Commons Sitting of 20 March 1888

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—David Alfred Thomas, esquire, for Merthyr Tydvil Borough.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Emigration and Immigration (Foreigners), nominated.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Third Reading—South Indian Railway, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Public Worship Facilities * [183]; Public Health (Prevention of Infectious Diseases, & c.) * [184]; Clerks of the Peace* [185].
Second Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 1).*
Committee—Report—National Debt (Conversion)* [164]; East India (Purchase and Construction of Railways) * [143].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  SOUTH INDIAN RAILWAY BILL
  (by Order).
  SOUTH INDIAN RAILWAY BILL

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    DR. CLARKsaid, the Bill gave additional powers to the Government in connection with the South Indian Railway Company, and empowered the Company, for the purpose of carrying into effect any contract or agreement entered into under the powers of the Act, with the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council, to raise money for the purposes of the Bill. As a matter of fact, the Bill would enable the Government to buy up the Company, paying £126 for every £100 Stock. He objected to any new Stock being created, or of any powers being taken which would enhance the value of the existing capital. However, he did not intend to discuss the question at that moment.
    MR. KIMBERsaid, he did not gather from what the hon. Member had just said whether he intended to withdraw his opposition to the Bill or not.
    DR. CLARK: Yes, Sir.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

QUESTIONS

  POST OFFICE—PARCEL POST TO NEW ZEALAND.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the Postmaster General, Whether any progress is being made with the arrangements for extending the Parcel Post to New Zealand; and, when a Parcel Post between Great Britain and New Zealand may be expected to be established?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The Department is quite prepared to arrange for the extension of the Parcel Post to Now Zealand as soon as the Colony is ready, and proposals with this object have long since been made to the Colonial Post Office. But the Colony has, as yet, gained little experience of the working of its Inland Parcel Post, and while in this position has been unwilling to exchange parcels with the Mother Country. I propose, however, to communicate again with the Colony, and to urge the further consideration of the matter.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS—MARTINIHENRY RIFLES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, although a certain proportion of Martini-Henry rifles have been issued to Artillery Volunteers, they are not allowed any Martini-Henry ammunition, and are thus unable to compete with Infantry corps in musketry, which operates prejudicially upon their recruiting; and, in such case, whether it would be possible to allow Artillery Volunteers to draw the ammunition suited for the small arms in their possession?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): At the time when Infantry Volunteers were armed with the Snider rifle a certain number of Martini-Henry rifles were entrusted to the National Rifle Association for distribution to Volunteer corps. They appear to have issued some to Artillery Volunteers; but the Martini-Henry is not recognized as the arm of the Artillery Volunteers, nor would it, under present circumstances, be used by them on service. This being the case,
  1778
  I am not prepared to issue Martini-Henry ammunition to them at the public expense, it being important that there should be uniform issues to the same arm of the Service.

  THE FOOD SUPPLY—FOREIGN MEAT.
  CAPTAIN COTTONasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to the increasing quantity of foreign meat sold as English meat, at English prices, in this country; and, whether the Government will take any stops so to amend the law that, in future, this imported meat shall only be sold as such?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)(who replied)said: I beg to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on the 1st of March to the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex (Mr. C. W. Gray). I believe, also, though I cannot give an authoritative opinion, that the sale of foreign imported meat as English meat, when English meat is demanded, is an offence under Section 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875; and, therefore, I do not see that any further legislation is required.

  THE FOOD SUPPLY—ADULTERATED CHEESE FROM CANADA.
  CAPTAIN COTTONasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether, in reference-to his statement that inquiries are being made of the American Consul respecting the alleged adulteration of cheese imported from that country, his attention has been directed also to the increasing quantity of imported cheese from Canada, and, in view of the possible adulteration thereof, the Government will communicate with the Agent General of the Dominion as well as with the American Consul?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. LONG): The Agricultural Department has requested the Colonial Office to obtain from Canada similar information to that which, as I stated last Tuesday, our Consular officers in the United States have been instructed to furnish as to the practice of using animal fat in the manufacture of cheese.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—EVASION OF CONDITIONS.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to a letter dated the 20th of October, 1887, signed "Denis Godley," on behalf of the Irish Land Commission, in which the statement was made that the Commission had found it needful to inform the solicitor of a landlord that promissory notes taken by him from tenants for payment of rent, after completion of purchase of the holdings, "must be cancelled, before any order for payment can be made;" whether any other instances of such a practice have come to the notice of the Commission; and, whether he is satisfied every precaution is taken by the Treasury to prevent the advance of public moneys to persons thus attempting to evade one of the conditions under which they obtain it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I am informed by the Irish Land Commission that this is the only instance of the practice to which the hon. Member refers which has come under their notice; and that, as he is aware, they declined to sanction it as irregular, and required the promissory notes in question to be lodged with them to be cancelled before they could permit any advance to be made. The action of the Commissioners in this case is, of course, what they would take in other similar cases if any came before them, and is, I think, perfectly satisfactory.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT, 1875—VISITORS OF CHANCERY LUNATICS.
  MR. PICTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Supreme Judicature Act, 1875, section 31, abolished the work as well as the office of Secretary to the Board of Visitors of Chancery Lunatics; and, if not, how has the work been done since the Act was passed; whether the whole responsibility for the work in the Office of the Board, including important and voluminous correspondence with the three Visitors, with the Secretaries of the Lord Chancellor, with the Secretary of the Lords Justices, the Masters in Lunacy, the Commissioners in Lunacy,
  1780
  the committees, solicitors, and relatives of the Chancery lunatics, as well as with the patients themselves in their lucid intervals, is dependent on a first clerk; and, whether there is any other case in which such responsibilities are placed on a first clerk, without statutory recognition?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): No, Sir; the Act in question did not abolish the work of this Office. It only abolished the Secretary. The work referred to is now done by the head clerk. The Royal Commissioners who inquired into the Office in 1874 do not agree with the hon. Member in his description of the work in the Office. They recommended the abolition of the Office of Secretary, and saw no difficulty in the discharge of his duty by the first clerk. The head clerk, as far as I am aware, has the same recognition as, and not greater responsibilities than, other head clerks in the Public Service.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—PROBATES AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION—DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTRIES.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the District Probate Registries are exclusively occupied with the granting of unopposed Probates and Letters of Administration and similar business, and whether they perform any duties connected with the administration of justice; whether the stamps which are paid for in their offices are paid direct to the Inland Revenue Department, or are any portion of such stamps included in the sum of £371,759 6s. 11 d., mentioned at the foot of p. 220 of the Civil Service Estimates for this year; whether he will consider the advisability of transferring the cost of the District Probate Registries to some other head; whether the County Court Registries in Bankruptcy, the Vote for which is referred to as being an addition to the cost of the Supreme Court of Judicature, are wholly occupied with bankruptcy business, and ought to be set against the surplus of £58,300 appearing to arise in the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade (Class 2, Vote 9, p. 121, Civil Service Estimates); how are the items of the expenditure of the

  1781
  £17,650 (same Vote, at p. 220, of Estimates) made up; does it include any items for District Probate Registries; can any estimate be formed as to the proportion of the Vote for the Supreme Court of Judicature attributable to the administration of the Criminal Law; can any estimate be formed of the total net cost after allowing for stamps and other extra receipts of the administration of the Civil Law; and, whether, in view of the fact that the stamps and extra receipts in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice more than pay the cost of administering that branch of judicature, he will consider the question of appointing an additional Judge of that Division?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The District Registries of the Probate Division are by statute attached to, and under the control of, the High Court of Judicature. They exist primarily for the purpose of safeguarding the transmission of property by will, and not for revenue purposes. The fees taken are not paid to the Inland Revenue, but form part of the fee receipts of the High Court; and the cost of maintenance of the District Registries appears to be properly chargeable to the same Vote as that of all other Administrative Departments of the Court. Bankruptcy work in the County Courts is performed by the Court Registrars; and their remuneration for this work, and the office and other expenses connected with it, is debited to the bankruptcy account, and not to that for the Supreme Court. The item of £17,650 in the Vote for the Supreme Court includes the following charges connected with the District Probate Registries:—Works and repairs, £700; cleaning, lighting, and miscellaneous, £1,800; furniture, £100; rents, £930—total, £3,030. It is not possible accurately to distinguish the proportions of the Supreme Court Vote, or of the net cost attributable to the administration of the Criminal and Civil Law respectively. I am not aware that the stamps and extra receipts of the Chancery Division do more than pay the cost of administering that branch of judicature. In answer to the last Question of my hon. Friend, I am placing on the Table to-day a Notice of a Resolution for the appointment of an additional Judge.

  THE TOLERATION ACT—NONCONFORMISTS IN YORKSHIRE.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a leading article in The Echo of the 15th of March, in which it is stated that, at Harewood and Dunkeswick, in Yorkshire, the Wesleyan Methodists are not allowed by the Earl of Harewood to hold their Service during Church hours; are not allowed to administer the Sacraments; and are not allowed to hold a Sunday School; whether such conditions are consistent with the terms of the Toleration Act and the religious rights of Nonconformists; and, whether the Government see their way to take any steps to secure religious liberty in the villages named?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Earl of Harewood that the Wesleyan Chapel at Harewood is hold at a nominal rent under an agreement, dating more than 70 years back, subject to the conditions described in the Question. There never has been a Wesleyan Chapel at Dunkeswick; and I am informed that the present arrangement, by which meetings are held by leave of the farmers or householders, is considered sufficient by the Wesleyan inhabitants of that parish. I cannot give an opinion as to the legal validity of the agreement under which the chapel at Harewood is held; but the Earl of Harewood thinks the questions which have arisen can be satisfactorily settled between him and his neighbours on the spot, and he is communicating directly with them for that purpose, so that I hope all cause of complaint may be removed.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAMasked, if the right hon. Gentleman had seen the correspondence between the President of the Wesleyan Conference and the Earl of Harewood, in which, the Conference having called attention to certain facts, the Earl of Harewood simply acknowledged the receipt of the letter?
  MR. MATTHEWScould not say that he had seen the correspondence. He was under the impression that a newspaper had been sent him which contained some correspondence in it.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSIONS IN LONGFORD.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When will a (Sub-Commission sit to fix fair rents in County Longford; in how many cases have the Land Commission transferred originating notices from the County Court to Sub-Commissions since August last; has this involved great delay in the hearings; are these transfers made for the landlords, as a matter of course, despite the objections of tenants; can he now state the intentions of Government as to appointing at once a Sub-Commission for every Irish county, so that the operation of the eviction notices, which delay favours, may to some extent be met; and, will the County Longford Sub-Commission sit in Granard, in order to shorten the distances tenants have to come?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied)said: The Land Commissioners inform mo that a date has not yet been fixed for the next Sub-Commission sitting in the County Longford. The number of cases transferred in that county from the County Court to the Land Commission from September 1, 1887, to March 17, 1888, was 20. Great delay does not appear to have been involved thereby. Transfers are not made as a matter of course. The practice of the Land Commissioners in regard to them is clearly expressed in their Rules. Each application for transfer must be supported by an affidavit that it is not made for the sake of delay; and the opposite party is given an opportunity of showing any grounds whereby the transfer could be unreasonable. As to the last paragraph but one, the Government are anxiously considering what improvement, if any, can be made, so as to deal efficiently with the formidable mass of arrears. In consequence of the difference in the size of the counties, it would be manifestly impossible to have a Court sitting for every county in Ireland. The Commissioners state it has always been the custom of the Sub-Commission to have a sitting in Granard; and they see no reason to suppose that they will depart from that practice.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Might I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, if the Land Commissioners have given any reason why a Sub-Commission has not sat in Longford, and why the people of Longford are to be delayed any more than any other county?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I do not think, as far as I am informed, that there has been any unreasonable delay.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a Sub-Commission has not sat in this county for 12 months, while the people are anxiously awaiting it, and numbers of eviction notices have been served?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I am aware, from personal knowledge, that the Sub-Commission has sat in Longford within such a remote period.

  FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES)—REGULATION OF FISHERIES IN MORECAMBE BAY.
  LORD EDWARD CAVENDISHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill, during the present Session, for the preservation and regulation of the shell fish and other fisheries in Morecambe Bay and the Estuary of the Duddon?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I have now under consideration proposals for the regulation of the English Coast Fisheries within territorial limits; and if I should find that they would be likely to receive the support of hon. Members representing the constituencies affected by them I may be able to propose legislation on the subject this Session; but I am not prepared to legislate for the particular district alone to which the noble Lord refers.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked, how it was possible for Members representing seaside constituencies to know the provisions of this Bill?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I have been in communication with some hon. Members on this subject, and I expect before long to receive a deputation from them. I shall be able to answer any Questions on the subject better after I know what they desire.
  MR. ESSLEMONTasked the Lord Advocate, whether the Scotch Department intended to legislate this Session with regard to the fisheries on the coast of Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD)asked for a few days' Notice of the Question.

  WAR OFFICE (STORES)—SALE OF DISUSED CLOTHING.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the disused clothing of the whole Army (except in India) was, on the occasion of the last contract, disposed of for three years in advance, the Government and the contractor being both in ignorance of the real quantity, quality, or value of the stores so sold; whether only two firms were permitted to tender; whether the whole quantity, of the value of about £50,000, was included in one contract, and the opportunity of competing thus strictly limited to very large firms; whether, at the Admiralty sale by public auction at Deptford last month, trousers similar to those sold in the above contract at 9d. fetched 6s. 6d., red Kersey tunics similarly sold at 6½d., fetched 1s. 2d. to 1s. 11 d., and loggings sold by contract at 3d. fetched 8d.; whether this contract expires during this month, and what steps have been taken as to a new contract; and, whether he will undertake that, in future, the system of speculative sales in advance shall be discontinued, and the contracts for disused stores shall be made by open competition, and in such smaller quantities as to make competition possible?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied)said: Clothing which has been worn for the regulated period is disposed of under a contract made for three years. There is sufficient knowledge derived from experience of quantity and quality to enable both the Departments and the contractor to make a forecast for that period. Boots are disposed of separately; but all other articles of clothing are thrown together into one contract. The contract was publicly advertised, and three firms tendered. The prices obtained for some small lots sold by the Admiralty were as stated in the Question;
  1786
  but there is nothing to show that the condition of the garments sold was not far superior to that of Army clothing. The contractor collects the garments from all the stations at home and abroad; and the contracts are made with one contractor for all the garments to avoid the labour and expense of local contracts, and to secure that neither blue nor scarlet garments shall be disposed of as garments in the United Kingdom except to bands and other recognized bodies. The contract now expiring will be renewed by public competition, and greatcoats will probably be made the subject of a separate contract.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) ACT, 1885—THE SKINNERS' ESTATE, CO. LONDONDERRY.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to two circular letters addressed to the tenants of the Skinners' Estate, County Londonderry, urging them to purchase their holdings, and containing the following sentences:—
  "Gentlemen,
  "It is necessary that you should decide finally, and at once, whether you will purchase the fee-simple of your holdings * * * I shall assume that those who do not purchase on one or other of those days have decided to remain as tenants, and I shall, on the 22nd instant, return their names to Mr. Young, so that he may collect the arrears of rent from them.
  "Yours faithfully,
  "R. H. Todd.
  "Londonderry, 12th Feb. 1888."
  "Londonderry, 25th Feb. 1888.
  "Gentlemen,
  * * * * "the Company have decided not to change the terms and to collect the rents from non-purchasing tenants without delay * * * *
  "Yours truly,
  "R. H. Todd."
  And, whether he will refuse to sanction advances of public money to complete purchases of holdings whenever it appears that pressure has been used to induce tenants to buy, either by a throat to collect rents from "non-purchasing tenants without delay," or by the issue of ejectment notices for the recovery of arrears in cases where there has been no opportunity of recent adjudication of the rents in the Land Courts?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSOHEN): No advances have been made to tenants for the purchase of their holdings on the Skinners' Company's Estates since December last, six weeks before the earliest of Mr. Todd's letters. Whenever the Land Commission sanction advance they give the purchasing tenant a month, in which to apply for a stay of proceedings on any ground; and they never make an advance unless they are satisfied that the agreement of purchase has not been entered into under duress or obtained by threats. They are strongly opposed to any unfair pressure being put on tenants to induce them to purchase.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he considers the issuing of a writ against a tenant and the placing of it in the Sheriff's hands is duress?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I should think that that might come under the term "duress;" but I am not aware that in this case to which I have called attention there has been anything of the kind, and the hon. and learned Member will observe that no advance has been made since December.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then I can inform the right hon. Gentleman that the Land Commissioners have decided that the state of things to which I have referred was not duress.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) BILL—PENSIONS TO NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN(for Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR)asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will state how the Fund, now amounting to about £1,380,000, appropriated from the Church Surplus for the provision of pensions to National School Teachers in Ireland, will be affected by the proposed scheme of Conversion of the Three per Cent Debt?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Of the total sum of £1,330,000 spoken of by the hon. Member, £1,300,000 is a book debt due by the Irish Land Commission to the Fund, upon which they are bound, by the Act of 1879, to pay interest to the National Debt Commissioners at the rate of 3 per
  1788
  cent, so long as it remains outstanding, out of the Church Revenues. The small sum remaining is invested in the names of the National Debt Commissioners in various Stocks. Any conversion must be limited to this sum, and its effect on the income of the Fund would be trifling.

  POST OFFICE—OFFICIALS AT POLITICAL MEETINGS.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN(for Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR)asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. J. F. Wight, of the Money Order Department, General Post Office, presided at a political meeting of the Primrose League, in the Lecture Hall, St. Aubyn Road, Upper Norwood, at which, among others present upon the platform, were the hon. Members for Croydon, Norwood, Dulwich, East Bradford, & c.; and, whether members of the Post Office staff, who belong to other Political Associations, will be allowed a similar liberty?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): Mr. Wight did preside at the meeting of the 25th of February. Shortly afterwards he informed me that he had resigned his position on the Primrose League as Ruling Councillor. There is a well-known Rule of the Post Office which forbids Postmasters from taking part in election or other active political meetings, although the same Rule does not apply with the same force to the actions of other persons in the Service in localities where they are not engaged on duty. I think the practice is certainly one which should be discouraged.

