon little questions and great questions. He would far rather see all questions, whether of police pensions or any other matter, discussed by men of business of all shades of opinion in committee than subjected to public meetings and agitation outside. He thought the Commit-
  610
  tee ought to settle satisfactorily the question of the administration of the police, as by the plan proposed by the Government, while the ratepayers would be represented, they would have the advantage of a considerable number of the most experienced members of the Court of Quarter Sessions.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, the speech of his hon. Friend was rather a speech in favour of handing over the whole of the administration of the police to the County Councils, which the House by vote had already decided against, and, therefore, it was impossible to go back upon it. In supporting the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend, he did so upon rather different grounds from those which his hon. and gallant Friend and others had placed before the Committee. In reconstructing their local administration they should aim at simplicity. Yet by the Bill it was proposed that they should have, not a dual control nor a triple control, but, in fact, a quadruple control over the police. There would be a joint committee, a County Council, the Court of Quarter Sessions, and, over all, the Home Office; for if they looked at the 24th clause they would find that the power of the Home Office was far greater and more important than any of the powers given to the other three Bodies. Anyone who had had anything to do with police management in the counties knew that the power of the magistrates in Quarter Sessions over the police was very slight indeed. They exercised the privilege of appointing the Chief Constable, but as soon as they had appointed him the control over both him and the police passed out of their hands So far as the patronage in the appointment of the Chief Constable was concerned, it would reside better in the Court of Quarter Sessions, which was composed of nominees of the Crown, the members of which were liable to be dismissed by the Lord Chancellor, than in any elected Body. He spoke from his own experience, from what he had seen, heard, and read, and from circumstances in which he had taken part, and he had no hesitation in saying that the patronage of the Court of Quarter Sessions was carefully and prudently exercised, and that it was quite free from political bias; whereas an elected committee of the County Council would never be free from poli-

  611
  tical bias. All the elections they well knew would be fought on political lines, and most of the representatives of the County Councils would be elected on account of their political opinions. For these reasons he was in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend. The President of the Local Government Board said that the County Councils ought to have some authority over the police, because they would provide the money for their maintenance. That was not so. The police would be hereafter maintained out of the £5,000,000 of subventions, proposed to be handed over out of the taxes for the relief of the ratepayers. Therefore, that argument fell to the ground.
  MR. SWETENHAM (, &c.)said, he wished to explain the reasons why he intended to vote for the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet. He could not help thinking that if the Government had an opportunity of seeing the different extracts from the Vernacular Press of Wales which had been sent to him, they would not have the intention they appeared to have to retain their own clause. It was impossible for any person in that House to ignore the fact that most lamentable disturbances had taken place in the Principality. There were many persons who conscientiously objected to the payment of tithe, and, at the same time, it was absolutely necessary, when they refused to pay it, that the assistance of the police should be, from time to time, called in. Remarks had been made from time to time by different speakers in the Principality as to what they would do when they got the power, and had the control of the police in their own hands. In the county which he represented, during the time the disturbances were going on, requisitions were sent to the county magistrates, calling upon them to reduce the number of police, on the ground that the county did not require so many; but, in point of fact, there were too few police constables already. Under these circumstances, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to this fact. In Wales the chances were that a greater portion of the County Councils would be composed of gentlemen who conscientiously objected to the payment of tithes, and conscientiously objected to the employment of the police in levying tithes. They were conscien-
  612
  tious men, and, therefore, he did not blame them for following up their principles; but, as conscientious men, they would do all they could to prevent the police from being employed on such occasions. The police, however, would be under the orders of the Chief Constable; and, supposing that the appointment of Chief Constable remained as they proposed by the Bill in the hands of Quarter Sessions, they would have the control of the police resting with the County Councils, while the Chief Constable would be under the management and control of an entirely different Body. The police would feel themselves compelled to obey the orders of the Chief Constable, and in doing so they would know that they were acting against the wishes and against the principles of the bulk of the County Councils, so that when the question of dismissal or pensions arose their interests were likely to be materially injured. For these reasons he could not help thinking that the police force ought to be entirely under the control of the Quarter Sessions. The arguments in favour of keeping the police force in the hands of that Body were absolutely overwhelming.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 360: Majority 283.—(Div. List, No. 163.)
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he moved to leave out all the words from "respect," in line 12, to "respect," in line 18, the effect of the Amendment being to take from the Quarter Sessions the appointment, control, and dismissal of Chief Constables.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 12, to leave out from the word "respect "to the word "to," in line 18.
  Question proposed, "That the words to the appointment, control, and dismissal of chief constables,' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. F. S. POWELLasked, if the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper would be safeguarded in the event of this Amendment being carried?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member would be safeguarded.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 216; Noes 246: Majority 30.

  AYES.

  Ainslie, W. G.

  Fellowes, A. E.

  Anstruther, Colonel R. H. L.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Field, Admiral E.

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. S.

  Fielden, T.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Finch, G. H.

  Baird, J. G. A.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Banes, Major G. E.

  Fitz-Wygram, Gen. Sir F. W.

  Baring, T. C.

  Barnes, A.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Bates, Sir E.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Baumann, A. A.

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

  Gardner, R. Richardson-

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Gathorne-Hardy, hon. A. E.

  Beadel, W. J.

  Bective, Earl of

  Giles, A.

  Bentinck, Lord H. C.

  Gilliat, J. S.

  Bentinck, W. G. C.

  Goldsmid, Sir J.

  Bigwood, J.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Bond, G. H.

  Goschen, rt. hn. G. J.

  Bonsor, H. C. O.

  Granby, Marquess of

  Borthwick, Sir A.

  Gray, C. W.

  Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.

  Green, Sir E.

  Greenall, Sir G.

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

  Greene, E.

  Grimston, Viscount

  Brooks, Sir W. C.

  Grotrian, F. B.

  Bruce, Lord H.

  Gunter, Colonel R.

  Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.

  Hall, A. W.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Hambro, Col. C. J. T.

  Carmarthen, Marq. of

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Chaplin, right hon. H.

  Charrington, S.

  Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Hardcastle, E.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Hardcastle, F.

  Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

  Havelock - Allan, Sir H. M.

  Cooke, C. W. R.

  Corbett, J.

  Heath, A. R.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Heaton, J. H.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Cross, H. S.

  Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

  Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Cubitt, right hon. G.

  Darling, C. J.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Dawnay, Colonel hon. L. P.

  Hill, A. S.

  Hoare, S.

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

  Holloway, G.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Hornby, W. H.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

  Donkin, R. S.

  Dorington, Sir J. E.

  Howard, J.

  Duncan, Colonel F.

  Howorth, H. H.

  Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  Hubbard, hon. E.

  Egerton, hon. A. J. F.

  Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Elcho, Lord

  Hunt, F. S.

  Elton, C. I.

  Isaacs, L. H.

  Ewart, Sir W.

  Isaacson, F. W.

  Ewing, Sir A. O.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  Jarvis, A. W.

  Feilden, Lt-Gen. R. J.

  Jeffreys, A. F.

  614

  Jennings, L. J.

  Paget, Sir R. H.

  Johnston, W.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Kelly, J. R.

  Pelly, Sir L.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Penton, Captain F. T.

  Kenyon, hon. G. T.

  Plunket, right hon. D. R.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Ker, R. W. B.

  Rasch, Major F. C.

  Kimber, H.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  King, H. S.

  Ritchie, right hon. C. T.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, H. T.

  Robertson, Sir W. T.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Robertson, J. P. B.

  Knowles, L.

  Robinson, B.

  Lafone, A.

  Ross, A. H.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Round, J.

  Lawrence, Sir J. J. T.

  Royden, T. B.

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Russell, Sir G.

  Lees, E.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M.

  Legh, T. W.

  Saunderson, Col. E. J.

  Leighton, S.

  Seton-Karr, H.

  Lennox, Lord W. C. Gordon-

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Lethbridge, Sir R.

  Sidebottom, W.

  Lewis, Sir C. E.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  Smith, A.

  Spencer, J. E.

  Long, W. H.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Stanley, E. J.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Stewart, M. J.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Swetenham, E.

  Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

  Sykes, C.

  Tapling, T. K.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Maclean, J. M.

  Theobald, J.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  M'Calmont, Captain J.

  Townsend, F.

  Madden, D. H.

  Trotter, Col. H. J.

  Malcolm, Col. J. W.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Mallock, R.

  Vincent, Col. C. E. H.

  Marriott, right hon. Sir W. T.

  Watson, J.

  Webster, R. G.

  Matthews, right hon. H.

  Weymouth, Viscount

  Wharton, J. L.

  Mattinson, M. W.

  Whitley, E.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Wiggin, H.

  Milvain, T.

  Wood, N.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Moss, R.

  Wright, H. S.

  Mowbray, right hon. Sir J. R.

  Wroughton, P.

  Yerburgh, R. A.

  Muncaster, Lord

  Young, C. E. B.

  Noble, W.

  Norris, E. S.

  TELLERS.

  Northcote, hon. Sir H. S.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  O'Neill, hon. R. T.

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

  Barry, J.

  Bartley, G. C. T.

  Acland, A. H. D.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Acland, C. T. D.

  Beckett, E. W.

  Allison, R. A.

  Beckett, W.

  Anderson, C. H.

  Bethell, Commander G. R.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Asher, A.

  Bickford-Smith, W.

  Austin, J.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Bolitho, T. B.

  Ballantine, W. H. W.

  Bradlaugh, C.

  Barbour, W. B.

  Bright, Jacob

  Barran, J.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Barry, A. H. S.

  Brown, A. H.

  615

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Brunner, J. T.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Buchanan, T. R.

  Graham, R. C.

  Burt, T.

  Grey, Sir E.

  Buxton, S. C.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Byrne, G. M.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Cameron, C.

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

  Cameron, J. M.

  Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

  Harrington, E.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Carew, J. L.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Causton, R. K.

  Hayne, C. Seale-

  Chamberlain, R.

  Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

  Channing, F. A.

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

  Heneage, right hon. E.

  Clancy, J. J.

  Hoare, E. B.

  Cobb, H. P.

  Hobhouse, H.

  Coleridge, hon. B.

  Holden, I.

  Commins, A.

  Hooper, J.

  Conway, M.

  Hoyle, I.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  Hunter, W. A.

  Corbet, W. J.

  James, hon. W. H.

  Corbett, A. C.

  Jordan, J.

  Cossham, H.

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

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Cox, J. R.

  Kenny, C. S.

  Craig, J.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Craven, J.

  Kenrick, W.

  Crawford, D.

  Kilbride, D.

  Crawford, W.

  Lalor, R.

  Cremer, W. R.

  Lane, W. J.

  Crilly, D.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Crossley, E.

  Lawson, H. L. W.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Leake, R.

  Curzon, hon. G. N.

  Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

  Dalrymple, Sir C.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Lewis, T. P.

  Davies, W.

  Llewellyn, E. H.

  Deasy, J.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Dickson, T. A.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Lyell, L.

  Dixon, G.

  Macdonald, W. A.

  Duff, R. W.

  MacInnes, M.

  Dugdale, J. S.

  Maclean, F. W.

  Duncombe, A.

  Mac Neill, J. G. S.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  M'Arthur, A.

  Edwards-Moss, T. C.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  M'Donald, P.

  Elliot, hon. H. F. H.

  M'Ewan, W.

  Ellis, J.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Ellis, T. E.

  M'Laren, W. S. B.

  Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.

  Maitland, W. F.

  Esslemont, P.

  Maple, J. B.

  Evershed, S.

  Mappin, Sir F. T.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Marum, E. M.

  Fenwick, C.

  Maskelyne, M. H. N. Story-

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro-

  Finucane, J.

  Mayne, T.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Menzies, R. S.

  Flower, C.

  Mildmay, F. B.

  Flynn, J. C.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Foley, P. J.

  More, R. J.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Morgan, right hon. G. O.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Fowler, rt. hon. H. H.

  Morgan, O. V.

  Fox, Dr. J. F.

  Morley, rt. hon. J.

  Fry, L.

  Mundella, right hon. A. J.

  Fuller, G. P.

  Gardner, H.

  Murphy, W. M.

  Gaskell, C. G. Milnes-

  Newark, Viscount

  Gilhooly, J.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Gill, T. P.

  Nolan, J.

  616

  Norton, R.

  Sheil, E.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Sidebotham, J. W.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Simon, Sir J.

  O'Connor, A.

  Sinclair, T.

  O'Connor, J.

  Sinclair, W. P.

  O'Hea, P.

  Smith, S.

  O' Kelly, J.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  Palmer, Sir C. M.

  Stack, J.

  Parker, C. S.

  Stanhope, hon. P. J.

  Paulton, J. M.

  Stevenson, F. S.

  Pease, A. E.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Pease, H. F.

  Stewart, H.

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Stuart, J.

  Picton, J. A.

  Sullivan, D.

  Pinkerton, J.

  Summers, W.

  Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L.

  Swinburne, Sir J.

  Tanner, C. K.

  Portman, hon. E. B.

  Thomas, A.

  Potter, T. B.

  Thorburn, W.

  Powell, F. S.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

  Power, P. J.

  Power, R.

  Tuite, J.

  Price, T. P.

  Vernon, hon. G. R.

  Pugh, D.

  Wardle, H.

  Pyne, J. D.

  Watkin, Sir E. W.

  Rathbone, W.

  Wayman, T.

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  West, Colonel W. C.

  Recd. Sir E. J.

  Will, J. S.

  Reid, R. T.

  Williams, A. J.

  Rendel, S.

  Williamson, J.

  Richard, H.

  Williamson, S.

  Richardson, T.

  Wilson, C. H.

  Roberts, J.

  Wilson, H. J.

  Roberts, J. B.

  Wilson, I.

  Robertson, E.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Robinson, T.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Roscoe, Sir H. E.

  Woodall, W.

  Rowntree, J.

  Woodhead, J.

  Russell, T. W.

  Wright, C.

  Samuelson, G. B.

  Sellar, A. C.

  TELLERS.

  Sexton, T.

  Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

  Shaw, T.

  Sheehan, J. D.

  Morley, A.

  Sheehy, D.

  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, the Amendment standing in his name was intended to place the county police under the authority of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department. A good deal had been said in the course of the discussion about trusting the people in the matter of the police. That argument was founded on a misconception. The only persons who really trusted the people were himself and those who agreed with him; for they did not trust the people in a fragmentary way; they trusted the people, the whole people, and nothing but the people—that was to say, the people of the United Kingdom and Ireland as represented in Parliament. It was not wise, but dangerous, to trust matters of large responsibility to small sections of the people, but there was no danger whatever in trusting the people as a

  617
  whole. He hoped that, instead of this sectional trust of the people, they would carry out the principle he had explained by leaving out the words which vested the powers and duties with respect to the county police in the bands of a local Council, and substitute for them the words "Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department," whom they had in that House, whom they could command and trust, and whom, if they did not trust, they could displace. In a comparatively short space of time the provisions of the Bill might be applied to Ireland. He would like to know whether any Member of that House would be willing to place the police of Ireland under local popular control? The people of London were as intelligent as any people, and yet it was not deemed safe that they should have the control of their own police. There was an absurdity in placing the responsibility for the prevention of crime in the hands of 120 different establishments; the prevention of crime was an Imperial duty which extended to the whole country. If a protected Prime Minister were to travel from London to Edinburgh with the ordinary stoppages for making speeches, he would come under the surveillance of a dozen different police forces. He would like to support what he said by the statements of the Royal Commissioners when the Constabulary was first founded in 1839. They said that by separate and independent management in counties there must be expense, trouble, and inconvenience, such as had been attendant upon the old system of management by parish constables. The old system of elective constables had one supporter in the House—namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), who seemed to think that the ancient and barbarous methods of maintaining law and order should be still adhered to. The Commissioners also stated that separate local police establishments would be inadequate, inefficient, and very expensive. The time bad now arrived when a great step in advance might be made by establishing one Imperial force. The Commissioners summed up their objections to the present system by saying that with 52 different forces there would be 52 conflicting modes of action, and that any mea-
  618
  sure which did not tend to the establishment of one force and one system throughout the country would end in comparative inefficiency, greater expense, and the creation of local animosities. His proposal, therefore, was to enlarge the powers of the Home Office, and to get rid of the mischiefs which were pointed out in tins most valuable Report of the Commissioners. Hon. Gentlemen on these Benches were desirous of efficiency and anxious for economy; but he was bound to say that the method of administration proposed by the Government in this Bill made efficiency and economy quite impossible. Having, he believed, said sufficient to recommend his Amendment to the Committee, he had only to point out that there was a precedent for this proposal in the case of the prisons, which had been placed successfully under Government control 12 years ago.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 20, after the words "attach to," to leave out all the words to end of Clause, and insert "Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was very far indeed from saying that there was not a good deal to be urged in favour of the proposal of his hon. Friend; but, looking at the discussion which had already taken place with reference to the control of the police, he thought his hon. Friend would hardly expect that the Government would recede from the position they had taken up in that respect. He thought it would also be seen that the Committee, having come to a conclusion adverse to placing the police under the control of the Judicial Body under which they now were, was hardly likely to accept the proposal of his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend would understand that he did not propose to trouble the Committee again with the various arguments which had been advanced on this subject during the discussion that had taken place, and he would only say, further, that the Government were unable to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
  CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMsaid, he rose to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Member for

  619
  the Oswestry Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton), whom he would congratulate upon the extreme frankness of his statement. He was not, however, able to congratulate him so much upon his remarks in reference to the control of the police. He (Mr. Cunninghame Graham) would point out that there were two places in the country, and two only, where the police were in collision with the people—namely, Ireland and the Metropolis, and in those places the police were under the direct control of the Crown. He thought that the duty of answering the hon. Gentleman devolved upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary rather than on himself; but, as he was on friendly terms with the right hon. Gentleman, he wished to protest emphatically against another unpleasant duty being placed upon him. He might also suggest that if the hon. Gentleman did not feel it right to vote for the alternative system he should place the police under the control of the Emperor of Japan.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, that outside London there were parts of counties extending 15 miles from Charing Cross where the police were under the control of the Home Secretary. He did not see why the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board should not apply to the counties outside London, and it was his intention to move an Amendment with that object.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the Division which had taken place not only had the effect of knocking the Government out of time, but also of knocking the sense out of the clause. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, the hon. Member had placed before them a proposal which might be worthy of the consideration of the Committee; but considering that, as had been pointed out more than once in the discussion, the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been to bring the people of the Metropolis into collision with the police, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite would be the very last thing which it would be their duty to entertain. The hon. Gentleman, he wished to point out, was exceedingly illogical in some of the remarks he had made, and he thought he must have been guilty of an uncon-
  620
  scions joke levelled at the Members of the Government on the Treasury Benches. But when the hon. Gentleman said that it was dangerous to trust large matters to small portions of the people, and then said he was in favour of placing the control of the police under that fragment of the people, which consisted of the Home Office and himself, it seemed to him that his arguments became very illogical indeed. He believed the hon. Member was in favour of retaining the control of the police in the hands of the magistrates, and there again he would point out that when he spoke of trusting the whole people, and nothing but the people, he either did not understand what the people meant, or he was so illogical that he did not know whither his remarks were carrying him; because the magistrates belonged to one class, and certainly did not constitute the people as a whole. He thought it would be agreed that the landocracy constituted a very small portion of the people; and, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman was sincere in his wish to retain the police under the control of the magistrates, he could not be sincere in his wish to see any of these powers left in the hands of the people. The hon. Gentleman had explained that the people of London were the most intelligent in the country. He did not intend to dispute a proposition of that kind; but when the hon. Gentleman went on to say that the people of London had no control over their police, and used that argument as a reason why the Home Office should control the police in all other parts of the country, he (Mr. Conybeare) must point out again that the hon. Member was also illogical here, because he had expressed the opinion that, in large matters, not a small portion of the people, but the whole, should be trusted. He did not suppose that the hon. Gentleman would be very successful if he carried his Amendment to a Division; and, after the expression of opinion on the Treasury Bench, he thought he would be wise in withdrawing it.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, he was one of those who desired to see progress made in this measure; and, therefore, because he deprecated unnecessary Divisions, he would express his hope that his hon. Friend (Mr. Stanley Leighton) would withdraw his Amendment.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, he wished to point out that the argument in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire was that it would increase economy and efficiency. It was obvious that by having one control there must be a saving of expenditure in respect of correspondence, clerks, and other matters. If they followed the example in the case of the prisons they would have one central authority, one control, and one set of regulations for one force, and this would certainly produce greater efficiency all round.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, the Amendment standing in his name would have the effect of preserving the present useful arrangements existing between some of the boroughs and counties which had worked very satisfactorily, and which he thought it was undesirable to disturb.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 23, at end of Clause, to add the words—"All arguments under which the police of any county and borough are consolidated, or under which any borough is watched by county police, shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, remain in force and be carried into effect until lawfully determined, the standing joint committee only being substituted so far as requisite for the justices of the county."—(Mr. Woodall.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was in accord with what he believed to be the object of this Amendment; but he would point out that if the Government were to accept it as it stood, it would practically prejudge certain questions with reference to the boroughs and counties. He would undertake that, as far as boroughs of over 10,000 in population wore concerned, they accepted the spirit of the hon. Member's proposal. But he thought it better that what had to be said on the question should be deferred until they came to the clause dealing with the question.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked if there would be an opportunity of discussing the question of police with regard to boroughs under 10,000; because, if he allowed the present opportunity to pass, those who wished to raise that question might be ruled out of Order hereafter.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, there would be nothing whatever to prejudice the discussion by accepting his proposal to defer the question.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNEsaid, there was in his borough a very strong feeling that the municipal authorities should have the control of their own police, although the borough did not contain 10,000 inhabitants. He did not wish to delay the progress of the Bill, and as he understood that he should not be out of Order in raising the subject hereafter he was willing to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, he was exceedingly desirous of falling in with the views of the right hon. Gentleman. He wished to facilitate the passage of the Bill; and, on the understanding that boroughs of under 10,000 inhabitants should not be prejudiced by the postponement, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, he would point out that the control of the police by the Home Office extended from Chislehurst on one side of London to Uxbridge on the other. He would not go into the historic reasons why it should come to pass that the control of the Home Secretary extended to counties outside London; but he ventured to suggest that those counties were just as well able to control their police as those to whom it was proposed to give powers under this clause. He would, therefore, move an Amendment to include the principle he had in view in the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 23, at end of Clause, to add the words—"This section shall apply to all counties and boroughs of counties outside the county of London in respect of the control of the police."—(Mr. Firth.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could not accept the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and would make a suggestion that it should be withdrawn and the discussion of the point deferred. They must deal with the London police district as a whole.
  MR. FIRTHsaid, on the understanding that the question of London police control would be considered hereafter

