Commons Sitting of 3 July 1889

MOTION.

  COAL DUTIES (LONDON) ABOLITION BILL—SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDERS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Order of the Day relating to the Coal Duties (London) Abolition Bill, if not previously reached, be taken at half-past Five of the clock this day, and be then proceeded with, though opposed, and the Proceedings thereon be not interrupted, and that the House do continue to sit until they are disposed of."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. JAMES STUART: I do not intend to delay the House on this matter, but I propose to take a Division upon it because I do not approve of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to prosecute a Bill of this nature by having recourse to the suspension of the Standing Orders. No doubt there is a difficulty in the way of the Government in getting the Bill passed before the 5th, but they had time enough before the Bill got into this critical position to make up their minds in regard to it. We were certainly led to believe that they intended to abolish the Coal Dues in their entirety. I will not, however, enter into the merits of the Bill. I will only say that in opposing the suspension of the Standing Orders, we believe that if the Bill were to drop altogether, we should be freed from the imposition of the dues which the City now proposes to raise for a
  1358
  year. We entirely object to the manner in which it is proposed to deal with a Bill which relates solely to the pockets of the people of London. In order to pay a debt of the City it is proposed to tax the whole of the Metropolitan area, which is a hundred times as large as the area of the City, although the City provides one-eighth part of the rateable value. On that account, and on account of its importance to the Metropolitan constituencies, and believing that all this inconvenience could have been avoided if the Government had made up their minds in due time without resolving at the last moment to support the City at all hazards, I beg to oppose this Motion, and hold that the ordinary course of our proceedings be not interrupted.
  SIR R. FOWLER: I do not propose to detain the House at any length.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member second the proposal of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. J. Stuart)?
  SIR R. FOWLER: Certainly not. I only wish to say that the City of London consider that they have a moral claim to the support of this House, because they on the faith of these dues have carried out extensive improvements which were not especially wanted by the City, but which have been valuable to the whole of the Metropolis. The House decided to refer the matter to a strong Committee, presided over by an eminent Member of this House. The Report of the Committee is not what we had hoped, and would have liked it to have been. To a certain extent it is disadvantageous to us, but we are prepared loyally to accept it.
  SIR L. PLAYFAIR: I shall, of course, reserve any remarks as to the merits of the question until a

  1359
  later period. I only wish to say that unless the Bill is passed everything will be dislocated, and there will be an immense inconvenience to the coal trade of the City. On this account I think the course proposed by the Government is a proper one.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: In regard to the question whether there was any necessity for the Government to drive us into a corner, I must say that the course they have pursued in reference to this Bill reflects very little credit upon the Front Bench. We have something to consider irrespective of the burden which is proposed to be placed upon the Metropolitan constituencies. We feel that some time ought to have been given after the Second Reading of the Bill for an expression of opinion on the part of the Metropolitan constituencies, instead of which Her Majesty's Government have, twice within a fortnight, resorted to the extraordinary proceeding of suspending the Standing Orders in order to force the Bill through the House. It is a very serious matter, and hon. Gentlemen on the other side who propose to go into the Lobby against us may hereafter find that they have established a precedent which may tell to their own disadvantage. Nothing has been said that can justify the conduct of the Government in proposing the suspension of the Standing Orders. Of course it is very easy for the government with a large majority at their back to put down those who are interested in the Bill, and there are hon. Members who may look upon it as a moral act, but I am afraid that there are people outside who will regard it as a most immoral act. And, as I have already said, it must not be forgotten that the precedent may be used hereafter in the case of Bills against which hon. Members opposite may have a stronger objection than we have to this Bill. We believe that the Government are forcing the Bill through in a most unjustifiable manner for the benefit of a very small section of the Metropolis.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I would submit that the plea of urgency which has been put forward on behalf of this Motion is not well founded. We are told unless the Bill is passed by Friday next it will be of no use. I entirely traverse that assertion, because
  1360
  it is a well-known fact that Taxing Bills have frequently been made retrospective in their operation. And if the Motion is unnecessary on the ground of urgency, it is still more objectionable on the ground of expediency. If ever there was a case in which it was desirable that the House should be in full possession of the evidence, this is that case. As the matter now stands, we are asked to accept the decision of the Committee without being made acquainted with one iota of the evidence upon which it is founded. For these reasons I shall oppose the Resolution of the Government.
  MR. A. ACLAND: I think it is to the interest of private Members to resent, at the proper time, the inroads which have been made upon their time during the present Session. When the question of taking away a further portion of their time comes under consideration, I trust that Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the amount of time which will be taken to-day.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I think the House will see that I have endeavoured to take as little of the time of private Members as possible. It is only proposed that the Standing Orders shall be suspended at the hour when, by the Rules of the House, the business would, of necessity, be disposed of.
  MR. HOWELL: I do not think the House should be asked to pass this very important Resolution simply on the ground which has been stated by the First Lord of the Treasury. It is a most unexampled proposition, and I, for one, object to consider the Bill further until the evidence taken before the Select Committee has been published. We have no knowledge of the evidence taken upstairs, except that it was of the most meagre character, and that it fails to satisfy the demands either of hon. Members here or of the ratepayers of the Metropolitan constituencies. We are asked to allow the Standing Orders to be suspended simply to oblige the Government, who, while professing themselves in favour of the abolition of the dues, have yet allowed the matter to stand over to the very last moment. I shall vote against the proposal of the First Lord of the

  1361
  Treasury, as a protest against the method of government by surprises which is now being adopted.
  The House divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 36.—(Div. List, No. 170.)
  Ordered, That the Order of the Day relating to the Coal Duties (London) Abolition Bill, if not previously reached, be taken at half past Five of the clock this day, and be then proceeded with, though opposed, and the Proceedings thereon be not interrupted, and that the House do continue to sit until they are disposed of.—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 153.)
  As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill read the third time, and passed.
  INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS BILL. [LORDS.] (No. 284.)
  As amended, considered; Bill read the third time, and passed.

  CRUELTY TO CHILDREN (PREVENTION) BILL. (No. 87.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  Clause 4, relating to the power of search,
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 19, to leave out the word "treated," and insert the word "ill-treated."—(The Attorney General.)
  Question proposed, "That 'treated' stand part of the Clause."
  In reply to Mr. J. KELLY (Camberwell, N.),
  MR. MUNDELLA: This is an Amendment which has been proposed by the Attorney General. I believe that its object is simply to place the clause on all fours with the clauses which have already been passed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. KELLY MR. J. KELLY moved to amend the words, "in a manner likely to cause" by omitting the word "likely."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'likely' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MUNDELLA: The word objected to already appears in the first
  1362
  clause. These Amendments are Amendments for the Report stage of the Bill and ought not to be accepted here. I would therefore ask the hon. Member to postpone the Amendment until the Bill has been reprinted.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): The right hon. Member for the Brightside Division (Mr. Mundella) is right. The first clause does contain the word "likely;" but the Attorney General explained that if it had not been too late to make an Amendment he would have preferred other words.
  MR. J. KELLY: I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. KELLY: The clause says, "may issue a warrant authorizing any person named therein." I move to omit the words "named therein," for the purpose of substituting the words "being a superintendent, inspector, or other officer of police." As the clause stands it confers extraordinary powers upon irresponsible individuals.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE*MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport) moved, in lines 26 and 27, to leave out "as circumstances may permit and require," and insert—
  "In the same manner as if the person having its custody or control had been convicted, committed for trial, or bound over under Clause 3."
  Question proposed, "That the words 'as circumstances may permit and require,' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I do not think that I ought to accept the Amendment, seeing that the words of the clause are taken verbatim from the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: As the Bill originally stood there may have been reason for the Amendment; but the Attorney General has intimated his intention of proposing a schedule, in which places of safety will be defined, and this will tend to meet the point under discussion.
  MR. GEDGE: The Amendment has nothing to do with places of safety. We are giving the Court power to deal with these children, and may order them to be handed over to the charge of their

  1363
  next friend. Certain things may be done by the person to whose care a child is committed, and the clause as it stands is drawn so very wide that it would include a number of things, such as whipping the child. Surely it is enough to give the person into whose custody the child is placed proper control over it. It seems to me that the Amendment is necessary, and I shall divide the Committee upon it.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: Under Clause 3 there is the safeguard that the person who would naturally have the care and protection of the child should have been convicted, committed for trial, or bound over. That is quite enough latitude, even where such securities are provided; but under this clause there need be no conviction, nor any attempt to get one.
  MR. MUNDELLA: If the hon. Member demands a Division, I am afraid that he must take one. The question appears to me to be a most important one. If a child is found in a state of starvation, the Court would at once give instructions to have it taken care of, and it must be taken charge of by the workhouse, or the Local Authorities, while evidence is being obtained to show that the person who had charge of the child was not fit to be entrusted with its care.
  MR. GEDGE: These matters are all dealt with by the 3rd clause. Everything the right hon. Gentleman asks for is given by the Amendment, but the clause as it stands gives further powers without defining them.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I may point out to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) that under Clause 3 power is given to make an order committing the child to the care of a parent or some other person capable of taking care of it until the child attain the age of 14 years.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have no desire to interpose any obstacle, but I confess that to my mind it is not clear what the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill proposes to do by the clause. Clause 3 enables the Court to appoint a guardian if a child is treated improperly by its parents. Clause 4 goes further, and enables the Court to protect a child in
  1364
  reference to whom there may be a reasonable suspicion that it has been subjected to maltreatment. If the object is to place the child under proper protection until the case can be investigated, the words of the clause will require a little revision. With regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me, it does, to a certain extent, limit the clause, but I hardly think that it limits it enough. What Clause 4 ought to say is that, in case of reasonable suspicion, the Court shall have power to put the child in a place of safety until the proceedings have been settled.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The object of the clause is precisely what is stated in the Bill. Cases constantly occur in which, for instance, screams are heard, and everybody knows that cruelty has been practised, but there is no means of obtaining evidence. The object of the clause is to provide that in such cases where there is a reasonable ground of suspicion the Magistrates shall direct the police to enter the house to examine the condition of the child. The clause itself is taken from the Criminal Law Amendment Act, where it is aimed at the prevention of horrible crimes, such as incest.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: Not only is this the same clause as the one in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, but there has been no complaint of the excessive exercise of jurisdiction under that Act. Clause 3 deals with the permanent custody of the child, whereas Clause 4 only deals with the temporary custody of the child pending proceedings. Surely some latitude and discretion may be allowed to the Court as to the temporary custody.
  MR. GEDGE: The clause imposes no limit. It says that the child having been taken care of for temporary purposes, and the parent having been convicted, the Court may deal with it as it likes.
  MR. STOREY: My sympathies are with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. All who are interested in the question of Local Government in towns know the evils that constantly occur in connection with cruelty to children, and the difficulty of providing a remedy. Therefore if the clause simply provided that the child should be pro-