  TORQUAY HARBOUR AND DISTRICT ACT, 1886—THE SALVATION ARMY.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has had under consideration the case of a number of members of the Salvation Army, ratepayers and inhabitants of Torquay, at present suffering imprisonment for marching in procession with music on various Sundays to their place of worship; whether the offence of these men is any offence at Common Law, or whether it is an offence created by a clause of "The Torquay Harbour and District Act, 1886;" whether he has

  1789
  received a Memorial from these men, stating—
  "We have been accustomed to witness and take part in such marches ever since the Salvation Army was established in this town six years ago, and we were never threatened with punishment for so doing till the enactment of the Torquay Harbour and District Act;"
  whether they further stated that—
  "We never heard of any proposal to insert in the said Act a clause prohibiting such marches, and do not believe that any notice of such clause was given to the ratepayers before the passing of the Act;"
  and that—
  "In marching with music to our place of worship we act from a conscientious conviction of our duty to God, and to those who are by such marches only induced to attend our place of worship, and who would, were such marches discontinued, attend no place of worship at all;"
  and, whether he will take steps to mitigate the sentence passed on these men.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir; this case has been under my consideration. The offence was against the Torquay Harbour Act, 1886, s. 38. I have received a Memorial containing the words quoted. There have been for two years past numerous prosecutions in Torquay under the section referred to. In the earlier cases the summonses were withdrawn, on the understanding that the offence would not be repeated. In later cases fines have been imposed, the magistrates conceiving that they were bound to enforce the law, while the defendants conceived that it is their conscientious duty to disobey it. In the case under consideration the defendants were sentenced to pay fines, and went to prison in default of payment—nine of them for a fortnight, which will end on Thursday next, and six, who had been previously convicted of the same offence, for a month. These sentences were within the jurisdiction of the magistrates, and do not appear to have been excessive. There is, moreover, a right of appeal, which has not been exercised. Much as I regret that the defendants should have placed themselves in collision with the law, I do not feel justified in interfering with the sentences.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERasked whether, when this Act (which was a private Act) was passed, the attention of the House was called by the Committee to which the
  1790
  Bill was referred specially to this new legislation. He asked this Question, because for some years he had the honour of being a Member of the Committee to which Police and Sanitary Bills were referred, and they declined to insert what were called the Salvation Army Clauses. When the subsequent Committee reversed that judgment, was the attention of the House called to the point?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Of that I am not aware. I looked this morning at the proceedings of the Committee. I think Lord Basing was Chairman on that particular Bill. The clause, as originally proposed, was different in form to that which the Memorialists alluded to. It was a clause giving the Local Board power to prohibit processions on any day, and also power to permit them. The Committee refused to allow the clause in that shape, saying that they had well considered the subject on the Hastings Bill; and they consequently gave the Local Board the clause absolutely prohibiting noisy processions on Sundays. Whether it was brought to the attention of the House specially I do not know.
  MR. BARRANinquired, whether the Act of Parliament in question applied to the Sunday parades of Volunteers with their bands?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think there is a clause which specially exempts bodies of a military character.

  ADMINISTRATION OF THE NAVY—CAPTAIN HALL, DIRECTOR OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, considering the valuable evidence which Captain Hall, the Director of Naval Intelligence, could give concerning the present organization for war, he will insure that Captain Hall can be called before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Administration of the Navy, whether he is in command of a ship or not?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The Royal Commission must necessarily be the only judges of the evidence they require to fulfil the duties imposed on them; and the Admiralty will be glad to assist them in any way they can by obtaining for them such information.

  1791
  Whether they call before them the Head of the Naval Intelligence Department is a matter which must entirely be loft to their discretion.

  WALES—THE TITHE AGITATION—DISTURBANCES IN ANGLESEY.
  MR. J. BRYN ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Report received by him from the Chief Constable of Anglesey as to the alleged tithe disturbances in that county?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): This Report contains matter of a confidential nature which I should not be justified in disclosing. I must, therefore, decline to lay it upon the Table of the House.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)—PAYMENTS TO ROAD CONTRACTORS—TIPPERARY, N.R.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the moneys earned by the road contractors in the North Riding of the County of Tipperary for a period of eight months came due at the recent Assizes at Nonagh on the 5th and 6th instants, when, as usual, cheques for payment should be issued.; whether these contractors, numbering over 500, mostly poor men, are yet unpaid; whether many of them reside at a distance of 20 miles from Nenagh, where they have had to come applying for their money; and, whether complaints have reached him that this is owing to the neglect of "the Clerk of the Crown and Peace" in not signing the cheques duly certified for; and, if so, whether he will have instructions issued to that official to have the payments made without further delay?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied)said, the Question had been referred to Ireland for report, and the Report had not yet been received. He had telegraphed again for the information, and for an explanation as to the reason for the delay.

  HAYTI—IMPRISONMENT OF MR. COLES.
  COLONEL DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Trea-
  1792
  sury, Whether, owing to the great, although unavoidable, delay in the Foreign Office in printing the unopposed Correspondence in connection with the imprisonment of Mr. Coles, a British subject, in Hayti, he will afford facilities for a brief discussion on the subject after Easter, as soon as the Correspondence is upon the Table of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I regret I am not in a position to promise to my hon. and gallant Friend the facilities he asks for.
  COLONEL DUNCANsaid, that he should call attention to the matter on the Diplomatic Vote.

  PARLIAMENT—ELIGIBILITY OF FOREIGN AGENTS.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the statement that the hon. Member for Caithness is the Consul General for the Transvaal Republic, Whether it is competent for the authorized and paid Agent of a Foreign State to sit and vote as a Member of this House?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am informed that there is no Statute or Rule of the House which disqualifies Members from sitting in this House by reason of their being the authorized, or even the paid Agents of Foreign States. I admit that such a position would be somewhat incongruous; but I am informed by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) himself that his position as Consul General is purely honorary, and that he receives no pay whatever. Under these circumstances, I think there is nothing that calls for the attention of the House.

  REVISED EDITION OF THE STATUTES—PUBLICATION.
  MR. HOWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the event of the Statute Law Revision Bill (House of Lords), and the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill (House of Lords), being sent to the Commons on an early day, the Government will endeavour to pass those measures into law before the Easter Recess, so as to enable the Statute Law Committee to proceed with the publication of the Revised Edition of the Statutes?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): With the assistance of the House, the Government will be glad to see the Statute Law Revision Bill and the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill passed before Easter, so that the Revised Edition of the Statutes can be published with the least possible delay.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, having regard to the fact that two Bills have been introduced for the appointment of a Public or Official Trustee, and that one or more Companies have been formed in anticipation of receiving legislative authority to undertake trusts and Executorships, Her Majesty's Government will consent to the second reading pro formâ of the Public Trustee Bill, and subsequently to refer the whole matter to a Select Committee?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The Government have no objection to the second reading, pro formâ, of the Public Trustee Bill, in order that it may be referred to a Select Committee; but the hon. Member must understand that the Government give no expression of approval of any part of the Bill.

  TITHE RENT CHARGE—LEGISLATION.
  MR. H. GARDNERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can inform the House when the Bill relating to the levying of tithe, mentioned in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, will be introduced into Parliament; and, whether it will be introduced in this House or in "another place?"
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It is hoped that the Bill will be introduced in the House of Lords before Easter.

  THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.
  MR. FIRTHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When he proposes to introduce the Bill for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the past action of the Metropolitan Board of Works?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH), in reply, said, an Address had been presented to Her Majesty for the appointment of a Royal Commission on this subject, and Her Majesty had been advised to express her approval. Therefore, the Royal Commission would certainly be issued.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to Mr. JOHN MOBLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that the right hon. Gentleman would, of course, recognize the necessity of proceeding, in the first instance, with the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill and the National Debt (Conversion) Bill, which would probably occupy Thursday. After that the Government proposed to take a stage of the Bill relating to the salary of the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, which, after the repeated discussions that had taken place, ought not to take long. That would he followed by the Criminal Evidence Bill, and two or throe other Bills of minor importance, including the Westminster Abbey Bill. If possible, also, the Speaker would be moved out of the Chair for Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates on Thursday.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: What will the Business for next week be?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the state of Business will permit, we propose to rise for the Easter Recess after a Morning Sitting on Tuesday.
  MR. J. E. ELLISasked, whether the Employers' Liability Act (1880) Amendment Bill would be proceeded with on Monday?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Financial Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take precedence on Monday; and, therefore, I do not know whether it will be possible to bring on the Bill to which the hon. Member refers.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES)—POOR LAW GUARDIANS.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked, Whether it was the inten-

  1795
  tion of the President of the Local Government Board to take any steps during the present Session to assimilate the property qualification of Poor Law Guardians with that of the new County Councils?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): We have no measure of that kind in contemplation.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—MR. P. O'BRIEN, M.P.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it was true that the Attorney General for Ireland refused, through Mr. Burke, Sessional Crown Solicitor for Roscommon, to consent to adjourn the hearing of the appeal of the hon. Member for North Monaghan against a sentence of four months with hard labour under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, from the 22nd to the 24th or 26th instant, on the grounds that such adjournment would inconvenience counsel for the Crown; and, whether he could now say that the hearing would be adjourned to allow the hon. Member to take part in the debate and Division on the Arrears Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork Mr Parnell)?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR), in reply, said, he had just received a telegram which he hoped would enable him to supplement the answer which he had prepared; but, unfortunately, it did not. As he understood the facts, it was not accurate to say that the Attorney General for Ireland had refused the application of the solicitor of the hon. Member for North Monaghan on the ground that such an adjournment would be inconvenient to the counsel for the Crown. The grounds on which the application was refused primarily and principally was that the Judge had himself fixed a long time ago to try criminal cases in the Athlone Division on the 27th, so that it was impossible to begin a trial, which would probably take two days, on the 26th. There was a second reason; but that second reason was not the inconvenience of the Crown counsel, but the public inconvenience that would arise either from a change of the counsel in the middle of the trial, or from
  1796
  removing the gentleman who was the Crown Counsel, as the adjournment would prevent him from attending certain very important murder cases to be tried in another county on the 27th. He, therefore, fully concurred in the course which the Attorney General for Ireland had taken; and he could not see how the Attorney General could have consented to the particular postponement that was required; but he had telegraphed over a suggestion that the trial should be postponed until Thursday afternoon, so as to give the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Monaghan the opportunity of voting on the Bill referred to, and of returning to Ireland in time for the trial on Thursday afternoon. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had expressed the hope to the Attorney General for Ireland that if such a course were possible he would communicate himself to the hon. Member by telegraph.

MOTIONS.
  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION (FOREIGNERS).

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on Emigration and Immigration (Foreigners) do consist of Seventeen Members."—(Captain Colomb.)
    MR. ESSLEMONTcomplained that there was no Scotch Representative on the proposed Committee.
    MR. FENWICKobjected to the appointment of the Committee unless there were a Labour Representative upon it. He moved that the number should be 19.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word Seventeen," in order to insert the word "Nineteen."—(Mr. Fenwick.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Seventeen' stand part of the Question."
    CAPTAIN COLOMBpointed out that the number of Members constituting the Committee did not rest with the Mover of the Motion. If the hon. Member was dissatisfied be should confer with the Whips of his own Party.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought the demand of his hon. Friend was a most reasonable demand, which the Government should desire to meet.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, so far as the Government were concerned, they had not the slightest objection to the proposal of the hon. Member.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'Nineteen' be there inserted," put and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee on Emigration and Immigration (Foreigners) do consist of Nineteen Members.
    MR. SPEAKERintimated that Notice must be given of the two additional names of Members proposed to be added to the Committee.
    The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. Bartley, Mr. Bradlaugh, Captain Colomb, Baron Henry De Worms, Mr. Fergusson, Dr. Fox, Mr. Honeage, Sir U. Kay-Shuttle-worth, Mr. William Lowther, Mr. Marriott, Mr. Montagu, Sir William Poarce, Baron de Rothschild, Mr. Seton-Karr, Mr. Samuel Smith, Mr. John Talbot, and Dr. Tanner, with power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.

    PUBLIC WORSHIP FACILITIES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Salt, a Bill to provide Facilities for the performance of Public Worship, ordered to be Drought in by Mr. Salt, Baron Dimsdale, Mr. Morrison, and Mr. Whitmore.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 183.]

    PUBLIC HEALTH (PREVENTION OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, & C.) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Hastings, a Bill to amend "The Public Health Act, 1875," so as to make further provision for the prevention of Infectious Diseases; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hastings, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Francis Powell, Mr. Wharton, and Mr. Hardcastle.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 184]

    CLERKS OF THE PEACE BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Brunner, a Bill to amend the Law relating to Clerks of the Peace, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brunner, Mr. Tatton Egerton, Captain Cotton, and Mr. Walter M'Laren.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 185.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION) BILL.
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson.)
  [BILL 164.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  PART I.

    CONVERSION OR REDEMPTION OF NEW THREE PER CENT STOCK.
    Clause 1 (Conversion of New Three per Cent Stock and redemption of dissentient stock holders).
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he had placed an Amendment on the Paper to insert, in the first line of page 2, after "Part I." the insertion of Clause 2 (Denomination or Incidents of New Stock); at the end thereof, to insert "Part II.(Conversion or Redemption of New Three per Cent Stock)," and insert Clause I, making it Clause 2. Clause 1, which would then be Clause 2, page 2, lines 10 and 11, he proposed to amend by leaving out all after "amount of," and insert "the new Stock." He proposed to move the postponement of the clause, in order that these Amendments might be discussed, and he had to apologize to the Committee for moving Amendments which might, at first sight, appear to be simply matters of form; but he thought it would be seen that Clause 2 created new Stock which came under Section 1. He was of opinion that the powers relating to the creation of new Stock ought to come in the first part by themselves, and then the position in which every description of Stock stood would be seen at once. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept the Amendments, in order that the Bill might be drawn in a proper and logical way. There was, however, something further. The object of the Bill was to enable all the existing Stocks to be converted into new Stock. But the Bill did not provide for that, seeing that it made no provision for the conversion of any Consols or Reduced into new Stock, except such as was so converted immediately with the consent of the holders. It did not provide for notice to be given to those

    1799
    holders of Consols and Reduced who did not accept the offer of exchanging their present Stock for the now Stock at once, but preferred to wait until the expiration of the 12 months' notice that they wore entitled to before making their election. He had understood that the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to provide that these different descriptions of Stock should come to an end, and that there should be only one new champion Stock. He would therefore venture to move the first of his Amendments.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY)pointed out that the proper course to take would be to move either that the clause be postponed or negatived.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEasked, in the event of Clause 1 being negatived, what would be the best course to adopt?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the best course would be to move the postponement of the Clause.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEaccordingly did so.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be postponed."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
    MR. BARINGsaid, he thought the Amendment was entirely unnecessary, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press it.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he thought the view of the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Sydney Godge) had been somewhat I influenced by a misunderstanding of a portion of the entire scheme—namely, that it related to Consols and Reduced. He was sorry that he (Mr. Goschen) had so expressed himself on a former occasion as to leave any possibility of doubt upon the point. The Bill proposed to make the immediate conversion of the new Three per Cents compulsory, and that of Consols and of Reduced optional on the part of the holders. The question of notice, therefore, did not arise in regard to the latter. There was no compulsory conversion of Consols and Reduced. As a matter of fact, the Bill dealt practically in a compulsory form with regard to New Threes, but in a totally different form with Consols and Reduced. This explanation affected the other Amendments which is the hon. Member put on the Paper. As far as the New Threes were concerned
    1800
    the Government had followed the precedent set by Mr. Goulburn in 1844, which established a compulsory conversion, but in regard to Consols and Reduced they had followed the precedent set in 1884 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). He hoped that in these circumstances the hon. Member would not think it necessary to press his Motion.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he was quite willing to withdraw the Motion.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he wished to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not know whether it arose on a general Amendment in regard to the names of the Stock, but he wished to understand what would be the exact position of the new Stock that was to be created, and whether or not existing Stocks would merge into it. Would the existing Two-and-a-Half or Two-and-Three-Quarters per Cents become one with the new Stock which was created by the Bill? Would the portions of the existing Stock, which might be converted optionally, become one Stock under the Bill? Would the operation of the Bill create one single Stock which would absorb all the old Stocks, the old Two-and-a-Half, the old Two-and-Three-Quarters, the new Two-and-a-Half, and the new Two-and-Three-Quarters, and so on.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that would not be the case. The new Stock would not absorb all the other Stocks, because no provision was made in the Bill for the conversion of the old existing Two-and-a-Half and Two-and-Three-Quarters per Cents. He thought, however, it would be well worthy of considering in the future, when this new Stock was once established, whether it was not desirable to offer terms to the holders of other Stocks. But he had been of opinion that it might embarrass the Bill if such a proposal had been contained in it, and therefore there was no provision of the kind. If there wag a large conversion of Consols, they would be merged in the new Stock, and it would then be the duty of himself or any other Chancellor of the Exchequer to give notice to the outstanding portion of the holders of Consols, and endeavour either to pay them off, or to bring them within the purview of the new Stock. The Bill applied to the compulsory conversion of the New