  623
  on its merits, he would not press his Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he believed that the Committee would always consider a case upon its merits.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, with reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) with reference to the powers of Quarter Sessions, under Clause 7 of the County and Borough Police Act of 1856, he had prepared an Amendment which he wished to submit to the Committee whereby the power of imposing certain additional duties on the police, as vested by the section referred to in Quarter Sessions, should be exercisable by Quarter Sessions as well as by the joint committee and also by the County Councils.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 23, at end of Clause, to add—"Provided that the powers conferred by section seven of the County and Borough Police Act, 1856, which requires constables to perform, in addition to their ordinary duties, such duties connected with the police as the Quarter Sessions may direct or require, shall continue to be exercised by the Quarter Sessions as well as by the constituted joint committee, and may also be exercised by the County Council, and the said section shall be construed as if the County Council and the constituted joint committee were therein mentioned as well as the Quarter Sessions."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Transfer to County Council of power of certain Government Departments and other Authorities).
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, the clause as it stood transferred to the local Councils powers which were vested at present in certain Bodies, such as the Treasury, the Local Government Board, and the Board of Trade. The object of his Amendment was, instead of transferring these powers by the Bill, to enable them hereafter to be transferred by Order in Council. His reason for moving the Amendment was that would be unwise to load the new authorities with all these onerous duties at starting. [Laughter.] He saw no reason for laughter. He confessed that until he had some experience of the working of the County Councils, and
  624
  until he knew how they were composed, he did not think it would be expedient to vest in them a large number of powers. His view was that the County Councils should be made perfectly impartial and homogeneous, and in future, when they were able to judge how their business had been conducted, they might transfer to them any further powers which they considered could be rightly transferred. The transfer of these powers he proposed, as he had said, to be made in future by Order in Council; beyond that he could not at present go. He might point out that some of the powers to be transferred were quite unnecessary. Hon. Members would find by the Schedule that, among others, it was proposed to transfer the power now vested in the Board of Trade of making piers and harbours, and if they adopted the clause as it stood they would be conferring on the County Council of Rutland, for instance, the most unnecessary power of carrying out those works. He thought the Committee would agree with him that this Amendment was well deserving of consideration, and, as far as he was concerned, he greatly preferred his proposal to the clause in its present form.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 24, leave out "On and after the appointed day," and insert "It shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen in Council, if satisfied of such approval as hereinafter mentioned from time to time, by order to transfer to the Council of a county all or any of."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid, he should support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. Although, at first sight, undoubtedly, it had the appearance of emasculating the Bill, he would point out, with reference to the constitution of County Councils, the Bill had already been eviscerated by the exclusion of some of the smaller boroughs from the County Councils. That exclusion might be a good thing, but the constitution of the County Councils had thus become very different from what it was originally, inasmuch as they would be composed entirely of rural members or members from very small boroughs. He was not prepared to say there were not

  625
  some powers of Government Departments that could not be very well given to the County Councils, but he thought, rather than run any risk, they should say that these large functions should not now be specified. He thought that before they were transferred it was desirable to see how the Councils discharged the less important duties. As a matter of practical experience, and apart from Party politics, he thought it was safer to keep powers with constituted authorities like the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board, having a staff of officers for dealing with the various subjects, than it would be to give them to the County Councils. If hon. Members would look at some of the powers now exercised by the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade and the powers proposed to be transferred to the County Councils; if they would consider the amount of machinery necessary to carry out these powers, he thought they would see that it was impossible for the County Councils to deal with them. There were many counties which would have to decide on the question of piers and harbours. It was not stated that the country would be able to dispense with any of the Board of Trade officers in consequence of the proposed transfer, and he asserted that the Board of Trade, by their local inquiries, which were conducted at a small cost, had satisfied local demands. The proposal in the Bill was—for instance, where a borough desired gas or water works—instead of coming to a large constituted authority such as the Board of Trade they should go to the County Council, on which probably they thought they were inadequately represented, and where not only would the question be decided on its merits, but with considerable opposition on the part of rival boroughs. He knew that in Lancashire there were districts in which this would occur, and he could not conceive that any advantage would be derived from the action of County Councils in these matters. He pointed out also that there must be great expense in providing the County Councils with all the machinery necessary to deal with the powers proposed to be conferred upon them as they arose. He did not say that there were not some smaller matters which might be transferred to the County Councils. Nor did he wish to deprive them of the
  626
  position they ought to occupy; but he would point out that it was proposed to transfer the powers of dealing with gas and water and the management of tramways throughout the Kingdom, which were matters requiring exhaustive inquiry, and then Provisional Orders followed by a Bill in Parliament. That being so, he asked hon. Members whether they thought the County Councils competent to deal with all these subjects? Not only was the change proposed a very sweeping one in itself; but, although the rates would be enormously increased, he did not think the districts would get value for the money spent. On the whole, he believed there would be great dissatisfaction if the clause wore carried in its present form. It was because he wished the system to be a success that he was anxious not to overburden the new Bodies, and he should therefore support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire. He did not think hon. Members would deem it wise to give to the small boroughs the government powers which were enumerated. The case might be argued at greater length; but he thought he had given some reason why the Government should hesitate before they gave these powers to the County Council. He believed that in supporting the Amendment they would be doing mischief to the Councils and no good to the boroughs. His opinion was that they ought to shrink from giving powers to the new Bodies which could not be exercised for the good of the community.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir Matthew White Ridley) that there were certain powers which the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade possessed that it would be desirable at once to give to the County Council, small powers which did not require great skill to exercise. But there were some powers of such great magnitude—for instance, there was the one to which he drew the attention of the House some time ago, that concerning the public health of the country, and which at the present moment was carried into successful operation by the skilled staff of the Local Government Board—which ought not to be transferred to the new authorities

  627
  till they were organized and ready to use them with advantage to the nation. According to the Bill, they were at once to transfer the powers which had worked through the agency of a skilled staff of medical officers of the Local Government Board to detached and uncombined medical officers, some of whom had no training at all for the purposes contemplated, and many of whom were engaged in private practice, and had never had the opportunity or the inclination to study sanitary questions. He thought, therefore, that unless the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board assured them that he intended afterwards to put down Amendments—in regard to which he had given no Notice at the present time—giving such power to the County Councils as would enable them to get properly qualified medical men to look after the health of the community, the Bill would produce great deterioration instead of improvement in the public health. Until he knew that the right hon. Gentleman intended to make such Amendments, he should support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin).
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he desired to corroborate what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) with reference to medical officers. He had occasion, in former years, to take an interest in the provisions introduced into the present Statute respecting medical officers, and he was quite certain that if the public health of the future under this Bill or any other Bill was to be conducted and attended to in a satisfactory manner, great pains must be taken to keep up the dignity and to maintain the status of medical officers. He did not desire to anticipate any discussion which might arise when they came to the part of the Bill dealing more specifically with public health; but as the point had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman he could not remain entirely silent. He did not think they need have any apprehension as to some, at least, of the powers which it was proposed to transfer. The powers of the Home Office, which it was proposed to transfer to the County Councils, were confined to two subjects not entirely germane. In fact,
  628
  they were connected together by a somewhat remarkable alliance in the Schedule—they were burials and fairs. In reference to the powers of the Local Government Board which it was proposed to transfer, he hoped that some of them would be removed in the subsequent discussion on the Bill. He thought it would be a misfortune to start this Bill without the transference of some powers. If the now authorities to be set up under the Bill were to be manned by men of position and character in the counties, the Committee must give them real and substantial work to do, and he doubted very much whether they could find any means of giving work to that class so effectual as by entrusting the County Council with some portion of the powers now administered by Government offices. He did not know that the removal of certain boroughs had so much weakened the County Councils as some hon. Members seemed to think. It was a grave misfortune in our social life that those who had interest in boroughs very often—in fact, almost invariably—lived outside of those boroughs. He believed that men of standing and of influence in the different boroughs would be found to reside outside of those boroughs, and to have large interest in the county. They would become efficient members of the new County Council. He, therefore, did not attach the importance some hon. Members did to the deteriorating effect upon the County Councils produced by the creation of the county boroughs; but he confessed that he was somewhat surprised to hear the criticism which had been offered by hon. Members who appeared more peculiarly to represent rural districts. He thought he had heard many hon. Gentlemen, whose interests were more rural than his own could claim to be, express great fear that the County Councils would be overborne and governed by the towns. That fear had been removed by the Amendment introduced in the Bill for the creation of a larger number of county boroughs, and he thought that on that ground, at least, they might feel more confident in entrusting powers to the County Councils.
  MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, he desired to say a word or two from the point of view of the public health. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) proposed to transfer from his

  629
  own Department to the County Councils a large number of powers which were always intended to be used in the promotion of the public health of the country. Among those powers to be transferred were the powers under certain sections named in the Public Health Act of 1875, and he desired to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to some of the powers he was about to transfer from his Department to the County Councils. He thought that it was possible to transfer some powers to the County Councils; but it was desirable the right hon. Gentleman should retain in his Department power to control the County Council, or any other Body to whom powers were entrusted, to carry out the provisions of the law which were necessary for the improvement of the public health. One hon. Gentleman had remarked that it was proposed to transfer to the County Councils all power under the 299th section of the Act of 1875. That section was the one which compelled the, authorities to perform their duties with regard to the public health, the power being vested in the Local Government Board under that section. Let him point out, however, that if, under the Bill, the powers given by that section were transferred to the County Councils, no authority in the country could be compelled by the Local Government Board to do anything that was necessary for the public health. He hoped that the point would be carefully considered, and that though the County Councils would be invested with some of the powers named in the Schedule, the Government Department would also possess the powers now named in the Act of 1875. The Local Government Board ought to be able compel the Local Authority to provide a mortuary, for instance; and they ought to be able to compel them to scavenge their streets. Those were important powers, but if the Bill passed as it now stood, there would be no power whatever on the part of the Local Government Board to compel any Local Authority to perform these important functions. He also desired to insist upon the point that there ought to be some supervising authority to see that duties were properly performed in the interests of public health. He should certainly support the Amendment now under consideration.
  MR. CRAIG SELLARsaid, he listened with great
  630
  pleasure to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire (Sir Matthew White Ridley) upon the subject, to which he (Mr. Craig Sellar) had given some attention. He understood from the hon. Baronet that his argument was that, while he did not object to the transference of minor powers to the County Councils, he did object to the transference of the greater powers it was proposed to transfer. He (Mr. Craig Sellar) entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman in this matter; the hon. Gentleman adduced some very cogent reasons for his argument, which he hoped the Committee would consider carefully; but, in addition to the argument which the hon. Gentleman had urged, he desired to urge one, a minor argument certainly, but still a practical one. It was this—that the whole question of these Provisional Orders, as well as the greater questions connected with Private Bill legislation, were now being carefully considered by an important Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. That Committee would report, he hoped, very shortly, and he thought that was a strong reason for at least postponing the consideration of this clause. He trusted that if the Committee would not consent to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), they would, at least, consent to postpone this clause until the Committee which he had mentioned had reported.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he did not think that anyone would accuse him of being desirous of weakening either the duties, the powers, or the responsibilities of the new Councils, and it was because he entirely agreed with the views expressed by his right hon. Friend the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) that he should support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford. Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). They had been arguing all the way through—certainly, they upon the Opposition Benches had been so arguing—that it was desirable, as far as possible, to assimilate the new Council to the old Municipal Council. Now, Municipal Town Councils had had experience of Local Government for upwards of half-a-century, but Parliament had never

  631
  yet proposed to confer on them the discretion and authority of the Home Secretary, or of the Local Government Board, or of the Board of Trade, in respect to the matters specified in the Schedule. It was proposed to invest the new Body—he had great faith in the new Body, although it was certainly untried and inexperienced—with these great Ministerial powers, he might almost say Parliamentary powers. He tried to follow his right hon. Friend in reference to the position of what were to be called county boroughs under the Bill. He believed the right hon. Gentleman proposed that they should still be subject to the Local Government Board, and to the Board of Trade, and to the Home Secretary, in all these matters. He quite agreed in that view, at all events for the present; but he thought that to invest the County Councils and not the municipal boroughs with these various discretionary powers, all of which would require a large and expensive and experienced staff in order to carry them out efficiently, was really proceeding on wrong lines. He thought that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division went as far as they ought to go. So far as Section 1 was concerned, he was quite willing that the Government of the day, having full knowledge of the facts of the case, should have power, by Order in Council, to transfer certain powers to the County Councils. If they did not accept the Amendment, they would be in the position that, when they came to the Schedule, they would have to discuss item by item all the things that ought to be transferred. The discussion would occupy a great deal of time, and he thought that, in the end, the County Councils would not possess a great many powers they ought to possess, and that they would possess some which they could never exercise with advantage to themselves or to the community.
  MR.RITCHIEsaid, he did not see any great objection to accepting the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin). There would certainly, in accepting the Amendment, be the advantage alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler)—the Committee would be spared a long and very technical and intricate discussion
  632
  with reference to the provisions in the Schedule of the Bill. It was certainly true also that the proposal placed on the responsible Government of the day the duty of considering, item by item, whether or not some of the powers now possessed by the various Government Departments might not safely be transferred to the County Councils. He would like, while saying that much, to say a word or two as to what he thought was a misconception which existed in the minds of some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken. His hon. Friend (Sir Matthew White Ridley) seemed to think that, under the provisions of the Bill, the power would be transferred to the County Councils and the Councils of those boroughs which appeared in the Schedule to execute certain works such as harbours, and he thought his right hon. Friend said various other works. Let him point out that, so far as a county was concerned, and so far as all the boroughs specified in the Schedule were concerned, no power whatever with reference to any proposal for erecting works within their own area and which they would promote would be transferred to them by the Bill. Both with reference to counties and also with reference to boroughs in the 4th Schedule all Provisional Orders which were required for the purpose of executing work which they, as a Council, promoted, would have to be obtained from the Government Department as they were now obtained. It was perfectly clear, therefore, that whatever powers it might be proposed to confer on County Councils with reference to schemes proposed by Companies within their area, or by District Councils within their area, or by any other Body—it was perfectly clear that schemes of that kind were on a totally different footing to schemes of which the County Councils themselves were the promoters. While it might be perfectly right and proper to give these powers with reference to schemes promoted by authorities within the area of a County Council, it would not be right or proper that the County Councils should have the power of issuing Provisional Orders for schemes of which they themselves were the promoters. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) alluded to a question affecting the health of the country.

  633
  He (Mr. Ritchie) need hardly say he should be the last man in the House to propose anything which he thought would be disadvantageous to the general health of the community, and no one recognized more than he did the immense services which had been performed by the medical officers of the Local Government Board. Allusion had been made by some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to the fact that representations had been made to the Local Government Board from boroughs to the effect that they would very much prefer to remain under the control of the Local Government Board than to have power exercised over them in this respect by a County Council. He was perfectly aware of that feeling. He was, he confessed, not aware it existed to such an extent that he was convinced now it did, for previously to the introduction of that Bill he had read of objections which had been again and again raised as to what was sometimes called the arbitrary exercise of the powers of the Government Department. There could be no question that, at any rate at some period or other, this feeling did exist to a very considerable extent; but he had become convinced now that that feeling had been replaced almost by feelings of regard and even of affection on the part of boroughs for the Board over which he had the honour to preside. Of course, the Committee knew perfectly well what the object of the Government was in making this proposal. Their object was that a system of decentralization which had been so often called for should be established. They thought that, at any rate so far as many of the powers they proposed to transfer were concerned, they might be fairly handed over to a large representative Body, such as they hoped the County Councils would be, who would probably be better judges than a Central Department of the wishes and wants and requirements of the localities under their jurisdiction. He was now convinced that the boroughs at any rate, and also many other Bodies in the counties, had such a complete confidence in the way in which the Local Government Board administered the powers which were conferred upon it, that they preferred that the Board should have the administration and control, rather than that it should be handed over to the County Councils—
  634
  they would rather bear the ills they had than fly to those they knew not of. He was glad this was so, because he thought it was a very great indication that in recent years, at any rate, the powers which had been wielded by Government Departments had been exercised wisely and to the public advantage. That indication was fairly given through the representations which had been made on the part of boroughs, and it had to some extent reconciled him to a proposal which he could not help saying was in some measure a weakening of the Bill the Government had introduced. But he did not understand that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) was proposed in that sense—it was rather that what was to be done should be done tentatively, and that full consideration should be given by the Government of the day to every one of the proposed transferences before it was made. It was in this spirit they accepted the Amendment of his right hon. Friend. The acceptance of the Amendment would certainly have the great advantage which had been pointed out, that the Committee would be spared a long and intricate and technical discussion with reference to the different powers specified in the Schedule. He therefore proposed, on the part of the Government, to accept the Amendment of his right hon. Friend.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, he wished to understand how far this Amendment would go. Did the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) understand that the Amendment would apply to the County of London and its Council? The County of London stood in an entirely different position to other counties in the country, and he was bound to say that, so far as London was concerned, this Amendment would be most mischievous in its operation. He had regard particularly to the powers of the Home Office, and he presumed that if this Amendment were carried, those powers would be retained by the Home Secretary. That was not the desire of the ratepayers and citizens of the Metropolis. These proceedings seemed to him to show the absurdity of trying to treat London as if it were on all-fours with the other counties which were dealt with in the Bill. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would con-

