Commons Sitting of 19 March 1888

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Sunday Closing Acts (Ireland), nominated, Navy Estimates, nominated.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolutions [March 16] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland [Salary, & c].
Ordered—First Reading—Globe Lands * [180]; Consolidated Fund (No. 1) *; Local Government (England and Wales) Electors * [181]; Local Government (England and Wales) [182].
Second Reading—Army (Annual) * [179].
Select Committee—City of London (Fire Inquests), nominated.
Committee—Report—Timber Acts (Ireland) Amendment * [157].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BRIXTON PARK BILL.

    INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, the Instruction to the Committee upon this Bill he proposed to move was the outcome of a suggestion of the hon. Member for the Wimbledon Division (Mr. Bonsor), and it had been acquiesced in by the noble Marquess the Member for Brixton (The Marquess of Carmarthen). It was thought that the proposals in the Bill were so very extravagant that they ought to undergo careful consideration by the Committee upstairs. Agreeing on that subject, he, with the hon. Member and the noble Marquess he had referred to acquiescing, had put down an Instruction in reference to the Bill's extraordinary proposals as to retaining household property on the site, and the enormous price proposed to be given for the property. He was very glad to have another opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a statement made by the hon. Member who represented the Metropolitan Board of Works in the House (Mr. Tatton
    1608
    Egerton). On the occasion of the second reading that hon. Member said the Board of Works had not given its consent to being made a party to the promotion of the Bill; but he further said the Board had promised to make a contribution of £1,000 an acre towards the purchase without, it would seem, any clear knowledge of what the land was worth. If anything were required to justify the House in agreeing to this Instruction it would be found in the fact of the Metropolitan Board of Works being ignorant of the whole subject, and the further discussion in the Lambeth Vestry last Week. Some members of the Lambeth Vestry, wishing to condemn his action in the House, said that the Bill had no clause in it proposing to retain any property on the site. So absolutely ignorant was the Lambeth Vestry, alleged to be a party to the promotion of the Bill, that the members of that Vestry really did not know what the Bill contained or what it proposed to do. These two statements would entirely justify the House in giving this Instruction to the Committee. The Instruction provided that before the purchase of the land could be completed, a vote of the ratepayers of Lambeth should be taken as to their desire with reference to the proposed purchase. He could not imagine anything more reasonable than such a proposal. If the parish were found to be in favour of the purchase under the conditions named, the Instruction would be justified as the means of eliciting this opinion of the inhabitants. If, on the contrary, the ratepayers did not approve of the purchase of the land at this exorbitant price with the conditions attached, then it would be cruel and unjust in the highest degree for the House to permit a transaction to take place in the alleged interest of the ratepayers, though really in direct opposition to their wishes and desires in the matter. Seeing the hon. Member for Wimbledon in his place, and also the noble Marquess the Member for Brixton, he confidently asked both to support this Instruction, drawn up mainly at their suggestion. [Mr. BONSOR dissented]. The hon. Member shook his head; but he would remember that, with his wonderful knowledge of Parliamentary proceedings and great business ability, knowing what was going to take place, he came to his

    1609
    aid and suggested a means of averting the completion of the proposed undertaking. He also was good enough to accompany him (Mr. Broadhurst) to the presence of the austere Chairman of Ways and Means, whom he almost feared to face alone. Both the hon. Members he should hope to find voting with himself if this Motion were resisted. He reiterated what he had said on a former occasion in reference to the Bill. He had a statement in his hand emanating from a committee in the neighbourhood, signed by a gentleman named Daun, of whom he knew nothing, nor was he known in the neighbourhood. In that statement he (Mr. Broadhurst) was made to say a great many things he never uttered. His statement in regard to the locality and distance of the two commons was contradicted. But, by careful examination of the Post Office map in the Library, he found that Clapham Common was less than a mile from the site of the proposed Park. He stated in the previous debate that the distance was 20 minutes' walk, but really it was less than a mile along a straight road. Tooting Common was distant about a mile and 100 yards, and it was no great stress of the walking powers to cover that distance in 20 minutes. As a matter of fact, he walked the distance on Saturday morning in a quarter of an hour, and with no great exertion. As to the price of the land, the gentleman who issued the statement was good enough to say that valuers of high authority had assessed it at the value of £38,000. It was a curious thing that though many documents were circulated in the neighbourhood, and statements made as to the value of the land, the authority upon which such statements were made was never given. The great point he wished the House to notice in the matter was this—that a gentleman named Smallman, a member of the Lamboth Vestry, purchased the land, as he was informed, for about £18,000—somewhere about that sum, but the gentleman in question had made no statement himself on that point—and for a short time this gentleman and his son had both been residing on the property. Both, he understood, were members of the Vestry. Then, in a short time, Mr. Smallman turned round and wished to sell the land to the Vestry at £40,000.
    1610
    Now, if those gentlemen were so anxious for open spaces for the poor of London, one would scarcely have thought they would first purchase a small quantity of land at a moderately fair price, and then a short time afterwards offer it to the Vestry, in the interest of the ratepayers, at £40,000, Whether these statements were true or not no one could say without a thorough investigation into the whole subject; and it was for the purpose of securing this investigation that he moved this Instruction to the Committee. He moved it in the assurance that the House would agree it was a reasonable proposal, which only asked that an inquiry should be made of the ratepayers themselves as to the desirability of making the purchase at their expense.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Brixton Park Bill, That they do provide that the purchase of the Park be not made until the opinion of the ratepayers of Lambeth has been taken on the desirability of such purchase, and that they do take evidence as to the price demanded, the maintenance of houses on any part of the site, and other matters affecting the property as a place of recreation, and do report thereon to the House."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY)said, before the House proceeded to discuss this Instruction, he desired to make one or two observations, rather from the point of view of it as a matter of direction to the Committee. This was an unopposed Bill, and as such would come before himself as Chairman of Ways and Means, to whom Unopposed Bills were referred. The Instruction was divided into two parts. The first direction was that the Committee should insert a provision for obtaining the opinion of the ratepayers before the purchase should be completed. If that object were thought desirable there would be no difficulty in inserting such a provision; it would be a simple matter to obey the Instruction of the House in that particular, and to require that the plan of the Vestry should be entertained by the ratepayers at large before it was carried into practical effect. In some analogous Bills, where power to contribute in such a manner was given to Vestries on the North side of London, the Committee on Unopposed Bills did, on their own motion, insert provisions, not indeed requiring that the ratepayers at large

    1611
    should approve, but that the intention should be brought before the ratepayers, by notices affixed to certain public places for a certain length of time, so that the ratepayers might know what was going on, and then taking such action, by making representations or holding meetings, as they might think fit. Whether this safeguarding the interests of the ratepayers were affected by the insertion of a provision requiring notices of this kind to be published, or whether the safeguard were by requiring a vote of the inhabitants to be taken, either way it could easily be met; and the Committee on Unopposed Bills was quite competent to deal with it. But as to the other part of the Instruction, in which the Committee was required to take evidence as to price and the maintenance of houses on the site, that would be imposing on the Committee duties they were scarcely qualified to undertake. No doubt they could take evidence—that was to say, they could receive statements from the promoters of the Bill, and could report to the House what those statements were; but they could not of their own action—without, in fact, converting an Unopposed into an Opposed Bill—verify those statements by cross-examination and hearing other and counter evidence. This was the nature of an investigation by a Select Committee, and if it was intended to verify, modify, or correct the proposal upon evidence, then that should be done by a Committee treating the Bill as opposed, and the persons who opposed the Bill ought to take steps to secure that treatment of the Bill. Therefore, he would suggest to the hon. Member that as the latter part of the Instruction would be putting upon the Committee on Unopposed Bills that which that Committee could not undertake, the hon. Member should leave that part out of his Motion. As to the former part, directing that the Committee should insert a provision that the ratepayers should approve the action of the Vestry before practical effect was given to the proposal, that the Committee could undertake. It rested with the House to determine whether the Vestry should afterwards be checked in its action, or what steps should be taken. On that he had nothing to say; but he would suggest to the hon. Member that he should cut off from his Instruction all the words after the word "purchase."
    MR. BROADHURSTassented.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words after the second word "purchase."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, proposed.
    MR. BONSORsaid, as the hon. Member had alluded to him personally, he would in a few words explain his position. The hon. Gentleman made an attack on the promoters of the Bill, though he stated he would not divide against the second reading. He (Mr. Bonsor) afterwards saw the hon. Member in his private capacity, and informed him that the Bill was unopposed, and suggested that in justice to the statements of the hon. Gentleman the Bill should be referred to a Committee, where the facts could be threshed out in evidence. After that, being informed that the Bill was opposed, and that two Petitions were lodged against it, he did not see the hon. Gentleman as to the Instruction he proposed to move, and he had not seen the terms of it until he came to the House that day. As to that portion of the Instruction that had been moved, he had nothing to say against it. The ratepayers of Lambeth ought to be consulted, and he believed that the ratepayers would, by a large majority, endorse the action contemplated in the Bill for providing an open space for the poor of that portion of Lambeth. He hoped the Bill would now be allowed to proceed.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, as to the last observations of the hon. Member he had received a communication from leading members of the Vestry, who took an exactly opposite opinion to that of the hon. Member. Where opinion was so divided, it was right that the ratepayers should have the opportunity of making their wishes known. He supposed the Committee would settle the way in which this should be ascertained. He would suggest that it could readily be ascertained by the same method as was pursued in gathering local opinion in reference to the Public Libraries Act. But it was a point, no doubt, the Committee would settle for themselves. The policy of the Vestry to expend this large sum of money could not be shown to have had any sanction from the ratepayers. [Cries of "Agreed!"] If the House was agreed there was no reason to argue it

    1613
    further; but he would mention that he had received statements on the same lines as those given by his hon. Friend in front that the purchase was first made by a Vestryman who afterwards proposed to sell to the Vestry. This was a matter that ought to be investigated.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Brixton Park Bill, That they do provide that the purchase of the Park he not made until the opinion of the ratepayers of Lambeth has been taken on the desirability of such purchase.

QUESTIONS.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—MR. WILFRID BLUNT, MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN.
  SIR CHARLES LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has read the following extract from the report in The Daily News of Monday, the 12th, of a speech of Mr. Wilfrid Blunt:—
  "All he could say at present was, that the action of the Government was such that but for the unwillingness of the prison officials to second it, he did not know that he should have been present this evening. It was to this that Mr. William O'Brien owed his life;"
  And, whether the Government is aware of any case of refusal on the part of any of the officials at the prisons where Mr. William O'Brien and Mr. W. Blunt were imprisoned to carry out the prescribed duties, or to any orders as regards the treatment of those gentlemen as prisoners; and, if so, what notice was taken by the Government of such conduct? He begged to say that the Question had been put down incorrectly on the Notice Paper; the most material parts had been left out; and he wished now to supplement it. [Mr. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.): Order, order !]
  Mr. SPEAKERinformed the hon. Baronet that the portions referred to had been purposely omitted.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I beg to say that my attention has been called to the statement in question, and with respect to the alleged action of the Government there is not a shadow of foundation for it. The Government interfered neither one way nor the ether
  1614
  in the matter. The prison officers are enjoined to treat all prisoners, quite irrespective of their offence or social position, with humanity. The General Prisons Board inform me that there has been no act of refusal on the part of the officials at the prisons where the hon. Member for North-East Cork and Mr. Wilfrid Blunt were confined to carry out their prescribed duties and orders as regards the treatment of those gentlemen.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT, 1878—APPEAL FROM THE DUNDEE SHERIFF COURT.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a case under "The Factory and Workshop Act, 1878," tried before Sheriff Campbell Smith in the Dundee Sheriff Court on the 23rd of December last, in which the complaint, at the instance of the Inspector of Factories, was dismissed; whether Mr. Henderson, the Inspector, stated that he was instructed by the Home Office to appeal from the Sheriff's decision; and, whether any proceedings have been taken in such appeal; and, if not, what steps the Home Office intends to take in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; I have seen a report of this case. Mr. Henderson did not give notice of appeal, but applied for a case to be stated. The Sheriff's clerk, however, being of opinion that the case would be lost, owing to a technical error in the complaint, the case has not been stated. The occupiers of workshops now cease work at the time required by the Act; so that there has been no opportunity of raising the question again.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL REPUBLIC AND ZULULAND—CON FEDERATION.
  MR. KIMBERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any Treaty of Union or Confederation between the Transvaal (South Africa) Republic and the "New Republic," in Zululand, has been entered into; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government have, in virtue of the right reserved to Her Majesty by

  1615
  the London (Transvaal) Convention, approved or disapproved of such Treaty; and, whether the Government are willing to communicate the terms of the Treaty to this House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that a Treaty declaring the South African Republic and the New Republic to be united into one State was concluded at Pretoria on the 14th of September, 1887, and will be found among the Papers presented to Parliament on the 13th instant. This Treaty has not yet been approved by Her Majesty's Government; but it is not anticipated that there will be any obstacle to such approval.

  WAR OFFICE (MANUFACTURING) DEPARTMENTS)—SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1859.
  COLONEL HUGHESasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in 1860 and 1861, the workmen entered in the Manufacturing Departments after 1859 were held by the War Office Authorities to be not entitled to superannuation under the Act of 1859; and, if so, why the Circulars of 29th August and 17th December, 1861, were sent to Enfield or Woolwich; whether (assuming the Circulars were sent) he can state the respective dates on which they were sent, and whether, and when, any lists of individuals or class of persons were transmitted as required by the first Circular to be done at the earliest opportunity after August, 1861; and, if sent nine years afterwards, what was the reason for the delay at Woolwich and Enfield; whether Item 5 of the Regulations, referred to in the last-named Circular, has ever been acted upon at Enfield or Woolwich Arsenal, so far as requiring artizans and labourers to pass an examination in reading, writing, and arithmetic; and, if not, why not; whether any difference of pay to artizans and labourers has ever been made in the said Manufacturing Departments under Items 1 and 2 of the same Regulations; and, if not, why not; whether he can state the date when particulars of cases for consideration were transmitted, as required by the last paragraph of the second Circular of 17th
  1616
  December, 1861; and, if sent nine years afterwards, what was the reason for the 4 delay at Woolwich and Enfield; whether, after 1859, when the men at Woolwich worked short time—for instance two weeks in three—there was any distinction in so working short time between the men entered before and those entered after 1859; and, whether in any way any difference was made either in duties or pay?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE)declined to enter into the argumentative task to which the hon. and gallant Member invited him. He would, however, be glad to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman privately any information he required as to the facts.

  CYPRUS (FINANCE, & c.)—THE ANNUAL TRIBUTE.
  COLONEL BRIDGEMANasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government propose to take any steps to capitalize the annual tribute paid by Cyprus to Turkey, in order to lighten the heavy burden pressing upon the inhabitants of Cyprus, and to relieve the English taxpayers of the annual Vote for the grant in aid?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR, FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON)(who replied) said: The financial condition of Cyprus receives the most careful attention of Her Majesty's Government; but I am not able to say that there is any immediate intention to adopt the plan suggested in my hon. and gallant Friend's Question. I must add, however, that on a balance of accounts no burden is imposed on the British taxpayers in respect to Cyprus.

  INDIA—THE NATIVE PRINCES—DEFENCE OF THE FRONTIER.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Indian Government has decided upon the replies they will give to the Nizam and other great Indian Princes, who have offered to contribute men and money towards the defence of the frontier; and, whether they have adopted a

  1617
  plan which will utilize these liberal offers?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): These matters are still under the consideration of the Government of India, and the Secretary of State is not yet hi a position to make any communication to Parliament on the subject.

  BANKRUPTCY COURT (IRELAND)—CASE OF THOMAS MORONEY, A PRISONER FOR CONTEMPT.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has conferred with the Under Secretary on the case of Thomas Moroney, who has been more than 13 months in prison, having been committed in January, 1887, by a Bankruptcy Judge for contempt of Court, and whose wife has meanwhile suffered eviction; and, whether any communication will be made to the Judge, or any other steps taken to promote the prisoner's release?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I beg to state that no conference has taken place with the Under Secretary in regard to the case of Moroney. As already explained, it is not the intention of the Executive to interfere in the case. Moroney was committed, not for pimply contempt of Court, but for refusing to be sworn in the Court of Bankruptcy in reference to certain moneys concealed by him. It is open to him at present, and has been all along, to obtain immediate release from prison by submitting himself to be sworn; but, as I have already stated, the Government have no power to interfere in the matter. A communication such as that indicated in the Question would be an unwarrantable interference with the Judge in the discharge of duties imposed upon him by Act of Parliament.
  MR. DILLON: Might I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to state whether if Moroney is to be detained in prison for the rest of his life—until he dies—the Government will allow that to be done?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The answer to that Question lies very much with Mr. Moroney himself.

  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES (IRELAND)—TRAWLING IN LOUGH SWILLY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the fishermen of the west side of Lough Swilly have made representations to the Government respecting the effects of trawling on their fishing grounds; and, whether any, and what, reply has been given?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, that within the past few days representations had been received from the fishermen of Lough Swilly as to the injury done them by the trawlers. Those representations had been forwarded to the proper quarters, and would, no doubt, receive the attention that they deserved.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT—SENTENCE ON MR. SNELLING, AT SIXMILEBRIDGE.
  MR. FIRTHasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the sentence of six months' imprisonment, with hard labour, passed by Captain Welch and Mr. Cecil Roche at Sixmilebridge on the 13th of March upon a London Home Rule Delegate of the name of Snelling; whether the offence of Snelling was that of inciting people to join the National League; whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the notes of Inspector Rainsford, or a transcript of the evidence on which Snelling was convicted; and, whether the Government intend to take any steps with a view to mitigating this sentence?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: In answer to the hon. Gentleman I have to state that an appeal has been lodged in the case by Mr. Snelling; and therefore it would be obviously improper for me to make any statement in reference to the matter at present.
  MR. FIRTH: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state whether this statement of facts in the Question

  1619
  is true? Is the statement as to what was done by that Court true?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I believe it is a fact that Mr. Snelling was sentenced to two terms of imprisonment—one of one month, and the other of six months.
  MR. FIRTH: Was the sentence of six months imposed for inciting people to join the National League?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, it was impossible to answer the Question fully at present.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—PARCEL POST BASKETS.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, Where the baskets for the Irish Parcel Post are made; have any lots been got from convict prisons; could it be arranged that articles of this kind should not be imported if they can be made as cheaply in Ireland; and, are they supplied by separate tender to the Irish Postal Department?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The baskets used in Ireland for the Parcel Post are, as a rule, made in Ireland. The Irish Prisons Board, which has hitherto supplied the great majority of the baskets, tenders such supply to the Irish Postal Department.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, if he was correctly informed in surmising that the Government in England had declined to get those baskets from the Prisons Board of England, on the ground that the convict prisons would thereby be unfairly competing with private manufacturers?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he was not aware.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked, would the right hon. Gentleman inquire from the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to the custom, and carry out, and make general in its application, any Rule that would ensure that any article made in prisons should not be unfairly brought into competition with the labour of the industrial classes?
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he would be glad to consider the matter.

  CIVIL SERVANTS—EMPLOYMENT IN OTHER SERVICES.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the
  1620
  Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government have yet made any Rules to restrain or regulate the acceptance of other employments by the Civil Servants of the Crown; in case the question is still left to the Heads of Departments, whether any such Rules have been established for the officers serving under the Treasury; whether he or his Predecessors have sanctioned the holding of the places of Director of a large Steam Navigation Company, and Director of another Estate Company, by Sir Alfred Slade, Receiver General of Inland Revenue; and whether regular fully paid Civil Servants are required to obtain any sanction before accepting such appointments?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Many years ago the Treasury forbade officers on their own establishment to accept Directorships of Companies requiring attendance during official hours, and they subsequently communicated to other Departments their opinion that the practice of holding such Directorships was prejudicial to the Public Service; but no Rule binding on the Civil Service generally has been laid down. Sir Alfred Slade has not broken any Rule of the Service in accepting a Directorship; because the acceptance of such employment has not been formally forbidden in the Inland Revenue. I am not aware that Civil Servants are enjoined to obtain the sanction of their Chiefs before accepting such employment. My own opinion is that the Treasury Rule is a good one, and might, with advantage, be applied to the Departments under its control; and I will communicate with the First Lord on the subject. Whether further Rules should be laid down, and made binding on the Civil Service generally, is a large question, which I understand was considered very carefully by the Government in 1883, without their being able to arrive at a decision. Speaking for myself, I think we should do well to await the Report of the Royal Commission before taking further action in the matter.
  In answer to further Questions,
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the Inland Revenue Office did not come within the Treasury Establishment; but he submitted that how far such.

  1621
  a Directorship would interfere with official duties would depend upon the time which was taken up in the Company's business. He might add, however, that he thought it undesirable that a public servant should become Director of a Company, though each case must come under the Rule of the Civil Service relating to that particular Department. He would inquire whether the Royal Commission considered that this question came within their reference.
  Subsequently,
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid, that as Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Public Departments, he might inform the House that they considered it within their province to inquire whether any general Regulation should be framed on this question applicable to all branches of the Public Service.

  CIVIL SERVANTS—POLITICAL DEMONSTRATIONS.
  MR. MUNDELLA.: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely. Whether his attention has been directed to a letter of Sir Thomas Farrer which appeared in the morning papers of Saturday, in which he denies the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman on Thursday last, that while a member of the Civil Service he (Sir Thomas Farrer) "scarcely allowed a month to pass without taking part in political controversies in periodicals;" and whether, upon perusal of that letter, the right hon. Gentleman does not feel that the imputation made upon this distinguished public servant should be withdrawn?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I thought that the language I used with regard to Sir Thomas Farrer would have satisfied him that I had no intention whatever of casting any aspersion on so distinguished a public servant. I spoke on the spur of the moment of the general impression which his literary work had left upon my mind. I should be exceedingly sorry if anything which I said has caused him any pain whatever. It is clear from his account of the transaction, or at all events in his judgment, that he neither wrote frequently nor
  1622
  with a political object; and I am quite satisfied to leave his statement in the possession of the public as an accurate representation of his view.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, arising out of the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman, he wished to ask whether, in reply to a Question put by him (Mr. Healy), the right hon. Gentleman stated that although Mr. Brougham Leech had written a pamphlet against Home Rule and antagonistic to the views of the majority of the Irish people, he would not ask him to withdraw that pamphlet, because Sir Thomas Farrer had also written a pamphlet; whether, as it now turned out that Sir Thomas denied he was the author of the pamphlet, he was aware of any other gentleman being allowed to take part in a political controversy except Mr. Brougham Leech?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is in error in stating that I took all Sir Thomas Farrer's writings as a reason for not calling upon Mr. Leech to withdraw his pamphlet; but it must be within the knowledge of the hon. and learned Gentleman that there has been a good deal of writing at different times by public servants; and I should be exceeding my authority if I were to request the Irish Government to call upon Mr. Leech to withdraw the pamphlet in question. I am not aware that I have any authority or power to do so.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether there was any other case of a pamphlet being written against the views of the majority of the Irish people, except in the case mentioned above, and in the case of Mr. Holmes, Treasury Remembrancer, who had also written a pamphlet against Home Rule?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No doubt there are other cases.

  INLAND REVENUE—STAMP DUTIES—AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR APPRENTICE FEES.
  MR. BRISTOWEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the annnal revenue from the Stamp Duties on the indentures of apprentices; and, whether the Government will take into consideration the propriety of substituting, for the pre-

  1623
  sent ad valorem duty of about 5s. charged on the premiums paid by apprentices, a small stamp applicable to all cases?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The annual revenue from the Stamp Duties on indentures of apprentices cannot be stated, not being separately recorded. The Board of Inland Revenue do not think that there is any occasion to interfere with the present scale, which they have no reason to believe is regarded as too high.

  INDIA—THE IRON FLOATING DOCK AT BOMBAY.
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked, the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can state what progress has been made and what expenditure incurred in the construction of the new dock at Bombay, promised last Session, for Her Majesty's ships of war; also what time will be required to complete the same, and at what estimated cost?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The proposals of the Government of India are now under the consideration of the Lords of the Admiralty; and until a decision has been, come to by them it is impossible to state either the time or money required for the work. No expenditure of any importance has yet been incurred. The Secretary of State is most anxious to see this work carried through, and no time shall be lost on his part.

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND)—SURCHARGES ON LOUGUREA GUARDIANS.
  MR. HARRISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it true that Colonel O'Hara, the Government auditor, has surcharged M. Egan in the sum of £6, J. Lahy in the sum of £4, and L. Egan in the sum of £2, on the ground that, being Poor Law Guardians, these gentlemen had given to tenants, who had been evicted, a weekly allowance of 10 s. each; and, if so, will the Government state whether, in thus surcharging these Loughrea Guardians, Colonel O'Hara acted on his own judgment as to the amount surcharged, or according to a scale of charges fixed by law; and, would the Government say whether, in making
  1624
  surcharges, public auditors have discretionary power; and, if so, to what extent?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Messrs. L. Egan and M. Egan were surcharged the sums of £2 and £6 respectively on account of having sanctioned excessive payments to evicted tenants. They had not given an allowance of 10 s. a week to each of the tenants, but of 20 s. each weekly. The auditor considered this rate excessive, allowed payments at the rate of 10 s. a-week each, and disallowed the balance. The surcharge of £4 against Mr. Lahy was due to the fact that he had sanctioned payment to a person who was not "destitute." This person had been already refused relief by the relieving officer and the Guardians; the auditor acted on his own judgment in the matter; a full discretionary power is allowed by statute to auditors of Poor Law Union accounts.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)—CONSTABULARY BARRACKS, BALLINASLOE.
  MR. HARRISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is is true that for nearly 20 years the constabulary barracks, Ballinasloe, was supplied with gas free of charge; and that, when at length the Town Commissioners were forced to demand payment, the Constabulary refused to pay even one year's gas, and in consequence of such refusal had their supply of gas cut off; whether the Government is aware that Colonel O'Hara passed the accounts of the Ballinasloe Town Board without surcharging any of the Commissioners for the price of the gas which they had given free of charge to the constabulary, and that, when the illegality of thus giving gas gratuitously to the constabulary was brought under public notice, Colonel O'Hara stated to the Commissioners of Ballinasloe that he could not pass the item unless it was put down as waste; and that the Commissioners, acting on his suggestion, did put it down as waste, and in that way succeeded in making the taxpayers of Ballinasloe pay for the gas which the constabulary had used in their barracks for a number of

  1625
  years; and, whether the Government will take any action in the matter?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, that the constabulary had been supplied free of charge for about 20 years; and in January last the Town Commissioners inquired of the constabulary whether they were willing to pay for the gas consumed. No period was named. They declined to pay, and, at the same time, informed the Commissioners that they were quite willing to have the supply cut off. The Report of the Local Government Board auditor had not yet reached him. Colonel O'Hara did not surcharge any of the Commissioners.
  MR. HARRISpointed out that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not answered his Question as to whether Colonel O'Hara requested the Commissioners to put it down as waste.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was not aware. As he had already said, the Auditor's Report was a voluminous document.