    1801
    Threes and to the optional conversion of Consols and Seduced.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, it was obviously inconvenient to have different descriptions of Stocks in the market, some of which would be of some amount. Judging from what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had now stated, there would be some four or five public Stocks, some of them being of the same denomination, and yet separate and distinct Stocks.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, it would be impossible to deal with the new Two-and-a-Half and the new Two-and-Three-Quarters Stock established by the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh without the consent of the holders; because they were not yet redeemable, and the Government could not yet apply any compulsory conversion to them. Any attempt to bring them under this scheme within the new Stock would have to be conducted on the voluntary principle of offering- them terms. He would undertake to confer with those who might be able to advise with him on the subject with regard to terms. Various suggestions had come to him already from various quarters; but he could say nothing upon the matter until he know what terms were likely to be accepted. No doubt it was inconvenient that the Bill should increase the number of Stocks by one: but it was only adding to an inconvenience which already existed, seeing that there were several kinds of Stock. If any inconvenience were experienced, he would endeavour to meet it; but he could not undertake to delay the present Bill until some conclusion had been arrived at.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he had got his idea of the meaning of the Bill not so much from the Bill itself as from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing it. As he misunderstood the object of the right hon. Gentleman he would not press the Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEmoved an Amendment to sub-section 1 of Clause 1, to provide that the holders of the New Three per Cent Stock who do not signify dissent by the specified date, shall afterwards receive in lieu of the amount of New Three per Cents an equal nominal amount of new Stock—
    1802
    "And the reception of that amount of New Stock shall not be considered to be a change or variation of investment by the holder."
    He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept that Amendment, or otherwise great difficulties would be imposed upon persons who were in the position of trustees, and who had no power of making a change of investment, or who were disinclined to consent to a change.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 12, after the word "Stock," to add the words "And the reception of that amount of Now Stock shall not be considered to be a change or variation of investment by the holder."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. KIMBERsuggested that there should be an interpretation clause to provide that the new Stock should be distinctly called new Consols. He would suggest the insertion of words to that effect.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that an Amendment of that kind would not apply to the present Clause, but to Clause 2, Sub-section (4).
    MR. KIMBERsaid, that in Part I., Sub-section (1), the following words occurred:—"In this Act referred to as new Stock." He proposed to substitute for those words "new Consols."
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, if the hon. Member would look at Clause 2, Subsection (4), he would see that it referred back to those words "new Stock."
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the effect of the Amendment would be, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman to accept the words proposed.
    THE ATTOENEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)explained that if the Amendment was accepted, it would provide that the holders of New Three per Cents who did not dissent would afterwards receive an equal amount of new Stock, which would be subjected to the same conditions as the old Stock.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Words added
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
    MR. MONTAGUsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not extend the clause, so as to include another portion of the National Debt, not a very large portion, but which, if brought within the scheme, would effect a saving of about £26,000 per annum to England. He referred to the Four per Cent Guaranteed Turkish Stock, originally £5,000,000, of which nearly £4,000,000 were still outstanding. There might be political considerations involved in the question, as the Stock was guaranteed jointly by England and France; but he thought that the ingenuity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer might overcome the difficulty, and that the Stock might be called in and divided between the two Governments. The interest now paid upon this Stock seemed to him to be an extraordinary interest to pay on Government security. By calling in the bonds France would save £7,000 per annum and England £26,000. In line 11 of the present clause the Government took power to give for New Three per Cent Stock an equivalent amount of the Stock to be created. He would suggest that the Government should take power to give £104 of New Two-and-a-Half per Cent Stock, so as to create a fairly permanent Stock with an unchanging income. In his opinion, the Government ought to take power to give a sufficient amount of Two-and-a-Half per Cents that would yield £2 12 s. per cent, the same as the new and varying Stock would yield. The Two-and-a-Half per Cent Stock was really the Stock of the future, in which the Three per Cents would eventually be merged, and therefore the popularity of that Stock ought to be maintained, and, if possible, increased, and its market ought to be widened. Certainly 2½ per cent was a more convenient interest than 2¾ per cent. There was no Stock paying 2¾ per cent outside the United Kingdom. In the case of Holland, the Two-and-a-Half per Cents were a much more favourite Stock. It was even in more favour than the Three per Cent or the Three-and-a-Half par Cent Stock, where there was no fear of redemption, and so far as Two and Three -Quarters were concerned, they bore, as regards interest, a complex relation to all other
    1804
    Stocks. Two-and-a-half per cent was exactly one half of 5. No doubt it was quite possible, when they were dealing with fractional interests, to add one-tenth and convert Two-and-a-Half into Two and Three-Quarters; but Two and Three-Quarters was a Stock which never had a good market. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the Bill, told the House that the banking community preferred a Stock at 1½ per cent to one at 2¾. He quite agreed with that statement, and he also believed that options would tend to confuse the public mind. In some cases it would be difficult to invest in the new Stock, especially when it became necessary to settle annuities. He believed that the public would prefer Stock with a fixed yield for 35 years, and many persons in England and abroad would prefer to invest in the New Two-and-a-Half Stock, under par, than to invest in Stock which was over par, seeing that they would have to sacrifice a certain portion of the capital for the benefit of those who had a life interest in the security. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would promise to provide some means of amalgamating the present Stocks, and he was quite sure that 2½ per cent, at very nearly par, would constitute a real champion Stock. He had no wish to criticize the scheme of the Government unfavourably; on the contrary, he thought the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the New Three per Cents were very reasonable.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out that the hon. Member was making a speech which would have been much more appropriately delivered on the second reading of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Denominations and incidents of new Stock).
    SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 12, after "called," to leave out to "stock," in line 15, and to insert—
    "Consolidated Two and Three-Quarter Pounds per Cent Annuities, until the fifth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and three, and thereafter shall he called Consolidated Two-and-a-Half Pounds per Cent Annuities;"
    said, he believed that a great majority were in favour of this small modification.

    1805
    Among the many practical reasons he would only mention three. It would prevent the new Stock being confused with the Two and Three-Quarter per Cont Stock created by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh; it would obviate a change in title in 15 years; and it would give the new Stock a right to the time-honoured title of "Consols."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 12, after "called," to leave out to "stock," in line 15, and insert the words "Consolidated Two and Three-Quarter Pounds per Cent Annuities, until the fifth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and three, and thereafter shall be called Consolidated Two-and-a-Half Pounds per Cent Annuities."—(Sir George Baden-Powell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, there was no very great difference between the two titles; but he was bound to say he thought the name which the hon. Member proposed to give was even more awkward than the name contained in the Bill. "Two and Three-Quarter Pounds per Cent Annuities" did not seem a very simple title for that Stock. As it stood in the Bill it was called "Consolidated Stock," and that Consolidated Stock would, he hoped, carry with it, after a large conversion had taken place, the ordinary appellation of Consols. He had consulted some of the very highest authorities in the commercial world in regard to the name, and he was given to understand that they would view with regret any change in the title it was proposed to give. No doubt it was a simple point; but, as a matter of fact, nearly all the Notices which had been issued in connection with the Conversion Scheme had gone out with the name that appeared in the Bill, and unless some strong reason were shown for it he should be sorry to see it changed.
    MR. KIMBERsaid, that after the remarks which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, he did not suppose that the Amendment would be pressed; but it did appear to him that the Bill should give to the Stock the title which it would eventually receive. The name contained in the clause, "Two and Three-Quarter Pound; per Cent Annuities," might be simple,
    1806
    but it was inaccurate in fact, and he was afraid it would not be clearly understood by a large portion of the public who were interested in the matter. At the expiration of 20 years the new Stock was to be entitled only to 2½ per cent, and to call it "Two and Three-Quarters Stock" would give a misleading description to the public who desired to invest in it. As the hon. Member opposite had pointed out, it would present to the public a depreciated idea of what the credit of the country was worth, because it would appear that the market quotation was the price of a Stock carrying interest at 2¾ per cent throughout; whereas it was liable to be reduced to 2½ per cent. He had himself to move an Amendment to provide that the new Stock should be called "New Consols;" but after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, he would refrain from doing so. He was, however, of opinion that that description would have covered any variation, and would not have misled anybody.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that the name by which the Stock would be known in the market would not depend so much on the wording of the clause, as whether Consols were largely converted or not. Under these circumstances, he trusted that his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
    SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLsaid, he was ready to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CHILDERSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before the Committee parted with the clause, to explain what was proposed to be done with the small amount of Three-and-a-Half per Cent Stock, to which no reference had been made.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he fully recognized the duty which devolved upon the Government in endeavouring to bring all these Stocks into one; but it would be impossible to deal in the present Bill either with the Four per Cent Stock or the Turkish Guarantee Stock. That Stock must claim attention at the proper time; but before it could be dealt

    1807
    with it would be necessary to take steps for consulting the French Government.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Mode of signifying dissent).
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE, in moving, as an Amendment, to leave out Sub-section (3), which provides—
    "That the transfer of any stock to which a dissent relates shall be subject to the prescribed condition, and shall be entered in the books of the Bank under the same number as was fixed for the stock when the dissent was so signified,"
    said, his reason for moving the omission of the sub-section was that they were dealing with the stockholders who dissented to the conversion, and would be paid off at such times as suited the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What might happen was this—it was quite possible that the holders might not be paid off until the 1st of August next year, and the fact that they were liable to be paid off would place them in an embarrassing position, seeing that they would have to hold Stock that was liable to be paid off. It appeared to him that the holders of such Stock ought not to be interfered with in regard to their right of dealing with it. A man might hold £100,000 worth of Stock and might desire to sell it bit by bit; but if he (Mr. Gedge) read the clause aright, there could only be one transfer of that Stock, and it was not to be dealt with unconditionally, but subjected to some conditions to be drawn up by the Treasury. The sub-section would, therefore, hamper the holders of Stock, and he submitted that the Government must either pay off the public creditor or leave him his rights until he was paid off. It would be unfair and inconvenient to the holders of Stock, who chose to be paid off and not accept the conversion, that they should remain until it suited the pleasure of the Government to pay them off hampered with restricted provisions.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, to leave out Sub-section (3).—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that if the hon. Member would consult the Scheme of 1844 he would find that
    1808
    exactly the same provision as this was made, and that it did no harm to the holders of Stock. There were certain well-known rules applicable to the holders of Stock at the present time, and it was considered desirable, in dealing with the matter, that the holders should have no capricious right to break up the amount of Stock they held. The Government considered it necessary to follow the precedent of 1844, and he hoped the Committee would support them in that view.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he had either shown a grievance or he had not done so. If he had shown a grievance, a mere reference to a precedent set 45 years ago did not cure it, and he considered that the grievance itself ought to be remedied.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)pointed out that the holder of Stock could sell his Stock before he accepted the scheme of the Government, and by that means the whole difficulty would be avoided. Much inconvenience would arise if the Stock held by dissentients was liable to be split up into a number of fractions. If there were dissentients, he would endeavour to meet their case by paying them off in full at the earliest possible moment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Time for signifying dissent in case of persons abroad) agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Dissent by executors, trustees, & c.)
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he was sorry to be so frequently on his legs; but he had been in communication with many persons in regard to this Bill, and he was endeavouring to attain some of their objects. The next Amendment he had to move was to insert in page 4, line 18, after the word "Stock," "or any Consolidated Three per Cent Stock or any Reduced Three per Cent Stock." He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept that Amendment. He did not see why the New Throes provided for in the clause should not have the same provisions extended to them as other Stock. Unfortunately, in the Bill, as it stood, all kind of Stock had been dealt with in a confused manner. The whole Bill was full of

    1809
    bad drafting, and it required amendment in various parts.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 4, line 18, after the word "Stock" insert "or any Consolidated Three per Cent Stock or any Reduced Three per Cent Stock."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, that the hon. Member was again pursuing what he might call the same erroneous hypothesis which had induced him to put his first Amendment on the Paper. The hon. Member said the Bill was badly drafted; but it appeared that it was badly drafted only in the view that it intended to do something which it did not intend to do. Considering that the Bill dealt with a very complicated subject, he thought that it was extremely well drafted, and extremely well arranged. The hon. Member himself complained of the omission from Part II. of Part I. the plan laid down was that the two Stocks, in order to avoid confusion, should be dealt with in two separate Parts. For that reason he could not accept the Amendment, which was contrary to the general construction of the Act.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause put, and agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Funds in Court).
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 26, after the word "name," to insert the words "or in the books."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE, in moving, as an Amendment, to omit Sub-section (2), which relates to the application of the High Courts and the Court of Session, said, his reason for moving the Amendment was that the application might be necessary, not only with regard to Part I. of the Bill, but also with regard to Part II. As a matter of fact the sub-section clearly referred to the whole Bill, and not to this part of it merely, and he urged that it should be omitted and re-enacted with another sub-section as a whole in another part of the Bill—namely, Part IV.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section (2).—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, the Government could not accept the Amendment. The hon. Member had referred to the drafting of the Bill. Nobody would suggest that a lawyer might not have drawn it in a better form if there were only one mind brought to bear upon it; but one of the objects the Government had in view was so to draft the measure that laymen as well as lawyers should be able to feel their way about and fully understand what they were doing. The object had been to make the Bill as easily understood as possible. It was, therefore, important to follow the language of precedents. As to the Amendment, it was thought desirable that the scheme in this particular part of the Bill should be completed, and the sub-section, therefore, was necessary.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Stock held by official trustees of charitable funds).
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 7, to leave out "may" and insert "shall."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, the Government had no objection to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to; word substituted.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  PART II.

    POWER TO EXCHANGE CONSOLIDATED AND REDUCED THREE PER CENTS FOR NEW STOCK.
    Clause 8 (Exchange of Consols and Reduced for new Stock) agreed to.
    Clause 9 (Power of Court, trustees, & c, in relation to exchange of Stock).
    On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Amendment made, in line 2, after "name" insert "or in the books."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 9, to leave out "the Treasury with the approval" and insert "the Lord Chancellor."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Question proposed, "That the words, 'the Treasury with the approval' stand part of the clause."
    MR. CHILDERSasked, If it was intended to give the Lord Chancellor power of making the regulations without the concurrence of the Treasury?
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, the only object of the Amendment was to transpose the order, and to provide that the Lord Chancellor should make the regulations with the approval of the Treasury, instead of the Treasury making them with the approval of the Lord Chancellor.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words 'the Lord Chancellor' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the following Amendment made:—
    In Page 6, line 9, to leave out from "England" to "Scotland of" in line 10, both inclusive, and insert "Stock standing in the name of Her Majesty's Paymaster General."
    On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the following Amendments made:—In page 6, line 11, to leave out—" and in the case of Ireland of," and insert—
    "In the case of Stock standing in the name of the Accountant to the Court of Session";
    in line 11, after "Lord Chancellor of Ireland," leave out "May," and insert—
    "In the case of Stock standing in the name of the Accountant General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, may, with the approval in each case of the Treasury ";
    and in line 12, after "stock," insert "or any part thereof."
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, the Amendment next, which stood in his name, was purely a matter of drafting. He proposed to leave out the words from "payable" to "or," in line 15; and afterwards to insert the exact wording from the Clause which Lord Herschell had settled. He did not wish to press the Amendment if the Government wore unwilling to accept it.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, line 14, to leave out the words "Which consent any trustee or other person acting in a fiduciary character, is hereby authorized to give."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he entirely appreciated the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in moving the Amendment. The Government had, however, considered it, and were of opinion that the present wording which carried out their intention should be retained.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the following Amendment made:—
    In page 6, line 22, at end, insert—"Provision may be made by such regulations that either generally or in specified classes of eases, the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary for Scotland, or the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, as the case may be, may on behalf of the persons interested in any such stock as aforesaid, consent to the exchange thereof, "unless dissent from such exchange is signified within the time and in the manner fixed by the regulations."
    On the Motion of Mr. SYDNEY GEDGE, the following Amendments made:—In page 6, line 26, leave out "may" and insert "shall"; and in same line leave out "or with the consent."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 6, to leave out Sub-section (3) and insert—"An Exchange of Consolidated Three per Cent Stock, or of Reduced Three per Cent Stock for New Stock, made in pursuance of this Act, shall not be considered to be a change or variation of investment by the holder."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Clause."
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he should like to point out that some provision was necessary in the case of trustees who held Consols, the interest of which was shared by many persons, say, in Australia, Canada, India, and other parts of the world. It was necessary that there should be some protection for trustees so placed, and as they could not be too clear in a matter of this kind, unless some distinct reason were given for the withdrawal of this Sub-section, he should himself move an Amendment.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, the hon. Gentleman's point had been answered by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A clause would be introduced to the effect that trustees who accepted conversion should not be held to have made a new investment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 10 (Provision of funds for facilitating conversion).
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 14, after the word "make" to insert "in the prescribed manner and at the prescribed time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that having addressed the House fully on the subject of his Amendment last Friday, he should not trouble the Committee at length now. He had no desire to assume a tone of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might complain, but desired to deal with the question purely as one of principle. He said that the optional conversion of Stock should rest entirely on its own merits, and that nothing ought to be paid to bankers or agents to induce any person to agree to the terms offered by the Government. The principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that it was the interest of the holder of Consols to accept the Reduced Stock, and of course it was to the interest of the State that the conversion should take place; and that principle had always been advocated and carried out in previous conversions. If, then, it was to the interest of the stockholder to accept the Chancellor of the Exchequer's terms, why was it necessary to pay a brokerage for obtaining his concurrence in this conversion. The hon. Baronet the Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock) on Friday had taken exception to what he (Mr. Fowler) had then said with reference to the London bankers, and the view of the hon. Baronet was endorsed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With all respect to them he did not think there was anything offensive to bankers or agents in saying that no person should be placed in a position in which his interest might conflict with his duty. If the banker was in the position of an agent giving advice, then he thought he was put in a false position and that he had no right to complain if his position were severely scrutinized. They knew that if an agent of a vendor
    1814
    received a commission from the purchaser, he had to account for that commission, because the law did not consider he should be an agent of both the parties to the bargain. This commission was only given in the event of the advice given by the banker or other agent being favourable to conversion. He would like to call attention to the Money Article which appeared in The Standard newspaper of the 18th of January, which, referring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's New Local Loan Stock, said—
    "That the market did not understand the terms of the conversion, that the Treasury with its shortsighted stinginess offered the brokers no remuneration for any work they might do in getting their clients to convert their Stock; and that no conversion of Stocks would ever pass which did not in this way enlist the self interest of the market."
    That was the whole of his argument on this part of the case; he rested upon that, and he said they ought not to sanction anything which would enlist the self interest of the Money Market. Their object and duty as Members of the House of Commons was simply to protect the public interests. He was aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday repudiated this notion of commission, and he (Mr. Fowler) was not surprised that he did so. He alleged that it was not payment for advice to induce people to assent to terms, but as payment for services rendered by bankers and brokers. Now, he very much doubted the extent of the labour to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred; he did not see what work there was to be done, and besides, the service, if any, was purely voluntary. The Bank of England had provided a very simple form which anyone of ordinary education could easily fill up. No one had asked the bankers to render their services, and he had no doubt that the hon. Baronet the Member for the London University was familiar with the circular which had been issued by a large number of London bankers, which stated that it was the intention of the Government to pay off those holders of Stock who did not send in their assents at par as Parliament had directed, which by the way was incorrect, for Parliament had not yet made any such direction. The circular was to the effect that it was generally thought desirable to accept the terms of conversion, the interest at work in favour of the scheme