  635
  sider this point, and make a statement in reference to it when they came to the London clauses.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that, so far as he understood the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, it merely provided that the transference of these powers should take place by means of an Order in Council. It was quite evident that if London could not be considered separately, as he thought it could, power would remain to the Government of the day to make transferences which hon. Gentlemen thought it would be advisable to make. With reference to London, the Government had always had in their minds that when they came to the clauses dealing with the Metropolis separate and full consideration should be given to the peculiarities of the position occupied by London.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, that the fact that the powers could be transferred by Order in Council was no guarantee to hon. Members. They found the Home Office extremely unwilling to surrender its prerogatives; and what they wanted to get was an absolute assurance on the point. When they came to the London clauses they would certainly press the right hon. Gentleman in respect to this matter.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that it appeared to him that this was a clause requiring very careful consideration and treatment, and he was rather sorry the right hon. Gentleman had come to the conclusion to throw overboard entirely the 1st sub-section, and practically to retain only the 2nd.
  MR. RITCHIE: No.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he wanted to be quite sure he did not misunderstand the right hon. Gentleman. He understood the right hon. Gentleman accepted the principle of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin). What the right hon. Gentleman proposed was to transfer no powers from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or from the Board of Trade, or from the Local Government Board, by the operation of this section, but to take power to the Government of the time being to transfer no powers from these and other Departments to the County Councils on the responsibility of the Government of the day. Did he rightly understand the matter? [Mr. RITCHIE assented.] Then, practically speaking,
  636
  he was right in saying the right hon Gentleman dispensed with the first part of the section, which transferred powers by virtue of the section itself, and he preferred to rely on the 2nd sub-section, which dealt with the transference of power by Order in Council. He (Mr. Stansfeld) regretted the action of the right hon. Gentleman. He knew the right hon. Gentleman had had reason to modify the proposed provision in the Bill for the transference of powers. He was aware that a deputation of boroughs waited upon the right hon. Gentleman, and he was aware of the impression which that deputation produced upon the right hon. Gentleman's mind; and, therefore, he expected that the right hon. Gentleman would have himself proposed to reconsider this Schedule, and to have brought forward an amended Schedule at some future time, containing powers which, on more mature consideration, he thought it advisable to transfer. He understood, on the contrary, that the right hon. Gentleman elected to give up that opportunity, and preferred to leave the transference of powers entirely to future action. Then they came to the question of method. He (Mr. Stansfeld) had an Amendment to the 2nd sub-section, and perhaps he might be allowed to state his objection to that sub-section. He could quite understand a proposal that by agreement between the Government of the day and the Department concerned the transference of powers should be done by Provisional Orders involving the necessity of a confirming Bill, so that the matter might be certain of arresting the attention of Parliament; but that was not the proposal of this clause. The proposal of the clause was that a scheme when originated should lie on the Table for 30 days, and that, if it was not objected to, it should practically become law—that the Order in Council should issue as a matter of course forthwith, and that there should be no appeal to Parliament. It must be perfectly well known to Members of the Committee that, in the first place, such a scheme might lie on the Table and arrest no attention; and that, secondly, the scheme might arrest attention, but that hon. Members might be unable to get any opportunity of discussing it. This difficulty was much larger under the new Rules than under the old, and

  637
  he regretted to say that there was no guarantee, under the 2nd sub-section as it stood, that the Government of the day might not on their own motion put schemes on the Table for the transference of powers from any Secretary of State, or from the Board of Trade, or the Local Government Board, or the Education Department, or from any other authority having powers within a county, and there was no guarantee that the powers might not be transferred without Parliament having an opportunity of discussing them. By adopting this Amendment the House would wash its hands of the whole business; it would relinquish all authority and power, for it would delegate its authority practically to the Government of the time being, and he was bound to say that that was a delegation and abandonment of responsibility and power which the House ought not to contemplate.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he did not want to detain the Committee unnecessarily; but, of course, these were matters, and there were many other matters in connection with a great Bill like this, in regard to which there might be large and perfectly legitimate differences of opinion. The Government had made proposals which they thought were the best under the circumstances. When matters of this kind came to be discussed in a business-like way, and when a desire was shown on the part of all persons in the House to make the Bill as workable and as good a Bill as possible, he should be sorry, on the part of the Government, to attempt to set up a reputation for infallibility as to the proposals they made. The Government were perfectly willing to consider all suggestions, especially when they were made by so experienced a Member of the House as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld). Although they had provided that certain transfers might be made by means which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to—namely, the laying of the schemes on the Table of the House for a certain number of days, he was perfectly willing to fall in with the suggestion the right hon. Gentleman had made, and provide that the transference of powers should be made by a Provisional Order. He did not see the slightest objection to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was anxious to say so frankly, and at once.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not consider he was wasting the time of the Committee if he made clear the altered position of affairs. He (Mr. Woodall) was not quite clear what was to be the position under the altered circumstances of the boroughs in the Schedule and of the boroughs which were not included in the Schedule. Would such powers as were proposed to be given by Order in Council to the new County Authorities be also conceded to boroughs with a population of 50,000?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he had endeavoured to express broadly what they conceived to be the position of things with reference to the counties, and also with reference to the boroughs which were to be treated as counties. It was quite clear that schemes promoted by Governing Bodies of boroughs and counties should not be brought into effect by means of Provisional Orders issued by the Governing Bodies themselves. It was quite clear that if a borough in the Schedule desired to promote a scheme within its own area, it would not be right or proper it should have the power to issue the Provisional Order, the borough being, as it would be, an interested party.
  MR. WOODALLsaid, he thought it was perfectly clear that if a County Authority or a borough of 50,000 inhabitants promoted any particular measure, it must come, as at present, to Whitehall. He hoped it would not be irregular in him to refer to the Amendment of which he had given Notice, and in which he asked that whatever might be the powers of the new County Authorities, the municipal boroughs might be left, as at present, the right of appeal to the Central Authority. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had very truly said that there was a time when the relations between boroughs and the Central Authority involved a certain amount of friction. Happily, the experience of years which had brought the best minds of the Provinces into harmonious relations with the very competent central office had insured a continuous and wise policy, which had been found to work very satisfactorily, and that, at any rate, they hoped would not

  639
  be disturbed by any changes the right hon. Gentleman brought about, especially in regard to Provisional Orders. Suppose a borough of a less population than 50,000 was left to appeal to the new County Authorities. What possible assurance could it have, after a decision had been arrived at, that the Bill would obtain Parliamentary assent? There was no assurance at all that the policy of the County Authority in Staffordshire would be at all akin to that which would find favour in Dorset-shire, and, therefore, they could hardly expect a Government Authority to make itself responsible for the assent to these Provisional Orders. He and his hon. Friends felt strongly there was a probability of great inconvenience and great conflict arising, and, therefore, they hoped the existing system would be continued. Whatever concessions the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to make to the County Authorities in deference to the views so forcibly expressed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Blackpool (Sir Matthew White Ridley) and others who had spoken, he trusted that those for whom he pleaded would be exempted from the operation of the concession.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, that the position of some boroughs was very peculiar. The population of Great Grimsby, which he had the honour to represent, was 53,000. It ran over the borders of the borough into various hamlets all round, the population within the borough itself being 35,000. It appeared to him that under this Bill, even with the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin), any transference of authority from the Local Government Board would enable the County Council to administer the various matters delegated to them in connection with Great Grimsby, whilst they would really know nothing about them. He, therefore, hoped that with regard to Great Grimsby, or any other borough in the same position, the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether it could not be left entirely under the Local Government Board, in the same manner as the boroughs in the 4th Schedule.
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, he did not quite understand the position at which they had arrived. It seemed to him that instead of the Government having made
  640
  a simple concession they had revolutionized the position. The proceeding of the Government had taken him quite by surprise. He and his hon. Friends were expecting that the powers specified in the 1st Schedule would positively belong to the County Councils, but in a moment the Government retreated from its position. The Government now reserved to themselves the authority to transfer these powers, and no guarantee whatever was given that any one of the powers would eventually be given to the County Councils. He heartily supported the appeal made by hon. Gentlemen around him, that they should have some opportunity of considering this question. He did not desire to move to report Progress; he would not do anything unfriendly to the Government, but he thought they ought to have time to consider the question. The Government were really emasculating the Bill; they were now taking away all its strength, saying that the House must trust the Government of the day and its wisdom and its propositions. That might be wise in itself, but the change made was so enormous that hon. Members had a right to ask for time to consider the matter.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Halley Stewart) said this was an enormous change. What did the change consist of? That, instead of transferring at once by an enactment in the Bill all these powers to the County Councils, they had yielded to the argument used not on one but on both sides of the House that it would be advisable, while taking the power to make all these transfers, that the transfers should not take place at once. That practically amounted to all his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) proposed. That proposal had been suggested by Gentlemen of very large experience in the government of counties and of boroughs. The Government thought the appeal made to them on this occasion was one of a reasonable character, and one which could not be fairly resisted. The only alteration made was that, instead of its being enacted in the Bill that these powers should be transferred, they should be transferred by Orders in Council.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, he thought the Government ought to understand that there were hon. Members on the Opposition side of

  641
  the House who were wholly opposed to the Amendment, and stood distinctly by the principle of handing over these powers definitely by Statute. There was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Halifax, to strike out Sub-section 2 of the clause. Now he was prepared to support that Amendment precisely on the ground that they thought the transfer of these important and drastic powers under various Acts to the County Councils, should only be done after fair and full discussion in the House. It might take a long time to discuss the Schedule; but he and his hon. Friends preferred to sit several weeks longer, if necessary, to carry out the only sound principle that these matters should be dealt with by discussion in Parliament, and not left to the Government to hand over or not.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, he was afraid that in the face of the great difference of opinion with regard to the clause, they were in some danger of losing the clause altogether. There was no doubt that this was an Amendment which might postpone indefinitely the transference of these powers to the County Councils, but he confessed he should not be disposed to oppose the Amendment if the Government would give them some assurance that they would not go further than this in the direction of emasculating the clause. He felt some fear on the subject because this was only the first of a series of Amendments standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and though this discussion had been of a very general character, and though many hon. Members on both sides of the House had directed their attacks against other portions of the clause, the Committee had not yet heard one word from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in defence of the other provisions of the clause. He desired to point out to the Committee, with regard to the most important powers which were proposed to be transferred under the clause—the Provisional Order powers at present exercised by the Board of Trade, that it was extremely desirable that they, at any rate, should be transferred either now, or at some near time, to the Bodies which were about to be created in the counties. This measure, they had
  642
  been told, was to be one of considerable decentralization. He confessed he thought that if this clause were removed from it, it would become a measure of mere transfer, and not of decentralization at all. He did think they ought not to lose that great opportunity of securing that some of these powers which at present over-burdened the Central Departments and occupied the time of Parliament should be conferred on the Local Bodies they were now about to create. He wished to draw attention to the fact that the Government were already committed in this matter. Last Session they passed an Allotments Bill, and in that Bill was contained a provision for conferring on the new County Councils, as soon as ever they were created, powers which far transcended in importance many of the powers which were contained under this clause now under discussion. Under the Allotments Act the County Authority, as soon as it was created, might exercise the power of making the purchase of land compulsory in place of the Local Government Board, who exercised it at present. Now, none of the provisions—he thought he was right in this—in Part 2 of the Schedule of this Bill would give the County Councils power to take land compulsorily. Take, for instance, the Provisional Orders under the Tramways Act. There were most careful safeguards against any abuse of the powers of the Board of Trade at present, and all those safeguards would still remain, and would be in many respects strengthened, when the powers were transferred to the new County Council He thought if hon. Members would take the trouble to examine the Acts under which Provisional Orders were made, they would see that there were careful safeguards in all particulars, and that it would be very difficult for the new County Councils to abuse their powers if they wished to. He was surprised at the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench on that (the Opposition) side of the House. They had heard a great deal about trusting the people and extending in all possible ways the power of the County Councils. They had now reached the limit to which right hon. Gentlemen on these Front Benches were prepared to trust the people, and they

  643
  had also reached the point at which they were inclined to assist right hon. Gentlemen opposite in diminishing, rather than increasing, the powers of the new County Bodies, and therefore in preventing, as he feared, many public spirited men from taking a part in the work of those Bodies. He thought that the Government, if they accepted this Amendment, which, for certain reasons, he thought they might fairly do, might give them some promise that they would not go further to meet the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin), and remove from this clause altogether any reference to the more important powers contained in the Schedule.
  MR. C. T. DYKE ACLANDsaid, that, unfortunately, he had been absent from the House for a few moments, and had not had the advantage of hearing what had been said by the right hon. Gentlemen sitting near him; but he ventured, having been for many years associated with county business, and being most anxious that this Bill should be a thorough success, to express a hope that the Government would not yield on this Amendment. They had heard a good deal about the thin edge of the wedge, and it seemed to him that this was an attempt to insert it. They were now, for the first time on this clause—one of the most important clauses of the Bill—they were now told that the advantages which they believed the measure to possess might gradually be whittled away. If ever there was a case in which the thin edge of the wedge was inserted, this was it. If the Government were earnest about the Bill, as he believed they were, one of the most important points they had to bear in mind was that the rural electors of the country districts should understand thoroughly what they were about in the most important act they had to do in the first inception of these County Councils. They ought to know the exact purpose for which they were going to elect the gentlemen they were to trust. Were they to be empowered to deal fairly and frankly, and with a full sense of responsibility, with all the local questions which came before them, or were they to have small powers, not knowing how the other powers were to come, how they were to be left to them, or what they were expected to do? Let
  644
  them know what duties the members of the County Councils were to be expected to perform, and then they would be able thoroughly to trust them to perform those duties.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he regretted that his hon. Friend (Mr. C. T. Dyke Acland) was not present when the arguments which had been used in the case had been set forth by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on that (the Front Opposition) Bench. This was a question which ought not to be settled on Party lines, and he hoped they would, without being led away by any such spirit, advantageously carry out all their intentions in making these County Councils efficient and satisfactory. He was glad to hear the hon. and learned Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. Hobhouse) was so far advanced as to trust the people; because he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) thought that in previous discussions and Divisions on the Bill the hon. and learned Member had not supported those on that (the Opposition) side of the House who advocated trusting the people. That, however, was not a question of trusting the people, but one of practical administration and legislation; and what they contended, and would continue to contend, was that it was desirable, at the proper time, that these powers should be transferred not only to the County Councils but to the Borough Councils. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin) said that at present that should not be done by this Statute, and for the reason that there were certain powers mentioned in the Schedule which ought not to be included. He was prepared himself to argue that at the proper time, and also that there were a great many powers which ought to be included, and which were not mentioned in the Schedule. Now, what was proposed was that these transfers should be effected from time by Orders made by Parliament—embodied in Provisional Orders which should require the sanction of Parliament—under which those duties should be performed by the County Councils. The practical objection to the immediate transfer of these powers was that the County Councils had not and would not for some time possess that costly experience and that expensive staff required to carry out

  645
  these Provisional Orders and various county matters which were at present in the hands of the Board of Trade and this House. To raise the question of trusting or not trusting the people upon a matter of this sort was altogether beside the mark. He yielded to no man in his wish to make the County Councils as dignified and powerful and successful as they could be made, and yet he was not prepared, because he desired that, to put the Councils in a position in which they would be practically impotent—to put them in a position to do the things they ought not to do, and to leave undone those things which they ought to do. They would not have the machinery at present to carry out their legislative duties. With reference to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it only dealt with the question of Section 1. When they came to the question as to Section 2 they would have to deal with the subject of education, for instance, with the question of transferring the powers as to education to the County Councils, and he should not be one to agree to that. But as to transferring certain powers from the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board, that implied merely the transference of administrative acts relating to sanitary matters, to water, piers and harbours, gas, electric lighting, and so on, the performance of which would require a staff such as was in the hands of the Government Departments. He must protest against the extraordinary position in which they would find themselves placed, if this Amendment were rejected, that the Municipal Authorities of such towns as Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool would not be allowed to discharge those duties, though they had the necessary staff, whilst the County Councils, though they had not the staff possessed by those Municipalities, would be called upon at a moment's notice to discharge these duties. So far as those Boroughs which were Counties were concerned, it was provided that this jurisdiction was not to be conferred upon them. It could not be, because they would be exercising jurisdiction over themselves—and there was a jurisdiction to be exercised between contending jurisdictions. His object in rising, however, was to say this
  646
  —that whether they were right or wrong from an administrative or legislative point of view, this was a practical question. It did not raise the question of trusting or mistrusting the people at all, but simply a question as to what was the most economical and efficient way of doing the work.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was bound to express his surprise that an hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench, who had been a Member of a Government and had had considerable experience, should come and take part in a debate on a subject as to which he had not heard a word that had been said until he himself rose. The hon. Member, he supposed, was not aware that the Amendment had been discussed for some time and that it was accepted by almost everyone who spoke on the Opposition side. ["No, no!"] Well, it was accepted by almost every Gentleman on that side who spoke up to within the last few moments, and by the Committee generally. Everyone appeared to be in its favour, and the Government, seeing that such was the case, had agreed to accept it. Now, he wished to say a word or two in reply to the hon. and learned Member for East Somersetshire (Mr. Hobhouse). He thought that the hon. and learned Member was under some misapprehension. He spent some moments in pointing out to the Committee how entirely the position of the Allotments Act would be altered by the acceptance of the Amendment. He (Mr. Chaplin) hoped the hon. and learned Member would pardon him for saying that, unless his memory deceived him, the hon. and learned Member was entirely mistaken on that point. The position of the Allotments Act would not be altered one iota by the acceptance of the Amendment, for the proceedings under that Act were governed by the Act itself, and were provided for in the Statute. Therefore, on that ground he thought the hon. and learned Member need be under no apprehension whatsoever. Then the hon. and learned Member spoke of the string of Amendments standing in his (Mr. Chaplin's) name in regard to these questions, and said that he was perfectly prepared to accept the present proposal, and to agree with the Government, provided they would give an assurance that they would accept no more of his (Mr. Chaplin's) Amend-

  647
  meats, and go no further in that direction. Well, he (Mr. Chaplin) had three Amendments on the Paper dealing with this subject, but two of them were thoroughly consequential. He had another Amendment down, and it was precisely the same as one standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the recognized Leader of the Opposition upon this question—namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). He thought that with these observations he had dispelled the apprehensions of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hobhouse). ["No, no! "] Well, perhaps it was impossible to dispel the hon. and learned Member's apprehensions; but, at all events, he had done his best to do so, and, at any rate, he had dispelled the aprehensions of most of the Members of the Committee, if they had entertained any. He now turned to the hon. Gentleman who had only come into the House within the last few minutes, and with regard to him he would say that he had come after they had been discussing this matter now for a long time, and when the period was approaching that they should go to a Division. ["No, no!"] He was speaking with a desire for the real progress of the Bill—an anxiety which hon. Members opposite, when they commenced these discussions, all seemed to share. Nearly all the Members on the Opposition Benches, when the measure was first introduced, expressed themselves in favour of it, and anxious to see it carried to a successful issue. Well, it must be obvious that when a question had been thoroughly discussed on both sides of the Committee, if at the last moment Gentlemen were to come trooping in who had heard nothing of the debate, and rushed blindly into the fray, discussing the whole thing over again, the Committee might sit hero from now to the crack of doom and never come to a conclusion of their labours. He thought the time had come when a decision ought to be taken, and he, therefore, claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  THE CHAIRMANdeclined to put the Question.
  MR. C. T. DYKE ACLANDsaid, he must just remark, in reply to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that he entirely adhered to the opinion he had already expressed. He
  648
  believed it to be of the utmost importance that the electors should know exactly what it was that they were to elect representatives to do, and he ventured to point to this difference between the boroughs and the County Councils. It must be remembered that there could be borough districts as well as rural districts. In the borough districts there was already a great amount of civic life, and there was none in the rural districts. The rural districts would approach this problem from an entirely different point of view, as an entirely new thing, as a new kind of life they were to enter upon. Well, the desire was to make that life as real as possible. He ventured to suggest that the object of the hon. Gentlemen, who had been supporting this Amendment, would be equally well—in fact, from his point of view, much better met by dealing with the subject in detail in the Schedule. Let them settle that certain powers, whatever they were to be, should be definitely transferred for good, and then when it came to discussing what the powers were to be, let the Committee settle them one by one, with their eyes open, knowing that they would be transferred to the County Councils.
  MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin) would not allow him to make an explanation in the midst of his speech, perhaps he might be permitted to do it now. He was fully acquainted with the provisions of the Allotments Act; and he had quoted that Act for the purpose of showing that the Government, with the full consent of the Committee, had conferred on the County Councils, although they were not then in existence, a stronger power than any which it was proposed to confer upon them by this Bill.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he had listened with great attention to the discussion which had taken place, because he had felt considerable doubt as to the operation of the Amendment as affecting this section. While he did not wish, in any way, to put any blame on the Government for the course they had taken, after hearing such discussion as had occurred up to the time when the right hon. Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill spoke, he ventured to suggest to the Committee that they would be rather taking a