  ADMIRALTY (SHIPS)—H.M.S. "HERO."
  MR. LEATHAM BRIGHTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention had been called to the unsatisfactory working of the engines of the Hero; and whether any steps have been taken to again test the workmanship of the engines; whether it is true that during the trial trip on the 15th of September, 1886, the engines had to be deluged with water, for the purpose of minimising the unusual heating of the machinery; and, whether, on the date in question, any of the responsible authorities were on board the ship?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The attention of the Admiralty was called to certain allegations made as to the unsatisfactory working of the engines of the Hero; but these proved, on inquiry, to be erroneous. It is not the case that the machinery had to be deluged with water to reduce the heat of the bearings, and all the responsible authorities were on board. No further trials are contemplated,

  ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE (NEW) BUILDINGS.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any, and what, steps are being taken by the Government for the provision of new Admiralty and War Office buildings?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET: The Committee of the House of Commons, which sat last Session, having recommended that the requirements of the Admiralty should be met by an extension of the existing Admiralty buildings, plans have been prepared showing how that recommendation can be carried out; and a Vote will be submitted in Committee of Supply, which will afford the House an opportunity of pronouncing upon the scheme. It is not intended to take any Vote for a new War Office in this year's Estimates.
  MR. DILLWYNasked, whether the plans referred to would be laid on the Table?
  MR. PLUNKET: They will be in the Library, I hope, in a few days.

  WALES—TITHE AGITATION IN ANGLE SEY—DISTRAINTS AT HENEGLWYS.
  MR. J. BRYN ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has been in communication with the Chief Constable of Anglesey on the subject of the riots that were reported in the newspapers to have taken place recently on the occasion of the levying of tithe distraints in the parish of Heneglwys; whether Mr. Peterson, the agent of the Clergy Defence Association, on that occasion refused to carry out all the distraints he had in hand, alleging that he was prevented from so doing by the riotous conduct of the people; whether the Chief Constable has reported to him that there was no riot on that occasion, and that there was nothing to prevent Mr. Peterson completing the work he had in hand, and that he had told Mr. Peterson so and urged him to proceed; whether Mr. Peterson declined to do so, and has since demanded the assistance of the military, and whether such demand has been refused by the County Magistrates, acting on the advice

  1627
  of the Chief Constable; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. The Chief Constable has reported to me that, in his opinion, the accounts of the rioting were exaggerated, and he saw no reason why the day's work should not be completed, 10 distraints out the 13 having already been made. I am informed by the Chief Constable that no application has been made to the Local Authorities for the assistance of the military. The Police Committee have had the whole matter fully brought to their notice, and I do not think that any further inquiry will be necessary.

  LOTTERIES ACT—PRIZE DRAWINGS AT DUNDALK.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a "Grand Bazaar and Drawing of Prizes" to be held in the Town Hall, Dundalk, on the 15th, 16th, and 17th of May, 1888, "under the patronage of his Grace the Primate and the Priests," in which the first prize, out of some hundreds, is a "Purse containing £100, gift of the late Primate, Most Rev. Dr. McGettigan;" whether his attention has also been called to a similar lottery to be held in the Leinster Hall, Dublin, on the 26th, 27th, and 28th of June, in which the "First Prize is a gold medal, set in diamonds, the gift of His Highness Pope Leo XIII," and the second prize is "An oil painting of Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P., and two vols. of his works, with autograph letter, presented by himself;" whether he is aware that a similar lottery was announced to take place in Dublin on the 14th and 15th of December, 1886, at which, as a premium for selling 40 tickets value £1, special "All Prize" tickets were sent out, and no value for such tickets could be obtained by the vendor; and, if he will take steps to stop such illegal practices henceforth?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Before this Question is answered, I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, why it is that, with reference to the Question down to-
  1628
  day, and that on the two last occasions upon this subject, a different practice obtains? For instance, in this Question there is "an oil painting"—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is no difference in the practice, nor is any distinction made between Questions from one side of the House or the other. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not warranted in stating that.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then I will put it in this way, Sir. Why is it that Members' names are printed in the Question now before the House; whereas as regards the generality of Questions the Divisions which Members represent are given?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: With regard to the Question on the Paper, as my hon. Friend is aware, several Questions have been put in the House from time to time on the subject of lotteries. The Government would be loth to interfere with any charitable movement; but they would point out the great danger of introducing any element which would tend to create gambling, a result which, no doubt, would be furthest from the intentions of the promoters. My attention has been called to the advertisements in the cases referred to; but I cannot say whether the prizes have been the gifts of the persons named. As regards the case referred to in the third paragraph. I have no official information.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—JUDICIAL RENTS—RETURNS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What were the numbers of cases of applications for judicial rents entered in but not adjudicated upon by the Laud Courts on the 1st of March, 1887, and the 1st of March, 1888, respectively?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The number of applications to fix judicial rents awaiting adjudication in the Land Commission on the 1st of March, 1887, was 10,668. The number on the 1st of March, 1888, was 62,157.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—ARTILLERY VOLUNTEER OFFICERS—UNIFORM.
  MR. MARK STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Artillery Volunteer Officers are permitted to wear the same uniform as that worn by officers in the Royal Artillery and Militia Artillery?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The Artillery Volunteers are permitted to wear the same uniform as the Royal and Militia Artillery, except that they wear silver lace, where the others wear gold lace.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS AT SHOEBURYNESS.
  MR. MARK STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the average number for the last two years of Artillery Volunteers who have attended the Volunteer Camps at Shoeburyness and Barry respectively?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The average during the period mentioned was 1,756 at Shoeburyness, and 1,232 at Barry Links.

  GIBRALTAR—SMUGGLING INTO SPAIN.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will inform the House whether the Government has appointed, or is about to appoint, officers at Gibraltar whose duty it will be to prevent the smuggling of goods into Spain, when the task of protecting the Spanish Revenue from the smuggler belongs to Spain and not to England?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): No such appointments have been proposed; but Her Majesty's Government are considering, as a matter of International comity, and in view of British interests, what further measures it would be proper to take in order to prevent the fortress of Gibraltar from being used as the base of illegitimate importations into Spain.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked whether the interests of the legitimate trader
  1630
  would not be affected by any restrictions imposed?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: The interests of legitimate traders will not be affected, because the measures are for the purpose of preventing illegitimate trading.

  POST OFFICE—CONTRACTS FOR STAMPS AND STAMPED PAPER.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Postmaster General, What contracts for stamps and stamped paper were made with the firm of De la Rue and Co. in the years 1880 and 1881, and for what periods; whether all, or any of such contracts, were made without competition; what part, if any, officials of the Inland Revenue took on behalf of the Post Office as to making such contracts, and in what capacity; and, whether he has reason to believe that any, or all, of such contracts have entailed a large and unnecessary extra expenditure upon the Post Office; and, if so, to what extent?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): In 1840 the duty of making what was then called "franking stamps" and postage envelopes was intrusted to the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, the predecessors of the present Board of Inland Revenue. This function now includes the supply of English thin cards, English stout cards, newspaper wrappers, and English envelopes of three sizes—for the manufacture of which articles contracts were, I understand, made in the year 1880 by the Board of Inland Revenue with the firm of De la Rue and Co. I believe that these contracts were made for 10 years from that date. As far as I can ascertain, these contracts were made without any competition. The officials of the Inland Revenue are not responsible to, or controlled by, the Postmaster General in making such contracts; but act, I presume, upon their own discretion. I have no official knowledge which would enable me to give a precise answer to my hon. Friend's last Question; but from inquiries which I have endeavoured to make unofficially I am led to believe that, out of the sum of nearly £100,000, the present annual net charge of De la Rue and Co. for supplying these articles, not much less than half may be estimated as net profit to

  1631
  them, and my hon. Friend will probably exercise his own judgment as to how much of this sum should be described as unnecessary extra expenditure.

  INDIA OFFICE—CONTRACTS FOR STAMPS AND STAMPED PAPER.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, What contracts for stamps and stamped paper were made with the firm of De la Rue and Co. in the years 1880 or 1881; when do such contracts expire; whether all, or any of such contracts, were made without competition; what part, if any, officials of the Department of Inland Revenue took in advising the India Office as to making such contracts, and in what capacity; and, whether the India Office has reason to believe that any, or all, of such contracts have entailed a large and unnecessary extra expenditure upon the Indian. Exchequer; and, if so, to what extent?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The contracts of the Secretary of State with Messrs. De la Rue are—(1) a contract for judicial stamped paper made in January, 1881, which expires in September, 1888; and (2) a contract for stamps made in January, 1881, which expires in December, 1890. These contracts were made without competition. No officials of the Inland Revenue at that time advised the Secretary of State for India; but he had before him the contract made by the Inland Revenue for British stamps for the Post Office. These contracts were renewals of previous unexpired contracts, in which higher prices were specified; and it is impossible now to ascertain whether better terms could have been obtained at the time when they were made.
  MR. HANBURYgave Notice that on going into Committee of Supply he would call attention to these contracts, and move for correspondence.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked, whether any official connected with the Stamp Department had made a Report as to a probable loss of nearly £500,000 on account of contracts for stamped paper?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)said, he had no information on the subject.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)—MARGARINE IN FULHAM WORK HOUSE INFIRMARY.
  MR. BONDasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is a fact that the invalids in the Fulham Workhouse Infirmary are supplied with Dutch margarine in lieu of butter; and, whether margarine is included as an article of food for invalids in the Dietary Table sanctioned by the Local Government Board?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. LONG)(who replied) said: The inmates of the Fulham Union Infirmary are at present supplied with butter purchased under contract which is described as "Butter, good, 3rd Cork." The Guardians have resolved, at the expiration of the present contract, to use margarine instead of butter; and have accepted a tender for the supply of "Margarine, Jurgen's best Dutch manufacture," for the coming year. Under the Regulations of the Local Government Board as to the infirmary of the Fulham Union, it is the duty of the Medical Superintendent to prescribe the dietary for the sick inmates, and such dietary does not require the sanction of the Board.

  INDIA—THE PORT OF ADEN.
  MR. T. SUTHERLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the Memorial addressed to the Secretary of State for India by the owners of steamships which use the Port of Aden, dated the 16th of April, 1885, advocating the deepening of the Inner Harbour of Aden, and also to the reply of Mr. J. K. Cross, dated the 20th of May, 1885, stating that ha had recently requested the Government of India to consider the steps necessary for establishing a Harbour Trust for the Port, on which the commercial community should be suitably represented, and to which should be entrusted the duties of administering the Port funds, and carrying out needful improvements, inasmuch as a Bill was passed by the Bombay Legislative Council in July, 1887, constituting a Port Trust for Aden for the above purposes, If he could state when the Viceroy's assent to the Bill may be expected and the Trust formed,

  1633
  so that the work of deepening the Inner Harbour may be proceeded with?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): A telegram was sent to India on Saturday in reference to the question of the Aden Port Trust Bill; but an answer has not yet been received.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) BILL—TRUSTEES.
  MR. F. S. POWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is prepared to state the extended time which will be prescribed within which assent for the exchange of any Consolidated Three per Cent Stock or Reduced Three per Cent Stock may be signified, under the National Debt conversion proposals of the Government, in the case of Trustees, or persons acting in the administration of the Charity to which that Stock belongs where the same stands in the name of the Official Trustees of Charitable Funds?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSOHEN): It is proposed to extend the time in which Trustees, being within the United Kingdom, may express assent to conversion of Consols or Reduced Threes to the 12th of May, 1888, a longer time being granted if they are out of the Kingdom. The case of persons acting in the administration of Charities is still under consideration.

  POST OFFICE—PENSIONS OF LONDON POSTMEN.
  MR. SEAGER HUNTasked the Postmaster General, If he will recommend an increase to the present allowance of 7d. per year for each year of service, awarded to postmen in London when they retire on a pension; and, whether, if the pension were raised to 10 d., the extra 3d. could be paid out of the surplus moneys at present paid into the Exchequer by the Post Office, and arising from lapsed money orders, property lost in undelivered letters, and from the interest on the Guarantee Fund, now paid by each postman on entering the service?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The hon. Member's Question seems to imply that a postman's pension is restricted to 7d. a-year for each year of service.
  1634
  Such, however, is not the case. Postmen, like all other Civil servants, are pensioned according to a graduated scale, and this scale is fixed by Act of Parliament. It would be contrary to practice to pay such pensions by charges on particular Funds, and not out of General Revenue.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—DISTURBANCES AT ENNIS.
  MR. DEASY(for Mr. Cox) (Clare, E.) asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the report in The Freeman's Journal of the 12th instant—namely, that while the processionists who had taken part in the funeral demonstration in honour of the late Stephen Joseph Meany, on Sunday 11th instant, were returning to the railway station at Ennis, two companies of the Leicestershire Regiment under arms, in command of their officer Captain Clinton, and Captain Walsh, Resident Magistrate, marched through the streets in the same direction as the processionists, singing alternately "God save the Queen," and "Rule Britannia," the officers joining in the songs; whether this conduct was in accordance with Military Regulations; and, what notice he proposes to take of the transaction?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The detachment of the Leicestershire Regiment, which had been stationed in the Court-house at Ennis during the funeral, marched when the funeral was over to their barracks at Clare Castle, and as they marched they sang "God save the Queen" and "Rule Britannia." The whole body of troops commonly sing when marching. There are no Regulations against the singing'.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the principal part of the Question—whether Captain Walsh, Resident Magistrate, in charge of the peace of the district, was marching at the head of the troops?
  MR. E. STANHOPEreplied, that he believed Captain Walsh was present, and certainly he expressed no disapproval of what took place.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to give Notice that on the Army Estimates I will call attention to this matter, and point out that such proceedings are not calculated to preserve the peace.

  DISTRESSED UNIONS (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. FOLEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, of Ireland, Whether the Government will, at an early date, make some provision for relieving the Unions scheduled under the Distressed Unions (Ireland) Act introduced during the last Session?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the Government did not intend to bring in a measure to deal with the distressed. Unions,

  CENTRAL AFRICA—ATTACKS BY ARAB SLAVE TRADERS.
  MR. KIMBERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government has any information that several Englishmen, including Her Majesty's Consul O'Neil, at Mozambique, were recently attacked by Arabs at Zarouga, Lake Nyassa; that, previous to this attack, the Arabs had destroyed 14 Native villages, and massacred the inhabitants; that the Arabs, having as their object the establishing of a slave centre, are increasing in such numbers as to seriously menace the British Missions upon the Lakes Nyassa and Tanganyika; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government intend taking to insure the safety of Her Majesty's subjects in the Lake District; does the Portuguese or any other protectorate extend over all the Lake District; and, if so, is it effective for the protection of the settlers, most of whom are British subjects; and, is it true that Consul Hawes is on his way home?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): In reply to the first article in the Question of my hon. Friend, I have already fully stated the information in our possession in reply to the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr, Cameron) on February 28, and the hon. Baronet the Member for London (Sir Robert Fowler) on March 2. It is not clear how the Europeans became involved in a quarrel between the Arabs and the tribes. It did not originate in slave-raiding, and there was no massacre; and we are not aware that the Arabs are increasing in numbers dangerous to the British Mis-
  1636
  sions. There is no protectorate exercised over the country where these events occurred by Portugal or any other Power. Consul Hawes had proposed to take leave of absence, but has deferred his departure. Since the answers to which I have referred, we have heard that on the 23rd of December the Arabs had been attacked by the Englishmen, who had stormed and burnt their stockaded village. This blow had destroyed the means of mischief and influence of the Arabs, and relieved the Europeans from danger. Owing to the want of supplies, the Europeans had afterwards gone in the steamers at their disposal, some to the Free Church Mission Station at Miviniwanda, and the rest with the Consul to Livingstonia, from which place he wrote on the 11th of January.

  ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS—RICHMOND PARK—THE CLARENCE LANES, ROEHAMPTON.
  MR. BRYCEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether a sum of £2,000 was voted by Parliament in the year 1874 for the purchase of Clarence Lanes, Roehampton, which are the shortest route to Richmond Park from the central and western parts of London; whether this purchase was never completed, owing to the fact that a much larger sum was demanded by the owners of the lands; whether the present owner of the lands has recently offered to transfer them to the Office of Works as a free gift; whether the Office of Works has refused to accept the gift, stating that the Treasury will not permit their Office to incur the expense of keeping the lanes in repair; whether the probable cost of keeping the lanes in repair will be less than £100 per annum; and, whether, with proper management, this sum could be provided out of the sum now allowed for the maintenance of the roads in Richmond Park?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): No Vote has ever been taken in Parliament for he purchase of Clarence Lanes. In 1869 the Treasury authorized negotiations for their purchase at the price of £2,000; but the negotiations came to nothing, as the then proprietor held out for a larger sum. In 1874 the matter again came up; and the Office of Works

  1637
  asked the Treasury whether they were still willing to propose that Parliament should contribute £2,000 to wards freeing the roads, as there was a movement among residents in the neighbourhood to raise by subscription the balance of the sum demanded by the proprietor (£2,500), but that suggestion was not adopted. It is true that the present owner of the lands has recently offered to transfer them to the Office of Works as a gift, and that the Office of Works has refused to accept, because the Treasury will not undertake the expenses. The cost of maintaining the roads would not probably exceed £100 a year, but an expenditure of £200 would be required to put them in order; and it certainly would not be possible to save that amount out of the sums allowed for the maintenance of the roads in Richmond Park, especially as this year those sums have been considerably cut down. I may, however, add that, while the Government are not willing to undertake the maintenance of these roads, which lie outside the Park, yet if those roads were otherwise made available to the public the Government would gladly provide a gate-keeper and keep the gate open.

  THE SWEATING SYSTEM—REPORT OF MR. BURNETT.
  MR. HANBURYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of Mr. Burnett, the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade, on the sweating system at the East End of London, and also to the evidences as to certain Government contracts with sweaters, given before the Judge Advocate General while inquiring into the supply of defective stores at Woolwich; and, whether the Government intends to adopt in all Departments one of the remedies mentioned in Mr. Burnett's Report—namely,
  "Making it a condition of all Government clothing contracts that they must not be worked out under, the sweating or sub-contract system?"
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The attention of the Government has been given to the Report of Mr. Burnett, and they have agreed to a Committee of the House of Lords, which was nominated on the 9th of March, to inquire into the
  1638
  sweating system. Until that Committee has reported, it would be premature to lay down any general Rules applying to contractors which it might be impossible to enforce; but all the influence of the Government will be exercised in discouragement of the system.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—MR. P. O'BRIEN, M.P.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is this—Whether he is aware that application has been made to the Crown on behalf of the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) to have his appeal against a sentence of four months' imprisonment under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, now fixed for the 22nd instant at the Quarter Sessions, postponed for a day or two, in order to enable the Member for the Division to vote on the Arrears Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and that the application has been refused, solely on the ground that such postponement would be inconvenient to the counsel for the Crown; whether it is not a fact that the Quarter Sessions commence on the 22nd instant, and, in the ordinary course, are likely to extend over three or four days, and that, therefore, no inconvenience could arise to the Judge or the public if the hearing of the appeal was postponed until Monday next; and, if so, whether he will make arrangements to allow the hon. Member to take part and vote on a Bill of vital consequence to his constituents?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, the Question of the hon. Member only reached him about half-past 2 o'clock, and he at once sent over to Ireland to inquire into the facts. He was informed that it was true the hon. Member for North Monaghan applied to have the appeal fixed for the 26th instant; but as the Judge had arranged to commence the criminal business on the 27th, and as the hearing of the appeal was certain to occupy more than one day, he could not accede to the application. Such matters as these were rather for the Judge to decide, and considerable inconvenience might arise if they were to arrange cases

  1639
  without reference to the Judge. The question of inconvenience to counsel was quite a minor consideration.
  MR. DILLONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to answer a very important point of the Question, and that was, whether the application was refused, not on account of the inconvenience to the Judge, but on account of inconvenience to the Crown counsel?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the information he had received was to the opposite effect. He was informed that the reason the application was refused was because the Judge had arranged to commence the criminal business on the 27th; and if the trial of the appeal commenced on the 26th it would break the arrangements of the Judge. That was the only reason. He had given the hon. Gentleman all the information he possessed on the subject.
  MR. DILLON: This is really an important matter, and our information is directly opposite to that of the right hon. Gentleman. ["Oh, oh!"] I think I can claim a little indulgence. I am not going to enter into any argument; but I wish to state we have received a letter in which it is stated that the reason the application was refused was because the Attorney General for Ireland said he would not consent to an adjournment to either Saturday, the 24th, or Monday, the 26th, and there is not a word at all about inconvenience to the Judge. Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries, and see whether arrangements cannot be made for postponing the appeal for a day or two?
  [No reply.]

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the President of the Board of Trade, When the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill would be brought on?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, that there was no chance of its being taken before Easter.

  PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND BILL.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, it would greatly conduce to the convenience of the House
  1640
  if the First Lord of the Treasury would inform them up to what hour the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Bill would be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, the Government would not take the Bill after 11 o'clock.

  RIOTS, &c. (IRELAND)—DRUMLISH, CO. LONGFORD.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he had any information as to the police having fired upon the people at Drumlish, County Longford?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), if reply said, he had received a Report stating that on 17 police trying to prevent a public-house being wrecked they were furiously attacked, and they were obliged, in order to save their lives, to fire five rounds of buckshot and one revolver shot. They then succeeded in dispersing the mob. Four persons were said to be injured by the police firing, but not seriously.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—ENNIS POST OFFICE.
  MR. DEASYasked the Postmaster General, If he has received Memorials from the Grand Jury of the County Clare and the inhabitants of the town of Ennis pointing out the want of accommodation in, and the present un-suitableness of, the Ennis Post Office, and praying to have the necessary alterations made in the existing building, or a new one erected on a suitable site; and what action he intends taking in the matter?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES),in reply, said, he had received the Memorial referred to, and the subject was now under inquiry.

MOTIONS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE):

    1641
    Sir, in rising to move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the laws relating to Local Government in England and Wales which stands in my name on the Paper, I fear I shall have to make a rather serious and unusual demand upon the patience and attention of the House. But that patience and attention are never withheld, especially when it is a duty of no ordinary difficulty, such as that which I am about to perform in the House to-night. That it is a duty of unusual difficulty and complexity I am certain all those who at any time have studied the question of Local Government must be fully aware. I feel that, without the aid and sympathy of the House, it would be impossible for me adequately to discharge the duties that rest upon me; but, with the knowledge that I may rely on that aid and sympathy, I shall proceed with the difficult task that lies before me with confidence and hope. The desirability of dealing with the question of Local Government is, happily, acknowledged by both political Parties, and both Parties have, for many years past, been pledged to deal with it. There have been few Governments in recent times which have not had Bills in more or less advanced stages on the subject. We think that the time has fully arrived when this question should come out of the region of promise into the region of performance, and we rely, in our attempt to deal with this question, on the co-operation of all Parties in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), at the commencement of the Session, gave us a welcome assurance on this subject. He promised to give us his cordial assistance; we take note of that promise, and we thank him for it. I hope that he will find that our proposals rest upon such a deep and broad basis as will justify him in giving us that help, support, and assistance without which we feel that the difficulties of our task would be greatly increased. The right hon. Gentleman truly said that there was not any great force of public opinion behind this question to help us to deal with it. I think the words he used were, "the propulsive power is unfortunately weak." It is quite true—and I think all who have studied this question must admit—that there is no great and active force of public opi-
    1642
    nion behind us on this subject. While I am prepared to acknowledge that that has its disadvantages, I think it is also attended with a certain amount of advantage. When reforms are unduly delayed, and when the country gains an impression that those reforms are not seriously contemplated by either of the Parties in the State, public opinion undoubtedly becomes exacting, excited, and urgent, and I think that the probabilities of dealing with a large question of this kind satisfactorily are greatly impeded in such a state of circumstances as that, and there are great advantages in dealing with this question in a spirit of calmness and consideration which is well-nigh impossible when the state of public opinion becomes excited and urgent to the extent I have described. And why is there no great and pressing demand in the country behind this great measure? I think it is owing greatly to the fact I have already stated—a feeling on the part of the people that both great political Parties in the State are pledged to deal with the question. I think, however, it is also owing very largely to the belief on the part of the public that the duties of the existing County Authorities are well performed, and that there does not exist any amount of dissatisfaction in the public mind with the way they are performed. The government of the counties by Quarter Sessions is, undoubtedly, an anomaly. No one can doubt that; but neither do I think anyone can doubt that, on the whole, it has been not only well performed, and the duties have been well discharged, but unselfishly, wisely, and economically. I should be sorry to think, and the Government also would be sorry to think, that in any reformed scheme of County Government we should not obtain the same assistance and help as we have hitherto been able to obtain from the country gentlemen in the management of county affairs. The duties of the magistrates are, administratively, comparatively limited in character; and I think, if it had not been desirable to enlarge the powers of the County Authorities, there would not probably have been even the limited demand for a change of that authority which at present exists. But I believe that, although there is no great and urgent demand for a change in the character of the Governing Body, there is a