    1815
    being considered so great as to insure its success. He found no fault with the banks for sending that circular; he found no fault with the phraseology of the circular; but he said it was a voluntary service, and that they had, therefore, no right to come on the public funds, and ask to be remunerated for what they had done. But if it were for services rendered in aid of conversion, why should not everybody who converts Stock have this 1s. 6d. per cent paid to them? Why should bankers and brokers alone receive it? If the large holders were to have it, why were not the small men who conducted the whole matter for themselves? If that were so then he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's contention would be logically sound. If the right hon. Gentleman said that some expense was necessarily incurred in filling up these forms, and if he would say that every stockholder should be entitled to this commission, then he thought it would very much weaken the strength of the objection which many hon. Members felt to this provision. It would then be a fair and arguable contention that the allowance was being made to the holders for the expense to which they were to be put. What he did ask the Committee not to assent to, was this payment to bankers and agents now proposed for the first time for obtaining assent from holders for the conversion of Stock, which, however it might be expressed, was nothing else than a payment to the banker or broker for getting people to accept these terms.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 18, to leave out from the word "exchange," to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the words, 'and may also, if they think fit, authorize the Bank to pay in respect of Stock so surrendered an allowance,' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he had given Notice of a similar Amendment, in order that at the end of the Bill a clause might be inserted which would fix a commission for the conversion of the New Threes also. It seemed to him that they were giving a commission of 1s. 6d. merely to induce people to waive the year's notice. Those who supported the clause might be open to
    1816
    the comments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton; but the real reason for this provision had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday last, when he pointed out that this 1s. 6d. was not paid practically to the broker or recognized agent, but really to the stockholders to cover the expense they were put to. He had since that time received letters from ladies as to whether they should be paid off, or whether they should accept the conversion. For his own part, if he received 1s. 6d. per £100 Stock, he should not charge his client with the expense he was put to, and he was interested in very large Trusts, and had considerable correspondence with regard to them. But the trouble was very much the same with regard to the New Threes as to the other Stocks. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) with regard to secret commission to bribe agents to act unfairly between clients; such things were abominable. The right hon. Gentleman, being himself a practising solicitor, knew that under the Solicitors' Act, a solicitor receives a brokerage fee oven from the borrower for whom he did not act, and he also gets a fee for investigating the title. But that was openly done, and there was no corruption about it; and it was well known that every solicitor made a part of his income by commissions of that kind. He should hope no one would believe that a solicitor was bribed by receiving that commission to advise a loan contrary to the interests of his clients. With regard to the present payment of 1s. 6d., he thought that it should be universal; and, therefore, that the matter should be so put that they might decide the question as to whether its application should be universal or limited.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he understood the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Sydney Gedge) proposed to support the omission of these words in order that, by a subsequent Amendment, the 1s. 6d. should be given in the case of the New Threes as well as Consols. He (Sir John Lubbock) thought, however, that the hon. Gentleman had himself given the reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer excluded the New Threes. In the case of the Three per Cent Consols and Reduced Threes, assent was necessary,

    1817
    which involved a good deal of trouble, and which was not so in the case of the Now Threes; and that seemed to him (Sir John Lubbock) to place the latter in an entirely different position from the two former classes. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolvorhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) that the optional conversion should act upon its own merits; but then he went on to observe that the bankers were placed in a false position unless the result was favourable. He would, however, point out, on the other hand, that this resembled all Stock Exchange business, for there also, if nothing was done, there was no commission. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the London bankers were themselves very large holders of Stock, and surely if they were going to convert their own Stock, there could be no objection to their recommending their friends to adopt the same course as they were themselves taking. It remained to be seen what that course would be, because until the Bill became law, he took it that the matter would remain open. But the right hon. Gentleman asked why the bankers were taking a different course now from that which they took in the case of the conversion scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). The answer was that the circumstances were different, and they now thought it wise to convert, and therefore they suggested to their friends to look into the matter; whereas, in the former case, they did not think it wise themselves to convert, and consequently did not think it proper to recommend their friends to do so. What bankers did themselves they naturally recommended to their customers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh was so enamoured of his plan that he seemed to think that bankers were mistaken in the advice they gave. He could only account for it by replying to inquiries made to him that "bankers were not infallible;" but he (Sir John Lubbock) would point out that the result on the market had justified the advice they gave on a former occasion. The right hon. Gentleman had evidently forgotten the facts. He offered the Two-and-a-Half per Cent Stock at 92, and he complained that bankers told their customers they would get better terms by waiting. But he forgot that in 1885 the Two-and-a-
    1818
    Halfs which he offered at 92 fell to 81, so that those who wanted to do so had the opportunity of purchasing at 8 per cent less than at the time. He (Sir John Lubbock) admitted that was a temporary fall, and that it occurred during the war scare; but everyone know that they stood for some time at 88 and 89, or 4 per cent below the price the Rt. Hon. Gentleman offered, and thus, although there was no corresponding fall in Consols, the result justified the advice given. It was true they had risen subsequently, in common with other Securities. But now the case was very different, and bankers were no doubt under the impression that holders of Stock would be wise to accept the terms offered. He thought it was a little unfair to expect that any banker would be influenced by this very small commission of 1s. 6d., seeing that they were only advising their customers to take the course they were themselves adopting in reference to their own affairs. Unless the House agreed to the course proposed by the Government, it would be very difficult for trustees to convert, because there was no fund under their control from which they could pay the expense of doing so.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, this was really a proposal made for the first time by the British Government to pay a commission for getting something done on the Stock Exchange which would not be done otherwise. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night what precedent there was for this course, and the right hon. Gentleman, being pressed very much by that challenge, suggested the case of the Suez Canal. He (Sir William Harcourt) was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted that precedent; because if ever there was a precedent that ought to be avoided it should be that. It was now objected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to the Stock Exchange, and saying—" We make it worth your while to give us your support." But in the case of the Suez Canal there was the payment of so much for the accommodation of advancing the money required. He had heard it stated, notwithstanding, that the Government might have had that money for one-quarter of what they paid for it; and if that was so, a worse precedent was never set than that of the Government going into the market

    1819
    and paying a premium for money at a higher rate than they would have had to pay to the Bank of England. For the first time the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered a premium to the Stock Exchange for getting his proposal accepted. He would not ask whether it was large or small; how much or how little it was, mattered not; but the fact remained that they wove asked to set up this fatal example, which might in future be extended under very objectionable circumstances. Hitherto the British Government had been entirely free from anything of this description. He made no insinuation at all; but they knew perfectly well that certain language had been used during the last month, and it was that language that made it necessary that they should be extremely cautious on a subject of this kind. No one could have listened to the preliminary conversation before the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was made, without hearing that it was of no use to make this proposal unless the right hon. Gentleman "greased the hands of the stockbrokers." He did not suggest that that was the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but it showed the danger of proposals of the kind with a view to what might happen in the future. His hon. Friend the Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock) had not answered the question put by his right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolver-hampton—namely, what was going to be done with reference to the large Stocks held by the bankers themselves? Was that money to be paid to the bankers and insurance companies for converting their own Stock? Those were things which made the House properly jealous of the introduction of new precedents. The amount in question was small; but the precedent was not so; and he should like to hoar from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this payment was to be made to the bankers and those who themselves held large amounts of Stock. He would also like his hon. Friend the Member for the London University to understand exactly the point of the objection taken, which was not as to the magnitude of the sum of money to be paid, but to the precedent set up by the Treasury, paying to bankers for the first time what was a commission on a transaction in which they were engaged as agents.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he was not surprised at the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), but his complaint was against the tone of the remarks which he made the other day. He agreed that there was some force in the objections which had been taken. He had not quoted the precedent of the Suez Canal as a justification of their proceeding, but had referred to it in contradiction of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there was no precedent of a commission being paid by the British Government. He did not think it fair to say that this was the first time that a commission had been paid by the British Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had said that the case of the Suez Canal was totally different, not only in point of commission but in respect of circumstances. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Indian Government last year conducted a very successful operation for the conversion of £60,000,000 from 4 per cent to 3½ per cent, and that it paid a commission of 4 per cent. It might be said that that was not the British Government, but it formed an extremely close parallel to that which was taking place at the present moment. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not complain of the amount of the commission; but he had one word to say on that point—namely, that the ordinary brokerage on Consols was 2s. 6d. per cent, whereas this commission was only 1s. 6d. per cent. He called the attention of the Committee to this fact, that by this payment they secured to the holders, who had to employ bankers, solicitors and brokers, that they should have their work done for them much more cheaply than would have been otherwise the case in the ordinary course of business. This commission was to be paid, because it was presumed that there were few bankers who would charge more to their clients than that which was devoted to this purpose by the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman called attention to the fact that he was not aware that there would be much trouble connected with the business, but he (Mr. Goschen) was informed that there was a very considerable trouble.

    1821
    Bankers were obliged to consider the interests of their clients, and he was told that persons residing abroad had immediately to be informed by their bankers of what was going on with reference to the Funds, and that was an operation which they had under all circumstances to perform for the interests of their clients. There could be no doubt therefore that the trouble connected with the conversion scheme was very considerable. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him whether those persons who took their Stock to the Bank of England would receive any commission. He presumed that no commission would be paid to them, because they were not agents, and the same remark applied to the case of Insurance Companies. The commission was a brokerage to pay expenses to free holders from the charges which they would otherwise in our. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had spoken of "greasing the hands of the Stock Exchange." Considering that solicitors and bankers in the country and others would participate in this payment, he did not think it worth while to say that the Stock Exchange would be gained over by an amount charged really lower than the amount of commission generally paid on Consols.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, he was reluctant to offer any opposition to any enactment of this Bill; but he must confess that he did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made out any case for the proposal now before the Committee. In the first place, with regard to precedent, the question of precedent was altogether out of the way. There was no precedent in the case at all. The Indian precedent was no more a precedent than if it were a proceeding of the French or Spanish Government, because it was not a Parliamentary precedent. It was quite obvious also that the case of the Suez Canal was absolutely no precedent at all, because the payment in that case, however unwarrantable it was—and he thought it most unwarrantable—was a payment for services rendered to us, and not for services rendered by bankers and agents to other people. Secondly, it stood upon a totally different ground, and taken upon its merits, he did not think anyone would insist that it was necessary to pay any commission at all. Therefore, pre-
    1822
    cedent disappeared altogether. He did not think that it was unfair to say that the fact of this being an entirely new proposal was that which constituted an objection to it. He did not say it was a fatal objection, but the absence of precedent undoubtedly afforded an unfavourable presumption. Then, as to the form of the proposal, was it an awkward and unmanageable form? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if a banker, being a large holder of Stock himself, transacted the exchange at the Bank, he would receive no commission. But what would be the consequence? It would be that the banker would employ a broker, and the commission would be divided. That was not a desirable arrangement to make by Act of Parliament. Again, take the case of the small holder who transacted his own business. He would have all the trouble and probably rather more trouble than would fall on the banker or broker. Why was that small holder, who was the person really interested and who transacted his own business, not to have that allowance for his trouble which would be paid to an agent? No answer had been given to the question, and he doubted whether any answer could be given to it. But, taking a broader view of the question, he thought that if payment was to be made at all this was not an extravagant payment. He took objection to the ground of payment, and it was that which, in his opinion, was a mistake. He could not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument advanced in illustration of the smallness of the payment—namely, that it was less than an individual would pay in order to have a transfer effected, because, in the case of a transfer, he had alienated his property. In this case he was doing nothing of the kind; he was not a moving party in the case, and the operation performed for him was not alienation, but a simple change of form. Therefore, he considered there was no analogy between the two oases. But it seemed to him to be a mistake altogether to introduce the recognized agent into this transaction, because the question arose whose agent was he? Let them pay their own agent, but do not let them pay the agents of other people. If the money was to be paid at all, he ventured to say that it ought to be paid to the principal and not to the agent.

    1823
    He was not saying that the 1s. 6d. was too much for the service to be performed; but it was to be performed for the customer, who was the principal. If the agent advised the exchange, it was for the customer and not for the public interest that the advice was given. He was not like Members of that House-who sat there to make the best arrangement they could for the public interest; he worked in the interest of his principal, and the service done was a matter between his principal and himself. He thought, then, having regard to the basis on which this arrangement ought to be founded, that they were paying the wrong man. They agreed that those in the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had described should be paid the value of his services in money, but, without saying that the amount was too much or too little, he said that it was not for the State to pay the agent.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he confessed that when the matter first came before him he did not at all like the idea of this commission. He was certain, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), that the course was without precedent, and he was equally certain that Parliamentary sanction of such a course might form an evil precedent for the future. But he did not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), though he felt it was almost presumptuous on his part even to hint a difference of opinion with him; and if he differed from the right hon. Gentleman it was because of his intellectual incapacity to rise to the same height to which he habitually soared. Why did the right hon. Gentleman argue that a person assisting in the conversion of the National Debt from 3 per cent to 2| per cent Stock was not rendering a service to the State? That he could not follow. The right hon. Gentleman would surely agree that the conversion of the Debt, if it could be legitimately effected, was a great public object from which the State, as a whole, derived considerable benefit; and, therefore, if in effecting that conversion a great financial organization and great financial machinery was set in motion, it was difficult to argue that no service was thereby rendered to the State. If he had any ob-
    1824
    jection, to this proposal at all, his objection would be founded upon grounds of public economy. The conversion was a great public object. Could it be obtained without paying money in this way? That seemed to him to be the point. There was no doubt of this, that if the commission were a very much larger one than that in the Bill, it would not be assented to by Parliament. If the commission had been at all open to the charge of being excessive, Parliament would not have assented to it. If that was admitted it threw a considerable amount of suspicion upon the merits of the commission altogether. They were told that the commission was a small one. He could not altogether agree that a financial charge of £250,000 was a small charge. That £250,000 must come, he supposed, out of the revenues of this year or the next, and he objected most strongly to paying one sixpence for the conversion of the National Debt, in the shape of commission, unless it could be proved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House of Commons that he could not effect the conversion without it. That was a point which the right hon. Gentleman had not got rid of. Could he get up and prove to the House that, without this payment, his conversion scheme would not have any chance of success? He could not see that the right hon. Gentleman could alter what had passed, because they w ere told by bankers and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Consol holder was placing himself in an advantageous position by converting. If that was so, and if what was widely asserted in the Press, that all Consol holders were in a frame of mind eager, at any rate willing, to convert, was true, why should they sanction a payment which might amount to £250,000, and might amount to a good deal more, when they might perfectly well attain their object without paying a sixpence? That was a point of view which nobody had yet touched upon. The commission, he thought, might be objected to on other grounds. He sympathized very much indeed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), and, to a great extent, with what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) as regarded what he would call

    1825
    rather the bitter and unsavoury taste of these commissions to the Stock Exchange. He did not like it at all; but if the Government stated and proved that the great object of the conversion could not be attained without a payment of this kind, then the House must consider was the amount excessive? If it was agreed that if the amount was not excessive, and that the payment was absolutely necessary for the success of the scheme, he owned, though he did not like it, he should not be able to vote against the proposal of the Government.
    MR. HALDANEsaid, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) had just laid down one of the most extraordinary doctrines he (Mr. Haldane)had ever heard. The noble Lord had said, in effect, that it was legitimate to bribe, because the party in whose interest they proposed to bribe was the State. [Cries of "No, no !"] What the noble Lord said came to that. It was an assertion that the end justified the means. But he was not going to discuss that point, because he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) said enough to lay the foundation for another objection to this clause which he wished to point out. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had considered the question whether this clause would really protect him in the transaction which he proposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must remember that it had often been said, rightly or wrongly, that the morality of the Courts was higher than the morality of commerce. There were many things done in commerce every day which would not stand when they came to be tested, and when they were entering upon transactions of enormous magnitude like this, it was necessary they should take care they did not get themselves into an invidious or awkward position which would not bear the light of day. In the light in which the Courts regarded these transactions, if they made a payment, however innocently, to an agent, one of two things might happen. The agent's principal might say, "I affirm this transaction; I take the benefit of it;" or he might say, "I set aside this transaction because there was a bribe given," and the transaction would not stand. What
    1826
    was there in this Bill which would protect the Treasury from the consequences of having its transactions set aside in this fashion? It was said the Treasury might, if it thought fit, authorize the Bank to pay a slight commission to the agent. If the Treasury did this, it did not make the transaction better. It was not enough to say the Treasury might do so and that everybody knew it. They ought to put words in the clause to say that it should be lawful for the agent to retain the commission of 1s. 6d., and that the transaction should not be liable to be impeached on that account.
    MR. W. BECKETTdesired to say a word in defence of the bankers. The other night the hon. Baronet the Member for North Antrim (Sir Charles Lewis) said that the country bankers had complained that this commission was not large enough. The country bankers never did anything of the sort. The country bankers had decided that they would give no advice whatever to their clients in a general form as to what they should do, but that all they would undertake to do would be to send out a short statement to say that if their clients wished to convert and to make use of their services, they would be happy to place their services at their disposal. Some hon. Gentlemen had taken exception to the word "commission;" the word seemed to stink in the nostrils of some hon. Members, including the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). This conversion must be done on behalf of the small stockholders in the country by someone or other. They were entirely ignorant as to how they were to set about the conversion, and they went to their bankers and said—" Will you put this forward for me in the proper way?" Were the bankers not to be remunerated by someone for doing that service? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had very properly explained that, as this was a compulsory conversion of Stock, the holders ought not to be put to any expense by the process of conversion. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, in this clause—" We offer you this 1s. 6d. per cent, in order that the business of the conversion of Stock may be done free of expense to the different holders of Stock." The right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E.