  1365
  tected and placed in a place of safety until the Magistrates could deal with the case, I should not have the slightest objection to it. But the words of the clause are so vague and general that they would cover any extraordinary act on the part of the Court. As it is notorious in the history of England that Magistrates have constantly been guilty of an extraordinary excess of power. I shall feel it my duty, if the Amendment is pressed, to vote for it.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Although, as I have said, the words of the clause are taken from the Criminal Law Amendment Act, I am willing, as there was no intention to make it a permanent custody of the child, to accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question,
  "That the words 'in the same manner as if the person having its custody or control had been convicted, committed for trial, or bound over under Clause 3," be there inserted,
  put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I have to move, in line 4, after the word "person," to insert, "and the wife or husband of such person." As the Bill is drawn the wife or husband of the person charged under the Act would not only be a competent, but a compellable witness. I maintain that that is altogether a new departure from the fundamental principles of English law In the older English law there were only two cases in which a wife could be compelled to give evidence against her husband, one of which was doubtful and the other well-established—the doubtful case being the case of high treason, and the well-established case that in which the offence charged was personal violence committed by the husband on the wife. If the Attorney General were in his place I would claim his support for my Amendment, seeing that he introduced last year, and has re-introduced this year, the Criminal Evidence Bill, which provides that the wife or husband of the person charged shall not be called as a witness without the consent of the person charged. Recent
  1366
  Statutes have only brought us to this point—that the wife may be admissible as a witness against her husband in some cases with her husband's consent, and in other cases with her own consent, but in no case can she be compelled to appear in the box and give evidence against her own will and the will of her husband. I protest against making, on the present occasion, a still further modification of the doctrine of Common Law. There has been too much dealing with the Common Law of the country piecemeal. It may be that there are doctrines of the Common Law which require to be modified and corrected by statute. I believe there are; but, at all events, let us correct and modify them in a general and systematic manner. Having made the wife an admissible witness with her own consent in some cases, and in others with the consent of her husband, we are now asked to compel her to give evidence against the consent of both. I submit that we should do well to follow in this respect the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
  Amendment moved, Clause 5, page 4, line 4, after "person," to insert "and the wife or husband of such person."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHANNING: My hon. Friend, in moving his Amendment, has forgotten that in many of the worst cases with which the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have had to deal, practically cases of manslaughter by the father and mother together, conviction would be impossible without the evidence of one or the other.
  MR. J. KELLY: I have given Notice of an Amendment to the same effect as that of the hon. Member opposite. So far as the cases of manslaughter referred to by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing) are concerned, in almost every instance the guilty persons have been brought to justice under the existing law. The Committee are now asked, in cases of the most trivial character, where for instance a man allows a boy to sell from a barrow one minute after 10 o'clock at night, to force the poor wife into the witness box in order that she may send her husband to prison and break up her own home. The House shrank from taking that

  1367
  course in the Criminal Evidence Act. Is it to be taken now? I think we should pause before we place a poor woman in a position in which she must either commit perjury or convict her own husband. I trust that the hon. Member opposite will divide the Committee upon his Amendment.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The hon. Member for Camberwell tells the Committee that this clause may be used as the case of a costermonger who keeps his child employed for a minute after 10 o'clock at night. If that were all there would be no necessity for the clause. What we desire to deal with are the cases in which a child is cruelly treated by one parent, and the other parent is willing to give evidence but dare not do so; and although willing to be compelled she cannot be compelled. This power is already given in the case of married womens' property. The clause of the Married Womens' Property Act, 1882, reads thus—
  "Husband and wife respectively shall be competent and admissible witnesses, and in some cases compellable witnesses."
  Thus in the case of a woman's property she is to he a compellable witness; but in the case of the ill-treatment of her child we are asked to withhold the power. I hope that our sacred regard for the Common Law will not override the desire we ought to feel for the protection of children from inhuman treatment.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: The hon. Member for Camberwell seems to have great consideration for everything and everybody except the children. It seems to me that the case is a very exceptional one, and one in which the evidence is often necessarily limited to that of members of the family, and that we ought to extend every possible protection to children in order to prevent them from being cruelly treated. All we ask is that the Magistrate shall hear the evidence of every witness, and then make allowance for the circumstances under which that evidence is given.
  MR. MATTHEWS: No one has more respect for the doctrines of Common Law than I have; but the old principles of Common Law as to evidence have long ago been changed. The old principle of Common Law was that untrustworthy evidence should not be laid before a jury who were not skilled in
  1368
  weighing evidence, and, therefore, everybody was excluded who had an interest in the case, even to the extent of a pecuniary interest. A husband since then has been enabled to give evidence both in civil and criminal cases, but at a heavy price, as the result has been to encourage perjury. Evidence given by persons who have a direct interest in a case is regarded as eminently untrustworthy. If you put a wife into the box to give evidence against her husband she will, in all probability, prevaricate and deny; and it is extremely unlikely that she will give trustworthy evidence. But, on the whole, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that, having once embarked on the course of endeavouring to get evidence from those who know the facts, although they may have every possible motive for concealing them, it is most important that the chief object of making them competent witnesses should not fail. But I believe that the proposal is a novel and a dangerous one; and although it is suggested that in many cases the wife would. be willing to give evidence if compelled, yet the putting of her in the box might expose her to maltreatment at the hands of the most guilty party, and to place her in a position of divided duty.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The hon. Member for Northamptonshire referred to cases where the charge is one of manslaughter; but, in such cases, I apprehend that no difficulty has been found in bringing the offenders to justice. The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench has relied on the Married Womens' Property Act. Well, I would suggest that this Act is not at all analogous to that. In that case, the wife herself is the prosecutrix, and it is quite within her power to say whether she will prosecute or not. It is almost impossible under that Act to force a woman to give evidence if she is unwilling to do so. If she is desirous to prosecute, she will be a. willing witness. My hon. and learned. Friend opposite urged that Magistrates should be allowed to hear all evidence; but he himself will see what extraordinary latitude an argument of that kind gives. I object very much to the discretion already given to Magistrates, and I hope that this Amendment will receive due considera-

  1369
  tion at the hands of the Committee, having regard to its importance. I think it might very well be left to the general law, which we all understand. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think I have an undue sense of importance of the doctrines of the Common Law. What I am now protesting against is the slashing and mutilation of those doctrines, by piecemeal legislation, into shreds and patches without coherence or consistency.
  MR. C. DARLING: I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment. I cannot help thinking it would procure the giving of evidence by those particular witnesses who are most unfit to give it. In the case of a husband charged with cruelty to a child, the wife would be a competent but not a compellable witness, and the result would be that the wife might have an interest in putting the blame on her husband. Supposing, for instance, they were on bad terms, she would willingly go into the witness box to do so. If, on the other hand, she were a compellable witness, who desired to shield the husband—and often, in these cases, the husband and wife are almost equally guilty—I think it would be a great advantage to the administration of justice if persons in that position were made to go into the witness-box and tell all they knew. My hon. and learned Friend says that if the question is put the witness could say—"I object to give evidence, because it would incriminate me." I can only suppose that the hon. Member contemplates that the question would be inartistically put; and I would venture to observe that it is possible to so conduct an examination as not to give the witness an opportunity of stating that the question put is an incriminating one. I think, also, if the husband and wife are made compellable witnesses, the effect would be very considerable in preventing children from being ill-used. My hon. Friend sitting near me never seems to lose sight of the supposed case of the child of a costermonger being out after dark, and he talks as if such cases are mainly those dealt with in the Bill. Let me remind him that the Bill deals with much more serious offences.
  MR. TOMLINSON: It is quite true that this Bill deals with serious offences; but we ought not to
  1370
  forget that there are also the class of cases alluded to by the hon. Member for Camberwell in which there might be great hardship inflicted in applying the provisions of this clause. It might be worth consideration whether the operation of this clause should not be limited to offences coming under the operation of Sub-section 1.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I agree with the argument used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Deptford, that the fact of the husband or wife being compellable witnesses will have good effect in preventing cruelty to children. What we want is not to make it more difficult to obtain evidence, and I am afraid the Amendment would defeat this object. I have no respect or veneration for the old Common Law, as such. The object we have in view being to protect children, I must say I think that many of the Amendments which have been pro posed by well-meaning Members would, in effect, cripple the Act and make it ineffectual. We want to get the most useful evidence of all—namely, the evidence of the parents; and if you prevent that being given, or make them only optional witnesses, I think the operation of the Bill will be very seriously interfered with.
  MR. KELLY: I may point out that this section applies to even the most venial offences under the Bill, and I have very great doubt whether it would not be wise that this clause should apply only to offences under Section 1. I could conceive circumstances under which an affectionate father might have sent his child out, or sanctioned its going out, late in the evening in order to earn a few pence; and I doubt very much if that is a case in which this House ought to say that the wife should be a compellable as well as a competent witness. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield will consider the desirability of limiting the operation of this clause to cases arising under Section 1, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green will force this matter to a Division.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 191—(Division List, No. 171.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The object of the next Amendment in my name is to prevent the failure of justice in the most serious cases—that is to say, in cases which end fatally. As the Committee is no doubt aware, if between the committal for trial and the trial itself a witness should die, the depositions of that witness can be read upon the trial. But the statutes which make that provision in England and in Ireland limit it to the cases in which the original evidence was given upon oath or affirmation, and it would not therefore apply to the evidence of a child given before the magistrates in connection with offences under this Act. The difficulty has actually arisen under the corresponding section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. In a recent case, where an important witness died between the committal for trial and the trial itself, the learned Judge who presided at the trial ruled that the depositions could not be put in evidence. It is therefore clear, as the matter stands, that in the most serious cases of all the offender might escape owing to the fact that the evidence of the principal witness would not be admissible on the trial. The Amendment which I have put on the Paper covers the case of England and Wales on the one hand, and of Ireland on the other. So far as Scotland is concerned the difficulty does not arise, because in that country it is not usual to put children of tender years upon their oath. I think the ends of justice will be materially assisted if the Amendment is accepted.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 6, page 4, line 15, insert—
  "And the evidence of such child, though not given on oath or affirmation, but otherwise taken and reduced into writing, in accordance with the provisions of section seventeen of the Act of the eleventh and twelfth Victoria, chapter forty-two, intituled 'An Act to facilitate the performance of the duties of Justices of the Peace out of Sessions within England and Wales with respect to persons charged with Indictable Offences,' or of section fourteen of 'The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851,' shall be deemed to be a deposition within the meaning of those sections."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I confess that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman
  1372
  seems to me to be a useful one, and would be of great service in cases in which, in the absence through illness or death of the child, the contributory evidence proved insufficient. Therefore, unless the Government see some reason why the words should not be inserted, I propose to accept the Amendment.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not had time to consider the Amendment, but I will do so between this and the Report stage. It seems to me that Clause 6 deals only with evidence actually before the Court, and I have some little doubt whether it would enable Magistrates taking depositions to take the evidence of a child not upon oath. If Clause 6 does enable that to be done on the preliminary inquiry with a view to future trial, and to take the evidence of a child of tender years not upon oath, then the words will be useful. But if it only enables a child to be heard as a witness at the actual trial of the indictment, then the words would be inoperative.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think the words of this clause are identical with those in the corresponding clause of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. GEDGE: I now propose to omit Sub-section B of Clause 6, which runs as follows:—
  "Any witness whose evidence has been admitted under this section shall be liable to indictment and punishment for perjury in all respects as if he had been sworn."
  I think it is absurd to expose a child of tender years, who may not understand the nature of an oath, to a prosecution for perjury. I would rather suggest that a child who lies should have a good whipping. If a Magistrate has told a child its duty is to tell the truth, then all we can do is to take the evidence for what it is worth. The subsection will practically encourage prosecutions for perjury which can only end in acquittal, for no court would convict a child of tender years who did not know the nature of an oath. I hope that the Act will not be spoiled by the retention of these words.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 6, page 4, leave out sub-section (B).
  MR. MUNDELLA: My hon. Friend must remember there will be other witnesses to whom this sub-section will