    1643
    real and substantial demand for a system of decentralization by which many of the duties which are now performed by Central Departments, and in some cases by Parliament, might be entrusted to County Authorities, if they were constituted in a manner which should adequately represent the public. I have said that there is a demand for decentralization; and I think it is evident that if we are to have decentralization we cannot have it without reform. It is that which, in my judgment, more than anything else, renders it necessary to reconsider the constitution of our Local Government of the counties. But the question arises at the outset—are we going to confine our proposals with reference to this question simply to the setting up of a new Body on a more popular basis for the management of the affairs of the counties? Are we going to extend our reforming hand to other Bodies administering local affairs within the area of the county? It is quite certain that if we were to set up a Representative Body such as is proposed for county affairs it would be impossible for us to avoid also the consideration of the composition of the Local Bodies throughout the county. It would be impossible for us to shut our eyes to the confusion of areas within the counties, and to the number of different authorities. We purpose, therefore, not only to deal with the powers and composition of the Central Governing Body in the county, but also with the powers and composition of the Local Bodies within the area. I have said that, in my opinion, the desire that further powers than those which are possessed by the County Authorities should be given to a Central Body in the county is much more prevalent in the country generally than the desire for a mere change in the Governing Body; and therefore it may be convenient if I, at the outset, ask the House to consider the question of the powers which we shall propose should be given to the Central County Council when it is established. I may say, broadly, that so far as the judicial work of the county magistrates is concerned we propose to leave that untouched. We propose, however, to transfer to the new Bodies all the existing administrative powers of the Justices in respect of County Rates and financial business,
    1644
    County Buildings, County Bridges, the provision and management of the County Lunatic Asylums, the establishment and maintenance of Reformatory and Industrial Schools, the granting of Licences for Music and Dancing, the granting of Licences for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors—which I shall deal with separately presently—the division of the county into Polling Districts for Parliamentary Elections, the cost of the Registration of Voters, the executing the Acts relating to Explosives, the execution of the Acts relating to the Contagions Diseases of Animals, the Adulteration of Food and Drugs, Weights and Measures, and various other minor matters with which I will not trouble the House. We also propose to entrust to the County Councils certain duties with reference to Main Roads in the counties. The present arrangements with reference to main roads in the counties are that they are maintained by Highway Boards in highway districts, by parish surveyors in parishes, by Town Councils in boroughs, and by Local Boards and Improvement Commissioners in other urban sanitary districts. Until last year, the county paid out of the county fund one-half of the cost of the maintenance of main roads in the county, and one-quarter was paid out of the Exchequer to the Highway Authorities—that is to say, these authorities received one-half from the County Rate and one-quarter from the Exchequer. One-half of the county contribution was repaid from the Exchequer as a temporary arrangement last year. But we think that the repair of main roads ought to be a county matter rather than a parochial matter. We propose, therefore, that in future the county shall undertake the repair of all main roads in the county, whether in Quarter Sessions, boroughs, or otherwise. With reference to boroughs, we propose that they may, if they think it right, call upon the County Authority to compound with them for the maintenance of their roads within the borough, because it is evident in boroughs, whether Quarter Sessions or others, the Town Council may desire to incur a larger expenditure on their roads than the County Authority may feel justified in incurring. We also give a new power in connection with ordinary highways. In some parts of the county there are highways which,

    1645
    although not main roads, are very much used by the county at large, but which are at present entirely repairable by the Highway Authorities. We propose to give to the County Council the power, if they choose, to contribute towards the maintenance, repair, enlargement, and improvement of any highway in the county which may be largely used, although it be not a main road. As the House is aware, the County Police is at present entirely under the control of Quarter Sessions; and the question arises whether the control of the police should be considered a judicial or an administrative matter. No doubt a great deal can be said for either contention. Unquestionably on the efficiency of the police the security for the preservation of order and the enforcement of the law largely rests. At present the Government contributes one-half of the cost of the police, which may be withheld in the event of the police not obtaining a certificate of efficiency. The Government grant in aid of the police is, under the Bill, no longer to be paid; and, therefore, that safeguard will, to a large extent, cease. It may be contended that, looking to the fact that the police in boroughs are maintained and governed by the Councils of the boroughs, so also ought the police of the county to be maintained, controlled, and administered by the County Councils. But no one can fail to observe that the conditions of town and county are very different. The inhabitants of the borough have been for many years accustomed to municipal government, and they have become educated in the science of government to a degree which it will take the counties some years to attain. The borough is also a much more homogeneous area than the county. It has well-defined limits, and compares very favourably in that respect with the widespread and loosely connected area of a county. We are of opinion, therefore, that the question of the management of the police should be considered as partaking partly of the judicial and partly of the administrative character. We, therefore, propose that the raising and management of the police should be in the hands of a joint committee of the County Council and of Quarter Sessions. We propose that the appointment and control of the Chief Constable should remain as at present, but that
    1646
    otherwise the powers of Quarter Sessions in reference to the management of the County Police should be vested in the joint committee of the County Council and Quarter Sessions. Then we propose to give to County Councils certain powers with reference to the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act of 1876. The House is aware that the power of putting that Act in force is at present in the hands of the Sanitary Authorities throughout the country, and no one could have filled the Office which I have the honour to hold without having had many occasions to observe that complaints are made—oftentimes justifiable—that the Sanitary Authorities are not very prompt in putting into execution the powers of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act; and I have sometimes observed that the reason of that is most obvious, because in many cases the Sanitary Authorities themselves are the principal offenders. It has often been represented to us that certain alterations in the law are required in reference to the powers under that Act, and that the Act should be extended so as to deal with some pollutions which it is said cannot be dealt with. We do not propose to make any amendment in the law in that respect. Whatever may have to be done in regard to it must be done with great care and caution; but we do propose to give such powers to the County Authorities as, we think, will greatly increase the efficiency of the existing Act. We propose to give power to the County Authority to enforce the provisions of that Act in any part of the county, and that this power shall not be in substitution of the power possessed by Sanitary Authorities, but concurrent with the power of Sanitary Authorities. We propose also to transfer certain powers possessed by Public Departments to the now County Authorities. It now devolves upon the Board of Trade to make all Provisional Orders under the Piers and Harbours Act, the Tramways Act, the Electric Lighting Act, and the Gas and Waterworks Facilities Acts as regards Companies. All the powers of the Board of Trade with respect to the making of Provisional Orders under these several Acts we propose to transfer to the County Councils. As regards the Local Government Board, it is proposed to vest in the County Councils the powers of that Board with

    1647
    regard to the making of Provisional Orders as to schemes of Local Authorities under the Gag and Waterworks Facilities Acts. At present the Local Government Board, in the case of complaint of default on the part of a Sanitary Authority in providing their district with proper sewerage or water supply, or in performing other duties, are empowered to direct inquiries to be made, and, if they are satisfied that the complaint has been established, to issue an Order directing the authority to discharge those duties. If the authority fail to comply with the Order, the Local Government Board are empowered either to enforce the Order by mandamus, or themselves to execute the work at the cost of the authority. These powers of the Local Government Board it is proposed should be vested in the County Councils. The powers of the Local Government Board as regards sanctioning market tolls, fixing the scale of charges in respect of water supply, the investment of a Rural Sanitary Authority with the powers of an Urban Sanitary Authority, the settlement of disputes as to boundaries, and other matters under the Public Health Act, the Public Health (Water) Act, the Artizans' Dwellings Acts, the Valuation of Property (Metropolis) Act, the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, and certain other duties are transferred to the County Council. I have stated now the main powers which are proposed to be conferred at present on the County Councils; but we anticipate that at some future time it may be desirable to cast even more extensive powers than these upon them. We believe that we ought not to commit the mistake of doing that at the very outset. It is dangerous, we think, to overload our machine at starting: but we think that we should so construct it as to be capable of having more work put upon it when it becomes accustomed to the work and is running smoothly We believe that our machine will be so constructed; and although we propose to confer very considerable powers upon the new Body, we look forward to the time when larger powers may be given to it, and we have provided accordingly. As the clause is a very wide one, it may be desirable that I should read it to the House. It says—
    1648
    "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 such powers, duties, and liabilities of Her Majesty's Privy Council, a Secretary of State, the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, or the Education Department, or any other Government Department as are conferred by or in pursuance of any statute and appear to Her Majesty to relate to matters arising within the county and to be of an administrative character; also any such powers, duties, and liabilities arising within the county of any Commissioners of Sewers, Conservators, or other public body, corporate or unincorporate (not being the Corporation of a Municipal Borough or an urban or rural authority), as are conferred by or in pursuance of any statute, and such order shall make such provisions as appear necessary or proper for carrying into effect such transfer, and for that purpose may transfer any power vested in Her Majesty in Council. Provided that before any such order is made the draft thereof, approved by the Secretary of State, Board, or Department concerned, or approved by the Commissioners, Conservators, or body corporate or unincorporate whose powers, duties, and liabilities are affected thereby, shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than thirty days on which such House is sitting, and if the House before the expiration of such thirty days presents an Address to Her Majesty against the draft, or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft order, but otherwise the draft or such part thereof as is not the subject of any such Address shall be deemed to be approved by Parliament."
    The House will thus see that we have provided an easy means by which the powers now proposed to be conferred on the County Authorities may at a future time be largely increased. We also impose on the County Council an important duty in connection with the maintenance of the indoor poor. It has often been urged that the cost of the maintenance of the indoor poor falls unfairly on real property, and also that the area of its incidence ought to be enlarged. It has been sometimes contended, on the other hand, that to enlarge the incidence of the contributions towards the maintenance of the indoor poor might possibly result in centralization and extravagance. I have no doubt that there is a good deal of force in the argument that has been urged from that point of view. I have also no doubt in my own mind that although the system of Unions largely helps poor localities in those Unions, yet it would be very desirable, if it could be done, to spread over a still larger area than the Union a portion of the cost of the maintenance

    1649
    of the indoor poor. We think that it can be done without incurring either of the dangers that I have indicated; and what we propose is to impose on the County Council the duty of contributing 4d. per head per day for every indoor pauper in the Unions throughout their county. How the money is to be provided, and whether from personal or from other property, must stand over until we reach the financial part of the question. We also give to the County Authority certain powers with reference to the promotion of emigration. At present, as many hon. Members will know, the Guardians of the Poor have certain powers with, reference to emigration, and they may, if they so please, pay the cost of the emigration of poor persons within their jurisdiction. But I feel sure that the House will agree with me that if we could give any reasonable assistance to promote any well-considered scheme of emigration without bringing those who desire to emigrate within the pale of the Poor Law, it would be extremely desirable We know that many countries abroad regard with little favour the immigration of those who were sent out by means of the poor rate; and in some countries they are not received at all. Well, can nothing be done, by means of this Bill, to assist those who desire to emigrate before they come upon the poor rate? Can anything be done—can a machinery be created by which those who desire to emigrate may be assisted otherwise than by that means? We know that there are many societies existing for the purpose of promoting emigration. There are also associations in the Colonies themselves who would gladly render assistance to any well-considered scheme of emigrating fit persons. But no means exist, so far as I know, at present by which any assistance can be given in this country in this direction without a Vote being proposed by Parliament. We think that certain powers in connection with this matter may very fairly be put upon the county; and we propose to authorize the County Council to make advances to any person or bodies of persons, corporate or un-incorporate, for aiding emigration, and to give them power where there is reasonable cause for believing that the amount so advanced will be repaid by the emigrants, with or without "guarantee for repayment" from the Colonial Govern-
    1650
    ment, or from any other person or persons. We believe that, if the House so approves, it will be a desirable stimulant to emigration, and greatly relieve much of the distress of which we lately unfortunately have heard so much, and which, I am sure, we all so deeply deplore. I believe that with proper care this may be done without burdening the rates. We also propose to give County Councils powers to make other charges which will entail upon the county other contributions in lieu of certain contributions now made from the Exchequer. But the details in connection with these I shall explain when I come to the financial part of the question. With reference to the finances of the county, I may say that we give to the County Councils borrowing powers, for the purpose of any duty imposed upon them or authorized by the Act; and we also give them powers to borrow money for the purpose of lending to other authorities within their jurisdiction, for it may very well be that the county may be able to raise money at a more favourable rate than could be done by the minor Local Authorities, some of which are very small. We preserve the powers of the Local Government Board with reference to their consent to the exercise of those borrowing powers by the County Council. The Local Government Board will also audit the accounts, and we propose to impose an obligation on the County Authority to make out a budget of their receipts and expenditure at the commencement of their financial year, so that ratepayers in the county may understand the whole scheme of expenditure and income once for all at the beginning of the year. Having explained to the House the powers we propose to confer on the new Body, I now come to consider the question of the constitution of the Body and the area in which it is to be elected. First of all, in reference to the question of area, the House will readily understand that it is one of the most difficult of all the many difficult subjects connected with the reform of Local Government. There are 172 Poor Law Unions and 65 Boroughs and other Urban Sanitary Districts situate in more than one county. No one can doubt that it is extremely desirable, if it be possible, that these areas should be brought within the county and made

    1651
    coterminous with the county. Feeling the desirability of securing this, we asked tie House last Session to pass an Act empowering certain Boundary Commissioners to inquire into the subject, with the view of making recommendations which might have the effect of bringing overlapping areas within the boundaries of the counties. I ought not to refer to this matter without saying how greatly we all appreciate the labour the Commissioners have expended in performing an extremely difficult, complicated, and delicate task. But we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there is nothing which has created more feeling throughout the country than the supposition on the part of the inhabitants of the counties that either their County boundaries or their Union boundaries are to be altered. The feeling which has been created has differed with respect to these two classes of boundaries, and undoubtedly the strongest feeling has been indicated with reference to any alteration in the ancient landmarks of the country. This feeling is not by any means confined to those with whom I am politically associated; but it has been evidenced quite as much, I believe, in the ranks of those who are not connected with the Party on this side, as it has among the Members of the Party sitting' on the other side. It is a feeling entirely sentimental; but hon. Gentlemen will understand that a sentimental grievance is by no means the least difficult to overcome. So, with reference to the alteration of the Unions, there has been great feeling evinced on this point, but for different reasons. I am not going now to argue the question whether or not the Unions, as originally fixed, were fixed wisely or judiciously. But, undoubtedly, whether they were wisely or unwisely fixed originally or not, people have become accustomed to the boundaries of Unions as they exist at the present time. There are two great and important questions involved here. There is, first, the financial question; and, secondly, the question of convenience. The financial question is a grave one, for there can be no doubt that if alterations of Unions are to be made, it will often happen that they may have to be made in connection with large alterations in the incidence of taxation. So, also, with reference to the question of convenience,
    1652
    these matters have to be considered not alone in connection with the convenience of the Guardians themselves, but also with the convenience of the poor; and in any suggested alteration of the Unions it is impossible to leave out all consideration of the question of access and the position of the workhouse, which forms so important an element in our Union system. Therefore, whether you regard this question of the alteration of boundaries from a County point of view or from the Union point of view, all must acknowledge that it is attended with difficulties so great, that if we were to make it a necessary condition of our measure that these alterations should be made, our Bill would certainly be gravely imperilled; and undoubtedly, also, it would be impossible to bring the Bill into operation within any reasonable time, because of the difficulties attending the adjustment of these boundaries. We have, therefore, to submit to the House upon this question proposals which, I trust, will be regarded as satisfactory. We do not desire to delay the election and the assembling of the now Councils one day longer than is necessary. We propose, therefore, that, at any rate for the first election to the County Councils, the present area shall be the geographical county as it is at present constituted, but with certain alterations and certain exceptions. There are some municipal boroughs and large and important urban sanitary districts which are in more than one county. I have already given the number of these—65. There is no question of sentiment involved here as to any alteration which may be rendered necessary to bring these boroughs and urban areas into one county; neither is there any question of the alteration of the incidence of charges, because the county rate does not greatly vary, and it will only be on the county rate that any alteration can take place if we enact that these urban districts shall be in one county. The House will readily see that it is impossible to contemplate the giving of any control of any kind within these districts to two different County Councils. We, therefore, propose that all municipal boroughs and urban districts which overlap two counties shall be held to be within the county in which the largest portion of their population is situated; and, with these exceptions,

    1653
    we propose that the first election shall take place within the geographical county. We propose that the county is to be divided out into electoral divisions consisting of sanitary districts, combinations of sanitary districts, and portions of sanitary districts; and we provide that where a Union is in more than one county, the portion within one county shall be either considered a separate sanitary district, or shall be added to an adjoining rural sanitary district in the same county. So far as it is possible to arrange, we propose that the electoral districts shall have about ail equal population and return each one member. We propose to impose upon the Local Government Board the duty of fixing the numbers for each county; and it is obvious that this can only be done by a close examination of the circumstances of each county, and that no arrangement in the Bill fixing the numbers for so many thousands of people can possibly be satisfactory, because, if that were done, a large county would in that case have a ridiculously large Council, and a small county hardly any Council at all; and, therefore, it is impossible to fix any general number which will enable divisions to return one member in all counties throughout England and Wales. We propose to impose on the existing County Authority the duty of dividing the county into electoral divisions in districts other than municipal boroughs entitled to one or more representatives. Boroughs will, in that case, fix their own divisions whore they have more than one member. May I now, for a moment, recapitulate the mode that will be adopted, as it is desirable that that should be clearly understood? Municipal boroughs and urban districts, when in more than one county, shall be considered to be in the county where the largest portion of their population is situate. Rural sanitary districts in more than one county shall be divided. Electoral divisions will consist of sanitary districts or parts or combinations of sanitary districts. Each division will return one member. The Local Government Board will fix the number for each county, which will vary. They will inform each municipal borough entitled to one or more representatives how many members are apportioned to it, and the Council will define the divisions for elections. They
    1654
    will inform the present County Authority how many members are apportioned to the rural sanitary and local government districts, and Quarter Sessions will divide the areas into single-member divisions. This arrangement of boundaries and electoral divisions may be altered subsequently to the first election. We provide that the Reports of the Boundaries Commission shall be referred to the County Council affected by the Report. They are to make proposals to the Local Government Board for the purpose of adjusting the boundaries of their counties and other areas of local government, with a view of securing that no such area shall be in more than one county. And the Local Government Board, on the report of the county or borough that the alteration of the borough or county is desirable, or that the alteration of the boundaries or numbers of the electoral divisions is desirable, may make an order for such alteration; but this order, if it alters the boundaries of the county or borough, must be confirmed by Parliament. Parliament will thus have an opportunity of fully considering every proposal that will be made by the County Council for the alteration of the boundaries both of boroughs and of counties. Now, Sir, I come to the constitution of the County Council. Several suggestions have been made. One was that the Council should consist of delegates from the Boards of Guardians. I am afraid that we feel bound to put aside at once such a suggestion as that. We feel that no system of delegated elections would by any means prove satisfactory. We believe that it is essential that whoever shall be the representatives of the constituencies on the County Councils should be checked by the healthy test of direct contact with those who elect them. Another suggestion was that the County Council should consist partly of owners and partly of occupiers. Undoubtedly there is a good deal to be said for that suggestion; but I think, from many points of view, it is open to grave objection. I think it might set up, both at the poll and in the County Council, an antagonism between the classes—the owners and the occupiers—which would be most objectionable to have, either at the poll or at the County Council, and those whose interests are really identical might be brought to believe

    1655
    that their interests are antagonistic. In my opinion, such a feeling as that would be directly contrary to any good or sound system of Local Government. Then it has been suggested that the Council should consist partly of elective and partly of non-elective members. We feel as strongly as anyone the great desirability of securing upon the new County Councils the services of those who in the past have so ably and efficiently managed the affairs of the county. But I think, if the House were to accept such a principle as that to which I have alluded, the practical result would be very unsatisfactory. It would not only, in my opinion, diminish the influence of the country gentlemen, but would diminish the influence of the County Councils. It is most important that this matter should be put upon a footing which gives a promise of permanence. Would such a settlement as that secure it? I do not believe it would. It would rather lead, in my opinion, to a further agitation on the subject, and class would be set against class in a manner which all of us would desire in every possible way to avoid. No, Sir; we believe and feel that as there is but one door through which all who desire to take part in the great Council of the Nation that sits within these walls must enter, so there ought also to be but one door through which all who desire to take part in the Councils of the Counties and in the management of local affairs should enter. In our opinion, Sir, no other proposal than this gives a promise of stability and permanence. Will the country gentleman be likely to lose the influence for good which he now exercises under such a settlement as that? On the contrary, I firmly believe that under such a system as that which we propose he will best preserve that great influence which happily he now possesses, and that, instead of being diminished, it will be strengthened and increased. In my opinion, the worst enemies of that influence are those who desire to see the country gentleman occupying a position above and apart from his fellow-citizens in such matters. I speak with some amount of diffidence on such a subject—I cannot pretend for a moment to speak from knowledge—I am content to speak from general experience and from observation. But I know that I speak for others than myself, and that the
    1656
    sentiments which I utter now are sentiments shared by the Colleagues who sit around me, and by a large number of those who have for many years occupied themselves in the business of the counties. I also speak for several Colleagues of my own, more particularly for my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long), who of all others I think is essentially entitled to be considered the typo and representative of the best class of country gentlemen, and I know that in saying what I. have said on the subject I have only said that in which he absolutely and entirely concurs. We have, therefore, unanimously determined to reject the proposal of a nominated class to sit with an elected class in the County Council. What, then, Sir, is the proposal we have to make? I say, at once, that we propose to extend the Municipal Corporations Act to all counties. That Act, thus extended, as the House will be aware, will give a qualification to all ratepayers throughout the county. Three-fourths of the Council will, as in the boroughs, be elected by the burgesses or electors generally throughout the county, while one-fourth will, as in a municipal borough, be selected by the Council, either from within or without their body. [An hon. MEMBER: Oh !] I do not really understand what the hon. Member means by saying "Oh !" I am stating to the House what is exactly the composition of all of the Municipal Bodies. We make some alteration in the provisions of the Act. We provide that instead of one-third of the County Councillors retiring every year, the Council shall be elected for three years certain. That enables us to have single-member districts, and I think this is desirable from many points of view. We shall have one election every three years, instead of having elections annually, which I think is a desirable alteration. The selected members, as in Town Councils, will retain office for twice the time the elected members do, and will be elected for six years instead of three, one-half of the selected members retiring at the end of three years. I have no doubt that some persons may think our proposals are somewhat too broad. But I ask those who have objections to raise to the proposals we make to say how is it possible for us to propose a more

    1657
    restricted franchise for the administration of local affairs than we have already given for the purpose of Imperial affairs? Now the Councils will thus be composed, as far as the area is concerned, of representatives of the existing geographical counties with the exceptions which I have mentioned, and the electoral divisions will be about equal in population. One member will be returned for each. The franchise will be the municipal franchise, and I believe that a Council so constituted will command the confidence of the people in the county, and will be capable of administering the large and important duties which we shall ask the House to impose upon them. What will be the position of municipal boroughs in regard to this great Council? First of all, we propose that certain of the largest boroughs—Quarter Sessions boroughs and cities—shall be made counties in themselves. Our proposal in the Bill is that these shall be somewhat limited in number. It is obvious that it would be most undesirable to take out of our County Councils the representatives of all the large and prosperous boroughs within their compass. But there are some boroughs so large and so important that they point themselves out for removal, and those that we put in the Bill are as follows:—Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, Bradford, Nottingham, Hull, and Newcastle. I have no doubt that many attempts will be made by hon. Members who represent boroughs other than those I have named to have their boroughs also included in the Schedule, and I am sure the House will be ready to listen to any representation on that score; but for ourselves we do not at present consider it desirable to extend the list of exempted boroughs beyond those which I have named to the House.
    MR. LAWSON: What about London?
    SIR CHARLES LEWIS: What about those places that are already counties?
    MR. RITCHIE: I shall devote a separate portion of my remarks to London. The boroughs I have named are all that we propose to place in the Schedule. There are counties of cities and towns with populations as low as 7,000 or 8,000 inhabitants, and it would be quite out of the question for us to
    1658
    deal with them in the same way. There will be certain financial adjustments which will be necessary between these boroughs and counties. Then, what is to be the position of boroughs other than those which have been mentioned in relation to the counties? Well, Sir, the circumstances with reference to the other boroughs are so various and so difficult that the problem seems almost insoluble. We have first of all Quarter Sessions boroughs. There are 100 Quarter Sessions boroughs, the least of which have a population of between 2,000 and 3,000. They have their own Quarter Sessions, their Councils, their own officers, such as Coroners, Inspectors of Weights and Measures, and so on. For these purposes they are exempt from county rates. Then there are the ordinary municipal boroughs, some of which have a population as low as 900. They are rateable to the county rate, and the County Authority has jurisdiction within the borough, except for the police where the borough maintains its own force. How are we to deal with these boroughs in the varying circumstances in connection with their representation on the County Council, and their relations between themselves and the county? Are we to sweep away at once all the special privileges and exemptions of Quarter Sessions boroughs? No doubt, we should have produced a much more logical and complete scheme if we had felt ourselves able to ask the House to adopt any such proposal as that; but I put it to the House whether or not, if we had produced such a sweeping scheme, the Bill would stand much chance of successfully passing through the House? We have been obliged, therefore, to retain, as anyone would be obliged to retain who attempted to deal with this question, many of the existing anomalies. Speaking at present of Quarter Sessions boroughs with a population of over 10,000, we do not propose to interfere with the judicial functions of the magistrates. They will remain, and, with the exception of licensing, we propose that these boroughs shall still continue to retain their existing powers, duties, and exemptions. But for any now purpose, such as the question of licensing and matters of that kind, they being, as they will be, represented on the County Council, they will have to contribute towards any rate

    1659
    necessary for such purpose; but their representatives on the County Council will not be at liberty to vote or act with reference to matters to which they do not contribute. I may say, however, that though we do not call upon the boroughs to come into the county for all purposes, we have a clause in the Bill which will enable these boroughs, if they so choose, to come into the county for any purposes which they now perform, and I think it not unlikely that this power will be availed of, because they will find that the county will be able to perform many duties now performed by the boroughs at a leas expense. Then we have the boroughs under 10,000. Of these there are 43. The House is aware that in any new borough which may be created, with a population of under 20,000, the House does not authorize it to maintain its own police. Now we do not propose to go quite that length with reference to the small boroughs, but we do propose that in towns under 10,000, whether Quarter Sessions boroughs or ordinary municipal boroughs, their powers of maintaining a separate police force shall cease. We believe that in this way the police will be much more efficiently and economically maintained by the County Council than at present, where sometimes the police force consists of only two or three men. Then, so far as Quarter Sessions boroughs with a population under 10,000 are concerned, of which there are 29, the Bill transfers to the County Councils those administrative powers of the Council of the borough which, in the case of the county, are transferred from the Quarter Sessions of the county to the County Council. I may say the Council will perform in this way certain functions which in boroughs fall on the shoulders of magistrates. They are functions connected with coroners, lunatic asylums, industrial schools, explosives, weights and measures, and minor matters; and although we do not take away from them their separate justices or their power to appoint coroners, we give them power to transfer these duties to the County Council if they so desire it. Our proposal is that all the boroughs other than those to be made counties by themselves shall be represented on the County Council, that existing powers, duties, and exemptions will continue
    1660
    except so far as boroughs under 10,000 are concerned, and that the representatives shall not vote or act except in the case of expenditure to which they contribute. I have said that, in addition to dealing with the reform of local affairs in the counties as a whole, we propose also to ask the House to assent to certain proposals as to the areas within the counties. Our Bill, therefore, divides counties into urban and rural districts. The urban districts will be the existing and the future municipal boroughs and the districts of other Urban Sanitary Authorities. With reference to the boroughs, the Town Council will be the District Council. The other urban sanitary districts have had their Governing Bodies, as the House is aware, elected on the plural vote. It is obviously impossible that we should have a County Council elected upon one franchise and the District Board upon a less restricted franchise. We propose that in future the Councils in the Local Board and Improvement Act districts throughout the country shall be elected upon the same principle as Municipal Boards or for the County Board.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICK: Will there be a woman's franchise?
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes; certainly. It will be as now in municipal boroughs. With reference to the rural districts, we propose that there shall be a Rural Council elected for the administration of municipal affairs in those portions of the county, elected also in precisely the same way. With reference to the rural sanitary districts, the House will know that they are at present coterminous with Unions, and are arranged with the view to Poor Law administration. They have never been arranged with any view to convenience so far as sanitary administration is concerned. It is not essential for our purposes that Poor Law Unions, as Poor Law Unions, should be brought within, the county; but it is essential that the district of a District Council which has to carry out municipal affairs apart from Poor Law duties shall be within the county. We propose, where a county boundary cuts a Union, that the portion on either side of the boundary should either form a separate rural sanitary district or be added to an adjoining one, and we impose as a first duty on