    1827
    Gladstone) and Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H Fowler) objected to the introduction of the words "recognized agents." He (Mr. W. Beckett) also objected to those words. He thought the 1s. 6d. ought to be granted to everybody. If that were so, the banker would say to his customer—" You are allowed 1s. 6d. per cent in order to remunerate someone for the trouble of doing this; therefore, if I take the; trouble to do it, I shall expect you to pay me this small charge." He had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer privately to do away with the term "recognized agent," and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian had pointed out how easily that could be done. He (Mr. W. Beckett) thought it would be much better to do away with the term altogether, and let it be a fairly understood thing that 1s. 6d. per cent would be paid to anyone in order to cover the expense incurred by the compulsory conversion of their Stock.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)desired in a few sentences to enter his protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane). He did not think any lawyer would give the opinion that where a Statute had said that an agent should receive 1s. 6d., or any other fee, for doing certain work, the transaction could be set aside by the principal, on the ground that the agent had received the commission. The very worst that could possibly be made of it was that the principal might claim a share of the 1s. 6d., on the ground that the relation between principal and agent did not entitle the agent to receive it.
    MR. HALDANEsaid, the Attorney General had misunderstood him. His complaint was that the Bill did not say that the agent might receive the 1s. 6d.; it only gave power to the Treasury to pay public money.
    MR. CHILDERSconfessed he had found great difficulty in arriving at a conclusion on this subject. When his right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) first brought forward this plan, he did not altogether object to the 1s. 6d. as a mere commission to meet expenses; but he was startled by the reasons which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave for that commission. Those reasons led him to consider
    1828
    further; to consider whether it would be proper that this payment should be made. The right hon. Gentleman at first said that a large amount of trouble would be taken by bankers and others in connection with the conversion of the Three per Cents and the Reduced Three per Cents, and that it was in respect of that trouble that he proposed that this money should be paid, but now he could not deny that this commission was intended as an inducement to bankers and others to persuade their customers to convert their Stock. But oven if the charge were only to meet money out of pocket, he (Mr. Childers) could not help looking back on what was done in the case of previous conversions. Nothing of this kind was done in the case of the great conversion of Mr. Goulburn; and in 1884, when it was thought advisable to propose to Parliament a great conversion of Stock, not only did they not think it right to offer this inducement, but they made full provision for the expenses actually incurred in applying or dissenting or assenting. Instead of waiting for persons to send in their applications, they sent to all holders of every kind of 3 per cent. Stock forms of acceptance or non-acceptance of 2½ and 2¾ per cent Stocks, properly filled up, and all the holders had to do was to sign their names on one or other of these forms. All expense in connection with the conversion was met in the arrangement of 1884, and, if he was not mistaken, the whole of the expense so incurred and met by the Treasury was something like £5,000. This proposal, as it stood, might result in the payment of £150,000 or £200,000. Therefore, he thought the question of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) was a very pertinent one, and that was—" Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer find it necessary to spend this large amount? "The Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued that the payment was solely to meet the expense of conversion. It was quite impossible that £150,000 or £200,000 could be the real amount of the expense incurred by the holders of Stock through their agents, whoever they might be, in carrying out this conversion; and, therefore, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to refute what he (Mr. Childers) had stated, and to show that for the business trouble in the matter

    1829
    more need be spent than was spent in 1884, he should vote against the present proposal.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not know whether he would be able to give any assurances which would be satisfactory to his right hon. Friend; but certainly he had every wish to do so. The right hon. Gentleman said that in 1884 circulars were sent out to all holders of Stock. From whom did those circulars come? They came from the Bank of England, an establishment which stood in no relation whatever to those selling or holding the Stock. The consequence was that the circulars were very probably put in the waste paper basket, and the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman failed because of the insufficient means taken to make the holders acquainted with the terms of conversion. It was a very different thing for holders to receive a circular from the Bank of England and to receive a letter from their bankers, or other persons who were competent to advise them, and with whom holders were in communication. He did not know what happened to his right hon. Friend, when he was at the Treasury; but, speaking for himself, he had received countless letters asking for information on every possible point from trustees and other persons. The right hon. Gentleman put it as if it was simply a question of "Yes" or "No;" but there were many questions to be answered—whether they must consult with their fellow-trustees, whether a majority of the trustees could decide, or whether other persona besides the trustees had to be consulted. He had previously no idea of the variety of questions which would arise in connection with the scheme. The sending out of a circular, therefore, was insufficient to acquaint everyone with what was going on. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) put the matter very fairly from an economical point of view. He wished him to say whether or not the conversion could be effected without the payment of the commission. It was extremely difficult to prove a negative. He thought this conversion was a very large scheme, and depended for its success, so far as the voluntary conversion was concerned, on the circumstances of the day, and upon a variety of other circum-
    1830
    stances. It was impossible to say for certain whether or not it would have been possible without this payment to have secured this conversion, which he hoped was now within sight; but he would frankly tell the noble Lord that unless he had considered it was right to offer this commission, and that the machinery employed would be the means of bringing home to all Consol-holders what was proceeding, he would have been the last person to propose anything of the kind. He knew beforehand the kind of speeches which would be made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) and other right hon. Gentlemen. He was fully aware of the gravity of the precedent and the difficulty of carrying out this conversion scheme to a successful issue; and therefore he did not feel inclined to refrain from offering to the holders, through these means, those facilities and that freedom from expense which he trusted they would secure by the measure as now proposed. He regretted that there should be a division of opinion on the subject. He admitted it was a perfectly natural division of opinion, but he trusted the majority of the Committee would sustain the Government in the proposal they had made.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 127: Majority 117.—(Div. List, No. 47.)
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 7, at end of Clause, insert the following sub-section:—"(2.) The sums of five shillings per cent authorized by this section to be paid, may be treated by trustees and others as income, but if so treated shall not be subject to Income Tax."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CHILDERSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would be good enough to tell the Committee why, if this was income, it should not be subject to Income Tax. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at a right decision; but perhaps it would be well that he should give the Committee some explanation.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he thought he had explained to the Committee that it

    1831
    was very doubtful whether this was really capital and not income. On the whole, one might say it was equivalent to an increase of the capital value of the Stocks; but on account of its being so small a sum it would be very inconvenient in many cases for trustees to re-invest it, and so they were authorized to treat it as income. If Income Tax had been imposed upon the additional percentage which his right hon. Friend gave, it might be fairly looked upon as capital. Of course he should be glad to have Income Tax upon it; but it struck him it might be considered they were taking away with one hand what they gave with the other.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsuggested that "shall" should be substituted for "may." This would only affect trustees and tenants for life. If they said "may" who was to be the judge, the trustee or the tenant for life? Surely, Parliament ought to decide the matter.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not agree to the suggested Amendment, because most unquestionably in point of law, this was capital and not income. The decisions upon the subject had been more rigid every year. Very recently the House of Lords had overruled the Courts below in declaring that this was capital. Why should they compel trustees to treat as income that which in point of law was clearly capital?
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that in some cases it would be very difficult to re-invest small sums, and he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that authority ought to be left to trustees to treat this as capital and not as income. It would only amount to 10 s. on £200 of Stock, to re-invest which would be expensive and troublesome.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, that supposing a trustee chose to treat this as capital, and a widow lady interested said it was income, who was to decide?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that the trustee would be enabled to deal with the money as though it were income. The trustee would be the judge on the point.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

  PART III.
    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Clause 11 (Creation of New Stock); Clause 12 (power to raise money for redemption of dissentient Stock holders); and Clause 13 (power to raise money for incidental expenses), agreed to.
  PART IV.

    SUPPLEMENTAL.
    Clause 14 (Arrangements for conversion, exchange, or redemption); Clause 15 (Application of Act to Stock Certificates); Clause 16 (Provisions as to Savings Banks); and Clause 17 (Powers of Investment), agreed to.
    Clause 18 (Application to new Stock of trusts, powers, &c., affecting old Stock).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 9, at end of Clause, add the following sub-section;—"(2.) In any Act passed or instrument executed before the passing of this Act references to any Stock liable to be converted or exchanged in pursuance of this Act may, if the Stock is so converted or exchanged, be construed as references to new Stock."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. COZENS-HARDYsaid, that the clause provided that a distringas which was now operative upon Stock which would be converted should also be operative on the Stock to which it would be converted; but it did not deal with the case of Stock as to which there might he dissent. He hoped the Government would inform the Committee in what way effect would be given to the numerous cases in which there would be such a distringas.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, he was obliged to his hon. and learned Friend for calling attention to this matter. The Committee would observe that by Clause 21 the Treasury had power to make rules, and it was proposed, in accordance with the existing practice, that a rule should be made, providing that the money which would be paid would be under the control of the persons having the charge.
    MR. COZENS-HARDYsaid, the Amendment the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given Notice of was no

    1833
    doubt designed to meet cases where there was a change produced by conversion under the Act. But there was a large class of cases which would not be met by the words proposed. It was doubtful whether this clause as it stood would have any effect upon the will of a living man, and he would propose an Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, which he believed the hon. and learned Attorney General assented to.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed, clause 18, page 9, at end of preceding sub-section, add—
    "And in the case of any testamentary instrument executed before the passing of this Act, any disposition, which, but for the passing of this Act, would have operated as a specific bequest of any such Stock, shall, if the same is so converted or exchanged, be construed as a specific bequest of such new Stock, and if the same is not so converted, but is paid off or redeemed, shall be construed as a pecuniary legacy of a sum of money equal to the nominal amount of the Stock so paid off or redeemed."—(Mr. Cozens-Hardy.)
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 19 (Indemnity to trustees and others) agreed to.
    Clause 20 (Application to Court in respect of questions arising out of conversion or exchange).
    On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the following Amendments made:—In page 9, line 41, after "stock," insert—
    "And in particular as to the cases in which, and extent to which, capital may be applied towards meeting any deficiency in income;"
    page 10, line 4, after "England," insert "or Wales, subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1887;" line 5, after "Wales," insert "either on their own motion or on application;" and in line 7, after "court," insert "in the matter of such a charity."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 21 (Power to make Rules), agreed to.
    Clause 22 (Provisions as to Bank).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 10, at end of Clause, add the following sub-section:—" (5.) Any payment which the Bank are authorized by or under this Act to make to a holder of Stock may be made by war-
    1834
    rant, and any such warrant shall be deemed to be a cheque within the meaning of 'The Crossed Cheques Act, 1876,' and the posting of the letter containing the warrant, addressed in the prescribed manner, shall, as respects the liability of the Bank, be equivalent to the delivery of the warrant to the stockholder."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 23 (Remuneration of Banks of England and Ireland); Clause 24 (Definitions); and Clause 25 (Short title), agreed to.
    On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the following new clauses:—
    (Provisions as to Stock belonging to Duchy of Lancaster, &c.)
    "(1.) The several provisions of this Act shall extend to stock held on behalf of the Crown, or of the Duchy of Lancaster, or of the Duchy of Cornwall, and to the dividends on such stock.
    "(2.) With respect to any stock standing in the mine or to the account of the Duchy of Lancaster, any dissent or assent authorized by this Act may be signified by the clerk for the time being of the Council of the Duchy.
    "(3.) With respect to any stock standing in the name or to the account of the Duchy of Cornwall, any dissent or assent authorized by this Act may be signified by the Receiver General of the Duchy.
    "(4.) With respect to any stock to which the foregoing provisions of this section as to dissent and assent do not apply, and which stands in the name of any public officer or body in trust for the public service, any dissent or assent authorized by this Act may be signified by the public officer or body entitled to receive the dividends on the stock.
    "(5.) Any stock held by any officer on behalf of the Court of Chancery, of the county palatine of Lancaster, or of any other Court in England, may be dealt with under this Act in such manner as may be directed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor,"
    agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    New Clause—
    (Power to hold new stock on different accounts.)
    "In the registers of new stock, the Bank may allow any holder or joint holders to have more than one account, provided that each account is distinguished either by a number or by each other designation as may be directed by the Bank, and that the Bank shall not be required to permit more than four accounts to he opened in the same name or names,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)
    —brought up and read a first and second time.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, that the clause as it stood gave the bank power to do what it could do already. It stated that the bank might allow any holder to have more than one account. The bank could do that now. It was only according to the rule of the bank that it had not been done. In order to make the thing compulsory the word ought to be "shall," and he moved the omission of the word "may" in line 1 in order to insert the word "shall."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, that he would agree to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, in new Clause, line 1, to leave out "may" and insert "shall."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
    Question, "That the word 'may' stand part of the new Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the word 'shall' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    On the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the following Clause:—
    (Provision as to annuitants.)
    " (1.) Where under any trust or arrangement Other than a charitable trust any stock has been appropriated to provide an annuity, and is, under this Act, liable to be converted into or exchanged for new stock, the person in whose name the stock is standing may, at the request of the annuitant, or, in the case of several annuitants, the majority of them, and at the expense of the annuitant or annuitants, sell the stock, and invest the proceeds either in any manner authorized by the trust or arrangement, or in any manner in which cash under the control of the High Court, or the Court of Session, may for the time being be invested, and shall not be liable for any loss arising from any such sale or investment.
    " (2.) In the case of stock standing in the name of Her Majesty's Paymaster General on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in England, or of the Accountant to the Court of Session in Scotland, or of the Accountant General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, any such sale or investment may be authorized by the High Court, or the Court of Session, as the case may be.
    " (3.) Where, in execution of any trust, or in performance of any duty, and whether in pursuance of the order of any court, or otherwise, any stock has been appropriated to provide an annuity, and is under this Act converted into or exchanged for new stock, the trust or duty shall, so far as relates to the payment of the annuity, be deemed to be executed or performed by the
    1836
    payment of the dividends on the new stock; but nothing in this section shall affect any power of any Court or other authority to make any order as to the application of capital in such cases,"
    agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    New Clause—
    (Provisions as to stock mortgages. [See 7 and 8 Vic. c. 5, ss. 15,10.])
    " (1.) An agreement to transfer any amount of New Three per Cent Stock, Consolidated Three per Cent Stock, or Reduced Three per Cent Stock, or generally any amount of Three per Cent Stock, may be satisfied by making a transfer of an equal amount of now stock, or, at the option of the person entitled to the benefit of the agreement, by paying a sum of money equal to the nominal amount of the stock so agreed to be transferred.
    " (2.) Where under any mortgage or agreement for a loan any person is bound to pay half-yearly sums equal to the dividends on any specified amount of stock, and that amount of stock is under this Act converted into or exchanged for new stock, the obligation shall be satisfied by the payment of [qu.] quarterly sums equal to the dividends on the same amount of new stock,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)
    —brought up, and read a first and second time.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that it would be necessary to make a slight alteration in the clause. The words "or, at the option of the person entitled to the benefit of the agreement," were not necessary in the case of Stock which stood, as this stood, at or about par. He would move the omission of the words.
    Amendment proposed, in new Clause, to omit "or, at the option of the person entitled to the benefit of the agreement."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question, "That these words proposed to be left out stand part of the new clause," put, and negatived.
    New Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    New Clause—
    (Power for majority of joint holders to dissent or assent.)
    " Where any New Three per Cent Stock, Consolidated Three per Cent Stock, or Reduced Three per Cent Stock is standing in the names of more than two persons as joint holders thereof, the dissent or assent of the majority of those joint holders shall be sufficient for the purposes of this Act,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)
    —agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    New Clause—
    (Exemption of certain powers of attorney from stamp duty.)
    "A power of attorney given exclusively for the purpose of empowering the attorney to signify any dissent or assent authorized by this Act shall be exempt from stamp duty,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    —brought up, and read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
    New Clause (Provision as to Lunacy Funds)—(Mr. Attorney General)—brought up, and read a first and second time, agreed to.
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that after Clause 20, words ought to be inserted to enable the Lord Chancellor to deal with Lunacy Funds. He had prepared for that purpose a new Clause, which he begged to move.
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE, in moving the insertion, after Clause 17, of a now Clause, said he could not see why the State should pay commission in one case and not in the other.
    New Clause—
    "The Treasury may, it they think fit, authorize the Bank to pay in respect of New Three per Cent Stock, exchanged for new Stock in pursuance of this Act, an allowance to recognized agents at the rate of one shilling and sixpence (or every hundred pounds, or fraction of a hundred pounds Stock so exchanged,"—(Mr. Sydney Gedge,)
    —brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, he could not assent to the Clause, because no action of the Bank was necessary at all; in the case of assent there was no trouble whatever to be taken. The action was quite automatic. No papers had to be sent in signifying assent, and, therefore, the holders were relieved of any of the stops which had to be taken at the bank in the case of the conversion of Consols and Reduced Three per Cents.
    Question put, and negatived.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, there were a great many small chari-
    1838
    ties in the country receiving a fixed income from Consols left them by testators, with the intention that they should receive that income. That observation also applied to individuals. Under the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, these incomes would be diminished. For instance, if a charity or individual had been receiving £300, that sum would now be reduced to £250. He proposed to ask the Committee to carry the purpose of the testators into effect, so that charities and individuals might continue to receive their fixed incomes. He did not wish to interfere with the conversion scheme, but suggested that a clause should be inserted, to allow money in such cases as he had mentioned to be re-invested under the direction of the Court of Chancery, so as to secure substantially the same incomes as charities and individuals now received from Consols.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The proposed Amendment appears to enable a trustee to extend his power of investment. I have already considered that point in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Anderson), and I held it to be outside the scope of the Bill, in the absence of special instructions to the Committee. The Amendment cannot be moved without such special instruction, but I think the proposal in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) may be moved.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, that by the indulgence of the Committee he might be allowed to suggest to his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Henry James) whether an opportunity for bringing forward this proposal might not be secured during the progress of Lord Herschell's Bill. The question was no doubt a very important one, and no doubt the clause suggested by his right hon. and learned Friend went very far. He (Mr. Goschen) undertook to deal with it in some way or other, though it was not dealt with in the present Bill. He had had a great deal of correspondence on the point under discussion, and he was aware that very great interest was excited in regard to it; but be thought it would be much safer to examine it apart from the present measure, and either deal with it in