  1373
  apply. The words are taken from the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury insisted on their insertion in that Act in order to have the strongest safeguards possible against perjury. In the case of a child of tender years the Magistrates surely could judge of the credibility of its evidence.
  MR. GEDGE: You are dealing simply in this clause with children of tender years. I have great respect for the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury; but he is not here to support his opinion, and I take it for granted he does not think it necessary.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Are we to understand that statements made by a child, without fear of punishment for not telling the truth, are to be accepted in the same way as depositions? I cannot think that that would be right. Surely some penalty should be attached to the making of false statements by a child. Unless something is suggested as a substitute for indictment as for perjury by a child, I shall oppose the omission of the sub-section.
  MR. SWETENHAMPerjury, as we all know, is a serious offence, because it is committed under the sanction of an oath, and it presupposes that a person fully understands the nature of that to which he deposes. Now, a child is to be exempted for taking an oath because he may not understand its nature; and therefore to subject a child to penalties for perjury when it does not understand what the meaning of perjury is, appears to be absolutely inconsistent with the rest of the clause. I cannot help thinking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury could never have intended his observations to apply in cases covered by this subsection. I join in supporting the Amendment.
  MR. C. DARLING: The hon. and learned Member who has just spoken did not put the matter so clearly as he might have done. A child may well not understand the nature of an oath; but it could be made to understand that if it did not tell the truth it would be punished by the law. In these cases, a child is not to be allowed to give evidence unless the Magistrate is satisfied that, although it does not understand the nature of an oath, it under-
  1374
  stands the duty of speaking the truth, and possesses sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of its evidence. What does it mean when it is said that a child understands the duty of speaking the truth? It means it understands it will be punished if it does not speak the truth. Therefore, if a child is intelligent enough to know its duty is to speak the truth, the Magistrate can say to it—"If you do not speak the truth you will be punished." That is a thing which a child can perfectly well understand. Nobody who has practised in a Court of Justice can say that a child understands the nature of an oath. What usually occurs is, that the Magistrate asks—"Do you know it is wrong to tell a lie?" and the child says "Yes." Then the Magistrate will ask—"Do you know what will happen to you if you tell a lie?" and the child, as a rule, says "No." I remember one case in which the learned Judge rejoined—"And I am sure I cannot tell you." It is a very difficult matter indeed for a child of tender years to understand the nature of an oath; but if you tell it that its duty is to speak the truth, and that it will be liable to be punished if it does not, I think that would be sufficient. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment I may point out that in some cases persons are liable to indictment for perjury without having taken an oath—such as in cases of statutory declaration.
  MR. KELLY: I am of opinion either that this clause must be given up altogether or the whole of it must be retained. I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Deptford that if a child understands the duty of speaking the truth it ought to be punished if it does not tell the truth in a Court of Justice, and I am, therefore, unable to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stockport. Unfortunately, throughout this clause, the cases of cruelty to children have been treated on exactly the same footing as offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Under the latter Act, however, in cases of brutality to children, the child's evidence is often the only available evidence, and, therefore, it was necessary that some such provision as this should be inserted in that Act. But I think it most unfortunate that, in a Bill which only professes to deal with

  1375
  the employment of children, you should insert provisions analagous to those contained in a measure affecting the fearful class of offences dealt with under the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
  MR. SWETENHAM: Would it not meet the difficulty if we inserted a provision that children might be whipped for perjury instead of being sent to a place from which they are liable to come out worse than when they went in? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to add the words "liable to punishment for perjury by whipping?" I think that that would be sufficient.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am afraid I cannot, offhand, consent to an alteration of that nature. Perhaps the hon. Member will defer that point until the Report stage.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I think the clause ought to stand as it is. The Committee must remember that the Government have submitted to the other House proposals for providing the alternative of corporal punishment in all cases of indictable offences by children. We must not look only at maximum punishments. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the value of the subsection will be found in its preventing unscrupulous parents from inducing their children to make false charges.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  MR. KELLY: I think that in ordinary cases the onus of proving the age of a child is often cast on an offender, and I therefore propose to substitute the word "parent" for "person," so that only a parent who contravenes the Act in respect of a child under the specified age should be obliged to prove that the child was over the age. A stranger might have no possible means of verifying a statement as to a child's age; and is it fair he should have cast on him the onus of proving the child's age? Possibly the right hon. Gentleman will say the section is limited by the words "appears to be under the age." It is difficult to tell the age of some poor children owing to the conditions of life to which they have been accustomed. Those who are entrusted with the care
  1376
  and custody of children may be strangers in blood to the children; and, therefore, it seems to me it would be very hard if, when any question of age arose, the onus of proof should be cast entirely upon them.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 7, page 4, line 25, leave out "person" and insert "parent."—(Mr. Kelly.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'person' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MUNDELLA: Surely this is a case where, if a child, as defined in the clause, appears to be under age, the benefit of the doubt should be with the child.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 7, page 4, line 27, after "appears," insert "to the Court."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman will defer this matter until the Report stage.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I would rather do all the good I can now, than leave an Amendment until Report.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I will accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 38, after "district," insert "or of the police for that district."—(Mr. Stuart Wortley.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, at end, add—
  "The expression 'Local Authority' means, as regards any borough in England, the Council of the borough; as regards the City of London, the Common Council; and as regards any other place in England, the County Council; as regards Ireland, the Sanitary Authority within the meaning of 'The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878.'"—(Mr. Stuart Wortley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. KELLY: With this authority will lie the duty of arranging, limiting, or extending the hours during which children may be employed, and I can conceive no