    1661
    the County Council that it shall mat the necessary adjustment, so that an election may be held for such Rural District Council. They will also divide the rural districts in the county into wards, and fix the number of Councillors for these Rural District Councils. But we propose to give further powers to the Rural District and County Councils. I have already said that the rural sanitary districts were fixed without any regard to their adaptability for sanitary administration. It may certainly be desirable that the County Council should have power to consider at any time the boundaries of any rural district within their county, and make proposals for rearrangement where they think it necessary. We propose, therefore, that the County Council may submit to the Local Government Board plans for the alteration of county districts other than boroughs, and the Local Government Board must confirm the Order unless there is objection against it, in which case the Board will hold an inquiry, and determine whether the alteration shall take place or not. In the Local Board districts the Councils will have transferred to them all the existing powers of the Local Boards, who will then cease to exist. In rural districts they will have the power of Rural Sanitary Authorities and of Highway Boards, and the Highway Boards will be abolished. Every District Council, whether Urban or Rural, will take over the existing powers under the Acts as to lighting and watching, baths and washhouses, and lodging-houses, &c.; rates will continue to be levied over the particular areas in which these Acts are enforced, and committees will be appointed by the District Council, which may consist partly of members of the District Council and partly of ratepayers, to manage the administration of these Acts. We propose, also, to transfer to the District Council the powers of Justices out of Sessions in the execution of the Petroleum Acts, Dogs Acts, Infant Life Protection Act; also the licensing powers as to slaughter-houses, pedlars, dealers in game, hawkers, pawnbrokers, fairs, and other minor matters. The existing condition of the rates under which agricultural land is exempt from three-fourths of certain rates in urban and rural sanitary districts will be maintained, and the existing incidence of Highway Rates
    1662
    will be maintained. The complete organization of the county will then be—for the judicial work, the magistrates; for administrative work, the County Council; all internal areas to conduct the municipal government of their areas, and all elected upon the same franchise. The Poor Law Guardians will continue, as at present, to exercise their functions with reference to the administration of the Poor Law within the areas which exist at present, so that the Poor Law functions and the municipal functions will be different, as they are different at present in municipal boroughs throughout the country.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: Will the Guardians continue to be elected by the plural vote?
    MR. RITCHIE: We propose to make no alteration whatever in regard to the election of Guardians, or to their powers as far as the Poor Law is concerned, or in regard to the areas for which they are elected.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: Will the representatives of municipal boroughs be elected in the same way?
    MR. RITCHIE: No. They will be elected in the same way as the representatives throughout the whole area of the county. Well, an hon. Gentleman has asked me what we propose to do with regard to the Metropolis. That is probably a matter which is not only of interest to every hon. Member who represents the Metropolis, but to the whole country. Some think that London might be left alone, and I have been astonished at seeing more than one statement that London was not to be touched in the Bill. How is it possible for us to deal with this question without in some way or other affecting London? I am bound to say that I do not agree with those who think that London should continue to remain in the isolated and peculiar position which it now occupies. But if the Metropolis were to remain as at present, the anomalies of its position would be enormously increased. And why? Because the County Councils of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent would all have jurisdiction for administrative purposes within the area of the Metropolis. I venture to say that such a state of things would be absolutely intolerable. Certainly, it is not a position which I, as a Metropolitan Member, should contemplate with any de-

    1663
    gree of satisfaction. Therefore, we think that we must deal with. London in rather a large and important manner. I did not approve the Bill brought in by the late Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) for the government of London. I was one of those who opposed it. But I never denied for a moment that great alterations ought to be made in the administration of the municipal affairs of the Metropolis. I did not approve of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, because I thought that, instead of giving more power to govern themselves in the various great communities into which London was separated, it was taking away their powers; instead of affording them larger powers, it was contracting them; and that the area was so large as to render it practically impossible that the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman could be adequately and properly administered. But I cannot shut my eyes, to the fact that there does not exist in. London, at the present time, any authority which, has the weight and power which an authority proposing to speak in the name of so great a centre as London ought to have. A great deal has been said of late about the Metropolitan Board of Works and about its administration. I am not going to refer to any of those statements beyond begging the House to accept my assurance that our proposals with reference to London have nothing whatever to do with any recent acts of administration by the Metropolitan Board of Works. Our proposal which I now make, was contained in the very first draft of our Bill 18 months ago. I am one of those who, without professing to be satisfied with the constitution of the Metropolitan Board of Works or with many of their actions, still think that they have done great and valuable service to the inhabitants of London. We cannot, however, shut our eyes to the fact that, whereas every other borough in the country possesses a body directly representing the ratepayers, no such body exists in London. There is no one elected directly by, or responsible to, the ratepayers. Then what are our proposals? Although they may not go to the extent some hon. Members may desire, I hope they will be satisfactory to the House generally. We propose to take London as defined under the Metropolis Management Act out of the
    1664
    counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, and we propose to create it a County of London by itself, with a Lord Lieutenant, a Bench of Magistrates, and a County Council of its own. I may say in passing that we propose that the existing magistrates, having qualifications in London, shall be entitled to sit as magistrates for the County of London. We propose that the Council shall be directly elected by the ratepayers, as in all other counties and boroughs; that the franchise shall be the same; and that it shall consist, as in all other cases, of elected and selected members; the elected members sitting for three years, and the selected members for six, one-half of the number retiring every three years. It will take over the licensing powers and all the duties of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which will cease to exist. With reference to the police, most Members of this House will recognize this as being a question altogether separate and distinct, when you come to deal with a great army of police, such as exists in London. The police will not be dealt with in the Bill. As I think was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), the police will still remain under the control of the Home Office—
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Our proposal was for a time.
    MR. RITCHIE: For a time?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yes.
    MR. RITCHIE: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by that. Does he mean that the police will be allowed to retain that position only so long as he is out of Office?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That was the proposal in our Bill.
    MR. RITCHIE: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was referring to our proposal. We do not, as I have said, put this forward as a complete settlement of the great problem of London Government. We have our own proposals to make, and I hope we may be able at some future time to make them. They are on the lines, not of creating separate municipalities throughout London, but of amalgamating within certain defined areas in London the existing Vestries and District Boards, and constructing in London District Councils having in the various areas in the

    1665
    county District Councils with large and important administrative functions. But we have felt that the introduction of such a proposal as that into our Bill would have unduly overloaded it, and we did not believe that it would be possible to have settled that entire question during the present Session, in conjunction with other matters of importance with which we shall have to deal in this Bill. Of course, there will be large financial arrangements necessary as between London and the counties, and the adjustment of these we provide for. We provide also that the 4d. per head for indoor paupers which will be distributed by the London Council to the various Unions within London shall be not in substitution for, but in addition to, what is already contributed by the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and the poor districts will find in that a very large step towards that equalization of the rate for the maintenance of indoor paupers which all who represent the poorer districts of London so ardently desire.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: Are theatres dealt with in the Bill?
    MR. RITCHIE: NO; we do not propose to deal with theatres in this Bill.
    MR. JAMES STUART: Will there be any change in the position of the City of London?
    MR. RITCHIE. The position of the City will be the same as that of a Quarter Sessions borough in other counties. It will continue to exercise its present authority, but the administrative duties devolving upon its Aldermen, such as licensing, will be transferred to the County Council of London, and it will be rateable for all purposes for which it is now rateable, and for all the new duties cast upon the shoulders of the Central Council of London. The members representing the City at the Central Council will be directly elective, as will be the members from all other parts of London. There will be no difference between the City and other parts of London as regards the election of representatives to the County Council. I now come to what is rather a thorny question—that of licensing for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Many of our advisers in the Press and elsewhere have given us advice not to attempt to deal with so diffi-
    1666
    cult a question as that of licensing. But we cannot refrain from dealing with it. It is all very well to say—"Why do you not leave it alone?" How are we, when we propose that all the administrative functions of Justices shall be placed in the hands of an elective body, to except the administrative function of licensing? We do not believe that such a position would be tenable, nor do we think it would be desirable to make such an exception. It is desirable that such, a question should be dealt with broadly, and in no narrow and contracted manner; we desire to deal with it broadly, and, that being our intention, it was impossible for us to shut out from the duties to be cast upon the new authorities the question of licensing. It is very singular that upon this particular point the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and those whom he represents and the licensed victualling trade are agreed. It is not often that the lion lies down with the lamb on matters such as that; but there is a great deal of concurrence between the hon. Baronet and the licensed victuallers on this particular point, though they approach it from two different points of view The hon. Baronet and those whom he represents are content to leave licensing in the hands of the Justices, with one qualification mid one restriction—that they shall have no power at all, and that power is to lie in the hands of the people themselves, who shall instruct the Licensing Authority whether or not to grant the licences. I am aware that the hon. Baronet docs not hold the opinion of some of his Colleagues—that the ratepayers should have the power of diminishing, extinguishing, but also increasing the number of licences, so that the Licensing Justices should have no power of their own at all, except by instruction of the ratepayers. When the hon. Baronet came to me with a deputation, I was sorry to hear that he held such a strong suspicion with reference to an elective body, and the manner in which they were likely to discharge the functions we proposed to devolve upon them. The hon. Baronet is, no doubt, the Representative of a great body; but I am surprised that the hon. Baronet's confidence in elective bodies does not go so far as to desire that the question of licensing

    1667
    should, be entrusted to their hands. But, Sir, we have greater confidence in elective bodies than the hon. Baronet; we believe that there is no reason to doubt that if this function is e trusted to the County Council, along with their other administrative functions, it will be properly exorcised. The licensed victuallers, on the other hand, approach the question from another point of view than the hon. Baronet. They do not want it touched. They want things to remain as they are, because they have full confidence in the manner in which the existing authorities exercise their powers—a confidence in which most people in this country entirely share. We desire to deal with this subject in a just, fair, and equitable manner. We do not wish that the question should be relegated to the time of the dim and distant future, and I am satisfied that it is not to the interest of any of those who are concerned in this question that it should continue to be in the unsettled position which it undoubtedly is. We have determined, therefore, to make certain proposals to the House which we believe will be fair and equitable, and it is for the House to say whether they are acceptable to it or not. We shall make a proposal which we hope the House will accept. If the House does not, our duty will, at least, have been fulfilled. The proposal we make is to transfer licensing, with the other administrative functions of Justices, to the new representative body. Some people, I am aware, advocate the establishment of an authority ad hoc for the purpose of licensing; we do not agree with that at all. We think that if an authority is elected for all other purposes, that authority ought also to be entrusted with licensing. Then arises the question, shall this duty be thrown upon the shoulders of the Local Authorities or the County Authorities? We do not think it ought to be thrown upon the Local Authorities, which in many cases represent an extremely small area, and we think it is more likely to be wisely and judiciously exercised by a body elected from a larger area than that of many districts with which we have to deal. We propose to give over this duty also to the same body as that to which we have transferred other duties of county government. But it may be asked whether we do not propose some means
    1668
    whereby the locality shall have some voice, at least, in the decision of such an important question as that of licensing. We propose a new means by which local interests will have an opportunity of making themselves known. We propose that the County Councils shall divide their area out into licensing divisions, and that they shall form a licensing committee for each division, to consist of the members elected to the County Council for the division, together with, an added proportion of selected members from the Council. In order to secure that the licensing area may be adequately large, we provide that no licensing committee shall have on it less than six elected members. We make this proposal also—that a town with a population of 50,000 shall be a licensing division of itself, and that where there are not six members returned from that town to the County Council, then that the Town Council of the borough shall add from their body the number necessary to make up the number of six members. Now, Sir, what are the powers we propose to confer on the committee? We propose to confer on the licensing committee of the County Council the power to refuse renewal when they wish to reduce the number of licensed houses. We think it an undoubted defect in the existing condition of the law that the Licensing Authority seems to have no power to reduce the number of licences, however much they may consider that the licences are out of proportion to the needs of the population. We propose, also, that they shall have the power of closing public-houses on Sunday, Good Friday, or Christmas Day, and we propose that in cases where complaint is made—complaints which are necessary for the refusal of the renewal of the licences—that that complaint must be heard by the Justices. We think that that is a matter which ought to go before a judicial tribunal. It will go to the Justices to report, and on their reporting that the complaint has been established and that the licence ought not to be renewed, the renewal must be refused. We further propose that an appeal shall lie to the County Council if the licence is refused for any other cause than the Justices' Report. The County Council may, in considering the question of confirming the refusal, take into account any differences of opinion in the com-

    1669
    mittee or in the locality, or any representation by the Local Authority, or the question of any adjoining licensing division being affected by the refusal or the character of the licensed premises, or any special circumstances. Now, Sir, arises one question to which a large amount of interest attaches. If the refusal of the renewal of the licence is confirmed by the County Council for some cause other than the Justices' Report, we propose to enact that compensation must be paid. I know there are some Members in this House, though I hope they are few, who contend that there should be no provision of any kind whatever for compensation in this Bill. They would be prepared to sacrifice the whole of the capital which has been embarked in a legitimate business legitimately sanctioned. We are not prepared for any such step as that. Unless the House assents to compensation being paid in cases where the renewal has been refused under the conditions named, we will not continue to be responsible for any power being given to the County Council to refuse the licence. We are not prepared to confiscate the property of those who, under the sanction of the existing law, have embarked their capital in undertakings of this character. I know that there are some who will contend that as these licences are renewable year by year no compensation is due; but although these licences are technically renewable year by year, it has again and again been held by the Courts of Law that renewals of these licences cannot be refused unless for fault shown. We therefore propose that compensation shall be paid to those whose licences are not renewed, because we think that it would be an act of gross injustice if compensation were not to be paid them. The question then arises, What is to be the measure of compensation? We propose that the question of the measure of compensation shall be referred to an arbitrator, to be chosen by the parties interested, who shall consider what is the difference in the value of the house with the licence and of the house without the licence at the time of the passing of the Bill, and it will be for the several parties who may be interested in the licensed house to divide the compensation between them, and if they cannot agree in such division
    1670
    the matter may be referred to the decision of a County Court Judge. Then, who is to pay the compensation? It has been contended by some that if compensation is to be paid it ought to be paid by the publicans who are left. In my opinion that principle, if well worked, might be made a most effective engine of confiscation. Of course, the number of licensed houses closed in any district might be so great that if the publicans whose licences were renewed were to be called upon to pay the compensation to be paid to those whose licences were refused, the former might be unable to bear the burden thrown upon them, and the trade of the publican might practically end in their disestablishment without any act on the part of the authority. That, I say, would form an effective engine of confiscation. We therefore propose that the charge for the payment of compensation shall be thrown primarily upon the ratepayers of the district in which the licence has been refused, although power is given to the County Councils in special eases to spread the compensation over the whole county, or over a smaller area than the licensing division. But it has been said with some justice—"The licensed victuallers are undoubtedly, by the operation of your rule, in a much more secure and favourable position than they occupy at present." I cannot help feeling that there is some amount of force in that observation. We therefore intend to make a proposal with reference to this point which, I think, will be considered to be a moderate one, and which, I hope, will be acceptable to the House and to the trade affected by it. We say to the trade—"We recognize your claim to compensation, and we give you practically a vested interest by the Bill; and we think that in consideration of our placing you upon so much more secure a footing than you at present occupy, we may fairly ask you to pay something more than you do at present for your licence;" and we, therefore, propose to give power to the County Authority to increase the licence duty of publicans by 20 per cent. The effect of that increased charge will be to raise an additional sum throughout the country for the year of no less than £300,000—that is, if the power to be given by the Bill in this respect is fully exercised by the County Councils through-

    1671
    out England. We think that a proposal of this kind will meet the justice of the case as far as the contribution from the trade itself is concerned, and that it is fair upon the face of it. Having dealt with this matter, the House will be glad to hear that I am now coming to the last subject with which it will be necessary for me to deal, and that relates to the important subject of finance and the question of the relations that we propose shall exist in future between the Imperial and the local taxpayer. There is no doubt that to this branch of the subject, perhaps more than to any other, the minds of many who have long looked forward to the production of a Local Government Bill are directed, and upon it their hopes are mainly concentrated. I trust the proposals we are about to make will show that we fully realize the great importance of the subject, and are prepared to meet what we believe to be the just claims of those who have long urged that the relations between the Imperial and local taxpayer should be so re-arranged as to give substantial relief to those classes of ratepayers upon whom the burden of local taxation, it is asserted, has somewhat more hardly pressed than upon any other class. It has been for many years recognized by Parliament that the claims of the local ratepayers to assistance from the Imperial Exchequer and from other sources than rateable property are substantial and just. Those claims have been hitherto met by what are called grants in aid. I know that to this form of relief many objections have been urged. I confess, for my part, I have not been able fully to agree in the objections which have been raised against this form of relief. I believe, on the whole, these grants have been the means of greater efficiency in the discharge of the duties devolving on Local Authorities, which has resulted in great public benefit. But I am prepared to admit that this form of subvention is undoubtedly open to some of the objections which have been taken to it; and one objection which I have always felt strongly has been that this form of relief mixes up Imperial and local finance in a manner most inconvenient and confusing, whereas, from every point of view, it is extremely desirable that the two questions
    1672
    should be kept entirely distinct and separate. The House will, therefore, be prepared to hear that the great bulk of the grants in aid will, under our proposals, entirely disappear. We propose that in the financial year 1889–90 the following grants in aid shall disappear from the Estimates:—Disturnpiked and main roads (England and Wales), teachers in Poor Law schools, Poor Law Medical Officers, Medical Officers of Health, and Inspectors of Nuisances, Registrars of Births and Deaths, Pauper Lunatics (England and Wales), cost of Criminal Prosecutions, subventions in aid of the Police (Counties, Boroughs, and Metropolis), grants to poor School Boards, and awards to Public Vaccinators, which make an aggregate sum of about £2,600,000 in round numbers. It is now necessary for me to state to the House how we propose to fill the void in the local purse which will be created by the disappearance of these grants in aid. But something more even than this is expected from us, and to enable me to fulfil this expectation I have had to appeal to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I am bound to say, has met me in a large and generous spirit. By his aid I am able to present to the House and to the country what I am sure they will consider a large and liberal measure of relief to local burdens. As I have already said, the amount of the grants in aid which will disappear is £2,600,000, and the amount of revenue which we propose to find in substitution for that sum, if our Bill passes, is £5,600,000, being an increase of £3,000,000. This sum does not include the £300,000 arising from, the 20 per cent additional publicans' licence duty, with regard to which we give powers to the Local Authorities, in the event of our proposals being accepted. Then comes the question, How is this revenue to be raised? We propose that the licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors for consumption on the premises, and grocers' licences for the sale by retail of spirits, beer, and wine, and licences to deal in game, shall be collected by the Local Authorities, and form part of the revenues of County Authorities; these amount to£1,378,143. We propose also to hand over to the Local Authorities the produce of the following licences;—

    £

    Beer dealers

    29,755

    Spirit dealers

    103,060

    Sweet dealers

    315

    Wine dealers

    43,002

    Refreshment house keepers,

    6,759

    Tobacco dealers

    63,541

    Carriages

    492,779

    Armorial bearings

    69,184

    Male servants

    123,500

    Dogs

    317,241

    Game (licences to kill)

    139,628

    Guns

    68,448

    Appraisers, Auctioneers, and House agents

    65,655

    Pawnbrokers

    28,905

    Plate dealers

    39,958

    Total

    £1,591,730

    These, it is evident, will be much better and more economically collected by the Inland Revenue than by the County Authorities; but the revenue will, of course, be derived by every County Council from the licences taken out within the area of their county. I have stated that the licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors, which will be transferred, will amount to £1,378,143, and the sum, to be derived from other licences will be £1,591,730, roughly amounting together to £3,000,000. In addition to the existing licence duties, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will propose in his Budget to raise other revenue from other licence duties which he will name, amounting to £826,000. In addition to those licence duties, my right hon. Friend proposes to give us a substantial contribution from personalty amounting to about £1,800,000. It is obvious that it would be highly improper for me to forestall the statement to be made by my right hon. Friend by tolling the House either the names of the new licences to be created, or the source from which he proposes to derive the contribution from personal property; but it was impossible for me to deal with the question of the re-arrangement of finances without informing the House substantially of the amounts to be given by my right hon. Friend. It will thus be seen that those licences and the contributions from personalty amount, in all, to £5,600,000, in lieu of £2,600,000 at present obtained. I have already explained to the House that, so far as
    1674
    licences are concerned, every county, including the Metropolis and the large towns I have named which will be made counties, will receive all the licence duties collected within its area; and I think we may fairly hope that when the county itself is so greatly interested, as it will be, in the collection of this revenue, a greater vigilance on the part of the County Authority will, to some extent, increase the amount to be derived to a still larger sum. The question then arises—"How is the contribution from, personal property to be distributed?" It would be unfair, I think, that the contribution in every county should go to that particular county. In fact, it would be impossible so to allocate it. On what principle, therefore, is this £1,800,000 to be distributed among the counties '? We have considered three principles on which it might be done—either in proportion, to population, to rateable value, or to the amount of indoor pauperism. In our opinion, neither population nor rateable value is a sufficient test as to the need of the localities. We therefore decide on the last—indoor pauperism—as being the best indication we can find that the amount of relief which we propose to give will go where relief is moat urgently required. The contribution we propose, therefore, will be distributed to the counties according to the proportion the indoor pauperism of each county bears to the total indoor pauperism of the country. I need hardly say that there is no class in the community which will benefit so greatly by this distribution as that class which I always think is most entitled to our pity and sympathy—the smaller class of ratepayers both in counties and boroughs; and although this provision will give a large measure of relief to the poorer districts in the counties, it will also give a large measure of relief to the poorer districts in our boroughs, and to no part of the country more than to the poorer districts of the Metropolis. When it is, therefore, said that this question of the redistribution of taxation is one which affects the county ratepayer, and in which the borough ratepayer has little or no interest, I say a greater mistake was never committed than to make such an assertion as that. I maintain that, great as will be the boon to the county ratepayer, the boon will not be less

    1675
    great to those with whom I have fully as much sympathy—the poorer ratepayers of our large towns, many of whom are struggling from day to day against heavy rates, and, I am glad to say successfully, to maintain themselves above the level of pauperism to which the heavy rates tend to draw them. But we entail a duty on the County Authorities of paying over a certain portion of this amount to certain local areas within their counties. The House well knows that many contributions from the Exchequer which we propose to discontinue are payable to Local Authorities, and it might be that there would be an extremely unfair incidence of relief if we did not provide some means by which grants of a similar character should be made by the County Council to the local areas within their jurisdiction. The receipts by the County Authority will he subject to payments for the following purposes, on the same bases of contribution as now adopted in connection with the Parliamentary grants—namely, Teachers in Poor Law schools, £37,318; Poor Law Medical Officers, £147,661; Medical Officers of Health and Inspectors of Nuisances, £71,939; Registrars of Births and Deaths, £9,534; Pauper Lunatics, £479,815; Criminal Prosecutions, £162,011; Police, £1,411,833; Grants to poor School Boards, £6,200; Awards to Public Vaccinators, £19,000; total, £2,345,311. Subject to these payments, the revenue will be applicable to defraying the cost of maintenance of disturnpiked and main roads—which is now estimated at about £1,040,000—and the cost of indoor poor, at the rate of 4d. per head per day, estimated at about £1,200,000—and any other charges borne by the whole county. The residue will be divided between the Quarter Sessions boroughs not contributing to special county purposes and the remainder of the county, in proportion to their rateable value. But it will be said—"The Bill cannot come into operation until the financial year 1889–90. Is there no financial relief to be given until then?" It is obvious that we could not bring the full scheme into operation, because the authorities we propose to set up will not have come into office until March, 1889. What, then, is the financial relief we propose this year, and to whom do we propose
    1676
    to give it? We propose, in addition to the grants in aid, which are in the Estimates, and which will continue to be paid during the approaching financial year, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall pay over to the local contribution account a sum of about£1,150,000 direct contribution from personal property, and an amount which I have named of about £826,000, the estimated yield for the year of the new Licence Duties to which I have already referred, making together an amount close upon £2,000,000 for the next financial year. Out of this sum we propose to distribute direct to Boards of Guardians throughout the country 4d. per head per day for indoor pauperism. This will absorb about £1,200,000. Out of the balance of £776,000 we propose to pay over, as was done last year, to Highway Authorities throughout the country, a fourth of the cost of repair of main roads, and to the County Authorities a similar amount, making together a sum of about £520,000 for the same purpose. There remains a balance of about £256,000. The House will remember, in reference to the extra grant of £250,000 made last year for main roads, that great complaint came from the Quarter Sessions boroughs and other areas which received but a small share of the contribution because they had little main road expenditure. In reference to this grievance, which we think a real one, we propose to apportion the balance of £256,000 on the basis of rateable value to London and the Quarter Sessions boroughs. Of course, this principle of apportionment, as the House will understand, is only applicable to the year which is approaching. After the County Authority and the whole machinery is set up, the Licence Duties collected in the area and the amount distributed will be the revenue to be derived by the County Authorities. The House will also understand, as it is necessary it should, that the contribution of £520,000 for main roads this year is not in addition to, but in substitution of, the sum provided for in the Estimates, which will be returned into the Exchequer. In the event of the Bill passing, therefore, the additional sums available for the relief of local taxation will be, in the year 1888–9, about £1,700,000, and in the year 1889–90 this amount will be increased to about £3,000,000. The House will have