    1839
    Lord Herschell's Bill or deal with it separately in another Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake to deal with the question, he supposed that would be taken as sufficient. He had thought from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he had intended to deal with the subject in this Bill, and, therefore, he (Sir William Harcourt) had been very much surprised by the ruling of the Chairman. He took that ruling as correct; but they certainly had had a statement to the effect that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to relieve trustees in this matter and to allow them to escape from a loss, both in the case of charities and private institutions.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that so far as annuities were concerned, the question had been dealt with, and it was with regard to annuities that he had made his original statement. But the present proposal went beyond annuities, and affected the case of marriage settlements and other points which were outside the scope of the clauses of this Bill. It would be best not to deal with this matter in a hurry.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he accepted the ruling of the Chairman; but if he altered the suggested Amendment, leaving out the words which rendered it open to question, he might, perhaps, obtain a ruling in his favour. But he was anxious at that stage not to introduce controversial matter, and he would defer it to the Report stage, by which time he hoped that some understanding would have been arrived at, and that the question would be dealt with. He thought they ought to deal with it in this Bill, and not trust to the Bill of Lord Herschell.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER)said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have to consider whether what he proposed would not go too far. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in his suggested Amendment said, "any person," and named no limit as to amount, and that would open up the question as to whether trustees of large amounts might not be left a great deal too free. The Government sympathized with the right hon. and learned Gentlemen's objects, but thought that
    1840
    the matter should not be dealt with without careful consideration.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid, he thought they ought to pass such a clause as he had put upon the Paper. He would point out that they had testators setting aside certain sums of money in order to produce fixed incomes for certain persons. Such testators instructed trustees and executors to set aside a sufficient amount of Stock to produce the exact sum willed to the annuitant, and to keep that stock intact. Well, the Government now proposed to take off one-twelfth of the income derived from that Stock, and at a future date to take off a sixth. Considering that it was the paramount object of such testators to provide a fixed annuity, it would only be right that the Committee should meet the views of such persons by enacting provisions to enable the stock to be sold and the proceeds invested in such a manner as would make up the amount of the annuity the testator had in his mind. No doubt, if this were not done, there would be a great outcry throughout the country on the part of persons who had money left to them in this way, when they found their incomes reduced by a twelfth, and after a time by one-sixth. There would be no chance of risk in the proposal he made, as the investments could under his clause be made only in securities allowed to Trutees by the Court of Chancery. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would accept his clause.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he had no objection to the principle of the clause; but he did not know how far the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) agreed with it, or might think it would interfere with the further steps which he might think it necessary to take.
    New Clause—
    "When any Stock is held by any person upon trust to secure the payment of a fixed income, the holder of the Stock shall be authorised to invest the proceedings thereof in any of the securities from time to time permitted by the High Court of Justice for the investment of trust funds, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the instrument creating or regulating the trust,"—(Mr. Sydney Gedge,)
    —brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he should prefer to have the Amendment accepted, but he should like to have the word "fixed" struck out.
    MR. PARKERasked, whether it was meant that the amount of the income must be stated on the face of the trust-deed?
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, there must be some reference to "fixed income." He did not think that any lawyer would assume that a testator intended to have a fixed income, unless there was some fixed income stated on the face of the trust.
    SIB, WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that though that was good, so far as it went, it did not meet the general case of marriage settlements, especially the older marriage settlements, and other cases where people had invested certain sums in Consols. Relief was required in those cases, and not where it was intended to secure particular incomes. What was required was that where persons had only power to invest in Consols, that they should in future have power to invest in other Funds which were considered safe which would produce the amount produced by the original investment.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsaid, that the proper way to deal with those cases would be by an independent Motion, or by a Bill, or by the introduction of an Amendment into the Bill in the House of Lords. The point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury referred to was limited amounts, or where it would be a great hardship to have incomes reduced. It would be a question as to how far it would be right to release trustees from the obligation of investing in Consols, when there was an express provision in a trust against any other sort of investment. Perhaps it would be well to wait and allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to state the exact case he wished to raise on the Report stage.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he was not limiting his case to any amount. He simply referred to cases of great hardship, and he hoped there would be no limitation in the matter.
    MR. COZENS-HARDYsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Sydney Q-edge) was limited to fixed incomes, and he (Mr. Cozens-Hardy) proposed to submit an Amend-
    1842
    ment to it, which he hoped would not be out of Order. He proposed to leave out the first line and to add words, so as to make the clause read—
    "When any Stock liable to be converted or exchanged by this Act into new Stock, is held by a trustee, such trustee shall be authorised to invest the proceeds thereof in any of the securities from time to time permitted by the High Court of Justice for the investment of trust funds, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the instrument creating or regulating the trust."
    A trustee should have this power if there was not any express prohibition. Such prohibitions were very rare, so rare that they would not justify the Committee in keeping back a clause of this kind which would be of great advantage to trustees. He would move the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The clause has not yet been read a second time.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    In the first line of the proposed new clause to leave out the words "held by any person upon trust to secure the payment of a fixed income," in order to insert the words "liable to be converted or exchanged by this Act into now Stock, is held by a trustee."—(Mr. Cozens-Hardy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new Clause."
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that this Amendment introduced rather a new question, giving, as it did, the right of conversion in all cases. It might arrest conversion to a considerable extent, which would not be the object of the hon. Gentleman. He should be sorry to accept such words without having had an opportunity of considering them; and he would suggest to the hon. Member the advisability of bringing them up on Report. He should be glad if the hon. Member would get rid of the words "liable to conversion." In cases where it was said in the trust that the money was to be invested, it did not at all follow that in the event of the amount of interest realized in such investment being changed, the testator would have desired a change to be made in the description of Stock invested in.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that there were, no doubt, cases in which a testator had stated—"I leave £1,000, or I leave £10,000, to produce such and such a

    1843
    sum per annum," intending the legatee to have that fixed amount. A testator might have left a sum to realize £300 a-year, never intending, under any circumstances, that the charity or the legatee should only have £250 a-year; therefore, if they accepted the words "fixed income," this clause would become nugatory. The phrase "fixed income," if left in the clause, would, so far as old settlements were concerned, negative the whole object of this concession. Therefore, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this matter on Report. These words were fatal to all he (Sir Henry James) contended for.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member (Mr. Cozens-Hardy) withdraw his Amendment?
    MR. COZENS-HARDY: Yes, Sir; I withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
    SIR CHARLES LEWIS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Bill will be reprinted before the Report?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I am sorry to say it will be quite impossible to have the Bill reprinted before the Report stage. Indeed, we shall have to ask the indulgence of the House with the view of taking the measure at 12 o'clock to-morrow, and before the Business on the Paper is proceeded with. I am exceedingly sorry that it will be necessary to postpone the Motion on the Paper; but I think the debate upon the Report stage of the present Bill will be extremely short, as the discussion we have had this afternoon has cleared away all debatable points.
    MR. GOSCHEN: There are only two points remaining over, that is to say, the question of the Charity Commissioners, and the question which has just been raised.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has felt
    1844
    it necessary to make this demand upon the time of the House. He knows there is a debate of very great importance coming on to-morrow, and I do not think the Government have any reason to complain of the manner in which this Bill has been dealt with this morning in the House. There has been every disposition shown to get forward with Public Business. I trust that every effort will be made to deal with the Report stage of this Bill without interfering with the discussion which is to come on to-morrow.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman and the House, that this Bill has to be passed in the House of Lords. The Easter Holidays are coming on very soon, and then there will be the Commission for obtaining the Royal Assent; therefore, the time at the disposal of Parliament for passing the Bill is extremely limited. If this Bill is allowed to go on to-morrow morning, I really do not think that much time will be consumed by it; half-an-hour, at the most, will suffice.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORI must say I think it a little unfair that this proposal should have been sprung upon the House without Notice in the absence of any Irish Members. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is asking a privilege or taking a right. If he is asking a concession in appealing to the House to take the Report stage of this Bill to-morrow morning, I must say that if I am in my place at the commencement of Public Business tomorrow, I shall raise my voice against it. Of course, if he is taking this as a right, there will be no opportunity of resisting him, and there is no more to be said. I think, however, I can. suggest to the right hon. Gentleman a very easy way out of the difficulty. Let him bring on the Report stage of this Bill after the discussion of the Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell.) I do not see why the discussion on the Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork should not close soon after 5 to-morrow evening. If the opposition offered to that Bill is obstructive, we shall be willing to assist the right hon. Gentleman in making a Motion to effect a Closure, and he would then have plenty of time to spare for the consideration of this Bill.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I have not the least desire to interpose or bring about the least delay in the consideration of the measure to which the hon. Member refers. The extreme necessity of the case is my only apology for asking the House to depart from its usual practice. I will consider the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and if I can meet it, I will be happy to do so.
    MR. ANDERSON: I do not think that the Government should make up their minds that the discussion on the Report stage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill will be of a merely formal character. The proposal the right hon. Gentleman has just consented to consider, deals with matters of re-investment in Colonial and other securities which are perfectly sound. It is intended to raise that point on the Report stage, and, therefore, I do not think that the Government can assume that the debate will be a purely formal one.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: On the question of Order, before this Bill leaves the Committee, I should like to ask if I am to understand that you, Sir, have ruled that the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury cannot be raised in Committee, because, according to the new Rule of the House, if it cannot be raised in Committee it cannot be raised on Report? It is, therefore, important that we should know what is your ruling on that matter. If we cannot raise it on Report, it might be necessary for us to do be on the third reading, and if we cannot do so on the third reading, it might be necessary for us to move that the Bill be re-committed, in order to enable this point to be dealt with.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question of the enlarging of the power of investment, whether by trustees or otherwise, would be out of Order and cannot be introduced into thin Bill without a distinct Instruction; but where a definite amount of income is bequeathed arising out of Consols, that question may be dealt with in this Bill, and Amendments upon the subject dealing with small amounts would be admitted.
    SIR WILLIAM HAROURT: May I ask what is the small amount according to your definition, Sir, for if we are
    1846
    bound on the question, some limit or figure should be given.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I was wrong in using that phrase. Where Stock is left to produce a fixed income and the interest on that Stock is affected, that income is necessarily affected, but the mere diminution of income generally would not justify the insertion of any clause in the Bill to enlarge those powers.
    SIR HENRY JAMES: When this Bill comes before us on Report, should I be at liberty to move to strike out the words "fixed income?"
    THE CHAIRMAN: I should have thought not, but that would be a question for Mr. Speaker.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported.
    MR. DILLON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to say that he intends to put down the Bill for to-morrow morning?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes.
    MR. DILLON: Why is that?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: There are two courses open to us—one is that the Bill should be taken to-morrow before the Business on the Paper is proceeded with, on the distinct understanding, so far as the Government is concerned, that it will not occupy more than half-an-hour; and the other is that we should suspend the half-past 5 o'clock Rule to-morrow (Wednesday), and arrange for the continuation of the Sitting at 6 o'clock, so as to make it certain that the debate will continue to-morrow. One of these two courses is necessary in order that we may conclude the measure. I will confer with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if I have a sufficient assurance that the latter course will be the one they prefer, I will adopt it.
    MR. DILLON: We decidedly prefer the latter course. We have sufficient evidence that an intention exists on the Benches opposite to interfere with the progress of the Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. On our part, we have no desire to impede the progress of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measure; but if the right hon. Gentleman takes the course of putting down the Government Bill in the first place on the Paper to-morrow, he will be doing

    1847
    a great injustice to the hon. Member for the City of Cork. Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman that there are Members in this House—I do not wish to refer to individuals—who have a great objection to the Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork being brought to an issue, and we do not know that they will not enter into a long discussion of the Government Bill in order to prevent our Bill coming on.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: On receiving an assurance that the debate on the Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork will be concluded by half-past 5, or before half-past 5, and that the Division will be taken, then I will move to suspend the Order with regard to the cessation of Opposed Business at half-past 5, and so regulate the Sitting that it may be possible to have the two Government Bills passed.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  EAST INDIA (PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAYS) BILL.
  (Sir John Gorst, Mr. Jackson.)
  EAST INDIA (PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAYS) BILL.

    [BILL 143.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
    DR. CLARKsaid, he thought the Government should give them some information upon several points in this Bill. The measure was introduced at a very late hour one night, and hon. Members had no opportunity of hearing its provisions discussed. The Government should give their reasons for the Bill, and how they intended to spend the £10,000.000 which they asked for.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir JOHN GORST)said, that if he were to respond to the invitation of the hon. Member, the Chairman would very soon call him to Order. He should be very happy to explain anything in the clauses as they came on; but, of course, he could not give a general statement as to the objects of the Bill.
    Remaining Clauses, Schedule, and Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Thursday.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ORDER OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Before you leave the Chair, Sir, at the close of this Morning Sitting, perhaps I may be allowed to mention the method by which I propose to carry out the arrangement at which we have arrived. I propose to move to-morrow, at 12 o'clock—
    "That the 'Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill' and the 'National Debt Conversion Bill' be taken next after the 'Land Law (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill,' and that thereupon the Standing Order regarding the Sittings of the House so far as these two Bills are concerned, be suspended for the day."
    I think that will meet the necessities of the case.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: And that I suppose will be carried without Amendment or debate? Is it under the Standing Order which enables it to be carried without debate?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: No; but I cannot imagine that there will be any objection on the part of hon. Members opposite.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Our desire is that it should be done under the Standing Order that prevents debate.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not think that it could come under any such Standing Order.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Standing Order would not apply in this case.
    It being Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTIONS.
  MEMORANDUM OF SIR CHARLES WARREN (MR. BAGGALLAY).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. PICKERSGILL, in rising to call attention to the Memorandum issued by Sir Charles Warren to his subordinates reflecting upon the administration of justice by

    1849
    Mr. Baggallay, the police magistrate of West Ham; and to move—
    "That this House regrets that the Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police should, in an official Memorandum read to his subordinates, have reflected on the administration of the Law by Mr. Ernest Baggallay, one of the Stipendiary Magistrates of the Metropolis, and is of opinion that such a course must tend to produce a most prejudicial effect, by weakening the authority of the Magistrate over the Police within his jurisdiction,"
    said, he wished to direct attention to a matter which, to some extent, was parallel with the case which occupied some time of the House last Session, and in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews), by the attitude he adopted—especially in its earlier stages—eventually involved the Government of which he was a Member in an ignominious but deserved defeat. He (Mr. Pickersgill) thought it would be a matter of some surprise to the House that the Government had so soon forgotten the salutary lesson which had been read to them. He had said that the case to which he now desired to draw the attention of the House had some features in common with that to which attention was called last Session. It might be a coincidence—it might be something more than a coincidence—that in the two cases of this kind in which Sir Charles Warren had come into the sharpest conflict with the public, he had bolstered two constables who, by evidence given in open Court, took away, or endeavoured to take away—that must have been, at all events, the effect of their evidence—the characters of two young women—young women, it was true, occuping a very humble position in life, but not on that account, he submitted, less entitled to the respect, and, if necessary, the protection of the House. Now, what were the facts of this case? On Wednesday, the 25th January last, a young woman named Annie Coverdale was charged at the West Ham Police Court with being drunk and disorderly by Police-constable Bloy. The policeman told one story, the girl told another. In order to save time he did not think he need trouble the House with either, because they did not appear to be relevant to the main purpose, and he now came to what was relevant—namely, the questions which
    1850
    were addressed to Bloy by the learned magistrate—
    "Mr. Baggallay (to the constable): What makes you say she was drunk?—Constable Bloy: Her general appearance. Mr. Baggallay: What do you mean by 'general appearance'?—Bloy: Well, she could not walk straight, Sir, and she swore at MR. Mr. Baggallay: Do you know her?—Bloy: Oh, yes, Sir; I have known her two or three years. Prisoner: Sir, we have not been in Canning Town three years. Mr. Baggallay (to the constable): How long have you known her? Now, do be careful.—Bloy: Well I have known her 12 months, I am sure. Mr. Baggallay: You said just now that you had known her for years. Have you seen her out at night before?—Bloy; Oh, yes, Sir. Mr. Baggallay: How long?—Bloy: Every night, for the last three or lour months, up to 12 and 1 in the morning, walking, about with sailors or seafaring men. Different men, Sir,"
    Then the prisoner burst in—
    "It is false, Sir (bursting into tears); it is false, Sir. I am not a girl of that sort. I am respectable, Sir. I have been in two respectable situations in Southampton, and have references in my possession, Sir. I have been asked to go back to my last situation. If I was such a girl as the constable says, I should not be asked to do that. (Here she handed testimonials, which were perused by the magistrate.) She further said that when the constable took her into custody he struck her, and when they passed her house she asked him to knock at the door and tell her father; but he refused, saying, 'You do not live there. I know your father well enough.' Another policeman having stated on oath that in big opinion Coverdale was drunk, two independent witnesses and the prisoner's mother were called and swore that she was quite sober. The landlady of the house where prisoner's young man lodged said that Constable Bloy ran into her house and said he would arrest the young man for stealing, when really it was the other man. He was much excited, and treated the young woman very roughly."
    Then Mr. Baggallay gave his decision in the following terms:—
    "There seems to have been a disturbance there, and a man undoubtedly was the worse for drink. There is no evidence at all that this young woman was the worse for drink, except that given by Bloy. I should be sorry to act upon his evidence, remembering the answers he gave. I do not think there is any ground for the suggestions he has made about the young woman being seen out with seafaring men. In fact, I do not believe his evidence at all, and (to the prisoner) I discharge you."
    Then, the report concluded—
    "The young woman left the Court with her mother, the latter weeping bitterly."
    Well, this case attracted a good deal of attention, and much public sympathy was enlisted on behalf of the young woman. But on the 1st February the case had a new development. On that