  649
  wrong course if they adopted the Amendment now, and that the proper policy would be to discuss the objections which were raised to the transfer of these powers to the County Councils when they were to deal with those powers in the Schedules.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL, &c.)said, it seemed to him that they were in an almost impossible situation. The Bill seemed to contemplate the transfer of certain powers now exercised by Government Departments to the hands of the County Councils; but there was great doubt as to what powers should be transferred and what should not. The Government said they could get over the difficulty by transferring nothing at all, leaving it to a Government of the day to transfer the powers one by one by an Order in Council. That seemed to him to be an abnegation of the powers of the House, and altogether a most unsatisfactory method of proceeding.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, he did not think he ever heard any argument more unreasonable than the contention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin)—namely, that the debate on what was practically one of the most important Amendments of the Bill should come to an abrupt termination before hon. Members had had time to consider it in all its bearings. The right hon. Gentleman himself had spoken twice; but the right hon. Gentleman himself had not had an opportunity of hearing what Liberals representing rural constituencies on that (the Opposition) side of the House had to say to it. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) said, this was not a Party question, but it was a question of the municipal boroughs as against the counties and the Metropolis, and he must say that it was most unreasonable that the Government should expect the matter to be regulated wholly by the wishes of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke, who simply spoke on behalf of the Municipal Corporations. He should like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton to consider the immense number of questions involved in this incidious Amendment, and the interest which this subject must naturally have for rural districts
  650
  which were expecting to have their County authority. No less than 40 different powers were to be transferred under the 3rd part of the Schedule, as it stood from the Local Government Board to the County Councils, and now it was proposed that these powers should not be transferred in the Bill, but should be dealt with singly from time to time by Orders in Council. It appeared to him (Mr. Lawson) most derogatory to the dignity of the County Councils to proceed in this way. It seemed to him that if it were desired to get good men to serve and work upon them, every possible means should be taken to render them dignified and far-reaching in their functions; but now it was hastily proposed by this Amendment to cut away the greater part of the work that would be given to the Councils under the Bill. He could well conceive that there were a great number of Members representing rural constituencies who had a claim to be heard, and who would claim to be heard before the Committee came to a decision on this most important point.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he was glad the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had spoken as he had done, because as a Metropolitan Member he showed what sympathy he had with the Liberal Members for the counties. It was a strange kind of plea for ending this discussion for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division to tell the House that they had had discussion enough when no Members for rural constituencies on the Liberal side of the House had spoken, and when the right hon. Gentleman himself had taken up a considerable portion of the time of the Committee by two speeches. The fact was that the Government by accepting the Amendment, and the Front Opposition Bench by agreeing to the course the Government were taking, thought they could terminate the discussion. [Cries of "Divide!" and interruption.] If he were interrupted in this way, he would promise the Committee to occupy the whole 25 minutes which remained before the hour at which the Chairman left the Chair. It was all very well for the Government to say that they were anxious to make this Bill a reality. If they kept this Amendment they clearly showed they were anxious to do nothing of the kind. There was something in the way

  651
  of flesh and blood and skin on this skeleton of a Bill when it was introduced, but the Government and their supporters were now working like vultures, pecking away every bit of substance from the framework of it, and he (Mr. Conybeare) ventured to think that if this Amendment were passed there would be nothing of the measure left but a bare skeleton. He (Mr. Conybeare) and those who sat around him had the strongest objection to having everything left in a state of chaotic confusion by the Amendment proposed. He could not understand what the Front Bench on that the Opposition side of the House were thinking of. They proposed to accept an Amendment which struck at the root of everything valuable in the Bill; and all he could say was, that he and his Friends as County Members, sitting on the Opposition side of the House, intended to make their voices heard in the matter. They did not intend to have their birthright sold for a mess of pottage. They did did not intend to have these County Councils established with practically no functions and no duties worth the name left to them to perform. It was simply reducing the whole idea of the County Councils to a miserable farce and sham. He had thought it was a sham from the beginning, but now he was certain of it. There was no reason why hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House who were frankly in favour of democratic institutions should make themselves a party to such a sham, and they who represented county constituencies—whatever hon. Gentlemen sitting above the Gangway might do—did not intend to allow this Amendment to pass without a strong protest. It had been said that this was a question between boroughs and counties. He believed it was. At any rate, those who had spoken from the Opposition side of the House for the Amendment appeared to be the Representatives of boroughs, and not of counties. If the boroughs thought they would be placed at a disadvantage by this clause being passed in its original form—if they thought that the County Councils would have powers given to them which would be detrimental to the boroughs—that was no reason why the County Councils should be made a sham and a farce. It would be the duties of the boroughs
  652
  to get these duties transferred to themselves as well, and he could not conceive that there was any reason whatever for the line taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) in arguing in favour of the Amendment, why the county should not have that which would make the County Council a reality and not a sham. It had been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that a difficulty would be created, because, if they clothed the County Councils with the powers contained in the Bill, they would have no efficient or skilled staff to carry them out. He (Mr. Conybeare), however, maintained that that was not the case. It might be that at the present the Local Government Board had all the skilled and efficient and trained staff that might be necessary to carry out these powers. Well, what was easier than to place the services of these trained officials at the disposal of the County Councils? If the powers were taken away from the Government Department and transferred to the County Councils, those who had hitherto carried out those powers could follow the transfer and become the agents of the County Councils, as they had hitherto been the agents of the Local Government Board or the Board of Trade. He ventured to say that they could find plenty of men able and willing to carry out these powers if they were transferred to the County Councils. The fact that the counties had no such trained staff at this moment was not a sufficient ground for refusing to grant the powers claimed by the Representatives of the people. He wished to point out the disadvantage of adopting either of the Amendments under consideration. One of these Amendments was the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), that Orders in Council should transfer these powers, from time to time, to the County Council. He believed hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House had expressed their preference that Provisional Order Bills in the transfer of these powers rather than Orders in Council. So far as he was concerned, he did not care which was adopted, as he believed that either would be very mis-

  653
  chievous. Practically no one was aware of what was being done when measures of this kind were passed. Provisional Order Bills were placed on the Table at the time of Private Business; nothing was said about them and hardly anybody knew what they were. He would illustrate that by pointing to what had taken place this Session in regard to a Bill connected with piers and harbours, promoted by the Torquay Local Board. Hardly anyone knew the effect of that Bill, and nothing might have been heard of it if it had not been that certain events which had occurred and with which the House was familiar. The people in the districts affected, that was to say, the ratepayers, were not consulted with regard to these Bills, and did not know what was going on in connection with them; and if it were not for the vigilance of some Members of the House, it was possible that in most cases nothing would be known of these measures until they had become Acts of Parliament and practically irrevocable. To suppose that the important functions of these County Councils should be left over and not transferred to them, and then he smuggled into existence, as he might say, in the form of Provisional Order Bills, was reducing the whole question to a farce and an absurdity. As a sincere admirer of the effort of genius of the right hon. Gentleman who had produced this Bill, he was most anxious that it should be made a reality and not a mere sham. There was one other reason why they should protest against this proposed abnegation of their powers as a Committee of the House of Commons, and that was, that the one principal reason why they had been so desirous of seeing a Bill of this kind passed, was in order to relieve the House of Commons of a great deal of unnecessary work. He and his Friends supported the Bill as a measure of decentralization. If any powers were to be conferred by Provisional Order Bills—
  MR. HOWORTH: I beg to claim that the Question be now put.
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is still a quarter of an hour during which the debate can be continued.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he was not going to take up that quarter of an hour, but as the Representative of a county, he had a perfect right to express his opinion on this question. He was say-
  654
  ing that they regarded this measure—and had always regarded a measure of this kind—as a necessary measure of decentralization—to relieve the Boards of Guardians, and to take over the various functions exercised by Government Departments, and vest the management of the affairs of local districts in the hands of elected representatives of those districts. He objected to a measure which would throw on their shoulders a vast deal more business than they had to perform at the present time. On these grounds, as well as on the ground—though he was sorry to say some of his own Party rather repudiated it—on the ground that they wished to repose every confidence in the representatives of the people on these County Councils, he objected to limiting and hedging about and destroying the powers to be conferred on the Councils, before they were brought into existence, by the Amendment under discussion.
  MR. FULLERsaid, he wished to remind the Committee of the fact that in almost every county in England the provisions of this Bill had been most carefully considered by the Court of Quarter Sessions, and, so far as he could gather from reading reports of their proceedings, not one of them had expressed any feeling of distrust or fear in any way that the County Councils would not be competent to discharge these functions. This point under consideration was, he thought, a most important one, involving the most important of the powers to be transferred by Section 8 of the Bill. If the section had not been generally approved of by the Courts of Quarter Sessions throughout the country, there would have been some clear expression of opinion, on the part of those Bodies, to the effect that the County Councils would not be the proper Bodies to entrust with the discharge of these functions. He was sorry that there should be any doubt on this subject; and in regard to the difficulty of obtaining the machinery sufficient to carry out the provisions of Section 8, they must remember that the machinery could not well be created until some decision had been arrived at as to the work that was to be expected of it He, therefore, thought it a great misfortune that the Government had retreated on this point, and had not at once decided

  655
  to hand the powers of Section 8 over to the County Councils, believing, as he did, that they would be perfectly capable of carrying them out.
  SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, he should like to be allowed to say a word or two in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Westbury Division of Wilts (Mr. Fuller). The hon. Member had not discovered that at any meetings of Courts of Quarter Sessions exception had been taken to the proposal to transfer the powers mentioned in this section to the County Councils. He (Sir Richard Paget) would like to call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that at a meeting of a Society consisting solely of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions this point was carefully considered, and it was there agreed unanimously, without any difference of opinion whatever, that it would be in the highest degree unwise to transfer these powers to the County Councils. He wished to say that, because whatever difference of opinion there might have been at the meeting to which he referred, after debate on various other parts of the Bill, this was, at any rate, a point upon which there was unanimity. In the future, no doubt it would be well to transfer the powers to a Body possessing all the necessary attributes; but, for the present, it was thought unwise to transfer them to the County Councils.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that before they went to a Division he bogged leave to say a few words as to his own personal position in the matter. He had begun his last speech by saying that he had expected that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would have either revised the schedule or stated that he would revise it. He (Mr. Stansfeld) had said—and he now repeated it—that he thought that would have been the best mode of proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman had not taken that course, however. He (Mr. Stansfeld) could quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman had been tempted and easily induced to avail himself of the opportunity of deferring a subject which would have led to considerable discussion. That was intelligible, whether he approved of the course or not. He had then gone on to say that he was opposed to the Amendment of the right hon.
  656
  Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), because he was opposed to Sub-section 2. His objection to Sub-section 2 was not that he thought these powers should only be dealt with by legislation. He thought that they might fairly be dealt with by Provisional Order; but he imagined that the right hon. Gentleman did not contemplate proceeding by Provisional Order, but by Orders in Council, which were not made the subjects of Bills brought in, discussed, and passed into law. He should undoubtedly divide against the Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought he had led the right hon. Gentleman to understand that the Government were prepared to accept the proposal with reference to Provisional Orders. He would suggest to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) that, in place of the Amendment he had proposed, the words he proposed to leave out should remain in, and these words should be added—
  "It shall be lawful for the Local Government Board to make, from time to time, Provisional Orders for transferring."
  That would meet the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and also the desire of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin).
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was surprised to hear the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax that he would vote against the Amendment, because it was clearly understood by the Committee that the proposal would be accepted both by the Government and by the right hon. Gentleman and one or two of his Colleagues sitting near him, provided that the suggestion of the Government as to Provisional Orders, which had just been announced, were adopted. That really was the understanding.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was going too far in saying that he (Mr. Stansfeld) accepted this proposal. He had said that he should have preferred another course, and he had passed on to Sub-head 2, with reference to which he himself had an Amendment on the Paper. He therefore had not committed himself to the question. In any case, he had said he should wish for an alteration.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had certainly given him, and

  657
  almost everyone else in the Committee, to understand that he accepted the proposal. This Amendment was accepted by the Government in order to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Chaplin) confessed he was of opinion that the second paragraph of Sub-section 2 was sufficient. He should have been satisfied with that paragraph himself; but as he understood that the Amendment proposed by the Government met the views of the right hon. Gentleman, he would raise no objection to it, and would be prepared to accept it in lieu of his own.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 5, line 24, after the word "day," insert the words "it shall be lawful for the Local Government Board to make from time to time Provisional Orders for transferring."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, it would be felt by the Committee, that a new issue had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in order to meet his (Mr. Morley's) right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. Having regard to the hour, he begged to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. John Morley.)
  MR. CHAPLINasked the indulgence of the Committee to say a word or two on this Motion. There could be no doubt that there had been a general understanding arrived at as to the acceptance of that particular proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax and his Friends sitting beside him. An appeal had been made by that right hon. Gentleman to the President of the Local Government Board asking him to assent to the principle that this transfer of powers should be effected by Provisional Orders instead of Orders in Council. Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that? And the appeal was made in such a way as to convey the impression that no other arrangement was possible, and that if the proposal was assented to the matter was concluded so far as hon. Gentle-
  658
  men sitting on the Opposition side of the House were concerned. He was speaking now of what was heard by a great number of people in the Committee, and it was impossible to put a different construction on it. If they were to depart from understandings of that kind, he did not see how they could hope to go on amicably. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said he was aware of the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, and would agree to an Amendment which would remove it. The question was in that way practically closed and settled, but then in came the hon. Member for Launceston, who rushed into the debate without having heard a word of what had been said, and the result was this long wrangle.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): said, he desired to appeal to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman who had moved to report Progress and the Committee generally were anxious to make progress with the measure, and he would ask, therefore, whether the principle of that Amendment had not been very fully considered. There had been speeches from the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench which showed general concurrence with the principle of the Amendment. The Government had no desire to force that proposal on the House; but they were naturally desirous of making progress.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he was sincerely sorry he was not able to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman did them (the Opposition) no more than justice, when he said he believed they were anxious that progress should be made with the Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, speaking for himself, he was anxious to make progress with the Bill. He wished the Committee to recall to its mind what happened last night. When the Committee got to a certain degree of heat—as it had now—they adjourned, and the subject which had caused the confusion was settled that day in daylight, when they met to go on with the Amendments, in an hour. He was persuaded that if they reported Progress now, within half-an-hour or an hour on Friday morning they would be able to see their

  659
  way out of the present difficulty, and to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. As to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) the right hon. Gentleman made complaint of the attitude taken up by Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Benches. The complaint could not be a very formidable or serious one, inasmuch as it had not come from and was not endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I claim to move, "That the Question be now put."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think there would be any economy of time in putting that Question at this hour.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had stated that he would introduce some other Amendments dealing with the points just now under discussion on some other clause. When those Amendments wore put on the Paper they would be able to make satisfactory progress with the Bill.
  MR. BRUNNERsaid, it seemed to him that when a proposal was made, the effect of which was to change the Bill in a vital particular from a compulsory measure into a permissive one, a motion to report progress was thoroughly justified. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) ought to withdraw the scolding he had addressed to the Opposition and apologize for it.
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTsaid, that attention had been drawn to the fact that last night the Committee got into a muddle from which it was extracted this morning in a very short time. The Government themselves had landed the Committee in a muddle this afternoon, and, therefore, were not entitled to ask the Committee for its forbearance.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he could not allow the last observation to pass without challenge. The Government had landed the Committee in no muddle so far as he could see, and not only had the Government not taken that stop, but the Committee was in no muddle whatever. The issue was perfectly plain and simple to those Members who had been in the House, and he thought he was
  660
  right in saying that the proposal which the Government had accepted had been accepted after they had reason to believe that it would meet with the entire approval of the Benches opposite.
  MR. WADDYsaid, that some of them on that (the Opposition) side of the House believed that the alteration now proposed was one of principle and not of form. They did not believe that the Board of Trade, or the Local Government Board, would be likely to cut its own throat, and put an end to itself merely for the purpose of having its work done by County Councils. The proposal of the Government was a very dangerous one, and should be seriously and fully debated.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.

  BISHOP'S AUTHORITY REGULATION BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel Sandys, Bill to regulate Proceedings under "The Church Discipline Act, 1840," and "The Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874," and to amend the same, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Sandys, Mr. Wardle, Mr. Joicey, and Colonel Saunderson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 300.]
  It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTIONS.

  COLONIAL GOVERNMENT SECURITIES. RESOLUTION.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLsaid, the Motion he had to bring forward that evening was of a far-reaching and very important character. It referred to a subject with which he was very familiar, and he should not, therefore, have to detain the House at undue length in explaining it. The question he was about to deal with was very anxiously watched by our Colonies and by those in England interested in them. It was also watched with equal anxiety by those persons in the United Kingdom who, as trustees or beneficiaries, were concerned in the investment of trust money. He thought it would be interesting to the House if

  661
  he gave one or two details on three points which seemed to him most important in connection with the subject of his Resolution. One of those was the necessity which existed for action in the direction in which he wished the House to travel; the second point was with regard to the actual value, from a financial point of view, of Colonial Government Securities; and the third and last point, which he would deal with very briefly, would be the facilities for action in the direction which he advocated. He would premise that he did not intend to advocate the laying down of any positive law, but that he merely wished that permissive power should be given both to Colonial Governments and to trustees and others who were in charge of trust monies. He might add, that he wished, so far as he could, to give effect to the results of the discussion which took place upon the subject at the Colonial Conference of last year. In the first place, with regard to the necessity for action in this direction, they had absolute proof that such action was necessary, and they also had relative proof in the legislation which had already taken place in recent years. The absolute proof was, that while the wealth of the country placed in the hands of trustees was on the increase, the opportunities for investment of these trust monies was on the decrease. There were various indications, and a great many statistics could be brought forward to prove that the trust wealth of the country was very rapidly increasing. He could mention that death properties for the last 15 years had increased from the annual value of £120,000,000 to £180,000,000; and they also knew that new securities admitted to quotation last year amounted to £175,000,000. These statistics proved that there had been almost a fabulous increase in the relative wealth of the United Kingdom, and he should not be far wrong in saying that during the last 30 years the amount of that wealth had increased by something like 70 or 80 per cent, and it was no unfair assumption to say that the amount of money entrusted to trustees for investment had increased in like proportion. When they turned to the securities available for the investment of trust monies, they found there had not been anything like a proportionate increase in available securities. Consols and
  662
  other funds under Government control had decreased by £100,000,000, roughly speaking, within the last 30 or 35 years. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his great Conversion Scheme, which had met with so well-merited and such universal success, had relieved this country of a further burden of £100,000,000 of debt. He reminded the House that at the time of the conversion taking place he had a Motion on the Paper which he had not moved, because he did not wish to do anything which would in any way endanger the success of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. He would now allude only to one other security in which trustees invested their monies, and that was land; hon. Members would know that in landed securities there has been a great decrease in value, and that there were trustees at the present time who would certainly not invest in landed securities. Therefore, the range of investment available for trustees had decreased; while on the other hand the trust monies had very largely increased. He now came to the relative proof—that was to say, the change which had been effected by recent legislation in connection with this subject. There were a variety of Acts of Parliament under which the Chancery Court or the Judges of the Superior Courts were empowered to make general lists of securities in which trustees could invest. Until quite recently, those general lists included Consols, the Stock of Municipal Corporations in the United Kingdom, and the Stock of the Metropolitan Board of Works, about which latter he would say nothing, because the case of the Board was sub judice at the present moment. The Select Committee, in 1883, added to the list first-class railway debentures; then, at about the same period, a list was made of the securities in which capital monies raised under the Settled Land Act could be invested, and that included Chancery Securities, bonds, mortgages, debentures or debenture stock of any railway company of the United Kingdom which had paid a dividend for 10 years. Shortly before that time, they had passed the Trust Act for Scotland, which provided that trustees might, unless specially prohibited by the constitution or terms of the trust, invest funds in East India