    1677
    observed that there are two Bills on the Paper. One is for the registration of voters, and we hope the House will give great expedition to the passing of that Bill; because, if the other Bill which is on the Paper is to come speedily into operation, it is essential we should proceed with the registration, which, as hon. Gentlemen know, cannot be effected unless the Bill passes in. the middle of May or June. Then with reference to the date at which we propose that our main Bill shall come into operation. We propose that the elections for the County Council shall be hold in January next, although we do not propose that the new authority shall take over the functions of the Governing Body until the 25th of March. The District Councils cannot be elected for some time after, because, as the House is aware, we impose certain preliminary duties on the new County Council, and until they are performed the elections for the rural District Councils could not take place. We therefore propose that, as far as they are concerned, the elections shall take place in the November following; but that afterwards all the elections, both for the County Council and for the municipal boroughs, rural districts, and urban districts shall be held at the same time in November. The House, I am sure, will be glad to know that I have come to the conclusion of my remarks, and it is my duty to thank the House most cordially for the kind, attentive, and considerate hearing which they have been kind enough to afford me. I have stated to the House what our proposals are. They are, as I think the House will acknowledge, large and comprehensive. The subjects dealt with are numerous and important; but, numerous as they are, there are others with which some will have expected that we should deal, and I say at once there are others which we ourselves should have been glad to deal with if we had felt able to do so in the present Bill. We would gladly have included in our Bill the remainder of our scheme for London Government; we should have been glad to have proposed a reconstruction of parochial organization, a reform in the system of valuation so as to make it more simple and more uniform, a scheme for the consolidation of rates, and many other matters. If we have not dealt with these questions in the
    1678
    Bill, it is not because we do not fully recognize their importance, but because we feel the absolute necessity of keeping our Bill within reasonable and practical limits, and of not unduly over-weighting an already heavy and difficult measure. Some of these subjects we shall be prepared to deal with ourselves on another occasion; but, having set up a great and powerful organization in every one of our counties, we believe we shall have constituted an authority which may be fairly called upon to deal with others of them in a spirit in which they ought to be dealt with. Our chief aim and object has been to extend to the country at large those municipal privileges which have been so long accorded to boroughs, and which, on the whole, have been wisely used and judiciously exercised. No one can say we have approached this subject in a narrow or niggardly spirit; no one can say we have approached it in a spirit of distrust of the people. We have approached it in no spirit of distrust, but in a spirit of confidence in the sense and judgment of the people. We have been actuated by an earnest desire to settle the question on a broad and permanent basis, and we are satisfied that no narrower basis than that we have proposed gives promise of permanence and stability. We believe that by our Bill a spirit of active municipal life will be infused into our rural population, with results salutary and beneficial both to themselves and the country at large; and we claim—and with confidence after the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. W. E. Gladstone)—the assistance of both Parties in the House and the country in bringing about so desirable a consummation. We rely with confidence on the help of the House to pass this great measure of reform which we now submit to the judgment of the House and the country.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to Local Government in England and Wales; and for other purposes connected therewith."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    MR. HUNTERasked whether the financial proposal with regard to the Local Authorities which were intended to come into operation next year would apply to Scotland.
    MR. RITCHIE: Financial proposals with reference to Scotland will be made

    1679
    by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but it is obvious that they will be in a different form, looking at the fact that no Bill for Scotland can be passed this year.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he rose mainly to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. But as the first Metropolitan Member who had risen, he might perhaps be permitted to say that although the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would, so far as London was concerned, come upon the citizens with some surprise, he believed his proposals, so far as they wont, would not be unsatisfactory. The proposal to establish a directly elected body for London proceeded undoubtedly on the right line, and his only regret was that the right hon. Gentleman had not had the courage to deal with the Corporation of the City of London. He, for one, should not regret the decease of the Metropolitan Board of Works; but there wag another body which he ventured to think oven more than that had forfeited the confidence of the ratepayers of London. He referred to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and he very much regretted that, as he understood, that Board would continue to exist as heretofore. The question which he desired to put to the right hon. Gentleman related to the poor rates. He was—as hon. Gentlemen would be aware—in favour of equalizing the rate for the whole of London. As he understood, each Union would be entitled to receive from the funds at the disposal of the County Council 4d. per day in respect of each indoor pauper, and they were to have a County Council for London, which would pay 4d. a-day for each indoor pauper under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. But he pointed out that already each Union received 5d. a-day out of the Metroplitan Poor Fund. That being so, each London Union would be entitled to receive 9d. a day in respect of the maintenance of each indoor pauper, and he thought there were grave objections to such an arrangement. In the first place, it was inadequate, because it made no provision for the cost which was incurred for buildings, which was one of the largest burdens on the poor districts of London; and, in the second place. it was improvident, because he believed there was not one Metropolitan Union which
    1680
    spent so much as 9d. a-day on the maintenance of its paupers. So that it would result that the Guardians would actually make a profit out of their indoor pauperism. The natural offset would be that they would drive the paupers into the Union to a greater extent oven than at present. He felt that, whatever might be said against the danger of outdoor administration, the cost of maintenance ought to be determined on its own merits; whereas now they were still further extending the principle of the Metropolitan Poor Fund, which to some extent induced the Guardians to drive persons asking for relief into the poor-house. That system which had been mischievous they were now proposing to extend, and he therefore asked the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this aspect of the question.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, he understood that the London Police Force was to remain as it was now. The area at the present time extended 15 miles from Charing Cross, into many districts which were parts of other counties than that which was to be the London Council area. Was the present system to remain, or was the London Police to be consolidated? He also asked whether the only functions of the new Council for London were to be those of the Metropolitan Board?
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, there were a number of boroughs which were to be treated as counties in themselves.
    MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid, the object of his question was to know whether those boroughs would continuo to be governed by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1872, or under the new Act?
    COLONEL NOLANasked what was to be the equivalent for Ireland in the large contributions proposed to be made to the Unions for paupers? Ireland had little or no share in the money which was given in England in aid of the maintenance of highways, and now they were going to give 4d. a-head for all indoor paupers in England. He thought the time had arrived for bringing in a Bill to make the same provision for the poor in Ireland.
    MR. RITCHIE: With reference to the last question, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, of course, make a statement with

    1681
    reference to Scotland and Ireland when he comes to deal with finance. I have no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) will find that my right hon. Friend will deal with these countries in a strictly impartial manner. With regard to London paupers, the hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) spoke as if London would obtain an amount far in excess of the cost of the indoor paupers to the ratepayers. Nothing is more fallacious. The cost of the maintenance of the indoor poor is far beyond 9d. per head. The House will understand that the cost of housing the indoor poor in London is enormously greater than the cost of housing indoor poor in the country. I hope that the hon. Member will see the enormous gain which, our proposal will bring to a poor district such as he represents, and that he will not be found a dissenting Member in this matter. As to the police, one-half of the cost of their maintenance in the boroughs will be paid from the county and the borough fund, and one-half of the maintenance of the police in the counties will be paid for from the county fund. With reference to the question of the assessment of personal property, I must refer my hon. Friend to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will deal with it when he introduces his Budget. We do not, as I have stated, propose to touch the question of valuation now, but we hope, on a future day, to deal with it in a separate Bill. So that all questions of appeals with reference to valuation will remain as at present. We do not propose to make any alteration in the police districts, and the contribution now paid from the Exchequer towards the Metropolitan Police will be paid by the London Council so far as the area of the Board of Works is concerned, and by the County Council so far as their area is concerned. Then I am asked a question as to who will settle the number of members for London. I will undertake to lay upon the Table of the House, before the Bill goes through Committee, a Paper dealing with the members for London as well as for the counties, including London. Where the Government hand over the power of Central Departments to confirm acts done by District Councils, so far as confirmation is required in re-
    1682
    spect of proposals of Town Councils, they will still have to be confirmed by the Central Councils, because they could not be fairly asked to confirm their own orders.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The only question I propose to say a word or two upon is that relating to Scotland and Ireland. It is obvious to everyone that the right hon. Gentleman had sufficient reason in excluding altogether from his statement even the mention of Scotland and Ireland, and no doubt that reason was to be found in the fact that the concern of Scotland and Ireland in the present statement is a financial concern, and the Government have made an arrangement—which, I think, is altogether a wise and proper one—to follow up the statement of the right hon. Gentleman of today at the earliest possible opportunity with the Financial Statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) on the finances of the year. That matter, therefore, I think, has been disposed of for the present in a manner that is satisfactory with reference to the statement before us. Now, I do not think that, considering the vastness and complexity of the subject, I should have said a single word but for two reasons. One of those reasons is the pointed reference which the right hon. Gentleman made to me in his statement, and the other is that I felt a desire to do justice as far as I could to the strictly personal part of the operation which the right hon. Gentleman has had to perform this evening. Undoubtedly that was a most difficult operation; and I think every feeling of the House must be that he has discharged that very arduous duty in a manner which does him high honour. That portion of the subject I can refer to with unmixed pleasure and satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman referred to some general words of mine to the effect that the Government, I thought, would find on this side of the House no disposition to treat their proposals in relation to Local Government in any other than a broad and candid spirit. Well, I do not think that the time is come for me to go beyond those general words. The plans of the Government are a great deal too large to admit of our pronouncing any conclusive judgment upon them at present, whereas to pronounce a partial judgment might,

    1683
    I think, probably do more harm than good. It is, therefore, my plain duty to say that I adhere to the spirit of the words I used at the commencement of the Session; and, on the other hand, it is likewise my duty to say for myself, and for any that I may be supposed to represent, that, of course, at the present time we must retain our full and absolute liberty both in the mass and in the detail of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. Still, I will go one step beyond what I have stated in respect of the speech that has been made and of the propositions that are before us. I think that that speech was a very frank, a very lucid, and a very able statement, The right hon. Gentleman stated that he thought that the Government had founded their proposals upon principles which are both broad and deep, and he laid a claim upon the favourable consideration of the House. Well, I do not think that, taking the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as a whole in the claims that he made, it was an unjust or immodest statement. I think, undoubtedly, that he and his Colleagues have had to apply themselves to a combination of subjects so varied, so diversified, so complex, and so weighty that it would be difficult, perhaps, to name any measure which has been submitted to Parliament in which there has been greater difficulty in bringing into a focus such a multitude of topics so necessary to be connected, and yet presenting so many difficulties in establishing a connection. Undoubtedly, as respecting many important portions of the statement before us, it is only just that I should say that the Government have addressed themselves to the consideration of these points in a spirit which is large, bold, and just; and, so far as those portions go, I cannot but believe that I am expressing the general sentiment in what I have said. The reservation of liberty which I have made I must repeat; but I do not think that it would have been just to have allowed the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to have gone forth to the world without making frankly, and at once, the admission that in the plan he has proposed—whether or not to be good or bad as a whole, or whether or not in its details or its main details it can be supported—there are embodied many principles the acceptance of which, as coming from the right hon.
    1684
    Gentleman and his Colleagues, is a very important fact in the history of Parliamentary legislation. The good and profit of these principles I should be sorry that Parliament and the country should lose through the existence of any grudging or ungenerous spirit on the part of those who sit separate from the Party with which the right Gentleman belongs.
    SIR RICHARD PAGETsaid, it was with great satisfaction that he had listened to the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). He, in common with the right hon. Gentleman, felt that some liberty of action must be retained by those who wished to facilitate the settlement of this extremely difficult question. He ventured to say that no more weighty measure had ever been introduced into that House than the present. It was a measure bristling with details; and he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) on the evident success he had so far achieved. He took this opportunity of expressing his satisfaction that at last a Government had been found ready to deal with a difficulty so long recognized, and with evils under which the counties had so long suffered. He looked forward with pleasure to the great benefit which local ratepayers were to derive from Imperial taxation, and which he understood would amount in 1889 to £1,700,000 and in 1890 to no less than £3,000,000. That of itself was an enormous advance on the action of any previous Government, and one that he heartily rejoiced at. There were, however, one or two questions that he would venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, were the present Highway Boards to continue to exercise the powers and authority which they now possessed with the exception of those with reference to main roads? Then, with regard to the Police, was it intended to leave it to the new Authority to determine what the number of the Police Forces should be, the rates to be paid, and the manner in which they were to be equipped, when the subvention for the police and the authority of the Home Office ceased? He desired ones more to congratulate his right hon. Friend on the great boldness of conception on which this scheme was founded. He ventured to hope

    1685
    that when the new Authority came into being, placed on the wider and more comprehensive basis of popular election, it would be found in no degree inferior to the Body which it replaced, and that its administration would be entitled to the same amount of praise as that which had been given to the older Body—that in future it would be found to have regard for economical expenditure, and worthy of being pointed to as a Body having the interests of the ratepayers thoroughly at heart.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he understood that the existing Corporation of London was to exist side by side with the General Council for London. If that was so, was the existing Corporation to continue as a separate Council for each district? And, further, he would like to know if the Corporation of the future was to be elected in the same manner as the existing Corporation. If that were so, without arguing the matter, then he would simply say that it constituted a great blot on the Bill. He should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had had the courage to abolish the magisterial functions of county gentlemen. One of the great grievances of the present system was that the Justices were drawn exclusively from one class; and that, among other things, the game preservers were the men chosen to try the poachers. It seemed to him strange that an anomaly of this kind should have been preserved. The right hon. Gentleman had not even made an allusion to the existence of Ireland, so far as the financial part of the Bill was concerned, which was a question it was said must be left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, might have said that the Bill was extremely complex, and that he was only making a reasonable demand in asking that he should be permitted to confine it, for the moment at least, to this country. If he had done that, Irish Members would have admitted the justice of his case. But he had not alluded to Ireland; and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman some explanation of the postponement of Ireland. At a subsequent period this question would, of course, be raised in another form. He
    1686
    should reserve his observations in the meantime, and would merely say that it was for the credit of the House of Commons, the credit of the Ministry, and for the credit of English honour and citizenship generally, that they should have a distinct statement from the Government that the postponement of Ireland was one of time, and not of principle.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that with regard to the accusations of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), he thought that the Government would be able to show, so to speak, a clean bill of health with regard to Ireland, and that the administration of justice might be fairly left in their hands. He had only to ask his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) one or two questions on points about which he was not quite clear. First, with regard to the police and their management in future. He understood that the police in counties would be transferred to a Body equally elected from the Quarter Sessions Body and from the elected Council. He would like to know whether all direct control of the Home Office was to be taken away, and whether all control of the Police Force in future would be left to the Guardians and the Local Bodies? He thought his right hon. Friend had not told them how he proposed to deal with the Metropolitan Police when he spoke of the police being in the hands of the Home Office. Were the City Police to be amalgamated, or were they to remain a separate force as at present? He had no doubt that the other point which he had to mention would be answered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If these contributions to which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had referred were to go in aid of the locality, how were they in future to divide the contributions of those who resided for half the year in London and the other half in the country?
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he wished to ask what was to be the position of boroughs of over 10,000 inhabitants. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned boroughs which, like Grimsby, had

    1687
    30,000 or 40,000 inhabitants, and were not Quarter Sessions boroughs. He should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman some information on that subject. Again he asked for what time the District Committees were to be elected. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned three years in connection with the County Committee, but he had not named any time with regard to the District Committees. He (Mr. Heneage) presumed the time would be three years, although it was not mentioned. He had no other questions to ask, and it simply remained for him to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman heartily on the measure he had introduced.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, what relation and powers the new Local Authority would have with reference to the Allotment Act of last year, taking into consideration the fact that under the present circumstances that Act was utterly useless and unworkable.
    SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of some grant to school boards which would cease to be paid. He (Sir Bernhard Samuelson) should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he referred to the education grant which was made to school boards, and, if not, what was the grant to which he referred?
    MR. SINCLAIRsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had referred to six or seven cities which were to become counties of cities—Liverpool, for instance, was one of them. He desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the proposed Council of that county was to be the present Town Council of the city, or was there to be constituted a now body. If the old body—the present Town Council—was to be the Council of the county, would there be some provision with regard to the election of the Council; would there be one election every three years, or would they continue on their present constitution—one member retiring from each ward every third year?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he would answer the last question first. The Council of a borough made a county would be the composition of the County Council; it
    1688
    would not have to undergo re-election, and they did not propose in cases of this kind in any way to interfere with the mode of election or with the term for which the Council was re-elected. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Bernhard Samuelson) asked him what the Government were proposing to do with respect to boroughs which were not coterminous with sanitary areas? This was one of the questions submitted to the Boundary Commissioners, and it would be their duty to make a report upon it; their report would be submitted to the County Council, who would take the matter into consideration, and deal with it by way of Provisional Orders, His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Major Rasch) asked him whether there would be any alteration as to the authority existing at present to administer the Allotments Act? There would, of course, be an alteration. The authority under the Allotments Act was the Sanitary Authority; the Sanitary Authority in rural districts at present was the Guardians. In future the Sanitary Authority in rural districts would be directly elected by the ratepayers, and they would become the authority to administer the Allotments Act. The District Council would be the Sanitary Authority.
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: Of how many members will it consist?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was proposed that the County Council should fix the number for each Rural Sanitary Authority. Then he was questioned with regard to the School Board grant. The proposals of the Government had no reference to the grants generally, and only a very small grant to poor School Boards would be involved in their proposals. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Wells Division of Somerset (Sir Richard Paget) had asked him a question in reference to the highways. The District Councils, whether rural or urban, would be the Highway Authorities of the future, and of course the existing authorities would cease to exercise their powers. The hon. Baronet also asked him—and a similar question was put by his hon. Friend the Member for the Epping Division of Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson)—whether the control of the police by the Home Office was to cease

    1689
    under the new state of things? No, it was not; the Home Office would still exorcise supervision over the police, they would still have to give their certificate, and where they found that an efficient police force was not maintained in accordance with the efficiency necessary to obtain a certificate, they would have power to call upon the County Authority to remedy the defect. The hon. Baronet also put to him a question upon another point; he suggested that the rates might automatically increase. Where would the increased revenue be found? He anticipated that, even apart from the ordinary and constant increase of revenue to be derived from all these licences, and also from the sources from which personal contributions came, there would be added this expectation of increase, that the Local Authorities within the counties having a direct interest in the amount of revenue raised from the licences, would look very sharply after the collection of the licence duties. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) asked him what were the proposals in reference to the position of the City of London. The hon. Gentleman was aware that they proposed in the Bill only to deal with the question of the County Authority in London which was to be elected by all parts of London. He (Mr. Ritchie) stated that they had other plans with reference to districts. Those plans were not before Parliament, but he might inform the hon. Gentleman that so far as the City of London was concerned it would occupy within the County of London precisely the same position as a Quarter Sessions borough would continue to occupy in an ordinary county.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was extremely anxious to know how the London Authority was to be elected?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, they did not propose to deal with the smaller areas in London in the present Bill at all, and he did not think the hon. Gentleman would expect him to state how they proposed to deal with the City of London when it came to be considered as a District Council with reference to itself.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was particularly anxious to know whether the elections in London would be conducted on the popular principle?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he was afraid he had not made himself understood; they recognized the importance of that particular branch of their work, but as he stated in his speech they did not feel able to deal with that question in this Bill because it would unduly have over-weighted it. They proposed to deal not only with the City of London but with other areas in London subsequently. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) answered his own question when he said the Bill was one which did not profess to deal with Ireland. He (Mr. Ritchie) should be quite out of Order if he attempted to state to the House what were the proposals which they hoped at some future time to make respecting Ireland. Then a question was asked with reference to the City Police—whether they were to be amalgamated? The House knew that the City had always maintained its own police, and it had always declined to submit to the supervision of the Home Office. That being so, they did not propose to include the City of London among the police that were to be maintained at the cost of the county. The question the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) asked him was, what would be the position of boroughs, not Quarter Sessions boroughs, with a population of over 10,000? They would be precisely in the position they at present occupied. All municipal boroughs would retain their powers and their duties other than those which were excepted exactly as they possessed them now.
    MR. HENEAGEasked if they would retain the power of licensing?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that he thought he had told the House clearly that such boroughs would exercise all the duties they exercised now other than those which were excepted. They had not got the power of licensing now except through their Justices. They were powers which would be in the future exercised by the County Council.
    MR. HENEAGE: Then borough Justices will be superseded by County Justices?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Government proposed to take away licensing as a portion of the administrative functions they took away from the Justices. Of course, the Justices of Quarter Sessions boroughs will, in common with

    1691
    Justices of counties, lose their licensing powers—[Mr. HENEAGE: And the City of London?]—Yes, and the Justices of the City of London. A question was asked as to the mode of election to the District Councils. In the multiplicity of the questions with which he had had to deal, he had forgotten to say that the District Councils would be elected for the same time, and under similar circumstances as Municipal Councils; two-thirds would retire annually. He had now, he thought, answered all the questions put to him, but he could not sit down without expressing his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. B. Gladstone) for the kind and handsome way in which he had spoken of the way in which he (Mr. Ritchie) had performed his duty to-night. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that, however much they differed on political questions, he very greatly appreciated the compliment which the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to pay him to-night.
    MR. W. BECKETTsaid, he desired to address a question to the right hon. Gentleman relating to finance. The present County Authorities raised capital by mortgages on the rates, and that was a very cumbersome mode of raising money, and it would be a great convenience to all if the right hon. Gentleman would introduce a clause in the Bill empowering County Authorities to create a county stock. Such a stock would be very popular in every county, and its existence would save a great deal of the trouble and expense connected with the present system of raising money.
    MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had dealt with the Municipal Authorities and great Local Boards, but there were other authorities which gave great trouble in the great controversy upon local government, and they were the Improvement Commissioners appointed under Acts of Parliament. The condition of these bodies was extremely anomalous, and he (Mr. F. S. Powell) would greatly rejoice to see an end put to their corporate existence. At present they might be entirely abolished by a Provisional Order which gave power to alter a local Act, but he was anxious to know whether the Go-
    1692
    vernment would not take advantage of this great opportunity, and put an end once and for ever to these most anomalous, and, he thought, in many cases most inconvenient authorities? He hoped he might be allowed as one who had had the honour of being for eight years a member of the London vestry to congratulate the Government on taking in hand the cause of local reform in London. He was sure that whatever were the opinions of hon. Gentlemen who took part in this debate, they would all agree in thanking the Government for the courage with which they had dealt with this part of this very great problem. He had rather hoped that in the course of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman they would have heard some more in detail respecting local areas. This was, of course, too large a subject to discuss at this late period of a preliminary debate, but he hoped that in the course of a few years the anomalies in local boundaries would be terminated, and that there would be some symmetrical system. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman did not intend that the areas for local government should hereafter be equal in size or in population. For political purpose no doubt areas of the same uniform size were desirable, but for administration local circumstances differ so much, and there is so much diversity in the local wants, that variety rather than uniformity should be sought. He could, if time permitted, have given illustrations in support of his view, but he thought that it was right in the course of a discussion like this to be as brief as possible, and merely to indicate a few leading ideas which had occurred to his mind.
    MR. CHANNINGsaid, he desired to put one question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and that was whether there would be any proposals in the Bill affecting the present government of parishes? Whether the power now possessed by Vestries would be altered by the Bill, and whether any powers at present existing or any other powers within the parishes would be given by the clauses of the Bill to the new District Councils?
    MR. JASPER MOREsaid, he wished to ask if the right hon. Gentleman intended to extend

    1693
    the disturnpiked roads grant to those roads disturnpiked since 1870? He wished, too, that the right hon. Gentleman would kindly state what was to be the position of those small boroughs which he alluded to—namely, those with a population under 3,000 which still had a mayor and corporation of their own? He desired also to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he would consider whether he could cause a plan to be prepared showing the amount of the revenue derivable from the licences which would fall to the lot of the several county districts?
    MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, he agreed that it was somewhat inconsiderate to further ply the right hon. Gentleman with questions, although there were one or two points upon which he would like further information. He could not refrain from congratulating the right hon. Gentleman and the Government upon the measure they had introduced, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman of the approval which would be felt all over the country of the mode of relief he had suggested with regard to the payment of capitation grant for indoor poor. The proposals of the Government in that respect would not only be received with great satisfaction by all Poor Law Guardians, but would add very considerably to the economical carrying out of the Poor Law. The right hon. Gentleman dealt in his speech with the subject of the constitution of the proposed County Boards. He (Mr. Llewellyn) knew that the minds of a great number of people for a considerable time had been exercised as to what part the Justices of the Peace in counties were to play, and he was heartily glad the right hon. Gentleman had tackled the matter in the way he had. He had no doubt certain magistrates would feel somewhat disappointed and perhaps concerned that they were not to be members of the Board by virtue of their position, but the majority of the people in the country would be thoroughly satisfied with the way these Boards were to be constituted—namely, to be purely elective. He did not think any magistrates who took interest in county matters need feel at all that their services would no longer be required. Where magistrates took to the work, and stuck to the work, and were fit for
    1694
    the work of Boards of Guardians and similar bodies, they would find that on account of their leisure and of their fitness plenty of employment would be put in their way. His own idea was that not only on the District Boards but on the County Councils the magistrates who hitherto had taken an active part in the administration of the Poor Law and in county matters would find plenty of work, and that their services would be appreciated and sought.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he was very unwilling to trouble the right hon. Gentleman with an additional question, but there was one point which he had altogether omitted to notice. It was commonly thought that the County Council was to be charged with the great question of elementary education. The right hon. Gentleman omitted to deal with that subject. If he would state at once what it was proposed to do, it would be very interesting to those who were engaged in the question.
    MR. J. C. STEVENSONsaid, he wished to thoroughly understand what was the authority which would regulate the matter of Sunday Closing in ordinary large boroughs which were not Quarter Sessions boroughs—whether the existing borough magistrates would settle the matter, or whether the authority would be the County Justices in the settlement of the question of Sunday closing?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, that he explained to the House that the whole question of dealing with licensing and the sale of intoxicating liquors would be entrusted to the County Council. His hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot) asked him a question respecting education. He was sorry if he had omitted to state what was to be done in that respect. He had intended to state that it was not proposed to deal with the question in this Bill. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Channing) had questioned him with regard to parishes. That was one of the matters with which the Government would have been glad to deal had they had time, but they did not think they could deal in this Bill with the many questions arising in connection with parishes. Their size varied so much that no measure dealing with parishes could have dealt with them in a satisfactory manner unless there was

    1695
    some means by which amalgamations could have been brought about. The County Councils, he hoped, would consider matters of that kind for themselves, and suggest in many cases alterations of the law which might be readily made. The hon. Member for the Ludlow Division of Shropshire (Mr. Jasper More) asked whether they proposed to extend the grant for main roads. No; they proposed to leave the question exactly as it stood now, and so far as this and many other matters were concerned he might say they did not propose to alter the existing law. Their main object was to create new authorities and to transfer to them the administration of the existing law. If they had begun to amend the various laws connected with local management in this Bill, they would have made it such a Bill as it would have been totally impracticable to pass in a Session. His hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) asked what they proposed to do with the Improvement Commissioners? He did not think it necessary to allude to Improvement Act areas as well as Local Board areas, but, of course, what he said with reference to Local Board areas applied also to Improvement Act areas. They would become District Councils elected in precisely the same way as all other District Councils and the Improvement Commissioners would disappear. His hon. Friend also asked whether the areas for Local Government were to be equal in population. As far as possible they did not propose to make any alteration whatever in the areas of local districts.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) was to be congratulated upon the admirable manner in which he had introduced his measure to the House. He could not help, however, expressing his regret that they had not heard from the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), or from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, some words about the simultaneity in the laws relating to England and Ireland. The Government were to be congratulated upon the measure, speaking, of course, as it were upon the first blush. In his opinion, the measure showed a considerable amount of ex-
    1696
    pansion upon the part of the Government, and he did not think he would be accused of ill-feeling when he said that he and his Friends expected that some reference would have been made to Ireland. There was no Government more charged with the duty of extending Local Government in Ireland than the Unionist or Conservative Government. The Irish Members had expected, as compensation for the rejection of the measures in which they were specially interested, that the Government would drop some word of comfort to them on the great subject of Local Government, because they had been told over and over again that while the Government were opposed to setting up a separate Parliament in Dublin, they felt that something was necessary to be done to extend the same principles of Local Government which existed in England to Ireland. Speaking for himself, he should have been very glad if the head of the Irish Office had seen his way to introduce for Ireland a measure as promising—he did not say it was sufficient—as the measure the right hon. Gentleman had introduced for England and Wales. He admired the facility of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for dealing with the particular questions of areas, boundaries, and matters of that kind, and he could not help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman could have projected his mind into the question as regarded Ireland he would have found there was not a single difficulty in his way. In extending this measure almost as it stood to Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman would have found no difficulty as regarded areas or boundaries. If any person acquainted with the subject were given two or three hours he could easily have made this Bill applicable to Ireland, and therefore he (Mr. T. M. Healy) greatly regretted that the Government had not seen fit to introduce a Bill for Ireland. The noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), speaking some time ago upon Local Government, spoke of the great advantage which would be gained by his dealing with the question as regarded England; but he (Mr. T. M. Healy) did not think there was any principle—of course, there were some omissions in the Bill which out to be inserted if it were applied to Ireland—which they