    1851
    day, when Mr. Baggallay took his seat on the Bench he made the following observation:—
    "On Monday morning last the Commissioners of Police, after a private inquiry into the case of Miss Coverdale—who was tried before me on the 25th January—directed a Memorandum in which the following passage occurs, to be read out to the constables of the K Division,"
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were-not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR, PICKERSGILLsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) interrupted him at a very significant point. He had been just about to quote to the House the comments of Mr. Baggallay on this Memorandum of the Chief Commissioner, and his comments are as follows:—
    "On Monday morning last, the Commissioners of Police, after a private inquiry into the case of Miss Coverdale—which was tried before me on 25th January—directed a Memorandum, in which the following passage occurs, to be read out to the constables of the K Division:—' The Commissioners have had the case under their consideration, and have decided to exonerate Bloy. They further regret that Mr. Baggallay came to so hasty a decision, and that he did not give the constable an opportunity to call the sergeant who was on duty at the station, and others who could have given corroborative evidence,'"
    Mr. Baggallay then said—
    "Although the contents of this document were communicated by the police to the Press on Monday last, and appeared in the evening papers on that day, my request made yesterday morning for a copy of it has not been complied with, and I am compelled to rely on the Press report, which I am told by the inspector is an accurate one. The Commissioners were perfectly justified in making an inquiry and forming an independent judgment on the conduct of the constable; but, as a police magistrate, I protest against the Commissioners making such an accusation against me in a Memorandum addressed to the police-constables in the borough over which I have jurisdiction, and still more do I protest against such an accusation being made after a secret inquiry, and without any communication with myself as to the accuracy of the statements upon which it was founded. If the Commissioners were informed that I did not give the police an opportunity of calling any further witnesses, such information is absolutely untrue. In answer to myself, the constable stated that he had no other witnesses to call, and did not even suggest that anyone else could throw any further light on the case. I state most emphatically that the constable had every opportunity of calling any witnesses he chose, and that the charge of haste in my decision is entirely groundless."
    The magistrate's remarks were received with applause by a crowded Court. Now,
    1852
    in the first place, he (Mr. Pickersgill) would ask the House to observe how Sir Charles Warren treated this case. He exonerated Bloy, but he removed him to another district; and in answer to his (Mr. Pickersgill's) inquiry, the Home Secretary gave this—which seemed to him very extraordinary—explanation. The right hon. Gentleman said it was the custom of the Police Force, when a police officer was found fault with by the magistrate, to remove him out of the district of that magistrate's Court. He would ask the House to consider what that meant. It meant this, that if the police magistrate had occasion to censure a policeman for giving his evidence unsatisfactorily, the policeman was removed to a district where, in the ordinary course, he would never appear as a witness before that magistrate again; but he would, in the ordinary discharge of his police duties, appear before some other magistrate again. A magistrate might be glad to get rid of a policeman whom he believed to be untrustworthy; but how about the protection of the public? From the public point of view it would be a far safer course to leave the man whom the magistrate had pronounced to be untrustworthy in the old district, because then, when he came up to give evidence against a citizen, the magistrate would severely scrutinize his evidence; but what did Sir Charles Warren do? In Bloy's case he sent the man to another district, leaving him on police duty, so that in the ordinary course it would be necessary for him to give evidence in the box, and come up before a magistrate who knew nothing about his character, and who would, probably, attach to his evidence a credit which it did not deserve. He (Mr. Pickersgill) could hardly imagine a course that was better calculated at once to defeat the ends of justice and imperil the liberty of the citizen. What was the cause and root of it all? There was a fetish set up in Scotland Yard, which was "the credit of the force," and to that fetish, he was sorry to say, everything latterly appeared to be sacrificed—even the interests of the truth and the liberty of London citizens. Local public opinion, which in a matter of this kind was extremely important, had expressed itself in this case. On the 14th February last, a deputation of the ratepayers of West Ham attended before

    1853
    the Town Council for the purpose of expressing their concurrence in the action of the stipendiary magistrate in this case of Constable Bloy. A member of the deputation—Mr. C. C. Hutchinson—made these remarks—
    "They appeared to urge an important matter on the Council's consideration—The recent action of the Police Commissioners towards the authorities of the borough in the execution of their duty for the maintenance of law and order. At the outset he would disclaim any intention to make party capital. He would also disclaim any sentimental notions, and the idea that they had any antagonism to the police; on the contrary, he would bear testimony as to the way the police discharged their onerous duties. The Commissioners had recently acted in such a way as to bring those responsible for decency' and public order into disrepute. It made no difference, in his opinion, whether Miss Coverdale was or was not all she should he, the action of the Police Commissioners was not only inconsiderate, but most discourteous. They hold an official secret meeting—if he were permitted he would call it a conclave of the deities of Scotland Yard—and the result was that the decision of the police magistrate was brought into contempt. The manner in which that decision was come to was calculated to rob the public of confidence in the decisions that were given at the Police Courts; and in face of the way in which Sir Charles Warren had ridden roughshod over the constituted authority, he would ask how 'law and order' was to be maintained in the borough? The deputation desired to know whether the best way would not be to endeavour to get the control of the police in their own hands. He ventured to say that if the police in West Ham had been under the charge of a Watch Committee, this scandal would not have arisen, and such an arrangement would secure the magistrates and police against official interference from the authorities of Scotland Yard."
    Another member of the deputation, Mr. C. Boardman, spoke of the universal satisfaction which the decision of Mr. Baggallay had given to rich and poor alike, and denounced the rule of Sir Charles Warren as a military despotism. Mr. Baggallay had not long ceased to be a Member of this House. He left them, he (Mr. Pickersgill) was sure, with the good wishes of them all, and it must be a satisfaction to all, whether political friends or political opponents, to find this testimony given of the fact that since his appointment to the judicial bench, he had held the scales of justice with an even hand, and had won the universal good opinion of the people over whom he had jurisdiction. Well, the Mayor of West Ham (Mr. George Hay) in replying, said—
    1854
    "He felt in a rather peculiar position, and personally he would have preferred that this matter had not been brought under the cognizance of the Council. Those who had seen the reports of the proceedings in the House of Commons must feel that something would come out of it, and for this reason he wished the matter had come before them later on. There was one point, however, on which he thoroughly sympathized with the deputation, and that was the fueling that Mr. Baggallay had been shamefully treated by Sir Charles Warren. Every reasonable, straightforward man with any brains felt convinced that it was a most unfair action on the part of the Police Commissioners."
    The Mayor added that the matter was about to be brought under the notice of the House of Commons, and that, therefore, it should remain in abeyance for the present. So much for the expression of local public opinion. But the public opinion of a much wider area had also been expressed upon this subject. The matter had been treated by two journals. It had been treated pictorially in the columns of our venerable friend Punch, and it had been treated editorially in the columns of The Standard. He (Mr. Pickersgill) would not wound the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary by referring to the drawings in Punch. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman saw it. Even if he had not happened to see it himself, some good natured friend would have been sure to point it out to him. It would, however, be worth while to read one or two lines from the article which appeared in The Standard. That newspaper said—
    "Nobody knows better than himself that the public confidence in the honesty and intelligence of the police force in connection with duties which imperatively demand both, is not exactly what it was, and he ought to have been exceptionally careful, in any fresh case that might arise, to do nothing that was calculated to re-awaken these feelings of distrust, The case of Constable Blov has served to revive and to intensify them; and by withholding from the public the grounds on which he came to a conclusion adverse to that of the magistrate, who had heard both sides of the story, the Chief Commissioner has, we think, committed a grave error of judgment, which is much to be regretted. We cannot allow that either the delinquencies or the excesses of policemen should be withdrawn behind the veil of official privilege, adjudicated upon with closed doors, and the result announced to the world with the curtness proper to a court martial. If the authorities at Scotland Yard have one test of truth, and the police magistrates another, we have a right to know wherein they differ, if not to say which of the two shall be preferred. It is a serious mistake to attempt to regulate the police on a military model, or to try to make a

    1855
    little Horse Guards out of Scotland Yard. The two institutions stand on a totally distinct footing. Both the Army and the police are, in one sense, servants of the public; but the police, Sir Charles must remember, are so in another, and a very different, sense from that in which the Army is. The former, it cannot too often be repeated, are employed in a class of services which bring them into a close relation with our privacy, and admit them to be spectators of our faults, our follies, and our vices, almost as much as if they were in the position of domestic servants."
    There were two objections which might possibly be raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the Motion he (Mr. Pickersgill) had brought forward to-night. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman might say that they had not the Memorandum before them. That was quite true; but he (Mr. Pickersgill) asked whose fault was that? He had asked the right hon. Gentleman to lay the Memorandum on the Table, but he had declined to do so. But although they had not the Memorandum they had the copy of it, which was read in open Court by Mr. Ernest Baggallay on the 1st of February, certified to be correct by the police inspector, and remaining uncontradicted to this moment; and every sensible man would see that if the terms of the Memorandum itself, if laid on the Table, would put a different and a better complexion on this matter, there could be no reasonable doubt that the Memorandum would have been produced. Then there was another possible objection—namely, that the Chief Commissioner was bound to institute an inquiry in consequence of the remarks which the magistrate had made. He (Mr. Pickersgill) was quite willing to admit that that was so; but what was the nature of the inquiry which the Chief Commissioner instituted? He undertook to re-hear the case; but what did he do? He examined police witnesses only. He heard one side of the case only; and then he came to a conclusion different from that of the magistrate who had heard both sides of the case. Having done this, the Chief Commissioner exonerated Constable Bloy. The reputation of Bloy and the reputation of the girl were so mixed up in this case that to exonerate Bloy took away the character of the girl. He (Mr. Pickersgill) maintained, therefore, that for the Chief Commissioner to exonerate Bloy without communicating with Mr.
    1856
    Baggallay, was showing a great want of courtesy to the learned magistrate. But the Chief Commissioner did not stop there. He actually went out of his way to make a grave reflection on the conduct of the case by the magistrate. He charged him with having given a hasty decision; he charged him, also, with having excluded evidence which he ought to have received. Well, he (Mr. Pickersgill) submitted that, next to corruption itself—next to charging a magistrate with being bought by money in his office—there were no charges more odious than those which were brought by Sir Charles Warren. And then came the additional aggravation that these charges were read out to the constables serving within the jurisdiction of Mr. Baggallay. What, in the opinion of any reasonable man, must be the effect of that course? Surely it must be this—to teach to the policemen this pernicious lesson, that the censures of the magistrates were of no account provided only they could retain the good graces of the Commissioner, who heard only one side of the case. Perhaps he (Mr. Pickersgill) might be permitted to say that he had been disappointed with the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in reply to two or three questions which he had addressed to him on this subject. It was really the Cass case over again so far as the Home Secretary was concerned. He had not, by a single word, expressed his censure or his disapprobation of what had been done by Sir Charles Warren. What he did say was this. He said—
    "I have tendered to the magistrate—I hope to his satisfaction—the explanation which I thought was called for."
    Two or three times the right hon. Gentleman had said he trusted his explanations had been satisfactory. It was to be observed that the right hon. Gentleman had never gone the length of saying that his explanations had been satisfactory. But even supposing that they had been satisfactory to Mr. Baggallay, with all respect to that Gentleman, that would not be enough. It was not enough to soothe the wounded feelings of the magistrate. What was wanted was to restore the confidence of the public, and the confidence of the public could alone be restored by proceeding in a manner which was open

    1857
    and above board. He (Mr. Pickersgill) protested against this policy of hugger-mugger. He believed that a Government of dark corners would never retain, as it certainly did not deserve to retain, the confidence of the country. The people who sent Members to this House had just as much, right to information as any hon. or right hon. Member of the House. Indeed, if it came to that, it seemed to him that they had a better title—a better and a higher title because their title was original and the title hon. Members had was simply derived from them. It would be equally averse, both from his intention and from his policy, to say anything which, could be regarded ns personally offensive to the Home Secretary, but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman could not but be aware that people outside were saying that he was afraid of this terrible Chief Commissioner. However that might be, this House, at all events, was not afraid of him, at least not yet. He quite believed that Sir Charles Warren was a sort of spurious Cromwell, who would even order his myrmidons to remove the "bauble" from the Table of the House with very little compunction, but in these days sham Cromwells, wherever they were found, were simply mischievous anacronisms, and they were especially mischievous at the head of the Metropolitan Police, which ought to be purely a civil force. He would, therefore, ask the House to check this military and militant Chief Commissioner, and at the same time vindicate the learned magistrate who seemed to have enjoyed in a very eminent degree the confidence of the people who lived within his jurisdiction. He begged to move the Motion standing in his name on the Paper.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That this House regrets that the Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police should, in an official Memorandum read to his subordinates, have reflected on the administration of the Law by Mr. Ernest Baggallay, one of the Stipendiary Magistrates of the Metropolis, and is of opinion that such a course must tend to produce a most prejudical effect by weakening the authority of the Magistrate over the Police within his jurisdiction.—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS)said, he could not help feeling that the hon.
    1858
    Member had given undue importance and significance to this case. Mr. Baggallay was a gentleman whom he had himself appointed to the magisterial bench, and although he never made an appointment on which he congratulated himself more, he was perfectly certain that Mr. Baggallay would give satisfaction on the magisterial bench of the Metropolis. Therefore nobody ought to suppose that anything he had done or said, or might do or say, in reference to this case, implied the slightest censure on Mr. Baggallay. On the occasion in question the learned magistrate had before him one of those cases which occurred in scores in every Police Court in the Metropolis—the ordinary case in which the prisoner was charged with drunk and disorderly conduct. The Police-constable Bloy, who arrested the prisoner, seemed, so far as he could judge from the reports in the newspapers, to be a bad and unsatisfactory witness, and he was disbelieved by Mr. Baggallay, who, moreover, told Bloy in open Court that he did not believe his evidence at all. No doubt Mr. Baggallay had full ground for coming to the decision he did, and he (Mr. Matthews) did not presume to find fault with him for having done so; a magistrate was entitled to state the impression that a witness's evidence produced upon his mind. Nobody, however, could deny that an observation of that kind falling publicly from the bench was of the most serious moment to the person against whom it was made, and especially to a member of the police force. If it was sustained and well-founded the man's career in life was at an end and he was a ruined man, and therefore, while fully admitting Mr. Baggallay's perfect right to make what comments he thought fit, the hon. Member would himself see that the Commissioner of Police was bound, after the scene which, occurred, to make full inquiry into all the facts. The hon. Member complained that in the course of that inquiry the Commissioner examined none but the members of the police force. That was true in the first instance, but the Commissioner proceeded further and made an elaborate and careful investigation in the neighbourhood where the young woman lived, and he also saw the father of the young woman.
    MR. PICKERSGILLobserved that when this question was first raised, the right hon. Gentleman distinctly informed him that only police witnesses were examined.
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that it was perfectly true that in the first instance only police witnesses were examined, but the Commissioner afterwards continued the inquiry, and made it much more full and complete by the examination of a number of witnesses not in the police force. That was after the Answer he gave to the hon. Member. He felt some difficulty in dealing with the case, because he was most anxious not to drop one word calculated to give pain to the family concerned, and therefore if he spoke with great caution he hoped the hon. Member would not suppose he had not matters to allege which would be of great moment in coming to a conclusion on the whole of the circumstances. The hon. Member complained that the inquiry was secret. It was, no doubt, a secret inquiry, but it was impossible that such inquiries could be other than secret, in the sense that the public were not admitted. In the first place, the persons examined were those members of the police force who knew about the facts. There were, he thought, three policemen who were witnesses of the girl's arrest and two more who saw her at the station when the charge was taken, and, in particular, at the station there was a superintendent who was highly respected in the force and whose veracity was unquestioned. Having made such inquiries as seemed fit in the first instance to throw light on the facts, it would not be disputed that the Chief Commissioner was bound to act on his own conclusions. Whatever respect one would pay to the impression Mr. Baggallay formed and expressed from hearing Bloy give his evidence in Court, the hon. Member himself would not deny that, in justice to Bloy, the Commissioner was bound to make up his own mind according to the information he collected. He heard the evidence of several members of the police force whom Mr. Baggallay did not hear, through no fault of his own, but simply from the shape the proceedings in Court took. The Commissioner having made this inquiry, which he was bound to make, and having received evidence which satisfied him that the charge against
    1860
    the girl was not an unfounded charge, and, more than that, that Bloy had good warrant for asserting what he had asserted, was bound not to conceal or modify his opinion simply because it happened to be at variance with the decision of the magistrate. He (Mr. Matthews) hoped he might be allowed to put it in that way without seeming to say anything that pressed against the girl. It would have been a most cruel thing to punish Bloy in view of the Commissioner's decision; and here he might say that Bloy himself was far from wishing to make against Annie Coverdale the grosser imputation which undoubtedly his words seemed to convey to the magistrate's mind, and which, apparently, they conveyed to the hon. Member's mind. According to the inquiry it was clear that Bloy had no intention to make any imputation of the sort. Before he passed away from this point he desired to add that in consequence of the sort of public outcry that had been raised in reference to this matter, as well as for his own satisfaction, he directed the Solicitor to the Treasury—a gentleman of great experience, to whom no taint of partiality could apply, and whose fairness was unquestioned—to inquire into this matter. That gentleman had inquired into the matter, and without entering into the details of that inquiry—which he did not think it would be right or fair to enter into—he might say that that gentleman in his report had found that Bloy was justified in the evidence he gave. He had no desire to enter into the question whether the Solicitor to the Treasury was right in the conclusion at which he had arrived, or whether the Chief Commissioner of Police was right in the conclusion at which he had arrived; he merely wished to place before the House the judgment at which those gentlemen had arrived as the result of the inquiry they had held, which exonerated Police constable Bloy from the charge which had been made against him. The Chief Commissioner of Police having arrived at the conclusion he had indicated, it was the duty of the Chief Commissioner to communicate that conclusion to Police-constable Bloy and to the other constables who had been connected with him in the matter. The Memorandum of the Chief Commissioner, which was addressed to the superin-