  1377
  more unsuitable body to have that duty cast upon them in many cases than the County Council. London is not the strongest case by any means. The other day I mentioned the case of Stourbridge, where Town Commissioners constitute the Local Authority. It seems to me the people of Stourbridge would not be very fairly treated if it were left to the County Council of Worcestershire to settle the hours during which the children should sell in the streets of Stourbridge. I am quite aware objection will be taken to the substitution of the words "vestry or local sanitary authority of the district." It may be argued that the substitution of such words might, in the case of London, lead to the different vestries adopting different hours. But I am persuaded that all Representatives of the divisions of South London will agree that the vestries, if this power is placed in their hands, will act upon some uniform system.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, leave out "County Council," and insert "vestry or local sanitary authority of the district."—(Mr. Kelly.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'County Council' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I agree with the hon. Member to a certain extent. "County Council" certainly embraces too large an area; and, therefore, I venture to suggest that we should insert the words "as regards urban sanitary districts, the local boards." While I cannot support the insertion of the word "vestry," I think we might very properly insert the words I mention.
  MR. KELLY: What I am particularly anxious to do is to preserve this power to the bodies who will be subsequently displaced by the District Councils. I am quite willing that the power should be given to Local Sanitary Authorities wherever they exist.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Consider what would happen in large counties such as Lancashire. All the county boroughs and municipal boroughs will be outside the jurisdiction of the County Council separately; and, therefore, we shall have a body sitting in one particular part of the country trying to exercise
  1378
  these powers in respect to little detached places spread over a widely extended area. How is a County Council to judge of the circumstances of isolated localities? Surely the Local Board or the Sanitary Authority would be the most suitable body to be intrusted with these powers.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I am sorry the Attorney General is not here to defend his Amendment, because I prefer it to the proposal of the hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Kelly.) If you want a representative body the County Council is a typical one. Although I admit this is a duty which should be imposed on District Councils when they are established, in the meantime the County Council is the best body to be entrusted with it. The County Council will not be influenced by mere local prejudices, but will look at the matter all round, and no doubt come to a just decision.
  MR. MALLOCK: I hope this power will be given to Urban Sanitary Authorities, if not to Rural Sanitary Authorities. There is a town in my Division with 27,000 inhabitants, and the Local Board is the Sanitary Authority. The County Council sitting in Exeter cannot possibly know what is best for such a district.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I feel we ought not to interfere with the Sanitary Authority. I would suggest that the Amendment should read—"and as regards any other place any Urban Sanitary Authority." That would meet the whole case, and would place the power in the right hands.
  MR. KELLY: What I wished principally to raise was the question whether the County Councils were the proper authorities to deal with the question, and I am glad to find there is a general opinion that the County Council would not be the proper body for that purpose. I am sorry to differ with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of London; but if he likes I will withdraw my Amendment now in favour of his, reserving the right, after consideration, if it should be deemed necessary on Report, of moving an Amendment to place the power in the hands of the Vestries of London, not of the County Council.
  Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment to Amendment proposed, in line 3, to insert, "as regards the County of London the County Council."—(Mr. Mundella.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment to Amendment proposed, after "England," insert "the Urban Sanitary Authority."—(Mr. Mundella)
  MR. KELLY: I do not think this will meet the case. If it were left local—"Sanitary Authority of the district"—that would include both Urban and Rural Authorities, and if there is any alteration of this found to be required we could put it right on Report. I am most anxious not to impede the progress of the Bill; but there are already many matters left over for Report, and I think it is better to settle the matter so far as we can at this stage.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am willing to insert "Urban and Rural Sanitary Authority."
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: Those words can go in, on the understanding that between now and Report stage I will confer with the President of the Local Government Board on the point.
  Amendment to Amendment withdrawn.
  Amendment to Amendment proposed, after "England" to leave out "County Council," and insert "Urban or Rural Sanitary Authority."—(Mr. Mundella.)
  Amendment agreed to
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, added to Bill.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  New clauses.
  New clause proposed:—
  (Saving for proceedings under other laws.)
  "Where an offence against this Act is also punishable under any other Act, or at common law, it may be prosecuted and punished either under this Act, or under the other Act, or at common law, so that no person be punished twice for the same offence."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.
  SIR R. TEMPLE(on behalf of Mr. WILLIAM
  1380
  CROSS), after clause just added, insert the following clause:—
  (Appeal from summary conviction to general or quarter sessions.)
  "When, in pursuance of this Act, any person is convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction of an offence, and such person did not plead guilty or admit the truth of the information or complaint, he may appeal to a court of general or quarter sessions against such conviction. Such appeal shall be subject to the conditions and regulations as to procedure contained in section thirty-one of 'The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879."
  MR. KELLY: It is right, I think, to mention that this is a considerable extension of the power of appeal under the existing law.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Of course, this power of appeal has reference to convictions; it may be desirable there should be power of appeal against orders relating to the custody of a child. I do not know whether this point has been considered.
  MR. MUNDELLA: That is already provided for in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will find it elsewhere.
  Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: On behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. W. Cross) I beg to move the next clause as it appears on the Paper, and I earnestly hope it will find acceptance from the right hon. Gentleman. If that is the case, I need not trouble the Committee with any reasons in support of it.
  Motion made, after Clause last inserted, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Act not to affect punishment of children by teachers.)
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to affect or relate to the administering of punishment by a teacher under his or her charge."
  Question proposed, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware there is no intention whatever by this Bill to restrict action necessary for the maintenance of discipline in a school. But this clause is a great deal too narrow in its terms. It confers no right a teacher does not already possess, and if the hon. Baronet will look at the next clause of which notice has been given by the hon. Member (Mr. W. Cross), he will see that it covers everything that is required—

  1381
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to take away or affect the right of any parent or person having the lawful control of a child to administer reasonable and moderate punishment to such child."
  The words "other person" covers the teacher, as having legal control for the time being, and exempts such person from any liability for the administration of reasonable and moderate punishment.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: But the second Amendment is not considered by the teachers to be sufficient, because there may be a doubt whether the expression "person having the lawful control" includes a teacher. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it does, but others may have a different impression. Would the right hon. Gentleman mind adding the word "teacher" to the next Amendment?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes; I would accept that.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: Then I will ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed after clause last inserted, insert—
  (Act not to take away right of parent, &c., to administer reasonable and moderate punishment.)
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to take away or affect the right of any parent, teacher, or other person having the lawful control of a child to administer reasonable and moderate punishment to such child."— (Sir R. Temple, on behalf of Mr. W. Cross).
  Question proposed, "That this Clause be read a second time."
  MR. KELLY: I think it rather unfortunate the last Amendment was withdrawn. I venture to think the word "teacher" presents a difficulty. It is not such a simple word as may be supposed, and there is no definition of it in the Bill. I also think the words "having lawful control" are somewhat vague in this connection, and in reference to children at day-schools may be rather troublesome. I may say it is a matter of importance to teachers, having in view the action taken by a certain society. I have been told with exultation that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children will avail themselves of this Act to prevent corporal punishment. I believe since the passing of the Elementary Education Act there have been only 172 cases in which
  1382
  teachers have been brought before any Court in reference to punishment of children, and I believe I am correct in saying that in only 32 cases have there been convictions for cruelty. School teachers have responsible positions; they must maintain discipline in their schools, or they lose their grant, and it must be obvious that to maintain discipline there must be a power of administering corporal punishment. The efforts of the Society I refer to are directed against the administration of corporal punishment. I have here a copy of a notice in which the Society invite information to be sent to the local secretary by parents and others of all cases of cruelty to children, and the Society undertakes the cost of further inquiry and proceedings. To this is added the postscript: "N.B. 'The name of informant kept strictly private.'" All over the country the Society are trying to get up these hole-and-corner inquiries, and to induce people, under the promise that the names of informers shall be kept private, to bring all sorts of charges against a most deserving class of persons—the masters and teachers in our schools. These are absolutely persecuted by the Society. I gave the House an example the other day; here is another. A boy named Stephen Martin, in the Board School at Rye, was punished by the head master. The mother of the child threatened to "make it hot" for the master, and she communicated with the local agent of the Society. An inquiry was held of the most extraordinary character. In the first place, it turned out that the Chairman of the School Board, who was a doctor, had examined the child soon after the punishment was inflicted, and ho declared it must have been very light. The Vice-Chairman did the same thing and expressed the same opinion. This was made known to the Society; but they went to the Superintendent of Police, who made inquiries on their behalf, inquiries of which the unfortunate master had no notice until the Society's agent came to him and tried to entrap him into admission. Perhaps they acted in the belief that they were doing right; but having found that their case had altogether broken down, they forwarded a communication to the poor schoolmaster in a large envelope with

  1383
  the name of the Society advertised on the outside. They knowing, on the evidence of Dr. Addison and the Vice-Chairman, that the schoolmaster had not exceeded his duty, sent this envelope which, of course, people seeing would understand to be a minatory notice. I understand they have altered the form lately——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the action of the Society affects this question at all. The hon. Member must speak to the clause.
  MR. KELLY: Under this Bill there will be power of dealing with cases of assaults on school children by masters and teachers, and what I wish to point out is how they are dealt with at present. On previous occasions this Bill has been promoted by different Members on behalf of this Society——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's remarks are not relevant to the clause.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I will not detain the Committee many moments, if I may be allowed to explain, in reference to the hon. Member's allusion——
  THE CHAIRMAN: It will be quite irregular to enter into these matters.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I would only ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he will agree to the words "parent, teacher, or other person having lawful control."
  MR. MUNDELLA: If it would strengthen the protection to the teachers, I have not the least objection. I am the last man in the House who would wish to do anything contrary to the interests of the teachers. I must, if I may be allowed, just say this—that not one single summons has been taken out by the Society against a teacher, and in only one instance was a scholar's expenses paid by the Society. I am anxious to give the teachers an assurance that all reasonable moderate punishment they may have to administer as discipline will not subject them to any liability under the Act.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: With that expression of opinion I hope the clause will be agreed to.
  MR. KELLY: Quite appreciating the hon. Baronet's intention, and with every desire to aid him, I would point out there are many cases the clause would not include. Take an ordinary case. In almost every village in the country there
  1384
  is a school conducted by the schoolmaster and his pupil teacher. If the master should be ill or absent, it devolves on some gentleman, generally the vicar, to come and maintain order in the school.
  An hon. MEMBER: That is being in charge.
  MR. KELLY: No, not in charge, but exercising a temporary control. It is a matter to consider how far the delegation of authority includes the right to administer punishment. I have in mind a case in a private school where the master was seriously ill, and his brother took charge of the school. He was not a teacher in any sense, and had no charge or control of the boys as a teacher; he was rather there for the purpose of keeping the establishment going, and seeing that the boarders were properly looked after. There is a difficulty at once to determine who has the lawful control. My child goes to a day school. I have lawful control over him, and exercise it—not by corporal punishment—but I venture to think that in such cases only the parent has lawful control, and in the immense number of cases children attend day schools. It is a great question in these cases whether the schoolmaster would be protected at all. Should not the clause run something in this way?—
  "That nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to affect the administration of any punishment on any child in any school."
  I only seek to secure that the Act shall not interfere in such cases. You can still punish a man who administers corporal punishment where he has no right to do so. I would leave protection where it is now.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I would suggest that the words "reasonable and moderate" should be omitted. It is intended that the schoolmaster should be left to the Common Law right to administer punishment according to the character of the offence, whether grave or trivial.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The words follow the very language used in a Judgment delivered by Chief Justice Cockburn.
  MR. GEDGE: That is all very well; but the objection is that the existing law deals with the case if the punishment inflicted is of an unreasonable and immoderate character. To the