    1697
    would not have gladly seen extended to Ireland. He had, however, one complaint to make from a financial point of view. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) would soon have an opportunity of stating his financial proposals, and, of course, he did not expect the right hon. Gentleman to state now exactly what he proposed to do; but they had seen reliefs extended to the local taxpayers of England and Wales, especially in regard to disturnpiked roads, while nothing of the kind had been done in the case of Ireland. He was sure he could appeal with confidence to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this point, as being a point entirely outside the domain of Irish politics. If they were to be denied for 12 months or two years, or Heaven knew how long, the benefits of local self-government, he trusted that at some period of this discussion the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to inform them what was the measure of financial relief the Irish people were about to have extended to them under his scheme. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on finance had no politics, and he asked him and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to bear in mind the important fact that the people of Ireland desired the relief to be in aid of the county cess instead of the poor rate. He did not know how it was proposed to deal with the question of the poor rate in this country, but he presumed that the relief afforded would be relief to the occupier. But, be that as it might, the disparity between England and Ireland on this important point was so great that the 4d. it was proposed to grant by way of relief to the occupiers in this country would in Ireland suffice for the maintenance of all the paupers. But it was proposed to relieve the local taxpayers of England in respect to a whole series of burdens. Where was the relief of a similar kind for Ireland? He was sure he should not be asking too much if he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to anticipate in some slight degree the Statement he must make in the course of two or three days by saying where was the equivalent relief they in Ireland were to get. He congratulated the right hon.
    1698
    Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board upon the breadth of his scheme, and also on having included the women householders. He knew that in this country women suffrage was supposed to be a Tory proposal; but in Ireland they would be very glad to have women voters. It was, unfortunately, the fact that women householders in Ireland had increased to a large extent by reason of the fact that the landlord party, instead of recognizing the eldest son as the tenant in case of the father's decease, had recognized the widow. In that way Ireland had been denied much masculine franchise, and, there being no feminine franchise to take its place, real occupiers had been denied altogether the right of a vote. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board seemed a courageous scheme, and entitled to a large measure of success. It seemed to him that the Government had introduced it as a House of Common's scheme rather than as a Party scheme, and that they were disposed, if they were beaten by their own Party, to rely upon the good sense of the House of Commons at large. While, of course, he did not bind himself in the least degree, he was bound to say that if there were Gentlemen upon the Government side of the House who were not prepared to support the right hon. Gentleman in his proposals upon what might be called the licensed victuallers' taxation portion of the scheme, the right hon. Gentleman might rely upon a large amount of general support. Indeed, he believed that the President of the Local Government Board would find himself supported upon the main principles of his Bill by the general sense of the House as a whole. In Ireland they took considerable interest in the question of licensing. The Nationalist Party had been attacked as being more or less the publicans' party, but there was no man less of a publican party man than he was. At the same time, he confessed that he was not, as at present advised, in favour of extinguishing a publican's licence, unless upon grounds of fault on the part of the publican himself, without giving compensation, although it was for the State to say whether higher licence duties, having necessarily a restricting effect, should not be imposed. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local

    1699
    Government Board would probably find considerable diversity of opinion upon this particular subject; but as far as they in Ireland were concerned—and they had been charged with being the publicans' champions—he would be glad if the licensing proposals were extended to Ireland. He thought the Government inclined to act reasonably on the whole question, and he trusted that when they came to deal with Ireland they would be animated with the same spirit.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot discuss in any detail the circumstances of Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that perhaps he might be allowed to say, in conclusion, that the Irish Members did expect some statement from the Government with regard to the question of finance at least.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he would not follow the hon. and learned Member over what he might call the broader part of his speech, but confine his remarks to the question of finance. The Government were duly sensible of the importance of the question of finance. It was impossible for his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), considering the enormous range of subjects he had to deal with in his speech, to deal also with the question of Irish and Scotch finance in relation to the new distribution of Imperial and local taxation. He (Mr. Goschen) could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends that he had given the greatest possible attention to the question as to how Scotland and Ireland could be treated simultaneously with England as regarded the question of finance. The hon. and learned Gentleman would not expect him to anticipate the Statement he would have to make on Monday next; but he might now tell the hon. and learned Gentleman he (Mr. Goschen) started from this basis—" No change in the contributions made to English local finance, and no variation in the system of levying taxation, shall bear prejudicially either upon Scotland or upon Ireland." He maintained that Scotland and Ireland should derive the same benefits as were conferred by this measure upon the English. As to the mode by which
    1700
    that might be accomplished, he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would not expect him to speak. He only spoke generally. Full financial justice should be done, so far as the Government could possibly do it, to all parts of the Empire.
    MR. DILLONsaid, that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer illustrated very strongly indeed the inconvenience of the course adopted by the Government. They could not give Ireland any terms in regard to local finance which would at all equal the terms given to England, because of the manner in which local finance was administered in Ireland. The administration of local finance in Ireland would simply result in corruption, jobbery, and waste. He could not understand how satisfactory relief was to be given to local finance in Ireland as long as the administration of local finance in that country remained in the hands of the present authorities. That being so, he thought the probability was that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when coming to deal with this matter, would find that he had to face a very considerable and difficult problem. He thought it right to point out that it was the custom for a Minister of the Crown, in introducing any great or wide measure of reform dealing with England and Wales alone, to state to the House in the opening portion of his statement the grounds on which the Government confined the measure to England and Wales, and did not extend it to Scotland or Ireland. If that had been so in the past, it seemed to him that the reason for the continuance of the custom by the present Unionist Government was tenfold stronger, because what was it they were told was the object of the present Government? They were told over and over again that the object of the Government was to sink as rapidly as they could all distinction between the Three Kingdoms, and to treat England, Ireland, and Scotland, as one and the same United Kingdom. That was matter of common statement on public platforms, and it was considered a strange thing that a Minister, so far from advancing in that direction, should distinctly depart from the custom by introducing a great measure like this, con-

    1701
    fining its operation to England and Wales, and omitting to make the smallest reference to Ireland, and omitting to say on what grounds Ireland was excluded from the operation of the Bill. He had not the slightest intention to enter into this question in detail. An opportunity undoubtedly would arise hereafter on which the whole of this great and vast question could be discussed at great length. At the same time, he thought it would be unreasonable to expect that this opportunity should be allowed to pass without a word or two being said upon the Bill. What was it that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said? He said that one of the remarkable features with regard to this great measure of reform was that there existed in England no great or pressing demand for the measure at all, and he said that it was a very sound Constitutional principle to bring in a measure of reform before the public demand for it became very pressing or urgent, in order that they might secure for the measure that amount of calm consideration which the Bill deserved. That was a very good principle undoubtedly, but it was one which had not been generally acted upon by the Tory Party in the past. Did the right hon. Gentleman think how that statement was likely to be viewed by Irishmen? The statement was viewed by them as an argument of unanswerable force that the Irish Bill should be introduced first.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that his observations are entirely irrelevant to the subject of the introduction of an English Bill. As the hon. Gentleman has himself pointed out, he will have an opportunity of discussing this question at another time. He is quite out of Order, upon the introduction of a Bill relating to England and Wales, to make such constant reference to Ireland.
    MR. DILLONasked if he would be in Order in referring to the question why Ireland should be excluded from the Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: I think it is out of Order on the introduction of this Bill.
    MR. WOODALLsaid, he wished to ask when the Bill would be printed?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG): Early next week.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he would like to know on what day it was proposed to take the second reading?
    MR. LONGsaid, that, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, he could not say when the second reading would be taken.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he rose in no spirit of opposition to the Bill, for he admired a great part of its construction. He thought, however, it was desirable that full time should be given for the consideration of the Bill, not only by hon. Members of the House, but by the country at large. He believed that if full time could be given now, it would prove, on the whole, an economy of time. He did not think—judging from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and judging from the nature of the Bill itself—that there was any intention to smuggle the Bill through the House. If it went through the House it must go through on its merits, and it would require all the support it could get. For all these reasons he hoped that ample and sufficient opportunity would be given for the consideration of the Bill by the country.
    BARON DIMSDALEsaid, he thought it was very desirable that the Bill should be thoroughly discussed at Quarter Sessions. Nobody would be so much affected by the Bill as Quarter Sessions, and therefore it was very important that they should have an opportunity of considering the Bill in all its bearings. The next Quarter Sessions took place in Easter week, and therefore he trusted that the second reading would not be taken until after the Easter Recess.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, and Mr. Long.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 182.]

  SUNDAY CLOSING ACTS (IRELAND).

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland be a Member of the said Committee."
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, it would be remembered by the Members of the Government that this Committee was granted at the desire of those who considered that the working of the Irish Sunday Closing Acts ought to be investigated—it was at the desire of people, some of whom believed that the Act had not fulfilled the intentions of its promoters, and some of whom believed that it had. It was thought, on all sides, that there should be a strict and impartial investigation; and his contention was that the Committee, as it appeared upon the Paper, was incompetent to make an impartial investigation. Why did he make that statement? For the reason, first and foremost, that there were only four Members of the Party to which he belonged who were proposed as Members of the Committee. The Irish Nationalist Party was only to furnish one-fourth of the Committee, yet it represented five-sixths of the people of Ireland. That was not a fair representation of the Party representing such a large number of the people of Ireland. Again, there were five Members of the Committee taken from above the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House. Those five Members were men who were actually pledged to support Sunday closing and the suppression of the liquor traffic in all its phases. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mr. Jacoby) was against the liquor traffic. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Theodore Fry) and the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Rowntree) were also opposed to the liquor traffic. They were very pronounced upon the subject. He made no objection to the hon. Member for South Londonderry (Mr. Lea), because he had a right to be on the Committee, inasmuch as there was a Bill referred to that Committee in which he was interested. But there was another Member above the Gangway whom it was proposed to put on the Committee, and that was the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). How was it possible to expect that the hon. Member for South Tyrone could bring to the investigation of this subject an impartial mind? He it was who brought up the evidence and conducted the agitation which produced the Sunday Closing Bill. It was proposed to put upon the Committee a Gentleman who was responsible for the present
    1704
    measure; and was it reasonable or human to expect that he would bring to the investigation of the operation of that Bill a fair and impartial mind? It was not at all to be expected that the hon. Gentleman would go into the Committee to smother his own child; and he (Mr. J. O'Connor) questioned the good taste of the hon. Gentleman in allowing his name to appear among the Members of the Committee. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision in that respect; and he hoped the Government would also reconsider their decision—he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would have the good taste to retire from the Committee, and that the Government would accept his resignation. There were some Members also proposed from the other side of the House. There was the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden). The hon. and learned Gentleman had a fair and impartial mind; and he (Mr. J. O'Connor) had no doubt he would use—at any rate, he hoped he would use—his best endeavour to come to a correct decision on the matter. He made no objection to the presence of the hon. and learned Gentleman upon the Committee.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONrose to Order. He asked if it was not the Rule, when one name was nominated for a Select Committee, that the remarks made should be upon that particular name?
    MR. SPEAKER: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. O'Connor) objects to the name of the Solicitor General for Ireland, because the Question I have to put is—"That the Solicitor General be a Member of the Select Committee?"
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he thought it would expedite matters if he said now what he had to say with regard to the constitution of the Committee.
    MR. SPEAKER: It would be more regular for the hon. Gentleman to object to any particular name.
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid that that would only multiply his speech.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. William Johnston be a Member of the said Committee."
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid he desired to take exception to the name. They all

    1705
    knew the temperament of the hon. Member for South Belfast. The hon. Gentleman was a man of a very enthusiastic cast of mind. He brought to bear upon all subjects he contemplated a very enthusiastic temperament, to say the least about it, and he had made himself the champion of measures introduced for the purpose of doing injustice to classes of people who had been acknowledged by law. The hon. Member for South Belfast was a man who, in the measures he had introduced in the House, had never considered the justice of the claims of the people who had vested interests in the liquor traffic to compensation in case they were deprived of their means of livelihood. The hon. Gentleman had shown himself almost a fanatic in the matter. He (Mr. J. O'Connor) therefore considered the hon. Gentleman was an unfit and improper person to serve on this Committee, and he charged the Government with not having a very just desire to evoke and elicit the truth in suggesting the hon. Member for South Belfast as a Member of the Committee of Inquiry.
    MR. P. M'DONALDsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend that a Committee of Inquiry such as this ought to be thoroughly impartial, and ought to be free from any bias in any direction whatsoever. So far as he could gather from the antecedents of the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston), he did not think the hon. Member could bring to this inquiry a fair and clear mind. The hon. Member had preconceived notions antagonistic to the trade that was to be brought under review. He (Mr. P. M'Donald) considered that no Member of the House who had preconceived notions ought to be nominated on the Committee unless his conclusions were considered to be thoroughly impartial, and he heartily supported his hon. Friend in objecting to the name of Mr. William Johnston.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, that perhaps on this particular Motion he ought to say a few words with respect to the general constitution of the Committee. He did not know whether he should be in Order in—
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman would not be in Order. We have now arrived at a particular name—the
    1706
    name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast, and the discussion must be confined to the qualifications of that Gentleman to serve upon the Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Agg-Gardner, Mr. Gent-Davis, Mr. Muntz, Mr. Rowntree, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Theodore Fry, Mr. Tomlinson, and Mr. Lea be Members of the said Committee," put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. T. W. Russell be a Member of the said Committee."
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, that a while ago, in his general observations, he stated what he wished to repeat now—namely, that he considered it impossible for the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) to bring to the investigation a fair and impartial mind. He said a while ago, and he repeated it now, for the benefit of those who had came into the House since that time, that the hon. Member for South Tyrone was a man who was most engaged in producing the measure they were to investigate. He was the man who organized the evidence that was adduced before the Committee who investigated the question originally, and he was the man who agitated the subject as the official of the Association that promoted the measure—he was the representative of the United Kingdom Alliance in Ireland. He (Mr. J. O'Connor) maintained that, under all these circumstances, the hon. Member was utterly incompetent to bring to the investigation of the subject a fair and impartial mind. While this Committee was in course of construction he stated these facts to the Whips of the Parties, and he asked for a fairly constituted Committee. He asked for a fair proportion of hon. Members sitting below the Gangway, but they had only been granted one-fourth of the constitution of the Committee, although they represented five-sixths of the population of Ireland. He protested against the name of the hon. Member for South Tyrone being included in the Committee, and he repeated the charge he made a while ago, that he did not think that it was consistent with the best taste possible that the hon. Gentleman should allow himself to be nominated for the Committee. He was an hon. Member of

    1707
    the House, no doubt, but still he defied the hon. Gentleman to bring to the investigation of this subject that fair and impartial mind which it was necessary to do, in order to investigate the truth upon this very large and vexed question in Ireland. He had no object in these remarks except the eliciting of the truth. He had no connection whatever with the liquor traffic, but he had heard it stated in Ireland that there was much hardship duo to the existence of the Sunday Closing Act, and he was anxious to find out whether that was be or not. [Cries of "Order, order !"] He was arguing upon the constitution of the Committee.
    MR. SPEAKER: That is cot the Question before the House. The Question is the qualification of the hon. Member for South Tyrone to be a Member of the Committee.
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he had stated his reasons for considering the hon. Gentleman disqualified from sitting upon the Committee. He protested against the hon. Member being a Member of the Committee, and he should certainly go to a Division if the Motion was persevered in.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he thought it was very extraordinary that these names should be opposed. One would think that the Committee had been brought together in an improper way—that it had been got together by Peter the Packer himself. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not apprehend anything of that kind. The Committee had been got up by the hon. Member who was objecting to some of these names. The House would recollect that last year it was at the instance of Gentlemen who took a great interest in the liquor trade that this Committee was assented to, and that it was accepted with great acclamation and delight by those opposed to the trade. So far they were all harmonious. The publicans alleged that this Act had caused great drinking in Ireland, and upon that ground they opposed it. That was one of the most unselfish things he had ever heard of. But whether it was unselfish or not, the publicans took a very strong view against the Act and its working. Now, if anyone looked at the Committee, they would see what men the publicans had got upon it. Anyone who knew as much about the matter as he did must
    1708
    know that those men could be thoroughly trusted. There were upon the Committee four or five of the staunchest publicans—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet must confine himself to the qualification of Mr. T. W. Russell.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was sorry if he had transgressed in any way, and he would speak of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Member was objected to because he knew more about this question than anybody else. He was the man who had the most to do with carrying the Sunday Closing Act through the House, and, therefore, he was the very man to inquire into how it had worked. [Cries of"Oh, oh !"] Yes; quite as much as the men who opposed it. Those who objected to the hon. Member being a Member of the Committee said—"Oh, no; do not let him come on the Committee, because he has strong opinions." Had not everyone strong opinions on some subject or other? Then they said—"But he is not impartial." In his (Sir Wilfrid Lawson's) opinion, the hon. Member for South Tyrone was the most impartial of men. One day he was writing letters in favour of the Irish tenants, and the next day he was voting with the Irish landlords. If any man could see two sides of a question bettor than his hon. Friend, he did not know where to find him. He objected altogether to the idea of keeping people off Committees because they had opinions. Everyone had opinions. If they were to take people who had no opinions at all, they would have a Committee of idiots. He did not agree with his hon. Friends in objecting to the hon. Member for South Tyrone. It was a great reflection upon the hon. Member to say that he was not fit to serve on this Committee. The Committee was not to legislate, but it was to make inquiries, to get hold of the facts, and report them to the House, and there was no one better fitted for that purpose than the hon. Member for South Tyrone. He heartily supported the hon. Member's name.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Remaining names, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. Tuite, Mr. Biggar, and Mr. Peter Macdodald, agreed to.
    MR. J. O'CONNORsaid, he desired to move that two more Members be added to the Committee.
    MR. SPEAKER: That is not possible. There has been no Notice given of it.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: I give Notice of it now.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can put it on the Paper in the usual way if he wishes to add to the number of the Committee, which is now 15.
    Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND [SALARY, &c]
  Considered in Committee
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to make regulations for the office of Under Secretary and of Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
  MR. DILLONsaid, he had been very much surprised indeed to see this subject on the Paper, because, after the discussion which took place a few nights ago, he had felt, and other hon. Members had felt, that the Government would first have dealt with a matter of u more urgent character—that, namely, which related to allowances to divisional magistrates in Ireland. The Government had admitted, that they were bound to make every possible exertion, consistently with the progress of Public Business, to push forward a measure on that subject; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had said that, if there was time, such a Bill would be passed. There was time at that moment to proceed with the Bill; but the measure was not forthcoming, and in its place they had the present highly contentious and obnoxious proposal. There were unanswerable arguments in favour of postponing the consideration of this Motion and pressing forward more urgent Business. They knew, on the personal authority of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman), that he was proud of serving his country without any salary
  1710
  at all. Only the other day the right hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that he was proud to work for 14 hours a-day without receiving a shilling for his labour. The proposal was of an eminently contentious character; and whilst the Gladstonians, the Irish Nationalists, and the Liberal Unionists were all hostile to it, not a single non-official Member of the Tory Party had spoken in support of it, and there had been no strong expression of opinion from any Member of the Government, except the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in its favour. Was it not absurd that the time of the House should be wasted in the discussion of a Bill which had not received the support of a single Irish Member on either side of the House? Under the circumstances of the case, the Government were bound either to withdraw the Bill or to keep it back until they were in a position to show the Committee that it had some measure of support from some class of people in Ireland. It was said that an Under Secretary was needed to perform certain Parliamentary duties, and that he would be expected also to discharge certain extra-Parliamentary duties. These extra-Parliamentary duties were never mentioned until the other day. Until the other day it was supposed that the Parliamentary Under Secretary was simply a Question-answering machine; and if it took him 18 hours a-day, as it seemed to do, to prepare for answering Questions, it was difficult to see how he was to find time for the performance of other duties. But it would be well that the Committee should know what case the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could make out in favour of the contention that his duties were of so absorbing a character that he could not reply to Questions put in the House. There was no Irish Business going on now, and, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own account—although he (Mr. Dillon) did not believe that account to be true—Ireland had been reduced to a state of absolute peace and quiet. There really seemed never to have been an Irish Secretary who had less to do than had the right hon. Gentleman at the present time. He protested against the claim of the Government that fresh Offices, with salaries of £1,000 a-year attached to them, could be created in that House

  1711
  without any real excuse. It seemed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman) was to be placed at the head of the Local Government Board in Ireland—in point of fact, that he was to be the Local Government Board himself. This made the appointment all the more objectionable, because that Board had been condemned by everybody who had ever looked into the question. It had been condemned by all of them who belonged to the National Party, and it was not possible to get a single Irish Liberal Unionist to defend it. It was two years ago since the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) stood up in his place as Chancellor of the Exchequer and deprecated all further criticism on the point, on the ground of the express pledge which had been given on behalf of the Government that the Board would be swept away on the earliest possible opportunity. That was the past history of the Irish Local Government Board. It stood condemned in the mind of every intelligent man who had studied its working. Well, it was now proposed to place at the head of this Board—which enjoyed anything but the confidence of the public—the man who, above public men in Ireland, enjoyed the smallest share of the confidence of the Irish people. He (Mr. Dillon), on behalf of the people of Ireland, protested against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman being imported into the Irish Local Government Board, which was bad enough at present without such an acquisition. It was composed of men who were incompetent, and men who were shipped over into that country in order that berths might be found for them; but, bad as it was, and intensely as the Irish people disliked it, public feeling against it would be immensely intensified if they were to have at the head of it the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. He (Mr. Dillon) maintained that if they wished to increase the unpopularity of this system of Boards in Ireland they could not possibly hit upon a better method than by placing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at the head of this Board. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not only unfitted for the post by intense unpopularity in Ireland and for the reasons already explained,
  1712
  but he was unfitted for it for another reason. What training had he had in the administration of local government in Ireland? None; and yet he was to be put at the head of a complicated system of local government in Ireland, a system to which there was no analogy whatever in England. They were to put at the head of such a Board a man who, as far as was known to the Irish people, had absolutely no knowledge whatever of the administration of a Public Office. At this advanced period of his life the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wished to undertake the duties of this important Public Office, and to administer a large part of the affairs of Ireland without the smallest degree of experience, or without there being any reason in the public mind for supposing he was fit to do work of the kind. Everyone in Ireland, whether Unionist or Nationalist or Tory or Liberal, would condemn the whole thing as a disgraceful job. He (Mr. Dillon) called on the Government to ask such a Member as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), for instance, to stand up in his place and state his approval of the appointment which they were making. He thought the hon. and gallant Member was bound, as representing a certain section of the people of Ireland, to commit himself to this scheme if he approved of it—he was bound to get up and let the people of Ireland know how he stood in this regard. Having said so much as to the views of the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland, he (Mr. Dillon) now wished to say a word or two on the Resolution. The Resolution was such that it was impossible for them, from the strange way in which the business had been conducted, to divorce the consideration of this measure from the consideration of the antecedents and character of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who was to fill the post which was to be made. It was the usual custom, he understood, in transactions of this character, to bring in the measure before the person was nominated to fill the Office. The step taken in the present case had been most unusual, for the Government had first got the Gentleman appointed to the Office, and then they brought in the Bill. They appointed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for

  1713
  the Isle of Thanet to a nominal—an unnecessary—Office without a salary; and, having made an appointment on that ground, they now, in another Session, introduced a Bill to enable thorn to give a salary to the person already occupying the position. That being so, the Government could not complain if the past career and the qualifications of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who already occupied the Office were discussed by the House when their Bill was brought forward. It was objected, the last time this question was before the House, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet was a strong partizan. He (Mr. Dillon) must say that it appeared to him that the Government and the House had seriously underrated the importance of the step Her Majesty's Advisers were now taking in appointing this right hon. and gallant Gentleman Parliamentary Under Secretary to answer Irish Questions in the House, and thus to assume a responsibility which ought to devolve on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, because if there were a hope—though he did not believe there was a hope—of carrying on the Unionist system of Government in Ireland successfully, it was to sail the ship on an even keel. That was a phrase used in a late Administration. But could the Government themselves say, in the face of Ireland and England, that they were endeavouring to sail the ship on an even keel when they put on the Front Bench, as a responsible Minister to reply to Irish Members, a man who had been a most outspoken and uproarious champion of the Orange Party, and who had recently denounced the Nationalists on many platforms, using language the very strongest which had been used by the partizans of the Orange Party? He (Mr. Dillon) had seen it stated recently that within the last 18 months the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had subscribed to some of the associations which were now struggling for the mastery in Ireland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have an opportunity of denying that, if he could deny it. He had been appointed by the Orange Party as their champion and banner bearer at the time the Executive was obliged to interfere and put down meetings and agitations in which
  1714
  the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was one of the most prominent participants. This was the sort of man they were going to tell the people of England the Irish people were going to get equal justice from. Let him (Mr. Dillon) tell the Committee that people in England were getting too well instructed in Irish matters to swallow any such monstrous thing as that, no warned the Government that in taking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet on board the Unionist ship they were taking in a cargo which would sink the craft before it had gone far on its journey. The Irish Members had struggled against this appointment, and would continue to do so so long as they possibly could, though, truth to tell, from the point of view of the danger to the Unionist Party, he was rejoiced at the Government having fallen into so great a blunder as to make the appointment. He should like the Government to consult the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), and those who took that hon. Member's view of the matter, and see what they thought, from the Unionist point of view, of this appointment. He (Mr. Dillon) had pointed out that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet was a partizan. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a strong political partizan, as had been already shown—he was a man who, from the very nature of his position, was compelled to be a violent partizan on the questions which socially must tear asunder Irish society. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was at this moment at war with his own tenants in Ireland, and it was only two or three months ago since a deputation of his tenants waited on one of his (Mr. Dillon's) friends in Ireland asking him to enable them to adopt the Plan of Campaign against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Was that the man who was to be put at the head of the Irish Local Government Board, and who was to administer justice evenly between contending parties in that country? Was an Irish landlord, and an Irish landlord who was a violent partizan, an Irish landlord whose rents had been reduced 20 per cent within the past six months, a man who was at war with his own tenants, a man who was threatened