    1861
    tendent of Bloy's district, was in those terms:—
    "I beg to inform Police-constable Bloy and others in your division connected with this matter that after full inquiry I have come to the conclusion that Police-constable Bloy spoke the truth upon the occasion in question, and that I regret that the magistrate should have doubted his veracity without giving him an opportunity of calling the superintendent who took the charge and others who could have spoken on the subject."
    The Memorandum, therefore, did not contain the expression "that the magistrate had come to a hasty decision." He quite agreed that it was a want of decorum and of good taste in any way to refer to the magistrate's decision, but it was evident that it was the desire of the Chief Commissioner to explain that he had arrived at that conclusion which differed from that of the magistrate on grounds which were not before the magistrate. It was no fault of the magistrate that he had not heard the whole of the evidence, neither was it the fault of Police-constable Bloy. Explanations had been offered to Mr. Baggallay, Sir Charles Warren had communicated with the learned magistrate, thoroughly deprecating—being a magistrate himself—any supposed disrespect to a magistrate on the bench. Coupled with this explanation he (Mr. Matthews) had sent Mr. Baggallay a full and complete expression of regret and apology for what had occurred, and for that Mr. Baggallay had thanked him. This being the case, it was not desirable that that House should, on the slight evidence before it, either agree to this Resolution or reject it, either of which courses might be supposed to amount to a Vote of Censure upon one or other of the parties, and he, therefore, begged to move the Previous Question.
    MR. SPEAKER, on rising to propose that Question, addressed the House as followeth:—
    The Right honourable Gentleman proposes to move the Previous Question. If I were to propose that Question in the customary form, the terms of the Motion would be "That that Question be now put," words which are almost identical with the words of the Motion for the Closure of a Debate. Moreover, hitherto, when a Member moves the Previous Question, he votes against his own Motion. I therefore think that the present occasion affords a good
    1862
    opportunity for establishing a precedent. I therefore propose, if I should obtain the full sanction of the House to my suggestion, to adopt instead of the present form of the Previous Question, the words "That the Question be not now put."
    And, the general assent of the House being signified,
    Question proposed, "That the Question be not now put."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)
    MR. HOWELLsaid, he thought it was most extraordinary that the Commissioner of Police should have power to revise decisions of magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) had said that the evidence of Bloy had been to some extent corroborated, yet Bloy denied his own assertion. The constable said he had known this girl for years; but afterwards admitted that he had only known her for mouths. The good character of a girl was so precious to her, that a police-constable guilty of injuring it ought to be immediately cashiered. The Home Secretary said it was a very grave thing for a constable to be censured. No doubt it was; and he recognized at once the great difficulties of the Metropolitan Police. But, after all, to censure a police-constable for giving wrong evidence before a magistrate was a very small matter compared with the ruination of the character of a girl. He hoped the Home Secretary, who was responsible, to a very great extent, for the conduct of the police in London, would see that greater care was exercised by police-constables in giving evidence in Courts of Justice. A similar case to the one under consideration occurred not very long ago—only a few months ago. The case came under his knowledge; but he would not designate the district in which it occurred too minutely. A police-constable said, in regard to a certain respectable married lady, that he had seen her at a particular railway station. She was almost turned out of that station in consequence of the assertion of the constable. Happily for her she had ample evidence to prove her innocence. She took the case to Court, and there she got damages against the man who originally made the statement reflecting upon her character. Had there been no circumstances connected with the case

    1863
    which enabled the lady to refute the charge made against her, her character might, have been ruined before her husband and her children. It was of the utmost importance that police-constables should rather tell less than the truth than more than the truth; and if the bringing forward of the Bloy incident to-night resulted in some action being taken by the Home Office to warn the Metropolitan Police against exaggeration before Police Magistrates a great deal would be gained.
    MR. ADDISONsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) that it was of great importance that policemen should give their evidence carefully, and with a due sense of responsibility. The hon. Gentleman's experience, no doubt—[A laugh.]—Perhaps he ought not to say that. The hon. Gentleman had not given his experience of the police; but had merely narrated one anecdote of a married lady who seemed to have fallen under the suspicion of an odd policeman. But he was sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with him that, as a rule, the way in which police-constables gave their evidence was very highly creditable to them. His (Mr. Addison's) experience had been a very extensive one. He had come across the police as often as most Members, but he had always found that they had been strong in their duty. In Courts of Justice he had been amazed at the fairness with which, as a rule, constables gave their evidence; he did not think that any other body of men, even a body of young curates, could give their evidence better. He was very astonished at one remark which was made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. The hon. Gentleman said that a policeman ought to be so careful about the truth that, ii possible, he ought to tell a little less than the truth.
    MR. HOWELLsaid, he stated that police constables ought rather to give less than the truth than more than the truth.
    MR. ADDISON: Rather less than more than the truth. He only remembered one occasion on which he heard a similar remark, and that was some years ago. Having reason to doubt the evidence which it was suggested to him would be given by a young gentleman, the young gentleman's father, a very respectable Hebrew, said—" Oh, you
    1864
    need not fear, Mr. Addison, as to what this gentleman will say. I have brought him up so carefully to tell the truth that he would rather, if possible, go on the other side." He hoped, however, that the police would not altogether bear in mind the admonition of the hon. Member, but would be careful to speak the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and the entire body of the truth. The hon. Member had also stated that it was an unwise thing for decisions of the Bench to be reviewed by the Chief Commissioner of Police in the Metropolis. He quite agreed with that view, and he agreed that if this could be fairly called revising the decisions of the Bench there would be a great deal of force in the last words of the hon. Member's (Mr. Pickergill's) Motion, namely:—
    "That such a course must tend to produce a most prejudicial effect by weakening the authority of the magistrate over the police within his jurisdiction."
    But, whilst he was quite of that opinion in theory, he thought in practice there was a great deal to be said on the other side. He might point out to the House another growing evil which tended very much to weaken the authority of Judges. He desired to speak with all respect of his learned Friend, Mr. Baggallay. No one was better pleased than he was when he heard that Mr. Baggallay had obtained promotion at the hands of the Home Secretary. But Mr. Baggallay in doing what tie did, though he did not go very far, was following the example which was too often set in Courts of Justice by Judges even more distinguished and occupying higher positions than his (Mr. Baggallay's) own, and it was tills—that instead of confining themselves simply to deciding the cases which were before them, after listening to them with that impartial care and attention which they ought to give, they were in the habit of making speeches in which they thought it right to bestow praise or blame, condemnation or approval, upon the witnesses who appeared before them. In this particular matter no one could have questioned the decision of Mr. Baggallay if he had simply given that decision and said nothing more, but he thought it right to go out of his way to express his opinion of the conduct and the evidence of the policeman Bloy. Mr. Baggallay said that he could not believe a word that the policeman

    1865
    said. That being so, the Chief Commissioner had a duty forced upon him. Sir Charles Warren was told that a member of his force was a person who could not be believed at all. What was he to do? Why, the only thing he could do thereupon was to institute some sort of an inquiry. He (Mr. Addison) appealed to hon. Members as to what they would do supposing they were in a similar position. Supposing some servant girl, someone connected with them, had occasion to appear as a witness in a Police Court, and the magistrate, going beyond the decision in the case, which probably no one would question, said—" This is a person unworthy to be in respectable employment," would not hon. Members have held some sort of an inquiry, to see whether there was any foundation for the statement of the magistrate? All the Chief Commissioner had done was his duty. It was a duty he could not shirk. He was compelled to do it. No one suggested he did it improperly or partially; no one suggested that he did not take all the means within his power to arrive at the truth—that, in fact, he did not make an honest inquiry. Having made an honest inquiry, he came to a decision in favour of the policeman. He had before him materials of knowledge and means of ascertaining the policeman's character in general which probably the magistrate had not. If the Chief Commissioner's opinion was couched in terms at all disrespectful to Mr. Baggallay, then they knew that an ample apology was made. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) suggested that part of the evidence in the case was that the policeman had known the girl for years, whereas he had only known her for four months. Anyone who had been in Courts of Justice knew that nothing was more common than for a witness to be confused as to time and dates. He (Mr. Addison) might, if he were asked, say he had had the pleasure of knowing hon. Members of the House five years—whereas it might be 10 years—and very probably, if that fact were called to his attention, he should say—"Bless my soul, how quickly time has passed." Sometimes witnesses said what was not exactly what they meant, and it was quite possible for a policeman to get a wrong impression of matters. Mr. Baggallay, upon imperfect informa-
    1866
    tion, came to one view of the evidence before him, and the Commissioner, who was compelled to institute some inquiry, came to another view. In common fairness and honesty to the policeman, the Chief Commissioner could not do more than ray—" So far as my inquiry has gone, I think that a mistake has been made, and you are an honest man." Was not that a right thing to do? That was really the sum and substance of this matter. The Chief Commissioner discharged a duty which the observations of the magistrate compelled him to discharge; but he in no way constituted himself a Court of Appeal. No one said that Sir Charles Warren had discharged the duty dishonestly; but, on the contrary, they had the Home Secretary stating that his inquiries proved to him that the Chief Commissioner had done everything that was right. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Addison) was glad to find that the police were in the right. One was always glad to find that the police discharged their duties well. If there was a black sheep amongst them he ought to be punished. They ought to be glad there were few black sheep amongst the police, and that the particular person concerned in this case had turned out not to be one of them, but that he had every right to enjoy the confidence of the community.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, that the facts of the case were very simple, and there was no dispute about them. He regarded the question as one of internal discipline in the Police Force. The Chief Commissioner, in the exercise of his duty, instituted not a judicial, but a disciplinary inquiry into the conduct of the police-constable, and no blame could be attached to Sir Charles Warren for holding such an inquiry. But then there came the publication of the Chief Commissioner's decision, which was practically a reflection on the decision of the Judge. There were two principles which they must bear in mind—first, that an inquiry of this kind was not, and could not, be that of a Court of Appeal from any properly constituted tribunal; and, secondly, the House must be very careful to preserve the very broad line of distinction between the judicial and the executive with reference to police matters. He thought that the Home Secretary had met the case very fairly, ad-

    1867
    mitting that Sir Charles Warren had committed an error of taste and judgment. Sir Charles Warren had also practically apologized through the Home Secretary to the magistrate for what he had done. He therefore asked the hon. Member to consider that his Motion was, practically, a very grave and serious censure of the House of Commons. If the Resolution was passed, Sir Charles Warren must send in his resignation to-morrow morning. He contended that the censures of the House of Commons on public officials ought not to be pronounced on light grounds. Having, therefore, heard the statement of the Home Secretary, he asked the hon. Member whether he would not be satisfied with the judgment which the right hon. Gentleman had pronounced, resting assured that an error of this kind would not occur again. He suggested that the hon. Member should withdraw his Motion.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he desired to correct a statement which had been made by the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman had blamed him for not taking the trouble to ascertain the terms of the Memorandum. Now, on the 13th of February last, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to lay a copy of the Memorandum on the Table of the House; but his reply was that it was not usual, and that he did not think it would be to the public advantage to lay the documents on the Table.
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that what the hon. Gentleman asked for was the Correspondence.
    MR. PICKERSGILLsaid, he asked for a copy of the Memorandum and for the Correspondence. He did not receive any intimation from the right hon. Gentleman that there would be no objection to lay the Memorandum on the Table. He certainly thought that at that time the right hon. Gentleman had decided objections to lay the Memorandum on the Table. However, an appeal had been made to him, an appeal to which he was not unwilling to respond. He thought he had, at all events, succeeded in eliciting from the Home Secretary a stronger expression of opinion with regard to the action of Sir Charles Warren than any previously made in the House of Commons; and he only desired, by the indulgence of the House, to add a very few words more. On the 13th of
    1868
    February, according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement in the House, only police witnesses had been examined in this matter. It appeared that subsequently independent witnesses were examined; but for the life of him he could not understand how testimony, however valuable in itself, obtained subsequently to the 13th of February, could in any way affect the propriety of a step which was taken on the 29th of January.
    Motion for Previous Question and Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  WORKMEN (WOOLWICH AND ENFIELD).

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    COLONEL HUGHESsaid, he rose to call attention to the case of workmen entered in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, and at Enfield, between the 17th day of December, 1861, and the 4th day of June, 1870, and to move—
    "That a Select Committee of Seven Members be appointed to inquire into and report on the circumstances under which workmen entered in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, and Enfield, and other Government establishments, between the 17th day of December, 1861, and the 4th day of June, 1870, hare hitherto been refused the benefit of 'The Superannuation Act, 1859,' and 'The Superannuation Amendment Act, 1873,' and subsequent Amendment Acts, and particularly whether it was in the year 1870 that they were for the first time informed that a War Office Circular of the 17th day of December, 1861, had assumed to suspend 'The Superannuation Act, 1850,' so far as those men were concerned, and as to whether they are or ought to be within the benefits of the said Act of 1873; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that Three be the quorum; that Colonel Duncan, Mr. O. V. Morgan, Viscount Folkestone, Mr. Howell, Mr. Boord, Mr. Bradlaugh, and Colonel Hughes be the Members of the said Committee,"
    His Motion affected the working classes, and he had hoped that the Government would have consented to the inquiry he proposed. The six Members of the House, with himself, whom he proposed as a Committee of Inquiry, could have gathered information which the Government might have used or might have rejected at their pleasure. He understood that the Government would not consent to have a Committee of Inquiry at all; but he hoped that their opinion would be modified by the time he had concluded his observations. The artizans and labourers at Woolwich and Enfield,

    1869
    and other Government establishments, were entitled to pensions under the old Ordnance scale, after 15 years' service. Labourers of every description had £10 a-year after 15 years' service, and £15 a-year after 20 years' service. The Act of 1857 abolished the abatement which had previously taken place where men had pensions. To prove that these men were a class entitled to pension, it would be found on page 704 of volume 140 of Hansard that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1857, stated in the House that the pensions granted to artificers of the Navy and Ordnance amounted at that time to £74,700 per annum. In 1859 the Superannuation Act of that year was discussed as a Bill, and the Member for Greenwich, which place then included Woolwich, said he hoped the Bill was so framed as to include within its scope artizans and labourers employed in the Government establishments. Lord Iddesleigh, then Sir Stafford Northcote, said the Act would extend to all persons in the Public Service. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), speaking on the 18th of March, 1859, said—
    "They were enacting now that which would not take full effect for the next 40 or 50 years; and they were now entering into a new set of engagements, every one of which, oven if it reached over half-a-century or more, must he kept absolutory sacred, however onerous might be the consequences."—(3 Hansard, [153] 365.)
    "However onerous might be the consequences" were very weighty words. He (Colonel Hughes) alleged that in this particular case the engagement of the Government had not been kept, and he would presently explain why. He believed that successive Secretaries of State had investigated those cases in a very perfunctory manner, being guided almost entirely by the permanent officials. He made an exception, however, in the case of the present Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope), because he believed the right hon. Gentleman had given more attention to the case than all the other Secretaries of State who had preceded him, and he had many times been in hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have granted a Committee of Inquiry. But it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman, after further consultation with the permanent officials, had gone back to the
    1870
    old beaten track, and had said "No," when, in his (Colonel Hughes) opinion, the evidence was of such a nature that he ought to have said "Yes." There, were originally three contentions against the men. The first was that they were not included in the Superannuation Act of 1859. Sir Stafford Northcote said, in 1859, that the Act of 1834 gave superannuation allowances to those officers only who were within the Schedule of 1834, whereas the Bill of 1859 would extend superannuation allowances to all persons in the Public Service, the abatements having been abolished. Colonel Sykes, then a Member of the House, said that—
    "Although an economist, and anxious to save the public money, he was bound at the same time to he just, and, therefore, he should support the Bill. The higher servants of the Crown were able to provide for their old age out of their salaries, but the lower class could not do so, and if they were permanent servants it was the duty of the State to do that for them which they could not do for themselves."—(Ibid. 369.)
    With respect to the same Bill, Mr. Wilson, then Member for Devonport, wrote, under date of 19th February, 1859, to Mr. R. B. Oram, of Devonport, informing him that those words had been inserted in the Bill—
    "Whether their remuneration be computed by day pay, weekly wages, or annual salary,"
    in order, as Mr. Wilson said, to show that all classes—labourers, artificers, and officers—wore alike included. He (Mr. Wilson) further said—
    "The whole of the Public Service would be placed on precisely the same footing, and full effect would be given to the doctrine for which he had always contended since it was proposed to abolish the abatements, which was the only pretext for any distinction before;"
    and he concluded—
    "That he sent that explanation, thinking Mr. Oram might have many inquiries on the subject, and in order to enable him to answer them."
    He (Colonel Hughes) would leave that part of the subject, and hoped he had proved it up to the hilt that artificers and labourers were included in the Act of 1859. The second contention against the men was that after 1859 they must get the certificate mentioned in the Act of 1859. That certificate was described in the debate at the time as a certificate of age and medical fitness.

    1871
    No certificate, as they understood a certificate now, would make blacksmiths or carpenters better workmen. Sir Stafford Northcote said—
    "In reference to the examination of the men by the Civil Service Commissioner, he had to state that it was absolutely necessary for the men to obtain certificates as to their age, the state of their health, and other such matters as were elements in the calculation of their superannuation."—(Ibid. 377.)
    But it was the duty of those who engaged the men to see that their entry was in every respect complete. Now, the men who entered after 1859 obtained the same wages as those who were employed before that; and there had been no distinction in wages between one class and another from that time down to the present. There were printed regulations in these Government establishments by which workmen were bound, and there was nothing stated in the regulations with regard to the superannuations being abolished. There was nothing posted up in the workshops with regard to any intention of abolishing superannuations. On the contrary, men were being superannuated every day as occasion arose. At length they came to the year 1870, when a workman, named Weaver, who was then retiring, claimed his superannuation allowance, although he had entered after 1859. The officials of the Department where he was employed drafted the letter of application which he sent in.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at Twenty minutes before Eleven o'clock.