  1385
  existing law we would leave it, and not bring it under this Act with the remarkable consequences that follow.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: After hearing what has been said by the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Member I am quite ready to omit the words.
  MR. CHANNING: It seems to me the words represent the practical and common sense view of our intention, and I hope the Amendment will not be made.
  MR. ELTON: I must say that I think this clause would be a great boon to schoolmasters; but if I thought it would give any particular rights to persons having the control of children—as the hon. Member seems to suppose—I should vote against it.
  MR. C. DARLING: I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not think of adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Camberwell as to enlarging the definition in the clause.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. TOMLINSON: To render the clause more specific, I would move to insert after the word "parent" the word "schoolmaster." The word "teacher" might, in certain cases, he held to apply only to the person actually engaged in teaching the child, and not to the person higher in authority. In many schools the person to inflict the punishment would be the head schoolmaster, not the actual teacher.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause, line 2, after "parent," insert "schoolmaster."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'schoolmaster' be there inserted."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I must say I think the word "teacher" is wider than "schoolmaster." The teacher will stand towards the child under his tuition in loco parentis, and under that description the schoolmaster or schoolmistress would be included. I am anxious to make the clause as comprehensive as possible. As for the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Camberwell, I never yet heard a more unreasonable—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 152.—(Div. List, No. 172).
  Amendment to the proposed new Clause line 2, after "control," insert "or charge."—(Mr. Mundella.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I move, in line 3, to leave out the words, "reasonable and moderate," before the word "punishment."
  Amendment moved to the proposed new Clause, line 3, leave out "reasonable and moderate."—(Sir R. Temple.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new Clause."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have the authority of Chief Justice Cockburn for the words as they stand; however, I accept the Amendment, which will make no practical difference, because only "reasonable and moderate" punishment is lawful.
  Question put, and negatived.
  New Clause read a Second Time, and added to the Bill:
  "The enactments specified in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent in the third column of that Schedule mentioned.
  Provided that such appeal shall not affect—

  (a.) Anything duly done or suffered under any enactment hereby repealed; or

  (b.) Any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment incurred under any offence committed against any enactment hereby repealed; or

  (c.) Any legal proceeding in respect of any
  such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment;and any such legal proceeding may be instituted and carried on, and the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment enforced, in like manner, as if this Act had not passed."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to move the following new Clause, which I have been requested by the Local Government Board to insert:—
  "The guardians of any union or parish may, out of the funds under their control, pay the reasonable costs and expenses of any proceedings which they have directed to be taken under this Act in regard to the ill-treatment, neglect, abandonment, or exposure of any child, and in the case of a union shall charge such costs and expenses to the common fund."
  Question proposed, "That this Clause be read a Second Time."
  MR. TOMLINSON: I should like to have some explanation of the necessity for inserting this Clause.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The explanation is a very simple one. As I have said, I

  1387
  have been requested by the Local Government Board to insert it. It is their own drafting, and they say it is necessary. The Guardians have to pay the expenses, and the Board says they should have this power.
  MR. ELTON: Suppose the Guardians delegate the matter to some philanthropic or other society, it might be a little hard on the ratepayers. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to guard against such a thing?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Such a society would not be acting under the direction of the Board of Guardians. The clause says—
  "Pay the reasonable costs and expenses of any proceedings which they have directed to be taken under this Act."
  Those words cover the objection.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I move to leave out the words "directed to be."
  Amendment moved to the proposed new Clause, line 3, leave out "directed to be."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new Clause."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot accept the Amendment. The clause comes from a Government Department, and there is no one here at this moment to represent that Department. Perhaps it would be as well to leave the question over until the Report.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I have the authority of the Local Government Board for saying that they agree to this clause. It is clear that a Board of Guardians could not "direct" anyone who is not their servant to take action under this measure.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That this Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. JOHN KELLY: Will it be convenient to have the Bill reprinted?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I understand that it will be forthwith reprinted, and, if necessary, I will make a Motion to that effect.
  Bill reported; amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 308.]

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) BILL (No. 4.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  SIR W. HART DYKE*SIR W. HART DYKE (Dartford) moved, Clause 1, p. 1, line 9, after "Acts," add "and may be cited together with those Acts as the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 to 1889."
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  SIR W. HART DYKE*SIR W. HART DYKE moved, Clause 2, page 1, line 10, leave out "provide," and insert "make further provision."
  Question, "That provide 'stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words make further provision' be there added," put, and agreed to.
  SIR W. HART DYKE*SIR W. HART DYKE moved Clause 2, page 1, lines 11 and 12, leave out, "and the county of Monmouth."
  Question proposed, "That the words 'and the county of Monmouth' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. T. P. PRICE: As one of the Representatives of the county of Monmouth, I wish to say a few words upon the exclusion of that county. The proposal has caused very deep feeling throughout the county and throughout Wales. It is a very short time, indeed, since the President of the Council set down his Amendments; but even in that short interval there have been a large number of Petitions from various Local Authorities against the exclusion of Monmouth. Notwithstanding Henry VIII.'s policy, if he ever had one, which did not make Monmouth a part of Wales, Monmouth was entirely Welsh. It was Welsh in race, tradition, and geographically; it was Welsh in sentiment, and Welsh by its similarity of industries. The Act of Henry VIII. had been in operation 400 years, yet it had not altered the nationality of Monmouth. Almost every parish, farm, and field had a Welsh name; and he ventured to say that the feeling of the great bulk of the people of Monmouth was in favour of being included in this intermediate education scheme for Wales. The Departmental Committee

  1389
  of 1881, a very strong Committee, contemplated the inclusion of Monmouth in the Intermediate Education Act. They stated that Monmouth was amply provided with endowments, but that the endowments lay outside the population, and that there were densely populated mining districts where there were neither endowed schools, nor indeed any school of any kind whatever. At the present time, no doubt, there were sparsely populated districts in Monmouth, and which were likely to be still more sparsely populated; but there were centres of mining industry where where the population was likely to increase. I may say that there is a large development of minerals going on in Monmouth at the present moment. In a very few years there will probably be a score of new pits, which will attract a very large population, and I venture to say the bulk of the population will be Welsh. For these reasons, both on account of the natural conditions of the country, and most strongly on account of the Departmental Report of 1881, I do hope that this House will be induced to include the County of Monmouth in the Intermediate Education Bill for Wales.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I must say I am greatly disappointed at the action of the Government. This is the first attempt with regard to our education scheme to exclude Monmouth. In 1880, its inclusion went without saying, and Earl Spencer in a letter to the Chairman of the Deparmental Committee (Lord Aberdare) used the phrase Wales to include Monmouth. There never was a doubt on the part of the Committee, although it was composed of politicians of different sides, about Monmouth being included in the area of their inquiry. Nor does the hon. Member for Denbighshire exclude Monmouth from the area of his Bill dealing with this subject. It is now for the first time, and without a word of justification, that Monmouth is to be excluded from this Bill. I should like to know what means the Government have taken of ascertaining the opinion first of Wales as to whether Monmouth should be excluded, and, secondly, whether Monmouth itself desires to be included. I can hardly believe that the Government have taken
  1390
  any means whatever to ascertain these two important facts. I have had the pleasure of often going across the border of Monmouth into the Principality, and I have not found that I have had to deal with people of different tastes or desires with regard to intermediate education. On the contrary, I have met with people animated by exactly the same desires as those which animated the people of Monmouth; and in Monmouth the great representative bodies, so far as the Government have allowed them, have unanimously expressed their opinion in favour of the inclusion of the county. A hastily summoned meeting of the County Council decided by 24 to 4 in favour of the inclusion. The vast majority of the people of Monmouthshire cannot he distinguished from the Welsh population. In a great many parts of the county conversation is carried on in Welsh; and in nearly every town of my division there are chapels in which the Welsh language is used by the ministers, and where the Welsh language is used by a great portion of the people. The people of Monmouth take the very deepest interest in this great struggle. They regard the improvement of their education as the great lever by which they can lift their fellow-countrymen, and to deny for the first time Monmouth the benefit of that education is, I must say, a very harsh step.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: Sir, some of the arguments which have been advanced by the two previous speakers would apply to others of the adjoining counties besides Monmouthshire. In Herefordshire you will find many of the farms bearing Welsh names, and many Welsh terms used, yet I find no public desire there to include the county in the intermediate Education Scheme. In Monmouthshire, in a large part of the county, you find English-speaking people, and the bulk of the population far more resemble the English than the Welsh. It strikes me there is something behind this movement—some desire to increase the area of Wales, to grab an English county and make it appear, when any movement connected with the Church, for example, be brought forward, that there is a larger area in favour of that movement than there would otherwise be. More than that, it is well known