  1715
  with the adoption of a combination on his estate—a combination which, whatever might be said about its legality or illegality, many Englishmen would thoroughly approve of if they went over to Ireland and examined into the circumstances of the case—was this the man to be appointed to such a post? These facts, he (Mr. Dillon) contended, were facts which ought—in the minds of any sensible Unionists who wished to carry on the government of Ireland decently and sensibly—to render the appointment of such a man as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman absolutely impossible. It was a monstrous thing to ask the taxpayers to pay £1,000 a-year in order that they might got an Orangeman to control an important part of the government of Ireland, and give unsatisfactory and misleading and monstrous answers to Questions put by the Irish Members in the House, thereby enormously increasing the difficulty of government in Ireland. He believed firmly that the curse of their government in Ireland all throughout this century had been the fact that they had allowed themselves—perhaps it was impossible to avoid it under the circumstances—to be dictated to by the very class whom the right hon. and gallant Gentleman represented. That had been the cause unvaryingly from the beginning. He could not look into the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, and so far as he could judge he did not think very highly of the right hon. Gentleman's goodwill; but whether he was possessed with goodwill towards Ireland or not, it was the faction who were represented by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet who would ruin his Government even if they had gone to Ireland with good intentions. They had seen Minister after Minister who had been obliged to contend against the efforts of that faction—the late Mr. Forster, for instance. He (Mr. Dillon) had never said—and he challenged anyone to find anywhere in his speeches anything to the contrary—that he did not believe that Mr. Forster had gone to Ireland with the best intentions. But what was the result of the right hon. Gentleman's administration? He was seized on by the faction which was represented by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet—by
  1716
  the Castle and landlord faction—and in the course of a very short time even Mr. Forster, strong-willed man as he was, was made their tool. They blinded his eyes, and ultimately made him do their work. He (Mr. Dillon) did not know to what extent the right hon. Gentleman the present Irish Secretary was the willing tool or the unwilling tool of this faction; but he declared that the people of Ireland, and the more enlightened people of England, would hail this appointment as the outward sign of the process which had been the ruin of all the attempts of the British Government to rule Ireland in the past. They would take it as a sign that what Edmund Burke called the Junta in Dublin Castle had got firmly into the saddle. There sat—pointing to Front Ministerial Bench—the Representative of the Junta who had ruled since the time of Edmund Burke up to the present day. They were going to have the right and gallant Gentleman—the most unpopular man in Ireland—as their mouth piece in that House in order to insult the Representatives of the Irish people. He only desired further to say that it was perfectly true that they would object altogether to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet being mixed up with the government of Ireland on account of his Orangeism and partizanship; but they had another and a deeper objection, and if right hon. Gentlemen who were now Ministers of the Crown had any of that statesmanship which he could assure them it would take great deal to settle this question, they would at least, while denying to the people of Ireland the National rights they claimed, studiously avoid unnecessarily insulting their National sentiments and sympathies which were so deeply seated in the hearts of Irishmen. The Government of Ireland were not content with denying to the Irish people all National rights and liberties and that power to legislate which they might deem, dangerous to the Empire, but they added gratuitous injury and insult, which rankled in the minds of the Irish people. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet had not only his recent record, but he had his previous record; and they knew very well that if there was was one thing more offensive than another to the Irish people it was a turn-

  1717
  coat and a traitor. The Irish people could not forget that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had been one of the most vehement advocates of Home Rule or Repeal. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated, even in writing to the papers, that he did not care whether it was Home Rule or Repeal. When he (Mr. Dillon) was a boy he remembered going to hoar the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at certain great meetings in the Rotunda. He remembered hearing him and cheering him when he thundered out sentiments of Nationality that seemed rather in advance of his Loader, and at times he (Mr. Dillon) thought rather shocked his Leader, Writing to the Press on the 4th of June, 1870, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had said—
  "Long before I addressed a word through your paper to the men of Ireland, long before I ventured to place myself, a young and nearly untried man, before the country as an advocate of Home Rule, I had considered not only the necessity but the possibility of obtaining for our Nation the only chance of prosperity—Irish Government in Irish affairs;"
  and then the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had gone on to say that he agreed with a person whom he named—a person notorious for his extreme views—and went further than him in declaring that Associations of Nationalists, of advocates of Home Rule, of Repealers, call them what they would, but comprised in the phrase "lovers of our country," should join for this purpose. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated that what was wanted was a fusion of Catholics and Protestants, and a purer patriotism than they had. He had said that they should not only associate to promote the great object they had in view, but that each and all of them should cast aside personal ambition, and be content to work for the common weal, he, for one, having already fought, and being prepared to fight again. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman wrote—
  "I think I have a claim upon the Nationalists of this country. If you can bring forward a better man he will have my support."
  He also wrote—
  "Let none be for a Party, but all for the State;"
  And later on, again—
  "Let everyone who is for a free Ireland unite, for an Ireland united is an Ireland free."
  1718
  Elsewhere the words written by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were written for the instruction of such as himself (Mr. Dillon). He had read them when he was growing up, and they had done their part in instructing him in the path of Irish Nationality, and they were words which, if he (Mr. Dillon) were to write them in the present day, the Associations to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman subscribed would print them and placard thorn all over the country, in the endeavour to show that he was something more than a Home Ruler. He did not know that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was as young when he wrote the words he had quoted as he (Mr. Dillon) was now, but certainly the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not guarded in his expressions in those days. Was this the man the Irish people were now to have imposed upon them as a petty despot? The Orange Party in Ireland, who read the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's writings in days gone by, would now impose him as a potty despot upon people whom he had encouraged to go on in a course which, since he found that it on tailed self-abnegation, left them to go under the operation of the Coercion Act by themselves. He (Mr. Dillon) maintained that such a course would make the operations of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in Ireland, as the Representative of a Coercion Government, utterly and absolutely odious to the people of Ireland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be called on to aid in administering in that House, and to justify the application of coercion to men whose only crime was that they followed the advice which he himself had given thorn—to men who had not turned tail, as had the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but stood firm to their principles and utterances, and were prepared to take the consequences. He (Mr. Dillon) asked hon. Members whether it was to be expected that the people of Ireland would patiently submit to be ridden over by a turncoat Orangeman like this? He said they would not, and that by making this appointment the Government were merely pouring oil upon the fire, and that they could only expect it, as a consequence, to blaze higher and higher. He should oppose the Bill on every stage, and should point out its objectionable

  1719
  character to the people of England and the people of Ireland on every possible opportunity. At the same time, he made the Government a present of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He was pleased to think that they had made what he considered a fatal blunder.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN)said, it was not his intention to follow the hon. Gentleman into the major part of the statement he had just made, and it was only the desire of self-preservation, or to make a personal explanation, which induced him to rise at all. The hon. Member had spoken tolerably coolly, and with a certain amount of accuracy, up to the latter part of his speech; but when he came to his (Colonel King-Harman's) connection with the Home Rule movement, he made a statement and a charge which were more important than his previous statements—he had made a suggestion which he (Colonel King-Harman) wag justified in making a very brief reply to. The hon. Member had said that he (Colonel King-Harman) had left the Home Rule Association when danger threatened its members. He threw that statement back in the hon. Gentleman's teeth with the scorn and contumely it deserved. The hon. Gentleman had said that he (Colonel King-Harman) had stuck to Home Rule when there were no Coercion Acts, but the hon. Member knew perfectly well when Coercion Acts were passed. The hon. Member said he had listened to his (Colonel King-Harman's) speeches when he professed to be an adherent to the policy of Home Rule. The hon. Member knew perfectly well that he was one of the few who had laid down money, and had sacrificed political and personal friendship in the hot days of his youth, on the altar of Home Rule, because he then believed that there was honesty among those men who were agitating for Home Rule, and that it was only when he found that there was no honesty among them that he found himself obliged to reconsider the ideas of his hot youth. It was no craven fear had made him leave the ranks of the Home Rule Party. He could honestly say that he had never gained a penny out of his adherence to Home Rule, and he had certainly never been paid a sixpence for sitting on the Benches below the
  1720
  Gangway opposite. The hon. Member and every man in Ireland, every honest Nationalist—aye, and every Fenian in Ireland, for there was more honourable feeling among Fenians than among those who sat below the Gangway opposite—knew what his sacrifices in the cause of Home Rule had been when he was a hot-headed young man, and that it was only when he found that it was best for his country to give up that cause that he ceased to be a Home Ruler. He had been tempted into speaking, perhaps, rather hotly in reference to this matter; but he confessed that, whatever other accusations might have been made against him. He had certainly not expected to be taunted with cowardice. He was satisfied that none of the hon. Members who sat on the Government side of the House, and that none of his countrymen in Ireland, would endorse the accusations which had been brought against him in the speech of the hon. Member.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, he had been very glad to hear from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) his confession that he had been something more than a Home Ruler. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had taken them into his confidence, and had made admissions as to facts which, without his confession, hon. Members might have had some difficulty in laying before this Assembly, for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had accused himself of that which, if it had come from other quarters with any amount of force, might possibly have had the effect of causing him to occupy a different position than a seat on the Ministerial Bench. Personally, he (Mr. O'Kelly) had no objection to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman receiving this salary as a mere employé of the Government. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was, unfortunately, one of his (Mr. O'Kelly's) constituents, which fact established a kind of freemasonry between them, and he certainly should not have opposed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's receiving the salary. From his (Mr. O'Kelly's) personal point of view, he thought it very desirable that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should receive a salary, for he was one of those Gentlemen whom they were obliged to support, and he would very much rather that the burden of supporting him should

  1721
  be transferred to the backs of the English ratepayers rather than that it should lie on the backs of the poor peasants of North Roscommon. But there was one aspect in which he did strongly object to the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and to his position in connection with the Local Government Board of Ireland. As President of the Irish Local Government Board, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have to deal, amongst other bodies, with a body in Ireland known as the Boyle Town Commissioners. Now, what had been the relations of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman with that body? For some years the Town Commissioners had had a great deal of difficulty in getting the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to pay his rates, and the whole force of the Government of Ireland had been brought into operation to protect the right hon. and gallant Gentleman from the necessity of paying his rates to the Town Council of Boyle.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I may, perhaps, be allowed here to make a personal explanation. I have never refused to pay the Town Commissioners' rates, but there is a body in Boyle who call themselves Town Commissioners whom we do not recognize.
  MR. O'KELLY: The matter lies in this way—
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The matter is sub judice.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had found it to his interest to gain over or subsidize a gentleman who was Town Clerk, and who defied the Town Commissioners of Boyle in a way which would never be permitted in any civilized society, and the whole authority of the British Government had been used to support this man in his shameful defiance of the Town Commissioners. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had supported that gentleman, who had claims upon him which went beyond those of Home Rule. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knew what he (Mr. O'Kelly) was talking about.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee is that it is expedient to make provision with reference to the Office of Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland. Strictly speaking, the Question ought to be confined to the question of the expediency of making
  1722
  this provision, and ought not to be at all of a personal character. Considering, however, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has de facto filled the Office hitherto, and may be considered as designated to fill it in the future, I have not thought it beyond the limits of Parliamentary discussion to allow discussion of the political antecedents of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. But I think it would be altogether an abuse of that liberty to allow it to go beyond what is described as the political antecedents of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, that he had not gone beyond the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's political antecedents, and he thought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would admit that he had not even gone as far into his political antecedents as he could have done, because he know a great deal more about them than did the Chairman or the House. But that was not the point upon which he had been going to speak. He had passed from that point, and was simply about to deal with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's future position in relation to the Local Government Board of Ireland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's new position would bring him unquestionably into connection with, and give him considerable power over, the Boyle Town Commissioners, and he (Mr. O'Kelly) wished to explain to the House how it was that the exercise of that power might work evil to a few persons to whom the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was in political opposition. The Town Commission of Boyle was under the Local Government Board, and in his new position as President of the Local Government Board the right hon. and gallant Gentle man would have certain power and influence over that Town Commission. Now, he (Mr. O'Kelly) wanted—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I entirely appreciate the line of argument which the hon. Member is pursuing, but I must rule it as quite out of Order.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, he was sorry that that should be so, but it had struck him that he might be in Order in pointing out what use the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might make of the position for which the House was called upon to vote him a salary. But independent of that question, which, as the Chairman

  1723
  had ruled out of Order, he would not pursue, they had the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had been connected in Irish politics not merely with the Home Rule Party, but with Gentlemen who held still stronger views than the Home Rulers. Consequently, the effect of the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be to create in the minds of the Irish people a feeling and a conviction that the House was indifferent to the principles of the men they happened to employ, and that they were only anxious to buy men to servo them in Ireland. Now he thought that that would be a most unhappy impression to make on the minds of the people of Ireland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had very well said that he had never been paid for any political service he had rendered, Well, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman posed as a rich man, and he (Mr. O'Kelly) saw no inconvenience in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in that capacity as a rich man continuing in his voluntary service, as he now discharged it, without coming on the country for any payment. He (Mr. O'Kelly) was sure that the nobility of his views would be sufficient payment for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in the future as it had been in the past. They—the Irish Nationalists—of course, could not free their minds from the reflection that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had been one of them.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: No, no !
  MR. O'KELLY: Well, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not been as respectable as most of them, but, at any rate, he was a man who had occupied a place in their ranks. He had occupied a place in their ranks in a way that a spy very often occupied a place in the ranks of an Army to which he did not belong. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had come to them pretending that he was a Nationalist, speaking the speech of Nationalism, giving voice to the sentiments of Nationality, and at the very first moment that he got an opportunity he betrayed them. Now they saw why he had betrayed them. He had been betraying them for pay. This Gentleman, who talked—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in language which is wholly unbecoming in the House.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, he was very sorry that he had felt called upon to use strong language. He was very sorry the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had betrayed the Nationalist Party, and would much rather that he had remained in the ranks to which he had allied himself. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman might still have continued to represent the county of Sligo. But there was this point to which he (Mr. O'Kelly) wished to call the attention of the English people. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman posed here as the Representative of the Unionist element in Ireland. Well, there was a certain Unionist element in Ireland which he (Mr. O'Kelly) respected—the men who honestly believed that the Union between the two countries was best preserved by that country remaining in a position of servitude and degradation. That was a stupid belief, perhaps, but still he held there were a certain number of people in Ireland stupid enough to believe that. But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not that excuse. He had had enlightenment; he had found salvation; he had had experience. Notwithstanding that, he had made this double turn, and had got back to the position in which the unconverted Orangeman stood. Now, one could respect the Orangemau—the man who from sheer belief was in the position in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman stood—but he (Mr. O'Kelly) thought no one on either side of the House could have any respect for a man who, having been reared in the Orange faith, had announced himself as converted from that faith and had joined the Nationalist ranks, and had even fought in them, and had then gone back to Orangeism. He said the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had fought in the Nationalist ranks; and, as a matter of fact, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a great cudgel man. He had broken a great number of heads in the cause of Home Rule. He thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had been in the Longford Election with himself.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I was not in the Longford Election.
  Several hon. MEMBERS: He was; he was.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I was not in that election.
  MR. O'KELLY: I will not make that charge.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes; he was. [Cries of "Order !"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member for North Longford must know that he is not entitled to use that language, and I must call upon him to withdraw it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Shall I be in Order in asking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he voted for John Martin? It was open voting.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANrose to answer the question—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! No such question can be put, I have asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the language he has used.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says he did not vote for John Martin. I will withdraw the language I used.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! The hon. Member for North Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) made a statement which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet denied. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford has questioned the truth of that denial, and I ask him to withdraw the words he used.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says he did not vote—
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is quite impermissible. I again call upon the hon. and learned Gentleman unequivocally to withdraw the language he used.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Certainly, Sir.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, there had been a good deal of election fighting, and it was only to be expected that one would get confused as to who took part in it. He believed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did take part in the Longford Election in this sense—that he had subscribed to the funds.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: No, no !
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman denied it, and, of course, he would not persist in the statement, as he had no wish to accuse anyone wrongfully. There were a sufficient number of strong facts against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman without his desiring to place anything upon him which was unfair. He did
  1726
  say, however, that it was a very unfortunate thing for the Government of Ireland that a Gentleman who had occupied the position in Irish politics which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had occupied, and whom the Irish people had regarded as a political renegade—and in using that word he did not wish to give offence to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—should be put into a position of power in Ireland. Renegades in all countries and at all times had been regarded as detestable creatures, and as persons not entitled to the honours of war. He was sorry to be obliged to say this of one of his own constituents, but truth compelled him to do so. From the point of view of the Irish people, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was certainly a renegade, and in that character they objected to his being put into power iii their country. Personally, he (Mr. O'Kelly) did not object to the bitterest Tory on the other side of the House being put into the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's position. He would rather see the hon. Member for Ballykilbeg, or the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), put into the position. Of the two, he would prefer the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh. That hon. and gallant Member was a fighting man, and one might disagree with a fighting man, but, after all, one could arrange with him better; but he certainly objected, and objected strongly, and he thought all Ireland would object strongly, to the continuance in power of a right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had distinguished himself on many occasions as a most prominent and bellicose Home Ruler, and to his being put in Ireland to administer a Coercion Act. Such a thing was a disgrace to this country.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he did not desire to detain the Committee at any length on this point, but the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) had challenged the opinion of Irish Members sitting on that (the Ministerial) side of the House—in regard to the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. He (Mr. Macartney) regretted that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) was not in his place to take up the challenge; but he (Mr.

  1727
  Macartney) knew that on this occasion he spoke the opinion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and. not only his opinion, but that of all his hon. Friends from Ireland. They supported and approved the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet. They had no reason to believe that that appointment was uncongenial to their supporters, and they had had ample opportunities of ascertaining it if it had been so. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not now assuming the duties of his Office for the first time. As a matter of fact, he was appointed last year, and during the time he had been discharging his present Office they had, all of them, had opportunities of acquainting themselves with the opinions of their supporters; and he believed, as he said, that every one of his hon. Friends would say that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's appointment was one they agreed with. He admitted the argument of the hon. Member opposite that the Unionist Party were largely interested and very greatly concerned in the good government of Ireland; but, from that point of view, they saw no reason to object to the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Having regard to the special duties the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have to perform in connection with the Local Government Board of Ireland, they believed that the interests of the country would be efficiently served by the appointment. He (Mr. Macartney) only intervened in order to correct the false impression which might arise from the silence of himself and other hon. Gentlemen in the face of the accusation and complaint which had proceeded from the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. CLANCYsaid, he was glad they had had the speech to which they had all just listened, as they knew now that the Orange Party was satisfied with the taste, tone, and manner of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He wondered that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not risen to answer the complaint which had been addressed to him from that (the Opposition) side of the House—that this Bill was a distinct violation of a solemn pledge made in the House by the right hon. Gentleman. On the 14th of April last the hon. Gentleman
  1728
  the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) put a Question with reference to the then recently created Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland, and after him the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) intervened with another Question. The hon. Member for West Belfast said—
  "I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Notice of Motion No. 1, standing to-day in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) has been given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman as a Member of the Government; and, if so, under what law the Office he holds is constituted; and whether the acceptance of that Office vacates his seat?"
  "The First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) (Strand, Westminster) was about to rise—
  "When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne said: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? I was going to ask him by what authority the Office of Parliamentary Secretary for Ireland is constituted; and whether he will lay on the Table of the House any document describing the nature of the duties of the new Office, and the conditions under which it is to be hold; whether it is proposed to attach any salary to the Office; and, if not, whether it is contended by Her Majesty's Government that there is a power without limit of constituting unpaid Parliamentary Offices?"
  The Chief Secretary for Ireland said, in reply—
  "I cannot give a full answer to the Question which involves some legal points; but I may say that there is no salary attached to the Office. The Government have taken every pains to see that the course they have adopted is legal, and they have taken the highest legal advice on the subject."—(3 Hansard [313] 887–8.)
  That was to say, he had taken legal advice as to whether the appointment, if unpaid, would be a legal one, and they found that it would be legal if unpaid.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): Hear, hear !
  MR. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to admit that. He had given that solemn pledge in the face of the country, and had appointed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet Under Secretary on the distinct understanding that he should not be paid. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), with his accustomed acuteness, suspected the existence of a suppressio veri in the glib utterance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and he put this question—

  1729
  "Is the seat to be vacated?"
  "Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  "Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Will there be some statement laid before the House to show the grounds on which the seat is not to be vacated?
  "Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe the grounds are that it is not an Office of profit under the Crown.
  "Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: I can only say this—that I once had the honour of serving a Conservative Government as Commissioner for the Ionian Islands for a very few days; and under the advice of the Law Officers of the Government, though I received no salary, yet my seat for the University of Oxford was vacated, and I was re-elected. That was in 1859.
  "Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I would suggest that the best course would be to put a Question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England."—(3 Hansard, [313] 1887–8.)
  How the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary can have the face to come here after these declarations of last spring, and ask the House of Commons to pay the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary a salary, when such a short time ago they would not have dared to appoint him at a salary, and as to whom they had obtained legal advice that such an appointment would be illegal, he (Mr. Clancy) was at a loss to imagine. On the day following that on which the Questions he had referred to had been put, another Question was put to the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne asked—
  "By what authority the Office of Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland has been constituted; whether any document will be laid before Parliament describing the nature and duties of the Office, and the conditions under which it is held; and whether it is contended that the Government has the power to create unpaid Parliamentary Offices without limit?"
  And now he (Mr. Clancy) begged the attention of the House to the answer. The first Lord of the Treasury said—
  "Mr. Speaker, the Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has been appointed by virtue of the authority which exists in the Executive Government of the day to appoint Assistant Secretaries in order to carry out in an efficient manner the duties cast upon any Department of the State, subject, in certain cases, to statutory control, respecting the vacating of seats, the right to sit in Parliament, and the payment of salaries, if any. No document will be laid before Parliament describing the nature and duties of the Office, or the conditions under which it is held; but it is right to state distinctly that no salary or profit is attached to the Office. The last Question being one of abstract law, the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly able to form his own conclusion upon it.
  1730
  "Mr. JOHN MORLEY: Well, Sir; but is the House, then, to have no means of knowing what are the functions, duties, and conditions of the appointment?
  "Mr. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman is well acquainted with the duties of Public Offices which have to be discharged by the Executive Government. He is also aware what are the duties which ordinarily fall to Under Secretaries in a Public Office."—(Ibid. 1002–3.)
  It seemed to him (Mr. Clancy), therefore, that the statement made last year amounted to a distinct pledge, as distinct as any pledge could be, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet was to hold his Office without salary, and on that ground he would not be asked to vacate his seat; but now, in the face of that pledge, the Government came to the House of Commons and asked them to vote a salary to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and did not give the slightest information as to whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be called upon to vacate his seat if he were paid a salary. He (Mr. Clancy) did not pretend to be a Constitutional lawyer; but it seemed to him that the Gentleman who signed the cheque for the first quarter's salary for the Parliamentary Under Secretary would stand in danger of having an action brought against him, and probably might be obliged to pay back the money to the Treasury. He certainly hoped he would.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the matter had been very fully discussed the last time it was brought before the House.
  MR. CLANCY: Sir, it is very inconvenient for me to be interrupted before I have finished my speech.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! The hon. Member distinctly sat down.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought the hon. Member had come to the conclusion of his remarks, and that he had delivered the peroration of his eloquent speech. If he has anything further to say he will be able to continue after I have made a few remarks with; the view of clearing up the mistake into which the hon. Gentleman and many of his Friends appear to have fallen. He has quoted certain questions and answers which had been given in the House last Session with regard to the Office of Parliamentary Under Secretary. The questions related to the Office as it was then constituted; and what hon. Gentlemen

  1731
  wished to know was whether the Government had legal powers to appoint an Under Secretary, and whether, if they had such power, the Under Secretary had or had not to vacate his seat? The Government replied, speaking with such advice as they could command, that they had power to appoint an Under Secretary, and that as he would not be paid he would not vacate his scat. Had they provided out of the Votes a salary, without providing that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should vacate his seat, they would have violated the law. But hon. Gentlemen opposite had, no doubt unintentionally, twisted the answer given as to the Parliamentary Under Secretary into a pledge that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet should give his unpaid services to the country indefinitely. That was a thing which the Government never conceived. They had never concealed from the House that their desire was, as soon as the state of Public Business would permit it, to bring in a Bill which would put his right hon. and gallant Friend into the position of every other Under Secretary. [An hon. MEMBER: You never said so.] Was there a single Member of the House who seriously supposed that the Government would ask any Gentleman to go on indefinitely fulfilling the duties of Under Secretary for Ireland, where the labour was far heavier than that of any other Under Secretary in the House, without giving him the salary which other Under Secretaries received? If hon. Members would look at what I said last Session, they would see that the answers I had given were simply with reference to the action the Government were then taking as to the Under Secretary. They showed that the action of the Government was perfectly legal.
  MR. CLANCYsaid, the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had made a statement which he thought the House must have listened to with the utmost possible astonishment—namely, that the Government had intended to bring in a Bill to pay this salary. Not a single word had ever been said in that House or out of it to that effect, and the person to be benefited by it himself understood that he was not to be paid so recently as two months ago. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman addressed the electors at Margate and said he was
  1732
  then working 18 hours a day for nothing that he was not paid like the Irish Members; that he gave his services to the public for nothing, and when, according to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he must have known that there was a Bill in preparation to pay him a salary. He (Mr. Clancy) supposed that the next thing would be the introduction of the Bill to pay the salary from April last. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill is not retrospective.] He thought he was correct in saying that, after all that had fallen from the First Lord of the Treasury.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I never said anything of the kind. Will the hon. Gentleman say when I said that?
  MR. CLANCYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had made so many speeches, short and long, and that he, not having a secretary to write them down, could not recollect the particular speech. He pointed to the significance of this appointment. It was said as an argument against Irish Members that under Home Rule they would commit the atrocity of handing over the minority to the will of the majority. He did not think that was very unusual in any country; but here they had the majority handed over to the rule of the minority. But he thought that was a fact on which they might reflect with some advantage in considering who were the rulers in Ireland at present—namely, that not one man in the Government of Ireland could be said to represent what could be fairly called the overwhelming majority of the people. Every single office in Ireland was filled up by men who would not be elected in any one of 86 constituencies in Ireland. The Parliamentary Under Secretary was an Orangeman. The Local Government Board was a nest of Orangemen, and the Board of Works was the same. They had listened to some of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's political antecedents, and the Chairman had ruled that these might be referred to. He asked the House to listen to some extracts from a speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the subject of Home Rule against which the Unionist Party would cry out anathema maranatha. In August, 1870, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said—