  663
  Stock or the Stock of any Colonial Government approved by the Court of Chancery or the Court of Session, and also in the bonds of any Colonial Government approved as aforesaid, provided such stocks or bonds were not payable to bearer. Now, in one respect that was precisely what he desired to see made legal in the United Kingdom; but in another respect it was not what he wanted. It met with his approval in respect of the fact that the list included the Inscribed Stock of any Colonial Government; but he objected to it, because it fixed on the Chancery Court or the Court of Session in Scotland the duty of deciding whether any particular Stock was a fit subject for the investment of trust monies. They knew, on the very highest authority, that this Act had been inoperative, because it threw on the Court of Chancery and the Court of Session the duty of deciding between particular Stocks, which necessitated expensive inquiry at the cost of those wishing to invest; but he believed the Judges also felt that in excluding any Stock specifically they were doing an injury to the security which it might not deserve. He had pointed out the necessity which existed for increasing the means of investment for trustees, and he had shown that recent legislation had tended in the direction which he thought desirable. He now wished to call the attention of the House to what he might term the intrinsic value of Government Securities for trust investments, and that was a point on which he was perfectly satisfied many hon. Members were better informed than himself—among them the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), whom he was glad to see in his place. He would mention a few facts which he believed would be interesting to the House. In the first place, these Government Securities were of great magnitude at the present time. He had made out a list of Securities which showed that the total value of British Government Securities was £840,000,000; the total value of British Local Corporation Securities, £78,000,000; Colonial Government Securities and Inscribed Stock, £115,000,000, and Foreign Government Stock, £714,000,000. From that they would see that Colonial Stock had already taken a prominent place in the field of invest-
  664
  ment. These Colonial Government Securities, he would point out, represented money lent to the Colonies, and chiefly supplied to the Colonies from the hoarded capital of the United Kingdom. He might mention incidentally that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had received in taxes and stamps on these Colonial Government loans a sum which already exceeded £800,000, so that the Exchequer of the country had benefited to that extent directly from loans made to Colonial Governments. But those loans had a greater and more direct value with regard to the United Kingdom. It had been calculated, on the high authority of the Agent General of the Cape Colony, that no less than 85 per cent of Colonial loans were expended on the products of the United Kingdom, especially in machinery, rails and other manufactures. Then he need hardly enlarge on the fact that those loans opened up our Colonies for trade and for the people; and were it not for those loans, which amounted to £230,000,000, the Colonies would not now be, as they were, the most profitable openings for investment and commerce. Another point which he wished to impress upon the House was the rapid growth of the Colonial loans. They had increased in less than 35 years from £5,000,000 to nearly £230,000,000. In the Australian Colonies, in 1851, there was a total borrowed capital of £58,000; now there was a borrowed capital of £140,000,000. The Crown Colonies in the year 1851 had a total borrowed capital of £890,000, and now the total stood at £6,000,000. In North America there was a total borrowed capital, in 1851, of £4,000,000, and the total borrowed capital now was £54,000,000. In South Africa, in 1851, there was no Public Debt, whereas last year the Public Debt amounted to £26,000,000. He would like to call the attention of the House to a few curious and interesting facts in connection with Colonial loans. With regard to the Income Tax, he had only been able to got Returns relating to the 11 years from 1872 to 1883. Those Returns told them that of the Incomes under Schedule C, returnable for Income Tax from what he might call roughly Government Securities, had remained at about £21,000,000 sterling; the incomes from Government Security in India had also remained equal at about £7,000,000. Incomes derived from Foreign Govern-

  665
  ment Securities were, in 1872, £9,000,000, and they had fallen in 1883 to £6,800,000, a fall of no less than £2,600,000. He did not know whether this fall in the incomes derived from Foreign Government Securities was due to anything in the nature of repudiation, or non-payment of interest, or to the dislike which the British public had to invest in foreign securities; but he said, while the income from foreign securities had fallen by £2,600,000 in 11 years, the income from Colonial Securities had risen by no less a sum than £3,600,000, and they stood in 1883 at £6,700,000, and that increase he believed was still going on. He thought he had shown, at all events, that the investing public had acquired confidence in Colonial Government Securities, as opposed to the securities of Foreign Governments. They had heard frequently that the Colonies were piling up enormous Debts, although they had no European wars to provide for; and that in some Colonies the Debt represented something like £40 per head of the population. That was looked upon by some as a matter of great grief. It seemed to him that, in considering that fact, they should bear in mind three things. In the first place, they should consider what were the prospects of the Colonies. They knew that the Colonies were in process of enormously rapid growth. He would not trouble the House with details, but to arrive at an index number they might add together millions of external trade, internal trade, shipping, and population. If those elements of prosperity were added together, they would find that, in 1851, the prosperity of the Colonies was represented by 75, and that it had in 30 years increased fivefold, and was now represented by 370. That rapid growth had not ceased, but was still in active progress. Again, they must remember that in natural wealth our Colonies had resources which had not yet been by any means fully developed; there was the fertile soil and genial climate, and there were, as in South Africa, besides mineral wealth many other resources. To those natural advantages they should add all the artificial advantages, such as railways, telegraphs, and other works of civilization, in which the Colonies had made enormous strides. The second point was that our Colonies, especially the self-
  666
  governing Colonies, were controlled by Englishmen, who, above all things, were practical men and knew that they were trusted at home, because of the enormous mass of private capital sent out from this country to carry on various industrial enterprizes in the Colonies. The third observation he had to make was that they should ask themselves on what these Colonial loans had been expended. He had been into this subject in great detail, and he must ask the House to take on trust the result he was now able to lay before them. He found that of the total of £230,000,000 of Debt, £145,000,000 had been expended on railways; £56,000,000 on harbours and other directly remunerative works; and something like £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 in introducing population to the Colonies. Roughly speaking, 90 per cent of the total amount of loans made to our Colonies by this country had been expended on what he might call directly remunerative works. There remained about £25,000,000 which had been expended on such unremunerative objects as deficiencies in revenue, war expenses, and the floating of loans. He reminded the House that the Chancery Lists of Trust Investments included the Stocks of Municipalities in the United Kingdom; and he ventured to say that no Municipality could show so excellent a record of remunerative expenditure as our Colonies could produce. If they required further proof than that, they had only to look to the Money Market for the value placed on Colonial Securities, and they would find that in the last 15 years interest had fallen, on an average, from 6 to 4 per cent. They would also find that many 4 per cent Colonial Securities now stood at £105 to £106—that was to say, at a premium of from £5 to £6 per cent. A recent Canadian loan, issued at 92½, now stood at nearly 96. He found that all the Colonial 4 per Cent Stocks stood at above £106, except the New Zealand Stock, which was at 99. On the other hand, the price of 4 per Cents, 5 per Cents, and 5½ per Cents in the great countries of Europe did not exceed £100, except in the case of French Stock, which stood at £104. The Argentine Republic Stock stood at £98, and United States 4 per Cent Stock stood at a premium of £129 per cent. He hoped he had said enough to show that while there was a necessity

  667
  for increasing the field of investment for trustees, Colonial Government Securities were, at all events, worthy of consideration. He now came to his third subject. It might be asked, if these securities were as good as they were represented to be, how was it that they had not yet appeared on the list of the Court of Chancery. That matter had been fully gone into at the Colonial Conference of last year, and at the commencement of the discussion there were laid before the delegates two objections made some years ago by the Lord Chancellor. Those two objections were very pertinent and very practical, the first of them being that there was no means in this country of suing a Colonial Government, and the second objection was that there was no limit of issue to Colonial loans. The first objection that there was an entire absence of the means for holders of Colonial Stock of enforcing their claims for interest or repayment against Colonial Governments in this country was an objection which, although serious, had been grappled with by the Colonial Conference, and he could state that it no longer existed, because every Colonial Government was perfectly willing to take such measures as would render its Agent easily suitable in England in respect of the interest or the repayment of the loans. Then, as to there being no limit of issue, which was a more grave matter, the value of Government Stock depended ultimately on the solvency of the nation raising the loan, and trustees would have to depend on the solvency of the Colony in whose stocks they invested. But there was a remedy, and he ventured to say a practical one, in this case—namely, that in any Act of Parliament which should authorize the Court of Chancery to admit Colonial Government Securities to the list of Trust Investments, it would be possible to state that those investments might be made in the case of any particular Colony, the stock of which—for instance, its Four per Cent Stock—was at par. That would have the effect of establishing an automatic rule leaving the solvency of the Colony to be judged on the London Stock Exchange. But he had not proposed to suggest any remedy of his own; he merely alluded to that to show that there was an automatic means of settling the point. He would like to mention briefly another
  668
  objection which had been urged, which was that by increasing the credit of the Colonies, as they would do by such a measure, they would be interfering with the Government Funds of this country in respect of their market value. He did not think that would be an unmixed evil. If there were a large demand for our rapidly diminishing Public Securities, some who had money in Consols would get more interest for the price they paid for those Consols. But even if they did some small damage to the credit of the United Kingdom, he imagined that its credit would be on so high a pedestal that the damage would be trifling as compared with the good they would do to the Colonies. He trusted he had given reasons to justify his hope that eventually the Legislature would take such steps as might be necessary to realize the object of the Resolution he had placed on the Paper. He thought that by adopting his proposal, they would be conferring an advantage upon the people of this country, and upon our fellow-subjects in the Colonies; they would be supplying trustees, and above all the beneficiaries under trusts with a much needed channel of investment, and they would certainly be doing something to promote the credit and trade of the Colonies. His object was, however, to ventilate this subject, and to lay this statement before the House rather than to suggest any particular method of dealing with the subject. He had heard that legislation of this kind might soon be proceeded with in "another place," and he believed that that was a proof of a tendency to act in accordance with the suggestion contained in his Resolution, and he ventured to say that that House would before long proceed in the same direction. He saw in their places hon. Friends who were much given to writing and speaking on the subject of Imperial Federation, and who, he felt sure, would support his Resolution, because the only foundation for a united Empire was that its material interests and resources should be consolidated and utilized. For those reasons he would now move the Resolution standing in his name.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he rose to second the Resolution which had been introduced by his hon. Friend in so able and ex-

  669
  haustive a speech. He would ask the House first to look upon the question purely from the investor's point of view. There could be no doubt that what was called conversion of the National Debt, although admirable for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, fell on a certain class of individuals very heavily. It meant to a certain class of persons that their whole income was reduced at one fell swoop from £400 to £350 a-year, which might involve the loss of a certain number of small comforts, and in a certain sense, the necessaries of life. It was, therefore, only natural that they should seek to find some reasonably secure investments which would give a higher rate of interest than those in which trustees were now allowed to invest. There appeared to him to be a general demand for that; and he would point out that his hon. Friend was by no means without precedents for his Resolution. Thirty years ago, Lord St. Leonards had brought in a Bill which gave powers to trustees to invest in India Four per Cents, and certain other securities, and that Bill which passed into law was followed in 1871 by an Act which enabled trustees to invest in the Stock of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the principle of the present Motion was admitted in the Scotch Trusts Act of 1885. It would, of course, be contended that these cases were not on all fours with the present; and, no doubt, in the case of the India Four per Cents, it might be urged that Indian finance was, to a certain extent, under the control of the Imperial Parliament, which was not the case with any Colonial Securities. But the difference was more apparent than real. Although Parliament exercised some control over Indian finance, he had never been able to ascertain precisely what the control was. He had sometimes come down towards the end of the Session and listened to a discussion on what was called the Indian Budget, when the Secretary of State or the Under Secretary for India made a speech to a select audience of 10 or 12 Members, half of whom were asleep, on the very difficult subject of Indian finance; but he could not help thinking that that sort of control was of very little value. There was, of course, the other difficulty to which his hon. Friend had referred—namely, that there was no power to sue
  670
  a Colonial Government in this country, as they could the Metropolitan Board of Works, in case of default. But was there any real danger in that respect? Even the smallest South American State now knew that if it made default in respect of the interest or principal, its name would be wiped out of the Stock List of every nation. He believed that, with the exception of Turkey and two or three Central American Republics, there was hardly a State of the World in default; and as to the danger of Colonial Governments making default in the payment of interest on their loans, they might as soon expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make default in respect of the interest of the National Debt. As his hon. Friend had pointed out the Debts of the Colonies were not, as in the case of European loans, incurred for the purpose of maintaining bloated armaments, but for remunerative purposes. Mr. Deakin, the representative of Victoria at the late Colonial Conference, said—
  "In Victoria, we have scarcely any Debt at all; we have borrowed it is true, £30,000,000, but three-quarters of that is invested in railroads, and these railroads are paying full interest on the investment and also a surplus into the Treasury, so that on three-quarters of the money we simply receive interest and pay it out again. The remainder of our loans, with a small exception, is invested in waterworks, which pay, or before long, will pay, the full amount of interest. Hence there is practically no National Debt, though there are great national assets. The money is invested in commercial enterprizes which pay their own interest."
  The same might be said of the other great Colonies. But could it be said of the Debts of the great European countries? Could it be said of the Debt of France, which was incurred entirely for war purposes; or even of our own Debt, on which we paid interest to the amount of more than £20,000,000 a-year, and which was incurred for the purpose of carrying on bloody and too often barren wars? It might be said that the condition of the Colonies might be changed; but he held that it was impossible to get mathematical security in any investment. One of the securities most approved by the Court of Chancery used to be mortgages on freehold estates; and he could point out numerous cases in which trustees had invested money, as they were empowered to do by law, in freeholds, and had lost not only the interest, but more than one-

  671
  half of their security in consequence of the well-known depreciation of land due to agricultural depression. He could quote the case of Lord Eldon to show how the most prudent of men might be deceived in a matter of that kind. Lord Eldon was the most cautious of Judges, of whom he believed Lord Campbell said that he doubted for a whole month whether there was anything to doubt about. That most cautious Judge, in two cases, only allowed trustees to deviate from the elegant simplicity of "the Three per Cents," as he called it. In one case he allowed the trustees to invest in turnpike bonds, because "nothing could ever supersede roads;" in another case to invest in the purchase of a rotten borough, "because rotten boroughs would last as long as England itself." That showed that the most cautious of men were liable to be misled in the matter of investments. He believed that Lord Halsbury and Lord Herschell approved the principle of his hon. Friend's Motion, which he might say was also entirely approved by one of the Judges, and he would go farther and say that every well-drawn deed contained the powers in question. He had himself several times inserted such a clause both in deeds and wills, and he took it to be the duty of the Legislature to enable trustees to do what prudent trustees would do if they had the power. But there was a broader and more general ground on which he asked the House to accept the Resolution. He had the honour of occupying for some six months the position now so worthily filled by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, and he was able to say that the adoption of the Resolution would undoubtedly tend to improve the relations between the Colonies and the Mother Country. No one who was acquainted with the proceedings of the Colonial Conference could fail to see how deeply interesting this question was felt to be by the colonies, who he was convinced would regard such action as was here proposed as a graceful recognition of their status. There was not a steamer which discharged its cargo on the shores of our Colonies, there was not a letter sent home, not a telegram which flashed its tale of joy or sorrow from the Mother Country to her children, that was not an additional link to the bonds which bound our Colonies
  672
  to us, and he believed that nothing would tend more to promote that Imperial unity which they all desired, than the knowledge that the Motion of his hon. Friend had been accepted by the House of Commons.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the suitability of Colonial Government Inscribed Stocks for Trust investments should be more adequately recognized."—(Sir George Baden-Powell.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he approached the consideration of this subject with every desire to do justice to the efforts which the Colonies had made to maintain their credit. It was a sign both of the honesty of our Colonies and of their strength and vitality that, in the comparatively short term of their existence, the credit in which they stood was superior to that of most European countries. He felt how fully they deserved the position which they held in the money market, and no remark would fall from him which could in the slightest degree detract from the gratification which every member of the Empire must feel that not only our own finances were in a satisfactory state, but that there was scarcely a Colony whose finances did not rest on a secure foundation. Our Colonies had borrowed rapidly and freely. His hon. Friend pointed almost with pride to the rapid strides with which they had competed in that respect with Foreign States; but he was not sure that the magnitude of their debt was one of the arguments which would commend itself to the House of Commons. He was not one of those who for one moment would depreciate the sentimental aspect of the question. He quite understood that the Colonies attached importance to the legislative position of their loans. It was not, therefore, from any want of sympathy that he spoke. But we were bound to look at this question not from the point of view of the present only; we must look at it with regard to the future and to all the interests at stake. His hon. Friend admitted that his proposal, if adopted, might do some small damage to the credit of this country. As temporary guardian of that credit, he should be extremely jealous of anything which

  673
  would trench even in the slightest degree upon it. It was apparent that there was likely to be at all times a tendency to borrow from the State; and looking to the vast number of objects for which it was desired to have recourse to Imperial credit, he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, must say that nothing ought to be done which could in any way tend to bring about the result which his hon. Friend was able to contemplate with equanimity—namely, a reduction in the price of British Stocks. It was his duty to look to the interest of the credit of the State, and to point out that we must have regard to the tremendous demands which might yet be made upon the credit of the State, and that not in emergencies only, when a difference of 1 per cent in the price of Consols might be of importance to this country. Not only might we have to borrow in great emergencies, but there were many occasions when the State ought to lend for useful purposes. Whatever view might be taken of the Motion, hon. Gentlemen ought to dismiss from their minds that part of the argument which went to show that by adopting it we should not tamper in the slightest degree with the borrowing power of the Imperial Government. His hon. Friend spoke of the difficulty which trustees experienced in finding facilities for investment. He did not see that there was that difficulty which his hon. Friend seemed to think, but he wished to point out what was the essence of the case. The House was not asked simply to authorize investments by trustees in Colonial Funds. What his hon. Friend asked was that where, by will, trustees had been precluded from investing in Colonial Funds the State should set that aside and authorize the inclusion of Colonial Funds. It had been said that in every well-drawn trust Colonial Stocks ought to be included. He certainly thought they ought to be. If he had to establish trusts himself he would probably include a portion of the Colonial Stocks. But it was a different thing to say that where a will had been made and trusts created, and where Colonial Stocks had been excluded, we should step in and say that they ought to be included. That was really what was asked. It was asked that we should establish these securities in a position which was not an-
  674
  ticipated by those who made the trusts. He did not say that the proposal, if adopted, would have any great practical effect. But he would like to call attention to some circumstances which might ultimately produce friction. With regard to the action already taken by the Courts of Law, he believed that various options had been given to trustees. For instance, they were allowed to invest in Municipal Stocks, but the Courts had found it extremely difficult to arrive at any conclusion, and the Act had come to be inoperative in regard to those Stocks. With regard to the action of the Scotch Courts, it had been found so difficult to establish what would be a safe Colonial Stock that in this case, too, the law had been practically inoperative. If we legislated in the direction recommended by his hon. Friend and vested the discretion in the Courts, the Courts would probably be averse to undertake it, and the law would be entirely inoperative. He had referred to the possibility of friction, and with regard to this question it must be remembered that we must put all Colonies on the same footing. It would not be possible to draw up a Schedule of Colonies, and say that the credit of this one and of that one was good enough, but that the credit of a third was not good enough to be put on the same footing as Consols. His hon. Friend behind him had given instances of some Colonies which were as safe as possible, and whose credit stood so high that there could be no question, at all events for many years, of their absolute solvency. But we must judge not by the best Colonies, but also by the weakest. It would be impossible to draw up a list. Was the Court of Chancery, then, to consider the credit of all the various Colonies; were the Judges to meet and say what was the borrowing power of each Colony? With the greatest reverence for those august gentlemen, he doubted whether that was a task for which they were properly qualified. His hon. Friend had, with great ingenuity, invented an automatic process by which it could be decided whether the Stocks of a Colony were to be admitted or not. He had proposed that when the Four per Cent Stock of a Colony stood above par investment should be permitted in its funds, and vice versâ. But he would ask the House to remember that the very