  1391
  that Monmouth contains rich endowments, and, in fact, this is a case of land grabbing and money grabbing. And hon. Members ask why the Government have not ascertained the opinion of Monmouth, so that it would appear that the opinion of the people of Monmouth is yet to be discovered. Nothing that has been said with regard to the amalgamation of Monmouth with Wales would not equally apply to the County of Hereford. That county is also part of the Marches of Wales, just as Monmouthshire is, and I can recollect when there were on the Post Offices Welsh notices as well as English notices within a short distance of my own house. I venture humbly to submit to the House that it should support the proposition of the Government.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I was greatly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman opposite should have moved this Amendment without saying one single word on the subject. Surely we had a right to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the grounds on which we are asked to take this new departure on Welsh questions. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and it seemed to me he furnished the very strongest argument possible for not including the County of Hereford, because he says there is not a single person in Herefordshire who desires to be included.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I said that, although it was a border county, none of the people desired to join Wales. The argument was the resemblance between the people.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: There are other adjoining counties besides his. Shropshire and Cheshire are adjoining counties, but those counties do not wish to be incorporated with Wales, and we have no desire to take them in. The case of Monmouthshire is entirely distinct from these cases. In the first place, two out of the three Members for Monmouthshire have already expressed their opinions on the subject, and I believe that one of them (Mr. Warming-ton) was returned by the largest majority recorded at the last election, with the single exception of that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone). Then you have the most representative body that can be
  1392
  found—the County Council of Monmouthshire—which, by a majority of no less than 24 to 4, has decided in favour of including Monmouthshire in the Bill. Now I think we have reason to complain, that the right hon. Gentleman has not given us a longer opportunity of considering the Amendment. He has virtually put a new Bill on the Paper, and we were furnished with copies of that Bill only a few days ago, although the Second Reading was taken as far back as the 15th of May, and the Bill has been in Committee for nearly a month. On the ground of the general sentiment of Monmouthshire I ask the House to reject the Amendment, first, in the interests of Monmouthshire, and, secondly, in the interests of Wales. The whole endowments of Monmouthshire do not amount to more than £3,000—[cries of "Oh!"]—well, £3,700; they are, at any rate, under £4,000. Since the time of Henry V.—Harry of Monmouth, the first Welsh King of England—the county had been more Welsh than any of the border counties. It is Welsh in sentiment, Welsh in language, and all matters relating tc education in the county are invariably dealt with as if it was a part of Wales. The principal scholarships at Jesus College, Oxford, are by statute restricted to candidates who are natives of Wales or Monmouthshire, or who aresons of persons who have been resident in Wales or Monmouthshire; and in the appointment of the recent Commission it was assumed, as a matter of course, that Monmouthshire was included in Wales. It is true there is an old statute of Henry VIII. which dissociates Monmouthshire from Wales, but we have learned by this time that it requires something more than an Act of Parliament to stamp out a nationality. The only Act which can be quoted against us is the Welsh Sunday Closing Act. The promoter of that measure was induced to leave out Monmouthshire, and we have regretted it ever since. But independently of the national ground, there is a further reason why Monmouthshire should be included in the Bill—namely, that the Bill is specially wanted for Monmouthshire. I observe that, with the exception of Glamorganshire and Durham, there is not a county in England and Wales whose population has increased so much as in the County of Monmouth. But

  1393
  this increase has taken place in the mining districts; whereas the only portions of the county benefited by these endowments are the agricultural districts. Now we want the endowments to follow the population, and for that and many other reasons, which I have stated, we object to this Amendment.
  COLONEL MORGAN: I am very sorry to differ from my hon. Colleague in the representation of Monmouthshire, but I think I may claim to be pretty well acquainted with the wishes of the Monmouthshire people, especially of those of the Division I have the honour to represent. In Monmouthshire there are something like 28 endowments, and 19 of these are in the Division I represent. It is not unnatural, therefore, that my constituents should object to being included in this Act. Moreover, I never heard it proposed before now that Monmouthshire should be included. Certainly I never heard of the people of Monmouthshire asking to be included. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members may cry "Oh, oh" but I have lived on the borders of Monmouthshire all my life, and know as much, I should think, of the country as any else one. It has been said that the County Council have adopted a resolution in favour of the inclusion of the county. That resolution was adopted by 24 votes to four, but there are very nearly 60 members, and therefore the resolution does not amount to much. The resolution was introduced at a very extraordinary time, and when it was quite impossible for many members to be present. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. O. Morgan) has said the endowments of Monmouthshire only amounted to £3,000. [Mr. O. MORGAN: £3,700]. As a matter of fact they now amount to £11,469. [Mr. O. MORGAN: I was speaking of educational endowments.] I know very well that in 1871 the endowments amounted to something like £4,000. [Mr. O. MORGAN: My observation was based on the Report of the Departmental Committee]. The county has a larger amount of endowments than the whole of Wales put together. As a Welshman, born and bred, I trust Monmouthshire will be exempted in this case as in other cases. We have never been included in any separate legislation, and the only reason for Monmouthshire being in-
  1394
  cluded in regard to education is that it is affiliated with the University College of South Wales.
  MR. KENYON: I wish to make a earnest appeal to Her Majesty's Government on this subject. I ask them not to wreck this measure on a matter which is really only one of detail. If the question of the inclusion or exclusion of Monmouthshire is a principal subject of difference between Gentlemen opposite and ourselves cannot we be content to postpone it until after the other clauses have been disposed of. Personally, I have no reason to doubt the equity of including Monmouthshire in the Act. The reference to the Departmental Commission included Monmouthshire, and the Report of that Commission included Monmouthshire. The Royal Charter, which incorporated the University of South Wales, included Monmouthshire. The question is one of national sentiment, and I earnestly hope the Government will give the fullest consideration to it, that they will not let their final decision be given upon it until they have fully ascertained the real wants and wishes of the Monmouthshire people and of the whole of the rest of the people of Wales. I have taken infinite pains and trouble to promote a settlement of the question, and I think not without some success. I have dealt with the matter in a conciliatory spirit, because I believe that if we are to have an Act of Parliament it must be one of compromise and conciliation. Gentlemen opposite have met us in an extremely handsome and conciliatory manner; let us meet them in a conciliatory spirit. Do not let us upon such a point as this wreck the Bill, which is regarded with so much favour by the people of Wales.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: In answer to the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. O. Morgan) let me at the outset say I did not give my reasons for the Amendment when I moved it, because I have been more or less hurried in its preparation, and was anxious to hear the opinion of hon. Gentlemen from Wales. I am afraid I can give but cold comfort to hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the inclusion of Monmouthshire. Mention has been made of the reference to the Departmental Committee. It is as well the

  1395
  matter should be cleared up. I find the first reference to the Committee did not include Monmouthshire, and I have here a letter which explains the whole matter. Sir Francis Sandford wrote:—
  "In reply to a question put to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Brightside Division as to whether the Vice President of the Council would be willing to include Monmouthshire in the scope of the inquiry, the hon. Gentleman stated that the proposal would be agreed to."
  Therefore, we find that the inclusion of Monmouthshire was really an afterthought. Now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. O. Morgan) has dealt rather hard measure out to me in regard to the introduction of the Amendments. The measure was considered before the Whitsuntide recess, and the framing of these Amendments really destroyed the pleasure of my holiday, but the result is the proposals which now appear on the Paper. Whether I have kept hon. Members waiting a long time or not, I think they will admit the Amendments deal fairly with a difficult and complex question. Now, I think this has been accurately described as a sentimental difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has repudiated the idea of there being any monetary question involved. Do hon. Gentlemen wish that the endowments of Monmouthshire should be taken from the people of that county and applied elsewhere? [Cries of " "No."] I believe they do not, but that made the practical part of the inclusion of Monmouthshire a little more difficult. According to the last census, the population of Monmouthshire was 211,267, while that of the whole of Wales was 1,360,513, and the growth of the population in Monmouthshire is rather lessening that disparity. Therefore, at all events, we find an enormous and an increasing population in Monmouthshire with very considerable endowments to deal with. Since 1882 the proceedings of the Charity Commissioners in regard to Welsh endowments have practically ceased. In the last year or two they have recommenced. The Government propose to put this machinery into motion again for three years, and in doing this we wish to acknowledge that the Welsh people have been badly treated in the past by these endowments in comparison with
  1396
  the rest of England, and offer, if they will rate themselves to the extent of one halfpenny in the pound throughout Wales for three years, to meet that contribution from the Treasury by a precisely similar amount. Whereas the endowments of Wales and Monmouthshire together amount to £38,000 a year, those of Monmouthshire alone are nearly £12,000 a year, and this county could not, therefore, be regarded as in the same position as the poor counties of Wales. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. However, I should like to bear more of the opinions of hon. Members in regard to this vexed question, for certainly no one would more sincerely regret than I would that this Bill should be wrecked on such a point as this.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I confess I was never more surprised than when I saw the notice of the right hon. Gentleman on the Paper that Monmouthshire was to be separated from Wales for educational purposes. If anything could surprise me more it is the speech just delivered. In the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides, the Welsh domain includes Monmouthshire. The Chief Inspector of Wales has control over Monmouthshire. In all previous educational administrations Wales has included Monmouthshire, and the very Charter which the right hon. Gentleman has granted during the present year to the South during College includes Monmouthshire. If the right hon. Gentleman wants any better proof that Monmouthshire is always included in Wales, let him turn to the Report of the Schools Inquiry Committee. In every line and page of the Report of that most important Committee, Monmouthshire in mixed up with Wales. The Charity Commissioners have always included Monmouthshire in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the inclusion of Monmouthshire in the reference to the Departmental Committee was an afterthought. Immediately I came into office I was asked whether we included Monmouthshire in Wales. What was the answer of the Chief of the Department? "That goes without saying; Monmouthshire has always been included." I have never heard anything to the contrary, and how the right hon. Gentleman can take Mon-