  1733
  "That a man who would fight for the Opposition candidate on that election would fight and shout for the perpetuation of the Union which was forced by fraud upon the country; that he came forward neither as a Whig or Tory, and was of no political opinion whatever, but simply an Irishman; Ireland alone was his motto—the shamrock, the green immortal shamrock; with the green and the orange united they would win their glorious freedom; he believed that if a Parliament was established on College Green in which Irishmen could manage their own affairs, Ireland would become rich and prosperous."
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had contradicted the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) when he said that he took part at the Longford election, but in the course of the speech the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he had fought the battle at Longford.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: The hon. Member knows perfectly well what I alluded to.
  MR. CLANCYsaid, he was quoting from a speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, and he did not know to what else the right hon. and gallant Gentleman alluded. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said—
  "It did not matter a scrap to him personally whether he was returned or not, but if they returned a Nationalist to Parliament, the whole of Ireland would respond; that when Ireland claimed her just rights and claimed to manage their own affairs, he asked would England dare to refuse them; when the day came for them to vote, let them not vote for him, but for Ireland; let the green be over their head, and their cry be, God Save Ireland."
  Irish Members had been charged with preaching separation in the past, and when such expressions as these were quoted from the speeches of Irish Members they were set down as advocating rebellion in Ireland; but here was the right hon. and gallant Gentleman using the very language for which they would be condemned. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, on the 13th of August, 1870, declared that he could not understand any man, knowing anything of his country, and knowing anything of the career of O'Connell and Grattan, doubting that Home Rule or some substitute for it was the only panacea for the evils of Ireland. Someone at the time said that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's promises were very fine, but insincere; and then he asked plainly what he had to gain by insincerity? He asked, if he were elected
  1734
  to-morrow, whether any Government, Conservative or Liberal, would give him any honour or place when he came to them as the avowed opponent of English rule; that whatever his connections were they been against the Union, and that his relatives had moved an Amendment to that infamous Act; that the Conservatives said he was abandoning his principles, and that he told them it was they who were abandoning their principles, and not he, for in former days the Conservatives were for the people, and now they were against them. And here he (Mr. Clancy) came to the point of his speech which had a most particular interest with reference to the matter they were discussing. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman on that occasion concluded his speech by saying that he would never, never take Office or pension from any Government. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that these things were uttered in the days of his hot youth. But he was then over 30 years of age; and he (Mr. Clancy) said that at that time of life men formed very deliberate opinions. The Irish people had made a mistake in thinking that he was sincere in making those statements, and they distrusted him now because he was a renegade, and because he was the champion of the Orange Party and gave that Constitutional advice to them to keep their hands on their triggers, who incited thorn, in other words, to civil war. Did the Committee think that this man, who was an inciter to violence and crime, and was engaged in the combination of landlords and Orangemen, was fitted for the Office to which he had been appointed? It was an insult which the Irish people would not forget—that he had been set over the rest of the Irish people to govern them.
  COLONEL WARINGsaid, he should like to make a few remarks with regard to this subject. Those who came from his part of the country had complete confidence in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland. They were all perfectly aware of the Home Rule antecedents of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, which had been made so much of in that House; and not only that, but they were aware of the circumstances which had led up to those views. At the time those opinions

  1735
  were expressed, they were smarting under what was considered to be the injustice of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church; and some of thorn took counsel together as to whether or not, after the breach of one of its most important provisions, the Union was to their advantage; for 10 minutes he had himself entered into that conspiricy. His conversion had come rather quicker than that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was a younger man than himself by 10 years. On the occasion he referred to, he (Colonel Waring) said—"Gentlemen, nothing will induce me to row in this boat;" and he then left. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland had taken a longer time to discover Ms position, but in the end arrived at the same conclusion. The people of the North of Ireland believed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was performing his duty without favour or affection, and was doing good service to his Queen and country.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that the other day the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had stated, in reply to a Question he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) himself had addressed to him, that there was a rule against any Member of the English Civil Service belonging to an Orange Lodge or Society. The right hon. Gentleman had also, on another occasion, stated that the same rule applied to all Departments of the Civil Service. He desired to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the fact that the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland was a notorious Orangeman, was or was not reconcilable with the view of the rule or understanding which prevailed in the Civil Service, and whether it would be necessary to modify the rule if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman remained in his present position?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I can hardly think the hon. Gentleman is speaking seriously; these; rules are held to apply to gentlemen who are not engaged in political controversy. Those Gentlemen who hold seats in this House are an exception, because they are unfortunately compelled to take part in political controversy.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if he was to understand that there was no objection to a member of an Orange Lodge being the head of the Local Government Board in Ireland, while every other officer and member of the Inland Revenue as well, was prohibited by the rule enforced from belonging to that Society?
  [No reply.]
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he thought the point raised by his hon. Friend was one which needed a rather more serious answer than the right hon. Gentleman opposite had given it. They must remember that to belong to an Orange Lodge was to belong to a political organization compared with which none that they had in England possessed any weight or force. The Primrose League was mere pantomine as compared with an Orange Lodge, and it was a remarkable thing that the Government should have appointed to the Local Government Board in Ireland a Gentleman who was associated with that society. Therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) would have taken a much more serious view of the point. The hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway opposite (Colonel Waring) had shed a very curious light upon the breadth and depth of the Unionist sentiments of himself and Friends, when he said that they had turned towards Home Rule because they thought that the Disestablishment of the Irish Protestant Church was bad for them.
  COLONEL WARING: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I said nothing of the kind. I said that in the indignation occasioned at the time by what we deemed an insult to our Church, we had for a moment considered whether Home Rule might not be for our advantage.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he did not understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to deny that in consequence of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church they had considered whether the Union would be good or bad for them.
  COLONEL WARING: I said it was suggested that such was the case, and that after 10 minutes' consideration I came to the opposite conclusion.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman could not deny

  1737
  that he and his Friends were prepared to throw over the Act of Union, just as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself (Colonel King-Harman) had been prepared to do.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to address his remarks to the subject before the Committee.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he thought that as the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Waring) had been allowed to address himself to that subject, he was not out of Order in referring to it. Well, they had now at last from the Government a plain announcement, made for the first time, that the Bill was not to be retrospective. He could not help asking himself how far this decision on the part of the Government not to make the Bill retrospective was due to the action which Members on that side of the House had taken. The point he rose to press sprang from the answer of the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to the announcement which he and the First Lord of the Treasury made last year on the subject of salary. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland appeared to him to have put a most extraordinary construction upon what passed last year, and he (Mr. Morley) submitted that in his replies to his Questions on the 14th and 15th of April, he made a statement which was universally understood in that House to mean that this was to be an unpaid Office. The right hon. Gentleman said that when he (Mr. Morley) put his Question, he raised a legal point. No doubt, he did raise a legal point; but the right hon. Gentleman put aside and dismissed that legal point without an answer, and then he went on to say—"I may say that there is no salary attached to the Office." That answer distinctly dissevered the question of salary from that legal point the right hon. Gentleman now asserted was raised by the Question. He had every desire to speak respectfully of the right hon. Gentleman; but he must think that the answers he and his right hon. Colleague who now sat next him gave last year, in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman said a quarter of an hour ago, was nothing more or less than trifling with the House. [Laughter] The right hon. Gentleman might smile—"and smile"—[Laughter]—but he had placed the question now in a position
  1738
  from which it would become him to lose no time in extricating it and extricating himself.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURprotested against the tone the right hon. Gentleman had adopted. He had never heard a speech delivered with more "sound and fury," and which signified less. The right hon. Gentleman, first of all, fastened upon one most extraordinary misunderstanding, and having done that and been called to Order by the Chairman, the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to insinuate that the Government had intended to make the Bill retrospective, but, alarmed by the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, the Government retired in terror from the position they had taken up. But, unfortunately for that theory, the Bill existed in its present shape long before those outbursts of eloquence to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. It had never occurred to the Government, and, in fact, he had only discovered that night that any right hon. Gentleman entertained the idea that the Bill was to be retrospective. He should have thought they would never have entertained such a fantastic notion, for he should have thought they would have made themselves acquainted with the laws of England, and would have known that to make the Bill retrospective would be practically committing a fraud on the Statute. But as the Government never intended to do that, it never entered into his head in the wildest moment to attempt to give his right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel King-Harman) a retrospective salary. They know perfectly well that his right hon. and gallant Friend, not receiving a salary, was not under the necessity of vacating his seat; but his right hon. and gallant Friend having occupied his seat all last year, for the Government to come to Parliament this year, and by a Bill give his right hon. and gallant Friend the salary for the year passed, thus enabling him to occupy a place of profit, and not to resign his seat, would be nothing less than a fraud upon the Statute. But such was the standard of morality that obtained among right hon. Gentlemen opposite that nothing seemed more natural than a manœuvre of that kind. The Government, however, had a somewhat different standard of morality to that which appeared naturally to

  1739
  suggest itself to the right hon. Gentleman, and never entertained such, an idea. He did not think it was necessary for him to go over the ground he had more than once traversed in regard to the Question and answer in reference to the salary of his right hon. and gallant Friend. They answered the Question with regard to the legal point, and never made any concealment; he could say that with confidence, and if right hon. Gentlemen would only consult their memories, they would find that the Government never entertained the extravagant, absurd, and ridiculous notion that they were going indefinitely to ask his right hon. and gallant Friend to come to the House, and bear the burden and heat of the day, that every man must boar who had a seat on that Bench, without receiving a single sixpence of salary. Such an idea never crossed his mind, and let hon. Members consult their recollections, and they would find they never credited the Government with entertaining any such notion. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had made accusations and insinuations such as appeared in his speech, and he felt sure that when cooler moments returned to him, the right hon. Gentleman would see they were not justified.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, in his judgment this matter was much more serious than might be supposed from what he might almost call the flippant manner of the Chief Secretary in answering his right hon. Friend (Mr. John Morley). The House now learned that when on three several occasions, the 14th April, 15th April, and 12th May, this subject came up for reference in the House, and on each of those occasions the Representative of the Government assured the House that the question of election did not arise because it was not a paid Office—hon. Members were now informed they must be fools to suppose that when it suited the convenience of the Government, it was not to cease to remain an unpaid Office. All he could say was that if the Government intended to make this a paid Office, they took the most extraordinary pains to conceal their intention from the House. He would like to ask when the Government changed their minds? [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Never.] Never ! Then at the very time that they were assuring the House that no election was neces-
  1740
  sary, because there was no salary attached to the Office to which the right hon. Gentleman was appointed, they had at that very time formed the intention of making it a paid Office ! Then he would ask, appealing to that high standard of morality, of which, forsooth! the right hon. Gentleman claimed for his Party the exclusive possession, he asked why did the Government on those three several occasions, by the mouths of two responsible Ministers, if they had that intention, employ such language as—and this he would say clearly and distinctly—misled a large portion of the House? Then a word or two on the appointment itself. He objected to it in the first place, because there was no proved necessity for it; in the next place because of the manner in which it had been attempted to be foisted on the House; and he objected to it lastly (and he regretted to introduce the personal element for a moment), because of the person who was designated to fill the post. As to the manner in which it had been brought about, he had indicated to the House his objection and as to the present necessity, he would say a word or two. When this matter was mentioned on April 14th, if hon. Members would refer to Hansard, they would see that a special reason was given why the services of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) were called in aid of the Chief Secretary, the reason being a pressure of work—but a pressure stated to be of a temporary nature—then supposed to be put upon the Chief Secretary. It would be seen also—and he called especial attention to this in connection with the intention from the first which the right hon. Gentleman had now avowed—that the language then pointed not to a permanent position of Assistant Secretary to the Chief Secretary, but merely to a temporary or passing necessity to relieve the Chief Secretary in his then work. Then, again, he asked the Chief Secretary to reconsider the statement he made interrupting him (Sir Charles Russell) when he said the Government always had the intention of making this a paid Office, for the language used so far from discovering that intention referred to a passing necessity for which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was for a certain undefined time to be called in aid. As to the necessity for the ap-

  1741
  pointment, he (Sir Charles Russell) utterly denied that the present Chief Secretary was worked to a greater degree than his Predecessors. In many respects, he was much better off than his Predecessors. It was quite true that his light hon. Friend (Mr. John Morley) had not the odious work of piloting a Coercion Bill through the House. Because he had some sympathy with Irish feeling, and treated Irish Members with some respect and decency, he was able to get through the duties of his Department without creating great obstruction, yet he was in the singular position that he had not a single Law Officer from Ireland to assist him, and was obliged to answer all the Questions put in the House to whatever branch of the Irish administrative system those questions referred. The post of Assistant Secretary, he repeated, was not necessary, and he more especially thought the Chief Secretary should not be relieved from the duty of answering Questions in the House. He thought it would much better become the right hon. Gentleman if he were to come up to the opinion he (Sir Charles Russell) once formed of him, when he occupied a seat below the Gangway as a Member of the Fourth Party, and desired really to inform his mind conscientiously and thoroughly about his duty to the Irish people, to go into these questions and inform his mind, instead of treating questions put from below the Gangway as merely so many incidents of a necessarily unpleasant character, to be met by official answers by anyone giving as little information as possible, and as little respectfully as possible. The right hon. Gentleman knew very little about Ireland. His position, unhappily—and it was not altogether his own fault, it was the position of most Irish Secretaries—isolated him from contact with National sympathies and National opinion, with no means of gauging the feelings of the people, getting his information from a purely official class dependent upon that class and upon that only. It would do the right hon. Gentleman good, if he had the desire honestly to discharge his duty to the Irish people in the Office he held, if he were to occupy his time in the useful work, drudgery though it might seem, of getting up the circumstances under which the Coercion Act was being put in force in many in-
  1742
  stances, and trying to realize that, after all, matters which seemed to him trivial and unimportant—[Cries of"Question !"]—he was speaking straight to the question—which seemed trivial and unimportant, were matters which touched closely the daily life of the Irish people and the public peace of the country. It would help the right hon. Gentleman to realize what ought to be his primary duty, to inform himself by personal inquiry and observation of the way in which the Act—odious as he (Sir Charles Russell) believed it to be—was being administered. This new Office, then, was not one to which the House should lend its sanction. And then as to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who was to fill the post. He hoped the House would believe him when he said he was exceedingly reluctant to make these personal references, and had they been avoidable he would gladly have avoided them. He sincerely regretted that he had to say even so much as he was about to say. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he had changed opinions formed and acted upon in his hot youth. Well, his youth, he must say, was not a very hot one, when in. 1877 he walked up the floor of the House introduced by Mr. Isaac Butt. He must have been about 40 years of age at that time.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. I was not introduced by Mr. Butt, but by Lord Claud Hamilton and Mr. Walter Spencer Stanhope.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he accepted the correction; but his information was that on one occasion the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was introduced by Mr. Butt and the present Lord St. Oswald.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Allow me to say that my statement is an absolute fact, and I stake my veracity against the information of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he of course accepted that statement at once. But though the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might not have had the companionship of Mr. Butt in walking up the floor, he certainly had the support of Mr. Butt when seeking election to a seat in the House. [Colonel KING-HARMAN assented.] Of course that was the point of his argument.

  1743
  [Laughter.] Of course it was the point of his argument, the question of who walked up the floor was comparatively trivial and unimportant. It could not be denied that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seconded the Motion of Mr. Butt on the Home Rule Question. Well, he said he had changed the opinions of his hot youth, and he (Sir Charles Russell) would not dwell on that further. Accepting that, assuming that, did it make the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a less objectionable person for a high official Office in the eyes of the Irish people? It did not. Assuming that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had changed his opinions from thoroughly conscientious motives, accepting his statement, that was not the way in which he was regarded in Ireland. He was regarded there as a man who, having secured a seat in the House by the profession of political opinions in harmony with the aspirations of the Irish people, turned his back on those opinions, and he must not be astonished to find that he was looked upon in their eyes as a traitor to the National cause. More than that. He did not know how long the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had held a position, an important position in the Orange body, a body which had done more to keep asunder and divide the Irish people than any that had existed in the history of the country—not even excepting the landlord class—a society for which there may have been some pretence of reason years ago, but the existence of which in the Ireland of to-day was a standing insult to the Irish people, and a standing reflection on the government of Ireland.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what position he alludes to as being held by me in the Orange body.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, member of an Orange Lodge, probably Master of an Orange Lodge; he was not acquainted with the degrees in the Society. Then take the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in another relation. He was a landlord. In that position he honestly believed, like a great many landlords in Ireland, he was suffering not for his own sins nearly so much as for the sins of those who had gone before him. He honestly believed that to be true of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; but still he was a represen-
  1744
  tative of the landlord class, and had himself received rather rough treatment at the hands of the Irish Land Commission. Was this the man to be entrusted with, or to have a powerful voice in the nomination of, or selection of, men to administer the Land Act? It was impossible to think so. Further, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman took an influential part in other parts of the administrative system of government in Ireland to which the people so strongly objected, the nomination of magistrates, the Grand Jury system of which, no doubt, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in his county was a prominent member. Looking at it from any point of view, no candid man could deny that if it were desired to select a man emphatically a persona ingrata to the Irish people, this would be the man to select. Of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's personal qualities, he did not speak; he knew nothing of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and speaking seriously, it was no pleasure to him to have to say what he had said. Finally, he had to say this. Not long since a speech was made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), the most recent acquisition to the ranks of the Government, and Member for West Bristol. He had never himself attached the great importance to that speech that some of his Friends did. A great many thought it was a new revelation, a declaration of a new policy on the part of the right hon. Baronet, but he never so regarded it; but that speech struck one healthy key-note—a note that until the present holder of the Office of Chief Secretary struck, he would never have the satisfaction, or deserve to have the satisfaction, of feeling that he was properly fulfilling the duties of his Office. The right hon. Baronet said that at least an attempt ought to be made to make the laws and to administer the laws and affairs of Ireland in sympathy with the just wants and wishes of the Irish people. He did not take that at all as a confession that the right hon. Baronet was going in for Home Rule; nothing of the kind. But it did mean this—that so far as the Party could, they would, if they were wise, consistently with their opinions upon Home Rule, do everything they could to convey to the world, to satisfy their own consciences and those of their followers,

  1745
  govern Ireland regardful of the wishes, mindful even of the prejudices, of the people, though withholding that self-government they desired. If he had any compensation for the strong feeling he had against the present tenant of the Office of Chief Secretary, it was that, in his heart, he believed that his action in administration, and in this his latest example, was making it clear to thoughtful minds that this system and policy in relation to Ireland, disregarding the wishes of the people, could not be persevered in. The appointment of unpopular persons to the government of the country could not be persisted in, though a majority might allow it to be pursued for a time. In the end, you must fall back on that which was the only true, solid, and abiding principle of popular government, reliance on the wishes, wants, support, and moral sanction of the people governed.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 103: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 44.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report these Resolutions to the House."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, at this stage of the proceedings, he thought those who objected to the Bill should enforce their opposition, as they should at every stage. That was his own intention, and whatever stage offered opportunity of opposition he should avail himself of. The Irish Chief Secretary made at one stage of these proceedings a remarkable statement, one of the most remarkable he had made in his remarkable career. He said that every statement that had been made against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) had been denied. But he (Mr. T. M. Healy) should like to know what had really been denied? Meanwhile he would make a further statement in reference to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in regard to a matter that had occurred since his connection with the Irish Local Government Board, and within the last ten days. He challenged a denial of this statement. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was made President of the Local Government Board. Well, the Local Government Board was; called upon to submit two names to the
  1746
  Fairs and Markets Commission, which had to report on the question with regard to taking tolls and payments for the sale of cattle in Ireland at fairs. This demand was made to the Local Government Board, since the Chief Secretary said that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was made head of that department.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said that my right hon. and gallant Friend was appointed head of the Local Government Board. On the contrary, I said he was not, and that the Chief Secretary remained the President. The hon. and learned Member is raising this point in a particularly inconvenient way.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, these were inconvenient questions, and that was why they were raised. He could assure hon. Members that he deeply regretted that they were obliged to share this inconvenience. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not been made the head of the Local Government Board, had he been made the tail of it, or what was he. [An hon. MEMBER: Vice President.] What was the statement made about him? He was connected with the Local Government Board in some way. Vice President was suggested, and he adopted that. The specific statement he had to make was in regard to his position at the Local Government Board, and could be traced to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Fairs and Markets Commission asked for the names of two Commissioners to be sent over to Ireland, to inquire into the question of tolls at Fairs and Markets. This was a question that had been keenly agitating the public mind for some time and Lord Middleton had interested himself in the subject, and for seven years there had been contention on the point of the legality of fairs held by the people who wished to sell their cattle without putting money into the pockets of the landlords. A Royal Commission being appointed to inquire as to how far these tolls were legal or illegal, that Commission asked the Irish Local Government Board for the names of two Gentlemen, from which they would select one to go over to Ireland for purposes of inquiry. Who was the Gentleman recommended? One was a Mr. Kelly, from the West; but the other, the first of the two, was Colonel Caleb Robinson,

  1747
  J.P., the ex-agent of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. When did this Gentleman cease to be agent? Irish Members were told they must be careful, before they charged corruption or impeached the action of the Government, but here they found that within a few days, after the Chief Secretary had stated that his Colleague and coadjutor was appointed to the Local Government Board, while he was scarcely warm in his Office, came the nomination of Colonel Caleb Robinson, J.P., D.L., and all the rest of it of the County of Roscommon. Why was he selected for a Sub-Commissioner? Because he was the ex-agent of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and he would become his mouthpiece on the Royal Commission in Ireland. When the Chief Secretary made his general, not to say flippant, denial the other day, it would have been well if the charges denied had been specified. Was it denied that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was an Orangeman? Here was a report of a speech of his made at Rathinines in 1884, in which, unlike others, such as the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) who never made this a religious question, but said they were Orangemen for the defence of their country by force of arms, he imported religious animosity into his Orangeism. In his speech at Rathmines, as reported in The Daily Express, in reference to the removal of Lord Rossmore from the magistracy, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aaid—
  "Their enemies were determined to spring a surprise on them, and at the present time it therefore behoved them to keep sentries on the watch, fires lighted, and cartridges in the rifles. It was not enough for the men of the North to stand together; the Orange Association, of which he was a Member, was a strong bond of union for men professing one faith in the country."
  There was not only a political complexion given to Orangcism, but a religious complexion also. He had read Orange speeches and Orange songs, some of them very good ones; but by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, for the first time, so far as he was aware, was religious faith imported into the higher branch of current politics by any noteworthy person. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was put forward, probably, as a representative of the Irish landlords. But he was not a repre-
  1748
  sentative of tolerable Irish landlords, and his own words before a Committee of the House of Lords showed this. Replying to Question 7,522, on June 18th, 1882 (he was asked by the Chairman as to what were his relations with his tenants), he answered—"I do not think there is a man in Ireland on worse terms with his tenants." The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not think there was a man in Ireland on worse terms ! Not oven excepting Lord Clanricarde, of pious memory ! And yet this man was selected to be Under Secretary for Ireland ! What statements had been denied? Was it denied that, avowing himself a Home Ruler, he was elected by the Home Rule Party? Was it denied that he pledged himself on the hustings at Sligo, before the parish priest, never to accept Office under the British Government? Was it denied that, on a particular occasion, he adopted the name of Wilkinson—
  And it being Midnight, the Chairman rose to interrupt the Business:—
  Whereupon Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put." [Cries of "Too late !"]
  MR. PARNELLrose to Order. He submitted the fact that the Chairman had risen, the clock pointing to 12 before the right hon. Gentleman rose to make his Motion. Was it not the Rule that Opposed Business could not be taken after 12?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is evidently not acquainted with the Rule. The Rule provides that the Speaker or the Chairman interrupting the Business, the closure may then be moved. That is to say, that immediately on the interruption of Business by Speaker or Chairman, the closure may be moved and put.
  Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 86: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 45.)
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report these Resolutions to the House."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 144; Noes 86: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 46.)
  (1.) Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the, payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a Salary to the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
  (2.) Resolved, That it is expedient to make regulations for the office of Under Secretary and of Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 118.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 118.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HUNTER, asked the Lord Advocate whether, considering-the Bill contained an enormous number of clauses, he would agree to refer it to a Select Committee. If he agreed to that, it might be anticipated there would be no difficulty in the Bill passing this stage.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)said, he would be very glad to consider that suggestion. The Bill, however, had passed more than one Select Committee.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 131.]
  (Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Colonel King-Harman.)
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 131.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked, would he be in Order in moving the adjournment?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, it would not be in Order to interpolate that Motion on the reading of the Orders of the Day.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he would now make the Motion for Adjournment, in order to remind the Government that an engagement had been given that no contentious Business would be taken at a Morning Sitting. He was not quite sure whether the next stage of the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Bill came within that category. It might save time to have a reply.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR)said, the Bill to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred would not be taken at the Morning Sitting on the morrow.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he would not press his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Lord George Hamilton, The Judge Advocate General, Mr. Brodrick.)
  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.

    [BILL 179.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. BIGGARobjected.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman's objection does not hold good to a Bill of this nature, which is in pursuance of the provisions of a Statute.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS) BILL.
  (Mr. Addison, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. Lawson.)
  COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS) BILL.

    [BILL 156.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, he was sorry to object; but he must ask the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Addison) to put it off for, say a fortnight, to allow of the considering and drafting of the necessary Amendments.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked why objection should be taken to the formal stage.
    MR. SPEAKER: Objection being taken, the Bill of necessity stands over.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

    CITY OF LONDON (FIRE INQUESTS) BILL.
    Mr. Elton, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Murphy, Sir George Russell, and Mr. Woodall, nominated Members of the Select Committee on the City of London (Fire Inquests) Bill.—(Mr. Stuart-Worthy.)
MOTIONS.

  GLEBE LANDS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Bill to facilitate the sale of Glebe Lands, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Mr. Raikes, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 180.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL.
    Resolutions [March 16] reported, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Jackson.
    Bill presented, and read the first time.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) ELECTORS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Ritchie, Bill to provide for the qualification and registration of Electors for the purposes of Local Government in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, and Mr. Long.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 181.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on Navy Estimates do consist of Seventeen Members.
  Lord George Hamilton, Mr. Forwood, Mr. Hanbury, Mr. J. M. Maclean, Colonel Hill, Mr. Coddington, Admiral Mayne, Lord Charles Beresford, Mr. Caine, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Duff, Sir Edward Reed, Sir William Plowden, Sir Edward Grey, Dr. Tanner, and Mr. Crilly nominated Members of the Committee, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.