  675
  object of trusts was to give a permanent security. Why was money put under trust at all? Simply in order to give a more permanent character to the investment than could be given to it otherwise. If they were to judge any Stock by its value at a given moment, they would be applying a test which, in the end, would be misleading. A Stock might be above par at issue and then fall below it. The hon. Member had compared the value of these Stocks with those of foreign countries, and had shown that, greatly to the credit of the Anglo-Saxon communities, their Stocks stood higher. But none of these foreign Stocks were, or ought to be, included in trusts. They stood in the category of those Stocks which might be invested in if the testator chose to select them, but no Parliament would assert that it was right to include the Stocks of any foreign country, however great and powerful, among those in which permanent investments should be made, By his comparison, therefore, the hon. Member did not show that the Stocks of those communities should be included in trusts. Allusion had been made to another difficulty with regard to Colonial Stocks—namely, that we had no control over them. That was certainly a very strong objection to dealing with these Stocks in the manner suggested. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had said that we had only a shadowy control over the finances of India, but we had a much greater control over the finances of India than over those of our Colonies. The finances of India were administered by a Secretary of State and under the control of the Imperial Government. While he hoped that it would be long before the ties between us and any of our Colonies were severed, it was clear that those ties were not of the same character as those which bound us to India. We had no control, for instance, over the finances of Australia; we could not limit their issues in any degree. What Government would venture to veto any financial proposal made by one of our self-governing Colonies? They were asked to put on the same footing with securities now included in trusts funds which were well deserving of credit, but over which that House had absolutely no control, and to vary trusts in order to do this was a step far in ad-
  676
  vance of anything which they had yet done. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that in any case they might make mistakes, and he had shown that securities had been included in trust investments which could become dangerous, such as mortgages on land, which had been deemed a safe security at one time. But there were two inferences which might be drawn from this; on the one hand, they might give up the idea of placing a definite limit on trust investments because they were not far-seeing enough; but, on the other hand, they might confine their trust securities to those with regard to which they had absolute confidence that they would be safe in all conditions. They had such absolute confidence with regard to British Funds; but, in spite of their belief in the Colonies, they had scarcely advanced sc far that their Stocks could be put on entirely the same footing. They should be careful before they widened the area of those securities which ought to be included in trusts. There were two other objections which had been raised. One was that it would not be possible to sue the Colonies; and the other was that we had no control over the amount of issues. They had been told that they wore to be able to sue the Agent General of a Colony in this country; but if there were to be such a thing as a repudiation, he did not expect that there would be such assets with the Agent General in this country as would afford much security in such disappointing circumstances. He thought that, at all events, there should be simultaneous action on the part of the Colonies, and that the Colonies should agree to propose means to enable the holders of their Stock to sue. With regard to any power of limitation of the issues of the Colonies, his hon. Friend had almost given up that question; nor, indeed, was it desirable that their issues should be limited so long as they were employed in remunerative and excellent work. He placed before the House in no dogmatic spirit these considerations, which, at all events, ought to be present to their minds before they advanced on the road suggested by the hon. Member. He had not said one word which was disparaging to the credit of our Colonies, or wanting in sympathy for their development, both financial and industrial. He felt to the full what had been said by

  677
  the hon. Member, that the fact of this country, as far as possible, assisting the Colonies by its Money Market was a circumstance which would contribute to the maintenance of the bonds which existed between them and this country. But sometimes, when the Colonies were irritated—and they were irritated at causes which we occasionally thought somewhat slight—at those moments they were apt to forget the advantages which they derived from their connection with the Mother Country. Although their high credit was due in the main to their industry, good management, and business-like qualities, on the other hand, he believed that it was also largely due to the fact that they were able to come as Colonists and fellow-subjects to the London Money Market, and to find greater facilities and greater readiness to lend than they would find in any other Money Market in Europe, or than they would find if they were to cut themselves adrift and to become independent communities. Reference had been made to the extraordinarily low rate of interest at which Canada had lately been able to borrow money; but he had the highest authority for saying that that was in part due to the conversion which had lately taken place, and to the fact that the rate of interest had been generally lowered. What had taken place with regard to Imperial Funds had reacted on others, and Canada had thus derived great support from what had taken place with regard to the National Debt of this country. He thought it would prove extremely agreeable to the Colonies that this Motion had been brought forward, and he hoped that they would be gratified by the tone of the debate. He trusted, especially as the Motion did not suggest any practical steps and was simply an abstract proposition, that it would be withdrawn, and not pressed to a Division.
  BARON DIMSDALE, in supporting the Resolution, said, he thought it very desirable that the powers of trustees should be enlarged, that they should not be limited and confined, as they now were, to the old funds, but, where it was advisable, they should have an opportunity of investing in these new trusts.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, that, as he had spent many years in the Australian Colonies, he desired to say
  678
  one or two words. The Australian Colonies and the House had every right to be thankful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool (Sir George Baden-Powell) for bringing this question forward. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had very properly said they were all satisfied as to the security offered by the Colonies for any investments of this kind. He (Mr. A. M'Arthur) was frequently asked by persons as to the Colonial Securities, and his invariable answer was that they were quite as good and safe as the Bank of England. It had been said we had not yet touched the bottom of the Australian Colonies. He thought we had scarcely touched the surface of them. There was an amount of mineral and vegetable wealth in those Colonies which it was almost impossible to exaggerate. While he admitted the truth of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Colonies owed much to this country, this country owed a very great deal to the Colonies for the outlet for English capital which they afforded. He had great pleasure in supporting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, the adoption of whose suggestions would be of great benefit to this country and the Colonies.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, he rose for the purpose of rectifying a mistake which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) appeared to have made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the finances of India were really not under the control of the House of Commons. When that statement was very justly challenged by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that, at all events, the control was shadowy. He begged the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon; the control was real. He assured the House that the Indian finances, from beginning to end, from top to bottom, in general and in detail, were under the fullest control of the Secretary of State, who was, as a Minister of the Crown, responsible to this House. Certainly, India had an interest slightly adverse to the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for

  679
  he Kirkdale Division of Liverpool (Sir George Baden-Powell), because the investing in Colonial securities would pro tanto divert capitalists from the Indian securities pertaining to railways and canals in India. Still, we were bound to consider the interests of England also. Now, of late, English investments had been narrowed—landed securities had been inevitably depreciated, and now, by the recently successful operations of Government, even Consols wore less valuable to investors than they were. Therefore, we must look further afield to our Colonies; and, having regard to the prosperous case arrayed by his hon. Friend's statistics, he must admit the Resolution was worthy of acceptance in Indian circles and in all other circles.
  MR. EVANSsaid, he rose to address the House for the first time with great deference, because he felt that his want of knowledge of the formalities of the House might cause him to transgress some of them. When he came down to the House he had no intention whatever of taking part in the debate, and he only rose to do so because, when he read the Resolution of the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, he interpreted it to mean that the hon. Gentleman asked authority for trustees to invest their trust funds in Colonial Securities. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had placed a somewhat different interpretation upon the Resolution, and, therefore, he hoped the hon. Member for Kirkdale would state the exact meaning of his Resolution. If the Resolution meant, as he supposed it did, that trustees should have the right to invest their trust funds in Colonial Government Securities when no such direct authority was given in the trust, he should oppose the Resolution to the very last. Under such circumstances, he should be sorry, in the first place, for the beneficiaries under the trust, in the second place for the Colonists themselves, and in the third place for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated that there was a danger which was certainly familiar to him (Mr. Evans), and which must be familiar to all those who knew Colonial Governments well—there was a danger which arose from the facilities to borrow.
  680
  There were connected with the Colonial Governments, as there were in this country and in every country, a certain set of people who loved to borrow money without any thought as to the way they were to expend it. He was familiar with several of the Colonies of this country, perhaps more familiar than most hon. Members of the House of Commons, and he knew from experience that loans were obtained without any clear understanding as to the way in which the money was to be expended. Many loans were not originated as they ought to be—for some great exploit or some great expansion of the country for which the money was borrowed. They often originated in the wish of certain financiers to borrow first, and find the means of spending the money afterwards. If the hon. Member for Kirkdale proposed this Resolution with the view of the investment of trust funds in the way he (Mr. Evans) had described, it would be necessary that the debate should be carried on much longer, in order to show—certainly he would undertake to show—the many fallacies in the hon. Gentleman's statement. The hon. Gentleman had referred to market price; but market price was something by which no one ought to be guided. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the United States Four per Cents being at £29 premium. Within the last 20 years he (Mr. Evans) had bought that stock at 62 discount. How could they take that as a proof of the value of Colonial Securities? It was utterly fallacious. Again, it was necessary to draw the attention of the House to the fact that all these improvements in the Colonies were really commercial enterprizes. If they applied the test of the Market, the lenders of money could well examine the enterprizes, and if they found them worthy of support they would lend the money at a fair rate. If, however, the promoters could turn to trustees—the majority of whom were quite unable to investigate the securities, and quite unable to form an opinion whether the securities were good or not—they would have the trustees trying to persuade the Colonists to borrow their money. When the Colonists had borrowed the money they would try to spend it in some way or other, a proceeding unlikely to result favourably for either party. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  681
  had gone so completely over the ground that he would not further trespass upon the patience of the House.
  MR. GRAYsaid, that if the House would allow him, he would like to make one or two remarks upon the subject under discussion. He was very much indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Sir George Baden-Powell) for having called the attention of the House to the question, and although he (Mr. Gray) appreciated all the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said as to the necessity of treating with the greatest care the powers given to trustees, he desired to point out that there was another side to the question, and that was the question of the interest of the annuitants. At the present time land was looked upon somewhat suspiciously as an investment, and although the Conversion Scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be said to have been brought to a successful issue, there were many people in England who felt that that Scheme had not been an altogether brilliant piece of legislation for them. He alluded now, of course, to the annuitants. He had heard from many annuitants that their incomes had been so reduced by the Conversion Scheme that they found it was very difficult to make ends meet. There was one class of annuitants who had felt the Conversion Scheme more severely, perhaps, than any others, and they were the annuitants who received their incomes from Chancery held property. It seemed to him very hard that the law should say to these people—"You must invest your money in the Court of Chancery," and that that should be supplemented by legislation, which said—"and we will give you just what we like for your money." He hoped that although the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not prepared to accept the Resolution of the hon. Member for Kirkdale, the right hon. Gentleman would consider the question and deal with it before long, perhaps in a modified form.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he only rose in consequence of the very extraordinary declaration of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Evesham Division of Worcester (Sir Richard Temple) that the House of
  682
  Commons had complete control over the finances of India from top to bottom. As far as his experience went, the only opportunity they had of even alluding to the finances of India was the opportunity afforded by the introduction of the Indian Budget. That Budget was generally introduced when the rest of the Business of the House was disposed of, and when the House was comparatively empty. It was not true that they had an opportunity of dealing with the Secretary of State for India as they had of dealing with other Secretaries of State, because his salary did not appear in the Estimates. The control which Parliament exercised over the finances of India was really limited to the risk of the ballot.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN - POWELLsaid, he had a difficulty to find anything to reply to, because all that had been said substantially supported his Resolution. The only objection urged against automatic regulation was that there was no security against a fall in value; but all Funds were liable to fall in value, and therefore the objection was not specially applicable to Colonial Securities. He wished to see legislation which should include such securities and enable trustees to invest money in securities which were not as yet open to trustees; but he supposed the legislation would not be retrogressive and would not affect existing trusts. He thought the House was with him, and therefore he asked leave not to press the Resolution to a Division.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he did not think such a conclusion would be at all satisfactory. It was an extraordinary thing, if the House were in favour of the Resolution, to suggest that it should be withdrawn. He had moved a similar Amendment to the Budget, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) then said that the proposal should be favourably considered by the Government and facilities given for legislation this Session. He understood that a Bill had been introduced into the other House, and that the Prime Minister had assented to the principle of this Resolution. He did not think the Resolution should be withdrawn, except upon the understanding that there would be legislation this Session.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, that accepting the hon. Member's interpretation of his own Resolution, that it was not to involve the setting aside of trusts, it would be better to withdraw it in view of the legislation pending in "another place."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND).—RESOLUTION.
  MR. HUNTER, in rising to call attention to the assessment of property in Scotland for ecclesiastical purposes; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that Assessments for Ecclesiastical purposes in Scotland should be maintained, and that in lieu thereof an equivalent annual assessment ought to be made for assisting Secondary Education in Scotland,"
  said, he might best explain the subject to English Members by saying that the nearest parallel which he could find to it was the controversy that some years ago excited great interest in this country—namely, Church rates. It might be asked how, in Scotland, where the friends of religious equality and the supporters of the Liberal Party were stronger than in England, there should be any question of Church rates so long after the question had been settled in England; and, in mentioning this, he pointed out that the question was settled in England without involving the larger question of Disestablishment. The reason why Church rates continued in Scotland was that, while in England they were paid by the occupier, in Scotland they were paid by the owner of land. In Scotland the payments for ecclesiastical purposes were a hereditary burden upon land; and he was obliged to the hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, who had given Notice of his intention to move an Amendment to the Motion. While the Motion involved two very different propositions—each of which he ought to be in a position to prove—one of those propositions had been removed by the hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities, who stated in the Amendment of which he had given Notice that these assessments "had been a burden upon land from time immemorial." There were four obliga-
  684
  tions imposed by the old Statutes of Scotland on the owners of land—namely, (1) to build and maintain churches; (2) to build and maintain manses in the rural districts; (3) to provide churchyards; and (4) to provide schools and pay the schoolmasters. All these obligations had, for the last 300 years, been a first charge upon land in Scotland, and they partook rather of the nature of tithes than rates. There was a difference between the position of the larger burghs in Scotland and rural districts in respect of these assessments. In the large burghs the question was so bound up with other questions connected with the Established Church that they could scarcely be disentangled; but in the rural districts the question was totally distinct, and the obligation was totally distinct. It was not possible for him to give the House the exact amount of these assessments, because the Returns were not complete; but, from 1879–80, they had continuous Returns for seven years, and he found that in the rural districts, and in the districts partly rural and partly urban, the amount registered for these assessments during the seven years was £406,741, or an average of £58,100 a-year. That was a very large sum—much larger than would be spent if those who used the churches had to provide the money themselves. Inasmuch as the clergy themselves in their Presbyteries were the authority that determined how much money should be spent, he need hardly say that they charged on a princely and liberal scale. Therefore, the amount raised was extravagant. The first objection to this hereditary burden was that the demands made upon the landlords were beyond the requirements of the case. In the second place, these burdens were of a peculiarly irritating character, because they were most irregular in their incidence. Sometimes 10 years elapsed and no demand was made upon the heritors, and then suddenly £2,000 or £3,000 might be demanded in a single year. He was aware that in 1862 an Act was passed mitigating the inconvenience of this assessment by providing that in the case of new churches the expenditure might be spread over a period of 10 years. There was another grievance which was felt very much in the small towns and villages of Scotland—namely, that the feuars had been held

  685
  liable for this species of assessment. Many of these feuars were comparatively poor, and there could be no doubt that, although under Scotch law they were liable, it had been felt by the landlords themselves in most parts of Scotland that it was a hardship to charge any of this assessment upon the feuars. In the Amendment of which the hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities had given Notice, he was not quite right in suggesting that those assessments were for churches alone. They were, as he had said, for manses, and for churchyards as well. It was upon the fact that these burdens were of a hereditary and of an ancient character that he based his argument that, whatever was to be done with the proceeds of these assessments, they were a burden upon the landlord from which he ought not to be relieved. The landlord, at all events, had no claim on any portion of this assessment, whatever was to be done with it. The question between the hon. Member and himself was not one of relief to landlords, but one as to the uses to which this money should be applied. What he would ask the House to do was to declare that, instead of this irregular and somewhat vexatious use, the assessment ought to be employed for the purposes of secondary or technical education in Scotland. He was glad to find, from the Amendment of which Notice had been given by his hon. Friend, that he would not deny that, if this money was to be applied towards any secular purpose, there was none more deserving than that of secondary or technical education in the rural districts of Scotland. A sum of £50,000 a-year would probably go far to supply the deficiencies of the rural districts in Scotland in regard to these two branches of education, because he might remind the House that the large towns would have no large claim—or, perhaps, no claim at all—on the fund. The whole of this money would be available for the development of secondary and technical education in the rural districts of Scotland. Supposing this contribution were converted into an annual assessment, would it be a serious imposition on the landlords? He was not in a position to give the exact figures to the House, because there was a lack of accurate information as to the distribution of this burden; but he found that the valuation
  686
  roll of the rural districts in Scotland amounted to £12,000,000, and, at 1d. in the pound, that would give £50,000. It was probable that the assessment required to be imposed in view of this burden might not exceed 1d. in the pound—that was to say, that a landlord deriving an annual income of £1,200 would only be called upon to contribute £5 a-year. This would not be any serious burden on the landlords, and it would be a relief from an irregular and obnoxious tax. Now, with regard to the purposes to which this money should be applied. The hon. Member contended in his Amendment that this money should be applied to the purposes to which it was at the present moment applied. This was a tax upon land, and he (Mr. Hunter) contended that the product of a tax was the property of the people, and he altogether denied that it was right that the property of the community should be devoted to the maintenance of one of the numerous religious denominations into which Scotland was divided. There was a time in the history of Scotland when this tax was imposed—there was a time when there was so much religious unity in Scotland—so much unity of worship—that it was right and reasonable that the maintenance of the churches, as the maintenance of schools, should be parochial burdens. But everyone who was acquainted with the history of the Church of Scotland knew that by a series of successive secessions there remained now only a small part of that which was once the whole Church of Scotland, and it was totally inconsistent with the principle of religious equality—inconsistent with the principle of equal rights—that the property which belonged to all should be applied exclusively for the benefit of a few. It might be said that the Church of Scotland would be put to some inconvenience by the withdrawal of this money. But it would be in no worse position than any other of the denominations. Besides, nothing would be so beneficial to that Church as to be compelled to rely for repairs to places of worship and other such expenditure upon the Christian liberality of its people; and, by accustoming themselves to support the religious ordinances of their own Churches, they would be preparing themselves for the inevitable time when the connection between Church and

  687
  State must entirely cease. Only a small addition would be made to the claims on members of the Church if this source of revenue was removed, and a great and lasting benefit would be conferred on the cause of secondary and technical education, which the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Amendment himself would recognize had the best claim to this fund if it were to be devoted to secular purposes. For these reasons, he begged to submit the Resolution which stood in his name for the consideration of the House.
  MR. FIRTHseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient that Assessments for Ecclesiastical purposes in Scotland should be maintained, and that in lieu thereof an equivalent annual assessment ought to be made for assisting Secondary Education in Scotland."—(Mr. Hunter.)
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL, in rising to move as an Amendment—
  "That as the Ecclesiastical Assessments have been a burden upon land from time immemorial for the erection and repair of church buildings in the old parishes of Scotland, this House, in the absence of any grievance connected therewith, except in the case of feuars, for whose relief a Bill is now before Parliament, declines to entertain a proposal to alienate these assessments to secular uses,"
  said, that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) was right in presuming that he did not find any fault whatever with the object to which the hon. Member would apply this money, so far as regarded that object itself. He had no objection to secondary or technical schools; but he did object to the proposal that these should be assisted with money intended for an altogether different purpose. These assessments had existed for three centuries. They represented a burden upon the land of Scotland, which was expressly recognized and thoroughly understood by every landowner whenever any property was bought or sold. This burden was taken into account in the price given for properties, so that it was really no burden upon the landowner, but a trust which he held for the Church. The expression "church buildings" in the Amendment was meant to have a general reference to manses and glebes as well as to churches. The Church rates of England, which were dealt with by legislation some
  688
  years ago, were not at all of the same nature as those ecclesiastical assessments in Scotland. The Church rates were imposed by the votes of the occupants of a parish; but the Church of England had no property in these rates. In Scotland, on the other hand, the churches, manses, and glebes which were maintained by these assessments were the property of the heritors who paid the assessments, and the assessments were the recognized endowments of the Church, not depending in any way upon the vote of the parish. This, no doubt, was an important question for the rural districts, for it was difficult to see how the churches and manses could be maintained in some parts of Scotland if this statutory provision was withdrawn. From the very nature of the case the burden must be irregular in its incidence, as it was not every day that repairs were wanted, or that a new church was required in substitution of the old one; and it would, therefore, be very difficult to substitute an equivalent yearly assessment for this burden. There was no grievance beyond that admitted in the Amendment with respect to that class of heritors who were known as feuars. There was a peculiarity in their case, and there was a Bill now before Parliament to relieve those feuars of their acknowledged grievance. While they were an extremely numerous class, their proportion of the total amount of the assessments was very small, and from an analysis of typical districts of Scotland, including three divisions of Lanarkshire, the counties of Perth, Mid Lothian, and Roxburgh, it was found that though these feuars were 77 per cent of the number of heritors, the amount of assessments paid by them was only 13·7 per cent of the whole; so that while there might be some grievance as to 14 per cent of the assessments, which it was proposed to remedy, there remained 80 per cent of the assessments, as to which there was no ground of complaint. But the real meaning of the Motion was shown by the hon. Member (Mr. Hunter), for he diverged from ecclesiastical assessments to the question of Disestablishment and Disendowment. This Motion was really a proposal for a measure of Disendowment. He thought this was scarcely the opportunity for entering into the larger question of Disestablishment and