  1397
  mouthshire out of Wales I cannot understand. When the question arose as to where the South Wales College should be situated, the whole of the towns of Monmouthshire were in agitation upon it. The people of Monmouthshire, being an integral part of the Welsh population, wanted to have access to the Cardiff College. Reference has been made to the endowments of Monmouthshire. I find on referring to the digest of the aggregate endowments of England and Wales that the endowments are as follows: England, exclusive of Monmouthshire, £632,650 17s. 11d. per annum; North Wales, £5,843 5s. 4d; South Wales, £4,330 5s. 4d.; Monmouthshire, £4,057 16s. 1d. I should like to know how many of the Monmouthshire endowments are educational. We know that for the town of Monmouth there are abundant endowments, but that the county is as poverty stricken in educational matters as a county can be. I cannot understand why the Government should exclude Monmouthshire. The right hon. Gentleman says he has been hurried in preparing his Amendments. What have the Government been about ever since they have been in office? The right hon. Gentleman has promised again and again that the matter should be considered. This Bill was introduced during the first days of the Session, and four or five months afterwards the right hon. Gentleman comes down to the House and says he has been hurried in the preparation of his Amendments. I am bound to say the Welsh Members will not be true to themselves or to Monmouthshire if they do not stand by the inclusion of Monmouthshire in the Bill, for Monmouthshire requires this legislation as much as any other county in Wales. I trust that in such a paltry question as this—for it is not a matter of more than £1,000 a year—the Government will not persevere with their Amendment. We want a Welsh Intermediate Education Bill. I am anxious, by any reasonable compromise, to get such a Bill, and I entreat the First Lord of the Treasury to let us arrive at a settlement—a settlement based on reasonable lines, and one which will give satisfaction to the people of Wales
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government have put these Amendments on the Paper with an earnest desire to make a good Bill of a measure which they could
  1398
  not accept in the form in which it was presented to the House. We desire to pass a measure which we believe will be acceptable to Wales and this country. At all events let us enter into the discussion of the Bill in the best temper, and with a desire to give credit to those who differ from us. These figures are given on the authority of the Charity Commissioners themselves. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the figures vary from day to day. But these are the authoritative figures of the Charity Commissioners relating to this current period, and from them we learn that there is at this moment an endowment of the value of £12,397 6s. 9d. available for educational purposes in the County of Monmouth, while the total endowment for Wales —or if it satisfies hon. Members thus to call it—the rest of Wales—is £25,567. The view of the Government was that this endowment of £12,397, properly and judiciously applied in the County of Monmouth, would prove sufficient, and that it would not be necessary to provide for a Parliamentary subsidy in addition. I have put these figures before the Committee with no desire to stop the discussion or to impute to hon. Gentlemen that they are wrong in their claim that Monmouth should be included in Wales, and we certainly are not anxious that either the Welsh or the English in that county should be excluded from the scope of the Bill.
  MR. A. WILLIAMS: In the debate on the Second Reading we were all agreed in the desire to get a practical measure of intermediate education for the Welsh people. It is admitted that there is a sentimental feeling on the part of the people of Monmouth in favour of their county being included in the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman now says—"We find there is a considerable endowment for educational purposes which has not hitherto been properly applied, and for reasons which we think sufficient we hold that Monmouth should not come under the Bill." He says this in spite of the resolution passed by the representative body in Monmouthshire, and notwithstanding the expressed opinion of the people that the county should be treated as a part of Wales; and he tells us that the Government take this course because they think

  1399
  there is a sufficient endowment in Monmouthshire to render it unnecessary to apply the machinery of the Bill to it. In the name of common sense, is that any argument against the people of Monmouthshire being included in the management of the machinery created by the Bill? Now we want a proper scheme for the application of this endowment of £12,000; and if the Charity Commissioners do their duty they will see that one is forthcoming. I hope that I am not using language which is too warm, but I tell the Government that this proposal involves the breaking of a compact which has been entered into, and I appeal to them not to place in limine an obstacle in the way of this great measure, and so seriously harm a Bill intended to benefit the Municipality.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I desire to appeal to the Government not on the ground of nationality, but on the ground of precedent. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Council, on the Second Reading of this Bill, made serious objections to the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, and objected to the form of the National Board, but not one single word of objection did they raise to the exclusion of Monmouthshire. I am afraid that this is an afterthought on their part, due to the pressure brought to bear on them owing to the existence of one large charity in Monmouthshire. Now, this large and increasing charity—the Jones Charity—is, we are told, now under the consideration of the Charity Commissioners, who are on the point of issuing a new scheme for dealing with it. Why, Sir, that very fact removes from this controversy the only bone of contention. The argument of the First Lord of the Treasury is that in consequence of possessing this one endowment Monmouthshire is too rich a county to be aided by the county rate and the Imperial Exchequer. Yet this charity only amounts to £12,000 a year, and I will ask the House to look at what the charities in English counties amount to. In Norfolk the available charities amount to over £50,000; in Surrey they are over £70,000; and the charities available in the City of Coventry alone amount to £15,553. Now the amount
  1400
  of charitable endowment available for educating a quarter of a million of people in Monmouthshire is only £12,000, and surely that fact ought not to be deemed a sufficient excuse for excluding the county from the benefits of this Bill. If it is, then I am afraid that the County of Denbigh will also have to be excluded, for it is in even a more favourable position in regard to charitable endowments in proportion to population than Monmouthshire. Now in all previous educational schemes Monmouthshire has been treated as a part of Wales. The Court of Chancery in the years 1845–46 dealt with a certain number of endowments in Wales and certainly included Monmouthshire in the Principality. Then, again, the Schools Inquiry Commission which sat in 1867–68 appointed a special Commission for Wales and Monmouthshire, because, as they said, "they had always been placed together by the Registrar General and so treated by Government Departments," and when they came to make their Report they recommended that there should be provincial authorities in eight Divisions, and that the Welsh Division should include Monmouthshire. The Commission were simply acting on precedent set them by the Education Department, which had always treated Monmouthshire as a part of Wales. A Departmental Committee in 1880 did likewise, they inquired into certain matters in South Wales and Monmouthshire, and further every recommendation they made was a recommendation for Wales and Monmouthshire, and when the Government proceeded to act on the recommendations of that Committee they set up a college in Cardiff under a Royal Charter, which gave it the name of University College for South Wales and Monmouthshire. If any more practical argument be needed in order to show how in all educational matters Monmouthshire has been treated as a part of Wales, it is to be found in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield. The Education Department is not the only one which has included Monmouthshire in Wales for administrative purposes. The Registrar General includes that county, and all the other Government Departments have taken the same course. The Home Office, in

  1401
  regard to mining regulations and other matters, includes Monmouthshire, and the same may be said of the Privy Council Office and the Local Government Board, the President of which latter Department I am glad to see in his place, the divisions made for Poor Law purposes between England and Wales including Monmouthshire in Wales. And in order to show how this arrangement has always been taken for granted, I may state that not merely has Monmouthshire always been so treated in Education Bills brought in by Liberal Members, but even the Bill brought in by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire included Monmouthshire in Wales. If any further doubt could have remained as to the inclusion of Monmouthshire, surely it must have been dispelled by the fact that not only have all the other local bodies of Monmouthshire expressed a wish to be included in Wales, but the same desire has been evinced by the newly elected County Council, as representing the feelings and sentiments of the great body of the inhabitants of that county. When we find only four Members of this House inclined to vote for the exclusion of Monmouthshire from Wales, and that mainly on the ground of the one endowment—Jones' Charity—belonging to Monmouth, I think the last rag of doubt or suspicion as to the propriety of including that county has been disposed of. In conclusion, I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Hart Dyke), who is in charge of the Bill, and to his Colleagues on the Treasury Bench, each of whom when they go to their offices to-morrow will be called on to sign documents relating to Monmouthshire as included in the Principality of Wales, to allow this Amendment to be withdrawn.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I wish to offer a word or two of explanation. When, some time ago, I stated that the endowments of Monmouthshire, at the time the Report to which reference has been made was presented, amounted to £4,000 a year, I was strictly accurate. Since then I believe the leasing of land belonging to Jones' Charity has considerably increased the amount. I want to know why Monmouthshire should not have the control of its own educa-
  1402
  tional endowments in the same way as other parts of Wales?
  MR. SWETENHAM: I have approached this question with a perfectly open mind, and with the full intention of being guided in the vote I shall give by what I have heard pro and con in this debate; and I feel bound, at the outset, to say that having listened attentively to all that has been said both for and against the Amendment, I have deliberately come to the conclusion that this Amendment ought not to be adopted, and that, in point of fact, Monmouthshire ought to be included in Wales for the purposes of this Bill. I listened with great attention to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, and I thought in that one sense he made out a good argument, though, at the same time, it could not fail to be observed that it was the only argument used for the exclusion of Monmouthshire, and that was with reference to the fact that Monmouthshire has educational endowments to the extent of £12,000 a year. It is true that, in regard to the question of intermediate education, Wales is very poor in educational endowments, and therefore is deserving of exceptional treatment and ought to be helped in the matter by the Legislature; while, inasmuch as Monmouthshire has £12,000 a year in educational endowments, she does not require the same sort of treatment. That, as far as I could see, was the only argument the right hon. Gentleman was able to employ in favour of his proposal, and a powerful argument no doubt it was. But I ask, is that to be set against all other arguments which have been so forcibly used? Unquestionably Monmouthshire is, in point of law, an English county; but it cannot be denied that in sympathy she is closely connected with Wales. There are plenty of arguments to show that we should not he doing wrong in including Monmouthshire in the scope of this Bill. I listened to ascertain whether it was the wish of the people of Monmouthshire —because that was a point on which my own action very much depended—as put before this House by their Representatives that they should be included in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman on this side of the House has spoken against that inclusion, but

  1403
  there was nothing in his speech which proved to me that the people of Monmouthshire generally did not desire the benefits proposed by the Bill. Whether the Committee was authorized to report specially on Monmouthshire or not I do not know, but we have before us the fact that the Departmental Committee have actually reported in favour of the inclusion of that county. Besides we have heard that there are a great many of the endowments which are practically outside the population, and one of the arguments against the Amendment is that whoever has the management of these endowments should be able to make them follow the population. If this Amendment be carried, they will not be able to benefit the people in the way they ought to be benefited. Monmouthshire is a county with great mineral products, and enlarged commercial prospects before it, and these things will undoubtedly bring about a large increase of population. It is only right and just that its educational endowments should be at once dealt with, so as to bring them within the reach of the poor people who ought to have the benefit of them; and this is one of the many reasons why I shall vote against the Amendment. But there is the additional argument that the County Council of Monmouthshire has by a large majority petitioned in favour of the inclusion of that county. The County Council represent the voice of the people in this matter, and it is by the voice of the people that the action of the Government ought to be guided. If we look at the large majority by which the County Council expressed its views on this question, I cannot but think that we have, in the vote they came to, a clear and distinct expression of the opinion of the county upon it. With regard to the endowments, I understand that, whether the Amendment is passed or not, they will not be taken out of the county, and this I regard as a sufficient answer to the position taken up by the supporters of the Government. I have never hitherto had the opportunity of saying a word on the question of intermediate education for Wales, and I now desire to state that there is no one, either in or out of this House, who more earnestly desire that a just
  1404
  and righteous measure in this direction should be passed by the British Legislature. I look on this Bill as an honest attempt on the part of the Government to try and meet the views of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House in regard to the matter. I trust that the Amendment will be withdrawn, and that the result of that withdrawal will be that we on this side of the House will be able to shake hands with hon. Members on that side, and put our heads together, in a really amicable manner, to try and get a sound and beneficial measure.
  MR. STUART RENDEL: I feel, after what has already passed, entitled to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite to withdraw his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has used but one argument in its favour, and as yet he has found but one supporter, and that supporter is the Representative of a. Metropolitan constituency—the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Newington (Mr. Cooke). The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had waited to hear the speeches of hon. Members for Wales and Monmouthshire before making any statement in support of the Amendment for the exclusion of Monmouthshire. Well, the right hon. Gentleman has now heard what hon. Members for Wales on both sides of the House have to say on the subject, and he will have discovered that, besides having only one argument in its favour, the Amendment has only one supporter. The argument in favour of the Bill as it stands, is that there is an unbroken tradition by which Monmouthshire has always been included in Wales for the purposes of education, as well as for all purposes of local administration, and it is, therefore, an innovation, and in breach of all precedent, for the Government to come forward and spring this Amendment upon us at the last moment. They have had ample expression of the opinions held by the Members for Wales on this subject, and they must have seen that there is not a single Welsh representative who is in favour of the exclusion of Monmouthshire from Wales, except, indeed, the hon. and gallant Member for Mon-