  689
  Disendowment, especially when there was a Motion on the Paper for Friday night which would definitely raise it. He would only say that while it might be argued that the Church of Scotland was only a part of what it formerly was, and while it could not be denied that there had been important secessions, the hon. Member omitted to say that the Church of Scotland was still a growing Church, stronger at this moment than ever before, and embracing within its borders as large a number of people as all the other Presbyterian Churches in Scotland put together. These matters might be considered beside the question, but what he would submit to the House was that an arrangement which had been in existence for 300 years ought not to be hastily set aside, and that they ought not now, for the sake of secondary education or technical schools, to disendow, to some extent, the National Church of Scotland. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
  SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE, in seconding the Amendment, said, he had listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, and he must say that he had seldom heard a weaker advocacy of a great change. And, as if to give a greater air of unreality to the proceeding, the Motion was seconded by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth), whose acquaintance with the ecclesiastical affairs of Scotland must be of a very recent date. He recognized in the speech a movement in favour of Disendowment, and one reason given by the Mover of the Motion was that Church rates in England had been abolished. But he almost immediately stated that Church rates in England and Church assessments in Scotland were a totally different thing. Then he (Sir Charles Dalrymple) had always been under the impression that the amount derived from Church assessments in Scotland was very small; and he thought oven £58,000 was so modest a sum to be derived from that source that it was hardly worth the hon. Member's while to covet it. No doubt a laudable motive lay at the root of the Motion. It was to find funds for secondary education in Scotland. In that desire they all sympathized; but he wished that the hon. Member had looked elsewhere in order to satisfy his very
  690
  laudable desire. He ventured to say that there was no grievance whatever connected with the ecclesiastical assessments in the old parishes of Scotland, and if there was a grievance in the case of the feuars, it was not the fault of those who sat on the Ministerial side of the House that it had not been remedied before the present time. He would like to know whether the hon. Member (Mr. Hunter) had any authority to speak for these feuars, and whether they would be prepared to give an equivalent annual assessment for secondary and technical education?
  MR. HUNTER, interrupting, said, he expressly stated that he thought the assessment ought not to be borne by the feuars.
  SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLEsaid, that the Amendment of his hon. Friend expressly stated that it was in contemplation to relieve the feuars from ecclesiastical assessment, as they alone had a grievance on the subject. His hon. Friend had dealt fully with the subject, and he would therefore content himself with saying that the Church of Scotland now needed endowments more than it had ever done, because it was doing more work than it had accomplished in past years.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "as the Ecclesiastical Assessments have been a burden upon land from time immemorial for the erection and repair of church buildings in the old parishes of Scotland, this House, in the absence of any grievance connected therewith, except in the case of feuars, for whose relief a Bill is now before Parliament, declines to entertain a proposal to alienate these assessments to secular uses."—(Mr. James Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, he was anxious to support the Motion before the House. He was bound to say it appeared to him a little unnecessary to recall to Members of the House exactly what was the object and purpose of the system of ecclesiastical assessments now existing in Scotland. The fact was that the Scottish Established Church differed from all other Churches in the United Kingdom, established or free, in this—that a special provision was made by law for the repair of the churches and buildings of the Establish-

  691
  ment and of the manses of the clergy. That was a state of things which he maintained did not exist as regarded the Established Church of England, and did not exist as regarded the Disestablished Church, now the Voluntary Church in Ireland, and did not exist in regard to any other religious denomination whatever in the United Kingdom. The state of things which they now impugned as regarded the Scottish Establishment had existed in former days as regarded the Established Church in England, because provision was at that time made by law in England for the support of the fabrics of the Established Church. That state of things, however, could not exist in conformity with the state of opinion which began to rule in this country a generation ago; and he thought it incumbent upon those hon. Gentlemen who supported the existing state of things to justify the exception. What they had to show was the right and title of the Scottish Establishment to enjoy an advantage which was not enjoyed by any other Church, established or disestablished, in the land, and he maintained that neither the hon. Gentleman who moved nor the hon. Baronet who seconded the Amendment which had just been put had, in the slightest degree, justified to the House the special position in which the Church of Scotland stood. He knew that an attempt bad been made to draw a distinction between Church rates in England and the provision made for the Established Church in Scotland; but, after all, the distinction was a skin-deep one. By law a provision was made for the support of the Church fabric in England, and by law a provision was made for the support of the Church fabric and the ministers' houses in Scotland. It was true that in England, following the universal plan, the rates were levied on the occupiers, and that in Scotland, following the almost universal plan in that country, the money was raised not by a rate on the occupier, but by a charge on the owners of the laud, but these were merely matters as to the way in which the money was raised. As to the fundamental principle, the question was, whether by law they should raise out of the land provision for one denomination—whether that which existed in Scotland now, which was a parallel to that which existed in England before the compulsory Church rates were abolished,
  692
  should continue? It was only natural that there should have been some allusion to the fact that this matter was no new thing in this House, and in this country, as regarded the ecclesiastical assessment question in Scotland. This matter had been before the House several times, and what had happened? The House had on two occasions, if not oftener, resolved in condemnation of the continuation of the principle of the ecclesiastical system in Scotland. They had decided the matter upon a Bill which was brought forward year after year for the abolition of the ecclesiastical assessments in Scotland. Hon. Members had resolved in that House, by a considerable majority, that that system should not exist, and they had resolved again on a separate occasion—and that as lately as 1884—on a Resolution he himself had brought forward in opposition to a Bill promoted, he thought, by the hon. Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. J. A. Campbell). He himself had brought forward, on the second reading of the Bill to which he had referred, a Motion almost substantially the same as that put before the House that night, which Motion amounted to this—that it was contrary to public policy at the present moment that a special provision should be made by law for raising out of the national resources a fund for the maintenance of any special denomination in the country. That was the broad principle on which he stood, and he wished to put that view strongly before hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that night. He knew that in days gone by it would have been hopeless to appeal to the Conservative Party on such a topic as this; but he knew that now things had changed, and that there were men on the other side of the House who, on this question, were as Liberal in every sense of the word as hon. Gentlemen who sat on that (the Opposition) side, and he asked them to consider what justification could there be for making a special provision for a favoured denomination that was established? When the hon. Member for the Glasgow University said that the Church of Scotland was a thriving Church, and when somebody else said that in the main as to free quarters and resources the Church of Scotland depended now, as other Churches did, on the enthusiasm, the

  693
  love, and the voluntary assistance of its members. Then he said he thought all that, which he believed to be thoroughly true, rebounded against the argument they were now setting before the House. He maintained that it was beneath the dignity of the Church of Scotland, the National Church, looking at the sympathy which a great body of the people had always felt towards it, to come to the State to ask it to repair its own fabrics and enlarge the houses of its ministers, spending upon it a sum which, after all, throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, amounted to no more than £40,000 a-year. But, at any rate, if hon. Members had looked at statistics in this matter, and had looked at the Returns moved for in 1881 by Lord Balfour, and by hon. Members in this House, they would see how unreasonable it was to suppose that it was in any way necessary for a popular Church to have any such assistance as this. It evinced no animosity on the part of anyone towards the Church of Scotland to show that this was an invidious law. He believed there were many thousands, nay, he knew there were hundreds of thousands of members of the Church of Scotland who were almost ashamed to claim such a privilege as this when they knew that they, as well as the Free Church, and as well as various other Churches in Scotland, could trust to the voluntary efforts of their members to keep their fabrics in repair, to build new school houses when required, and to support the houses of the Scottish ministry. This question was, he know, a question of principle, and he knew it might be said that it was, to a certain extent, a question of religious endowment. It was a question, there was no dispute about it, as to whether it would not be more expedient and more just to ask those who were new Members and who supported that particular denomination to carry out, at all events, the every-day expenses of the Establishment. He had no hesitation in saying that it would be more just and more expedient, and that it would cause no injury whatever to the Church. He did not wish now to enter upon other matters which were, no doubt, more or less remotely connected with that with which they were now dealing, which matters would come before them more properly next Friday; but it was hardly possible
  694
  to pass over, on such an occasion as this, the fact that in many parts of Scotland—in the Highlands of Scotland particularly—they were imposing a parochial rate upon the parishes, and imposing a rate to support an Established Church and the manses of its ministers, when, as a matter of fact, the worshippers of the congregations were so few as hardly to need any consideration; he meant to say that where they had a parish containing a population of some thousands, and where the communicants of the Established Church were only some six or seven, it was absurd by law to make provision to keep up the fabric and the manse. It was absurd to make this provision, when the whole population, practically speaking, went to a church where precisely the same religion was to be found administered by the same class of ministers, and where a precisely similar system of worship was maintained by voluntary effort. This was a matter he wished to press very strongly not only on that (the Opposition), but also on the Government side of the House. He thought hon. Members opposite should acquaint themselves with these matters, and he did think that it would be a thing to be deeply deplored—seeing that Conservative Members had now arrived on this question at a more advanced position than they had ever previously attained to, and looking at, to use a Scotticism, their recidal from the old position they used to occupy—if now for the first time for many years they should decide in favour of a principle which had been abandoned in regard to the Church of England. He asked the Members of the Government to consider these matters, and to think very seriously indeed before they went back behind the decisions of the Parliament of 1870, and even behind those of the Parliament of 1874, when the then Lord Advocate in a Conservative Ministry induced an hon. Member to withdraw a Bill for the abolition of the Church rate by stating that the Government themselves were dealing with this subject. He thought that, so far as the earlier part of the Resolution went, the hon. Gentleman who moved it was perfectly right in saying that this provision should not any longer be made for the advantage of a special religious denomination in Scotland, and he (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot)

  695
  thought, further, that the hon. Member was perfectly right in saying, or implying by his Motion, that the landlords had no right to appropriate to themselves the funds which had hitherto been appropriated to what had been considered a public purpose. But he did think it doubtful whether the House of Commons ought now to resolve that the proper purpose to which to devote these national funds was secondary education in the country. He did not feel that that was the right way to deal with the matter. It might be the right way, but that seemed to him to be a subject for subsequent and separate consideration. It must be remembered that these were parochial funds, and did not belong to the Church at large or to the country at large, but belonged separately to each parish. He doubted very much indeed whether they ought now to pledge themselves in the House of Commons to saying that a fair method of dealing with these funds was to devote them to the purpose of secondary education; but as regarded the main principles of the Motion he was thoroughly in accord with his hon. Friend's view, and could only say that if he would withdraw that portion which invited the House to make a certain application of these funds, he should have no hesitation whatever in going into the Lobby with him in support of his proposal.
  SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELLsaid, he was obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) for having made a Disestablishment speech on this occasion. The hon. and learned Member had evidently anticipated the delivery of a speech he was about to make on a future occasion, and he (Sir Archibald Campbell) was much obliged to him for having told the House his views on the question of all endowments. But when he came to look at the Motion moved by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) he found that, at all events, he recognized the justice of the assessments not only to the owners, but also to the feuars, for in his speech he told them, from the commencement to the end, that he proposed to appropriate the money now given to the Church of Scotland to other purposes—for what he called secondary education. Now, so far as secondary education was concerned, he (Sir Archibald Campbell), for one,
  696
  would be very glad to see that given to Scotland; but he should be sorry to see it done at the expense of the higher education given by the Church, that education without which, as they all knew, all other education was of no worth at all. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh was a remarkable one; the hon. and learned Member had the courage of his opinions; but surely he must know and must feel that it was not altogether right that endowments which were admitted to be just, which were admitted to be right, and which it was admitted that the land ought to pay, and which it was admitted were devoted to a good purpose—for no one could say that they had not been devoted to a good purpose—should be taken away for another purpose. He must say he admired the hon. and learned Member's courage extremely on this occasion. Let them consider, for one moment, the way in which these assessments were made. They had been told by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen that they were often very excessive; that they were more than the Presbyters were entitled to, and were very much more than were needed. Well, at all events—as he (Sir Archibald Campbell) had something to do with the rural part of Scotland—he knew perfectly well this—that every one of these propositions for assessment, when they came to the Presbyteries, had to pass through the hands of the heritors, and were carefully scanned by skilled men. Everything that was done for the Church was carefully looked into, and not one farthing more than was necessary was paid for the work. He did not think that, whatever might be the sum annually charged for the maintenance of the Church, the assessment upon the the land could ever be called excessive, because it was carefully looked into by those men who had to pay it; and, at all events, his countrymen might claim credit for this—that they were not in the habit of paying more money for a thing than there was absolute necessity for. Then, another point was, was there any cause for this proposed change? Well, in 1885, when he had the honour to contest the county which he represented, the election turned largely upon the question of Disestablishment, and he might say that, during the whole of that time, no question ever cropped up

  697
  in reference to these assessments. He knew perfectly well that there was a grievance with regard to the feuars, but that grievance had always been met by hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House; and the delay which had been caused in gutting rid of that grievance had been owing more to the opposite side of the House than to that (the Ministerial) side. All he could say was that they would have heard plenty on this subject in his contest had there really been any crying grievance in the matter. But what were the real facts of the case? Why, he was supported quite as much by those who belonged to other Churches in his position as regarded the Established Church of Scotland as by those who were communicants of the Church itself. The most valuable support he received, and some of the best men who assisted him as chairmen of his committees, were gentlemen who belonged to other Churches. He could assure the House that there was very little jealousy indeed amongst the laity on either side, whether they belonged to the Established Church, the Free Church, or the United Presbyterian Church. He believed that the question was used for political purposes by those who held certain political views—they had hit on this particular grievance, though there was no movement in Scotland in favour of its being brought up on this occasion. He was sure of this, however—that if it were desired to take away the property of the Church in Scotland and deliver it over for the benefit of some secular project, they would find a feeling roused in that country which would not be easily allayed by such speeches of that of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, it was with much satisfaction that he had listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot), and he must say that the speech which followed it from the hon. Baronet the Member for West Renfrew (Sir Archibald Campbell) bore out a belief which many of them on that (the Opposition) side of the House had held for some time. Whenever his hon. Friends, and that majority of Scottish Liberal Members with whom he was associated, took up an attitude in the least in advance of that which was adopted amongst hon. Gentlemen
  698
  opposite, they heard a loud and violent protest, and found the opinions of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh promptly repudiated by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Renfrew. They knew that the opinions of the hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh were not those of the hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. J. A. Campbell), and they knew that these were opinions which were distasteful in the sight of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ipswich (Sir Charles Dalrymple), and therefore they were face to face with this fact—that the appeals made to the Tory Party to advance and take up subjects which would really be popular in Scotland, such as the question of secondary education and Church reform, were appeals which were addressed to the deafest of deaf ears. There was an aspect of this question which was raised in the speeches of the three hon. Members opposite and who had addressed the House. They had told the House that these assessments were assessments which in some way or other might be looked upon as the property of the Church, and that it was robbery and spoliation to divert these endowments, which had been given to the Church by a legal title, from the purposes to which they had been destined, and they asked the House to look on this question not merely on the ground of that higher ecclesiastical education for which the hon. Baronet the Member for West Renfrew appealed, but also on the ground of the vested rights of property. He thought it was high time that in the House and outside the House those principles should be clearly recognized and defined on which for the future they were to approach the question of charitable endowments and the diversion of them to public purposes. There seemed to be a superstition that these charitable endowments and these particular properties were to be regarded as on the same footing as, or as having some analogy to, private property. He ventured to think that nothing was more plain than that there was not the smallest analogy between the two cases. When property was given to a corporate Body, such as the Church—the only justification for whose existence in a corporate capacity was that the public desired its maintenance—they were face to face with the fact that the

  699
  public—in the present case the Scottish public—were the only parties concerned. The public were the beneficiaries for whom the endowments existed, and if the public chose to say that these endowments were to be diverted to some other purpose, then he should like to know who was entitled to complain. Certainly, no complaint could be put forward on the footing of the rights of property. Then the question remained as to what obligation they were really subject to. They had got thus far—he thought there was an obligation, and a binding obligation, which they must bear in mind in this matter. They must remember that, after all, they who administered these things were trustees not only for this generation, but for future generations. They must remember in diverting the Church property, or any other property, to be careful lest the purpose for which they did make that diversion was a purpose which benefited only the generation in which they lived, and they must see that it would be a purpose which would be recognized by those who came after them as a proper one to which to apply the property with which they were dealing. He (Mr. Haldane) supported most cordially the Motion of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen, because he recognized the purpose to which in his Motion he proposed to devote these assessments as one which future generations would support and approve of. Anyone who knew the state of feeling in Scotland, and who had observed the changes which had taken place in public opinion in that country, would know that the desire for Disestablishment had grown at such a pace that even now the Establishment was well-nigh at an end. The great majority of the Scottish Representatives were more or less pledged to principles of Disestablishment. Wherever they went in Scotland, even amongst Liberal Churchmen, they would find the same opinions prevailing, and they would find a tendency on the part of the people to recognize more and more clearly every day that the only reason which had hitherto withheld some of them from throwing in their lot with the Party of Disestablishment was that they did not wish to appear to set themselves in antagonism to the Establishment for ecclesiastical reasons; but whenever they
  700
  came face to face with the wishes of the Scottish people, they found them saying that they did not desire the Church property and Church assessments applied to purposes which, after all, only concerned a small section of the community. Those who brought forward and supported this Motion did not propose to stop short without defining some kind of purpose to which these ecclesiastical assessments were to be applied. They did not want them to cease. They were not there for the purpose of asking the House to assent to the principle that they should make a present of the assessments to the landowners out of whose land they issued. The land was held subject to these burdens; and they wanted to see this property applied to purposes which commended themselves to the minds of the Scottish people; and it was because they found those purposes in education, and because there was no other purpose which they know of which found popular support, that they were there to insist on the diversion of this property, which ought no longer to be held as at present, to the purposes pointed out in the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  MR. MARK STEWART, in supporting the Amendment, said that this Motion appeared to be a proposal for partial disendowment, and probably had been brought forward because its Mover thought that the opportunity on Friday night would not be sufficient to discuss the whole question of Disestablishment and Disendowment. He, therefore, now proposed to have Disendowment; and, no doubt, he (Dr. Cameron) would ask on Friday for Disestablishment. If such were their tactics, hon. Members opposite might do their worst. It was necessary for them to be always agitating the public mind on these questions, for unless they did so their seats would not be worth anything at the next Election. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would make the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of Scotland the issue at the next General Election, the Conservative Members for Scotland would be returned in a much larger proportion than they were at present. Between this hon. and learned Member who had just spoken and himself there was upon the question a great gulf fixed. The hon. and learned Member regarded secondary education as of deep importance. So

  701
  did he; but he regarded religious education as of more importance still. This proposal for secondary education would, no doubt, benefit the towns, but it would be but of small advantage to the country districts, which would lose the benefits of their endowments devoted to religious education. He altogether differed from the view that these funds should be diverted to purposes alien to the objects and wishes of the founders. Whether the Church of Scotland was disestablished or not, the people of Scotland would stand to it. He admitted the force of the remarks that had been made with regard to Highland parishes, and some reform in regard to these might be necessary, but the Church ought not be judged by exceptional circumstances. The Church of Scotland had as a whole done excellent work, and the parish schools had proved under her auspices most successful.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYANsaid, that this was really a debate of very limited scope. The question before the House was not that of the Disestablishment or Disendowment of the Church of Scotland. As to whether the people of Scotland would stand by the Established Church, that would be seen on Friday night, when the voice of their Representatives was asked. The House was now discussing a question on the principle of Church rates. In Ireland that question was settled 50 years ago in the way in which it was now sought to settle it in Scotland, and in England it was settled 20 years ago. The House had also voted on two occasions that the question should be similarly settled in Scotland. The question was simply this: While the members of the Free Church, the United Presbyterian Church, and the other voluntary Churches of Scotland built and repaired their own churches out of funds supplied by themselves, without asking anything from their neighbours, was it fair to expect the general community to go on contributing funds for the building and repairs of the churches of one particular denomination—namely, the Established Church? This Resolution was directed against a special ecclesiastical privilege, and did not touch the question of Disestablishment and Disendowment, and, as such, he trusted that every hon. Gentleman on his side of the House would vote for it. It had been
  702
  said that as times were very bad the Church ought not to be called upon to surrender part of its existing advantages. But in bad times surely the first luxury which a person would wish to dispense with was the luxury of making a compulsory payment for the purpose of keeping up the Church buildings of a denomination to which he did not belong. He agreed that there was a marked difference between the English Church rates and ecclesiastical assessments. These rates were a burden upon the land, and the House would do very wrong, as the custodian of the national property, should it allow the charge to be simply remitted to the landlords. It had been said that the landlord in this matter held a trust for the Church, but he and those who thought with him believed that the landlord held a trust for the nation. He hoped that hon. Members would not be misled by the allusion in the Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of Aberdeen to remedial legislation in relief of those who suffered under these ecclesiastical assessments. All he would say about that Bill now was that he never saw a measure on which he should be more willing to move that it should be read that day three months. There were some names on the back of the Bill which he respected, and in which he had confidence; but there were others of which he would say that he liked not the security. The Bill was one of those aggressive measures which had been brought in from time to time not so much in the interests of the persons whom they were supposed to affect beneficially as for the purpose of injuring the voluntary Churches. He would be prepared to prove that when the proper time cam. He trusted his hon. Friend would consider the advisability of slightly altering his Resolution. For his own part, he should be more than unwilling to vote for any Resolution which specifically appropriated any part of the funds that presently go to the maintenance of the Established Church of Scotland to any special purpose, and he hoped his hon. Friend would consent to put in some words which would imply that these assessments should be exchanged for an annual assessment to be levied for the purpose of benefiting the entire community. Perhaps words such as "for

  703
  some unsectarian purpose in Scotland" would meet the wishes of everybody who would be inclined to vote for the Resolution; and certainly by such a change he would, at any rate, lose no votes, except the votes of those who disagreed with the main object of the Resolution.
  MR. HUNTERsaid, he would certainly agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House had succeeded in doing what everybody else had studiously avoided—namely, in introducing the word "sectarian" into the debate. He thought it would have been well had the debate been allowed to proceed without the introduction of such an element; but the right hon. Gentleman in the speech which he had made had plainly indicated that the object and intention of the Motion was to have the principle of Disendowment, so far as the Motion went, established by the vote of the House to-night. It was as plain as possible that the whole object and purpose of bringing forward this question on the present occasion was to have a reconnaissance in force with a view to the general engagement which was to follow on Friday. The right hon. Gentleman had also indicated his horror that the Bill had not been brought in for Party reasons, and that his confidence in his own Friends, whose names were on the back of the Bill, was shaken when he found them in the company of three such terrible Gentlemen as the Members for the Universities of Aberdeen and Glasgow, the Member for Peebles and Selkirk, and the Member for Kirkcudbright. He should have thought that when the names of the right hon. Gentleman's Friends were on the back of the Bill, he should have told them what he objected to in its contents.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN(interrupting) said, he would not have been in Order in doing so, and would have been stopped.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDsaid, in that case the right hon. Gentleman should not have referred so pointedly to the outside of the Bill for the purpose of questioning what was in it, when he
  704
  knew that if he had made any direct allusion to the contents he would not have been in Order. The hon. Member for Aberdeen was doubtless actuated by the best of motives in introducinghis Amendment, because he told the House that the effect of his Motion, if carried, would be very good for the Church of Scotland. If, however, that were accepted as true by many Friends of his, it would probably not be a ground in their opinion for giving any support to the Motion at all; and it had been brought out very clearly that the aim rather was to move in the general direction of Disestablishment and Disendowment. It had been clearly shown that there was no strongly expressed desire on the part of any substantial portion of the people of Scotland for applying these assessments as proposed by the Motion. The hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh had reminded the House that this question had been before it on several occasions, but he omitted to state that it then fell dead and had been dead ever since. It would be found that Mr. M'Laren on a previous occasion withdrew his Motion because he thought that people were becoming more in favour of Disestablishment. Everything showed that the people of Scotland had never in any way indicated the slightest interest in this matter. His hon. Friend behind him had stated that the question had never been raised in election contests, and his own experience in 1874, 1878, and 1880 was to the effect that the question of Church assessment had never on any single occasion been raised. To talk, therefore, of this question as one which was now agitating the public mind in Scotland was an extravagance. It was not a question raised by the people of Scotland; it was a subject raised by politicians as a stalking-horse for another and a more important question. There was very good reason why the public of Scotland should take no interest in it. If the Church of Scotland were asking the State for money to rebuild churches and repair manses he could understand that the question should be raised. But such was not the case. These assessments had been devoted for hundreds of years to purposes of religion, and the Scottish people had never made any complaint. The fact that there was an admitted grievance on the part of the small feuars was an

  705
  indication that there was no general grievance. No case had been mentioned in which the proprietors or any other than the small feuars had made the smallest complaint. The right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow contended that in these hard times the luxury of paying these assessments should be dispensed with. But it was not proposed by the Motion to abolish the assessments. On the contrary, secondary education was to be assisted out of the money to be drawn from those proprietors and feuars. The only people who were to have nothing to say to the disposal of this money were those from whom it was to be wrung. Nothing could more plainly show that this Motion was only a preliminary skirmish for another question. The money went in aid of a Church which inculcated and taught the same doctrines in morals and Christian faith as were held by the great mass of the population of Scotland, and if they were to devote it to secondary education they would do an act of the greatest injustice. Was it proposed that the poor districts, where secondary education could not reach, should continue to pay this assessment, and that the money should be applied to secondary education in the largo towns? Anything more unjust could not be conceived. His hon. Friend had said that the demands made upon the landlords in respect to these assessments were extravagant and were peculiarly irritating because they were intermittent. He asked his hon. Friend whether he was a mandatory for the landlords of Scotland in order to tell the House what were their grievances in that matter. If the landlords of Scotland were selecting a person to act as their representative on that question he thought that they would put his hon. Friend down last on the list of those whom they would choose to speak for them. One hon. Member had spoken of those assessments as robbery and spoliation, but he would remind those who used that language of the words of a gentleman now in a distant country, Mr. Anderson, formerly Member for Glasgow, who, when that matter was discussed before, stated his reasons for voting against such a Resolution as the present, and declared "that it was not only wrong but very stupid, in his opinion, for the Dissenters to go in for that piece of Church robbery." He knew
  706
  they were to have a great battle on Friday, and no one doubted that the question now before the House was practically embraced in that which was to be disposed of on Friday. Objection was taken to these assessments on the ground that Church rates had been abolished in England, but there was no analogy between the rates in England and these assessments in Scotland. In conclusion, he hoped that the House would reject the Resolution of his hon. Friend, which would lead to no practical result. When the real issue came to be fought it would be fought on the general question which was to be raised on Friday night. If hon. Gentlemen were satisfied, as they professed to be, that Scotland was with them on this question, then let them stick to the real fight, and not raise side issues of this kind.
  MR. M'LAGANsaid, the Resolution of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) contained two distinct propositions. In the first place, it was proposed to abolish assessments for ecclesiastical purposes, and then follows a proposal to divert the assessments to a different purpose altogether. The first of these proposals was identical with that in the Bill introduced by the late Mr. M'Laren, whose object was the abolition of Church rates, and his Bill was drafted on the same lines as the Bill abolishing compulsory Church rates in England. The whole machinery was left the same as if the Church rates were in existence, but they were to be paid voluntarily, instead of compulsorily. He voted on every occasion for that Bill, and he did so for certain reasons; because he considered that ecclesiastical assessments in Scotland were most unjust to the feuars. He saw no way to remedy that, and therefore considered it his duty to take the best way of meeting it; but he had always qualified his vote by his opinion in favour of ecclesiastical assessments being capitalized for the Established Church, so far as there was an Established Church, and afterwards for any purpose Parliament might think proper. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen had directed his Motion solely to the abolition of Church rates, then he should have been bound in consistency to vote for it; but as in the second part his hon. Friend proposed to devote the rates to a different purpose, he must vote against the Resolution. He thought

  707
  it right to make these remarks, else his action might be considered open to the charge of inconsistency.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.)said, he did not know whether his hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter) was disposed to alter his Motion. He felt reluctant to pledge himself to the purpose to which the latter portion of the Motion would devote the fund, and he did not think it would be expedient to divide the House upon it now. The appropriation of the rates to one particular Church was a very irritating part of the Establishment, and he should be glad to get rid of that source of irritation; but if he voted with his hon. Friend, it would not be for the latter part of the Resolution.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)said, he did not think the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan) would be quite consistent if he were to vote for the first part of the Resolution—namely, that assessments of property for Church purposes should cease, seeing that he was quite willing to assent to the continuation of these assessments, provided they were voluntary. But the Resolution provided for absolute abolition. Whereas the hon. Member in former times consistently voted for voluntary rates as in England instead of compulsory, voting for the Resolution now would be voting for abolition altogether.
  MR. HUNTERsaid, before the House went to a Division, he wished to say a word or two on the point that had been raised. In framing the Resolution, he was anxious to invite the attention of the House to the claims of secondary education in the rural districts of Scotland. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had entirely misapprehended the point when the right hon. Gentleman supposed he contemplated the application of funds derived from rural districts to towns. That was not his intention at all; towns were well able to look after themselves in the matter of secondary education, it was the rural districts he was desirous of helping in this matter. But having brought the matter to the notice of the House, he had no desire to make that an essential part of the Motion, and would, therefore, at once accept the proposal made. It was on the Amend-
  708
  ment the House would now divide, and of course if that Amendment should be carried, it would be unnecessary to go any further; but if the Amendment should be defeated, he would suggest that words be introduced such as those proposed by the hon. Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities. Then, a word on the Amendment. It was a great mistake to say this was the Disestablishment Question. It was quite true that the Disestablishment Question included Church assessments; the greater includes the less, not the less the greater.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that this form of putting the Question would shut out subsequent Amendments. Could not the first half of the Motion be put?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not possible; the Forms of the House will not admit of it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 111; Noes, 148: Majority 37.

  AYES.

  Abraham, W. (Glam.)

  Esmonde, Sir T. H. G.

  Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

  Esslemont, P.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Allison, R. A.

  Fenwick, C.

  Anderson, C. H.

  Finucane, J.

  Asher, A.

  Flynn, J. C.

  Barbour, W. B.

  Foley, P. J.

  Bickford-Smith, W.

  Fowler, right hon. H. H.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Fuller, G. P.

  Bradlaugh, C.

  Gane, J. L.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Gilhooly, J.

  Burt, T.

  Graham, R. C.

  Buxton, S. C.

  Haldane, R. B.

  Cameron, C.

  Harrington, E.

  Cameron, J. M.

  Hayden, L. P.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Hayne, C. Seale-

  Carew, J. L.

  Holden, I.

  Chamberlain, R.

  Hooper, J.

  Channing, F. A.

  Joicey, J.

  Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

  Jordan, J.

  Kenny, C. S.

  Clancy, J. J.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Clark, Dr. G. B.

  Kilbride, D.

  Commins, A.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Conway, M.

  Lawson, H. L. W.

  Conybeare, C. A. V.

  Lyell, L.

  Corbett, A. C.

  M'Donald, P.

  Cossham, H.

  M'Ewan, W.

  Cox, J. R.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Crawford, D.

  M'Laren, W. S. B.

  Cremer, W. R.

  Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

  Crilly, D.

  Deasy, J.

  Menzies, R. S.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Morley, A.

  Ellis, J.

  Murphy, W. M.

  Ellis, T. E.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  709

  Nolan, J.

  Sheehy, D.

  O'Brien, J. F. X.

  Sinclair, J.

  O'Brien, P. J.

  Stack, J.

  O'Connor, J.

  Stanhope, hon. P. J.

  O'Hanlon, T.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  O'Hea, P.

  Stewart, H.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Sullivan, D.

  Parker, C. S.

  Summers, W.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Trevelyan, right hon. Sir G. O.

  Pease, A. E.

  Pease, H. F.

  Tuite, J.

  Pinkerton, J.

  Waddy, S. D.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Wallace, R.

  Power, P. J.

  Warmington, C. M.

  Provand, A. D.

  Will, J. S.

  Tyne, J. D.

  Williamson, J.

  Quinn, T.

  Wilson, H. J.

  Redmond, W. H. K.

  Wilson, I.

  Roberts, J.

  Roscoe, Sir H. E.

  TELLERS,

  Sexton, T.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Sheehan, J. D.

  Hunter, W. A.

  NOES.

  Addison, J. E. W.

  Finch, G. H.

  Ambrose, W.

  Fisher, W. H.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Fitz-Wygram, General Sir F. W.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. S.

  Folkestone, right hon. Viscount

  Bartley, G. C. T.

  Forwood, A. B.

  Bass, H.

  Fowler, Sir R. N.

  Beckett, W.

  Gent-Davis, R.

  Bective, Earl of

  Godson, A. F.

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C

  Goldsworthy, Major General W. T.

  Bentinck, Lord H. C.

  Bothell, Commander G. R.

  Gorst, Sir J. E.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Birkbeck, Sir E.

  Gray, C. W.

  Bond, G. H.

  Grimston, Viscount

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

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

  Bruce, Lord H.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Campbell, Sir A.

  Hankey, F. A.

  Carmarthen, Marq. of

  Hardcastle, F.

  Clarke, Sir E. G.

  Heathcote, Capt. J. H. Edwards-

  Coddington, W.

  Coghill, D. H.

  Heaton, J. H.

  Colomb, Sir J. C. R.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Cooke, C. W. R.

  Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

  Corry, Sir J. P.

  Hill, right hon. Lord A. W.

  Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.

  Curzon, hon. G. N.

  Hill, Colonel E. S.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Hornby, W. H.

  De Cobain, E. S. W.

  Houldsworth, Sir W.H.

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

  Hozier, J. H. C.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Hubbard, hon. E.

  Dimsdale, Baron R.

  Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Dugdale, J. S.

  Hunt, F. S.

  Dyke, right hon. Sir W. H.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Johnston, W.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Kelly, J. R.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Kerans, F. H.

  Elcho, Lord

  Knowles, L.

  Ewing, Sir A. O.

  Kynoch, G.

  Eyre, Colonel H.

  Lafone, A.

  Feilden, Lt.-Gen. R. J.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Fellowes, A. E.

  Lawrence, W. F.

  Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

  Leighton, S.

  Lewisham, right hon. Viscount

  Field, Admiral E.

  710

  Llewellyn, E. H.

  Russell, Sir G.

  Long, W. H.

  Russell, T. W.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Seton-Karr, H.

  Macdonald, rt. hon. J. H. A.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H.

  Sidebottom, J. W.

  Maclure, J. W.

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Madden, D. H.

  Smith, right hon. W. H.

  Maple, J. B.

  Marriott, rt. hon. Sir W. T.

  Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

  Stewart, M. J.

  Matthews, rt. hon. H.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Mattinson, M. W.

  Tapling, T. K

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Temple, Sir R.

  Mayne, Admiral R. C.

  Theobald, J.

  Mills, hon. C. W.

  Thorburn, W.

  Milvain, T.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Mowbray, R. G. C.

  Vernon, hon. G. R.

  Muntz, P. A.

  Vincent, C. E. H.

  Newark, Viscount

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Noble, W.

  Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

  Norton, R.

  Watson, J.

  O'Neill, hon. R. T.

  Webster, Sir R. E.

  Parker, hon. F.

  Webster, R. G.

  Pearce, Sir W.

  Wharton, J. L.

  Plowden, Sir W. C.

  Whitley, E.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Whitmore, C. A.

  Plunkett, hon. J. W.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Wood, N.

  Richardson, T.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Ritchie, rt. hn. C. T.

  Young, C. E. B.

  Robertson, Sir W. T.

  Robinson, B.

  TELLERS.

  Round, J.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Royden, T. B.

  Dalrymple, Sir C.

  Main Question, as amended, proposed.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, after the Division just taken, he should not, under ordinary circumstances, think it right to challenge a Division on the Amendment. But this was a reactionary Amendment; it was not merely an expression of opinion on a matter before the House, it was an expression of opinion, overturning previous Resolutions of the House in a most reactionary manner. It committed the House to a Bill many Members thought objectionable, and which had yet to be discussed. Indeed, he thought it might have been raised as a point of Order, whether a Resolution referring thus to a Bill before the House was exactly within the spirit—it was within the letter, no doubt—of Parliamentary Rules in regard to Bills and Resolutions? It was their duty, he thought, to divide against the Resolution, because it affirmed an altogether reactionary proposal; it was a Resolution, in fact, affirming the desirability of keeping up these assessments for the maintenance of the Church. These assessments had nothing to do with Disestablishment. They

  711
  were abolished in England, and still the Church remained established; they were abolished in Ireland long before the question of Disestablishment was dealt with. It was, apart altogether from disestablishment, a grievance promised to be dealt with by the House in quite another fashion, and in regard to which Resolutions of quite an opposite character to this had repeatedly been adopted by the House. They could not accept this Resolution without taking a Division against it. He remembered the history of the question, and the late Mr. M'Laren's efforts to get the grievance abolished. It had been truly said that he gave up his efforts at last, because he perceived that there was a strong current of feeling in Scotland setting in in favour, not of dealing piecemeal with the removal of grievances, but towards remedying the great grievance in ecclesiastical matters by abolishing the connection between Church and State. At that time, the persons who opposed all reform in the matter were those hon. Members who had endeavoured to commit the House to an opinion on the Bill before the House referred to in the Resolution. He and his Friends were bound to express their protest against this Resolution by taking a vote against it. He hoped they would have a strong Division again it, for he was perfectly certain there must be a number of Members on either side who, while dissenting from the original Resolution, must find this was not at all to their taste.
  MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDthought the hon. Member might have accepted the amended Resolution with his usual amiability. The reasons now given for pressing the Division were not the suggestions made against the Amendment when it was under debate.
  MR. WALLACEsaid, he would not have intervened, and would have accepted the present proposal, if he had not been certain that the conclusion the House had just arrived at was not the conclusion of Scotch Votes, and no one was more aware of that than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be much misinformed on the question of votes, if he was not aware on this matter that the opinion of
  712
  Scotch Members had been weighed down by the influence of votes which he and his Government had been able to oppose to Scotch opinion. The hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow was perfectly consistent, and more than that it would have been dereliction of duty on his part if he had not insisted on another Division, to make it more clear to the people of Scotland that in that House it was not the voice of Scotland that was respected, but that it was by those on the other side of the House, and who were responsible for Government, that the voice of Scotland was systematically defied on all matters in which the feeling and mind of Scotland was interested, and that it was only in matters of small detail that a pretence was made of respecting the opinion of Scotland. It was important that a second Division should be taken in order that the fact he had indicated might a second time be signally illustrated, and no one knew that better than the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate himself, than whom no person was more happy when by the assistance of his Friends from England he was able to bear down the opinion of the country he nominally represented.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOTsaid, that, as one who had gone into the same Lobby with the hon. Member who had just spoken, and should vote with him again, he would take the opportunity of declaring that he entirely disagreed in every respect from the language the hon. Member had used. In that Lobby, he recognized a large number of Members who had no direct interest with Scotch affairs, and among them he was glad to see a majority of the Irish Members. He was aware that there were hon. Members who were so excited on certain questions that they found it impossible to discuss a particular question simply on its merits; but he would appeal to hon. Members on both sides to reject the present proposal on its merits. It was a retrograde proposal, receding from the position several times affirmed; it said that under no circumstances should the House consent to the abolition of a system under which a public fund was now devoted to a single religious denomination. On the merits of the Question he appealed to the House to reject the Motion.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 104: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 166.)
  Resolved, That as the Ecclesiastical Assessments have been a burden upon land from time immemorial for the erection and repair of church buildings in the old parishes of Scotland, this House, in the absence of any grievance connected therewith, except in the case of feuars, for whose relief a Bill is now before Parliament, declines to entertain a proposal to alienate these assessments to secular ones.
  And it being One of the clock a.m., Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.