  1405
  mouthshire, who frankly admitted that he was influenced mainly by the desire to keep for his portion of the county the whole of its endowment, whereas under the Bill as it stands the endowments of Monmouthshire would be applicable for the benefit of any part of Monmouthshire. If any concession is to be made on this point, I put it to the Committee which side ought to give way. Is it to be the side which desires to follow the unbroken line of precedent to commit themselves to a course contrary to all previous practice; or is it to be the side which is breaking all precedent; is it to be those who are supported by all the Members from Wales but are without distinction of party, or by the Government, who on this question have no supporter behind them except an hon. Member for a Metropolitan constituency? I earnestly urge the Government to give evidence at once of their real desire to give Wales and Monmouthshire the boon which they have held out to a long expecting people, before whom it has been so invitingly dangled, let us hope not at the last moment to be withheld. I do most sincerely trust that the Government will give evidence of their goodwill and good faith towards the Welsh people by withdrawing this Amendment.
  MR. A. THOMAS: I also hope the Government will be induced to give way on this matter to the representations that have been so strongly urged by the whole of the Welsh Members who have spoken in this debate, and I may add that the constituency I represent would feel themselves slighted, if not insulted, if Monmouthshire is to be excluded from this measure. With regard to the endowments to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, I have already stated at a public meeting on the subject of Welsh education that I would never be a party to the withdrawal of those endowments from the localities for which they were intended. I fully sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman on that point, but at the same time I trust that the endowments may be made more
  1406
  completely to meet the wants of the population.
  SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN: I would also urge on the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of agreeing to the inclusion of Monmouthshire in this Bill. I have listened to everything which has been said by my right hon. Friend, by the Leader of the House, and by the only two supporters which the Government have had on their own side of the House, and I have heard no argument whatever in support of the Amendment, but that Monmouthshire is pretty well endowed with regard to education, and therefore ought not to be included. Almost every speech that has been made in this debate has shown that the people of Monmouthshire do desire to be included, and we have had put before us the strong fact that the great majority of the Monmouthshire County Council, who have recently come into being direct from the ratepayers, have passed a resolution—the numbers being six to one—in favour of the inclusion of that county in the measure. I put it to the Committee, is it not a solid and cogent argument in favour of such inclusion that the people of Monmouthshire, which is essentially a Welsh county, desire to participate in the advantages of this Bill. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman had been able to say that six to one of the people of Monmouthshire desired to be excluded from the Bill, we should have been bound to admit that our case was a bad one; but when it is the very reverse of that surely the argument is a strong one. It has been sought to set up the fact that there is a portion of Monmouthshire which is English. That is so; but by far the larger part of the county, and especially that portion the population of which is most rapidly increasing, is essentially Welsh. South Monmouthshire may be more or less English, but the whole of the mountain district is as entirely Welsh as any part of Wales. It is said Monmouthshire has considerable endowments, but we

  1407
  have heard from the hon. and gallant Member for South Monmouthshire (Colonel Morgan) that these endowments are chiefly in his own district, and that he opposes being included in the Bill because he is afraid of the endowments being taken away from that district. But is this so? Will those endowments, by a scheme of the Charity Commissioners or the Court of Chancery, he applied for the benefit of the people of Monmouthshire generally? Our desire is that these endowments, which are said to be worth £12,000 a year, should be applied to the population of the county generally, but we have no desire that they should be extended to any other part of Wales. This is all we ask. Is it an unreasonable thing? An hon. Gentleman who, I am told, lives near Herefordshire, but represents a metropolitan constituency, has spoken of this Bill as a "land-grabbing" measure. I entirely dissent to that, and object to any such stigma. We have no desire to take the endowments out of Monmouthshire; all we desire is that the people of that county should have the use of them. I do most earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press this Amendment against the very strong feeling which exists among the Welsh people on this subject. Why should this lion meet us in the way? Why, at the very first step in Committee on this Bill, should we have this Amendment forced upon us? Surely the right hon. Gentleman might accept the opinions of the Welsh Members on this subject. They know and represent the feeling of Wales on this subject. What, I would ask, is behind the right hon. Gentleman? What is the real object with which he forces this Amendment on the Committee? Is it possible that there is any desire to stop this Bill in limine? Can that be the reason for the introduction of this Amendment? I would earnestly implore the right hon. Gentleman not to insist on so small a thing as this—small from his point of view, but of the greatest importance to the people of Wales, who will not desert their countrymen in Monmouthshire, whom they know to be the same people with the same feelings as themselves. Why should they be placed by the Government in this undesirable position?
  1408
  It being half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.
  MR. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House this day, called on the Clerk to read the Order for the Committee on the Coal Duties (London) Abolition Bill.

  COAL DUTIES (LONDON) ABOLITION (RE-COMMITTED) BILL (No. 5).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg leave to move to omit the words inserted by the Select Committee to which the Bill was referred, allowing the Corporation of London to impose a duty of 4d. a ton on coal for one year from Friday next, to be applied in discharge of the debt on the Holborn Valley improvements. I will not refer to the composition of the Committee except so far as to say that the Government, whenever they have a little intrigue on hand, are exceedingly fortunate in securing the services of a right hon. Gentleman on the opposition side as an ornamental figurehead. The Bill is entitled a "Coal Duties Abolition Bill"; but the words I propose to strike out convert it into a Coal Duties Continuance Bill. Nothing can possibly be more illogical and absurd than the position which the Committee have taken up, because what they in effect propose to enact is this—that the Metropolitan Coal Duties shall be abolished, provided that a material part of those duties be continued. Now, we are in a difficulty in discussing the question owing to the fact that the Committee have not thought proper to make any Report whatever of the evidence placed before them; but from the fact that the Committee have not made a Report, I draw the inference that they have not pursued the instruc-

  1409
  tions given to thorn by the House. In the first place, they were empowered by the House to consider what will be the legal position in regard to the exaction and duties by the London Corporation on Friday next. So far as we know they have not considered that question; at all events, they have not thought proper to put us in possession of what their opinion is with regard to the strictly legal position of the Corporation. In the second place, they were empowered to consider the manner in which the proceeds of the 4d. Duty have been expended. I wish to know whether the Committee have taken any effectual steps to inquire into the manner in which the money derived from the Coal Duties has been expended. I venture to think that a very careful scrutiny into this subject was required, because when the Coal Dues Bill was before the House in 1868 it was proposed that the accounts affecting these duties should be in the hands of a public officer. Lord John Manners, who was then in charge of the Bill, originally consented to the appointment of such an officer to audit the accounts; but he subsequently stated that when he consented so to do he was not aware of the objections entertained by the City Authorities, and, as a matter of fact these accounts have not been audited by a public officer. The third instruction given by the House to the Committee was to ascertain the amount of the debt remaining on the Holborn Valley Improvement. Well, I ask whether effectual steps have been taken to ascertain with precision what the amount of the debt really is? There has been some looseness on the part of the Committee, at least in one respect. I understand in one part of the accounts which were submitted to this Committee there was an item giving the value of the land at present in hand held by the Corporation, and the point to which I wish to draw the attention of this Committee is that the valuation was made by the City architect and not by an independent valuator. I do think that in a case of this kind where the amount of the debt is the essence of the question an independent valuation ought to be made. The House is absolutely ignorant of the reasons which have actuated the Committee, who have followed the advice of the wary Judge who said that one should never
  1410
  give reasons for a judgment. I protest, in the interests of Greater London, against the continuance of this tax, and hope the miners of Durham and Yorkshire will take note of the fact that the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle (Sir J. Pease), who is supposed to watch over the interests of the coal miners of the North, is going into the Lobby in order to tax coal which, but for the officious intervention of the hon. Baronet, might have been brought free and untaxed into London from Friday next.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 8, line 15, to leave out the words after the word "conveyance" to the end of Clause.—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. LAWSON: For my part I do not wish this discussion to be exhaustively or unnecessarily prolonged, but the Government can hardly expect that Metropolitan Members will allow the Bill in its present form to pass without protest and opposition. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Committee has entirely changed the character of the measure by turning it from a Bill for the abolition into a Bill for the renewal of the Coal Dues. Those who have less trust than I have in the absolute integrity and sincerity of the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle may have imagined that he brings the Bill forward collusively in the interest of the City, otherwise the City would have had no chance of raising the question which has been tried before the Committee, and in consequence of which a certain amount of compensation has been allotted to them. What is now proposed is that a new tax shall be levied on the whole of London in order to indemnify the City for a debt, in the contraction of which the inhabitants of Greater London have had no voice, and over the discharge of which they will have

  1411
  not the slightest control. The City came before the Committee upstairs, and, in the first place, tried to prove that they still owe a large debt in respect of the Holborn Valley improvements, placing before them a statement of accounts. No one denies that the Bills of 1864 and 1867, enabled the City to carry out what is undoubtedly a Metropolitan improvement, but no debt accrues on this expenditure. They got a third Act to complete the scheme, and took land, involving a large stretch of valuable frontage, which was not needed for the purposes of the Holborn Viaduct, and then they place before us a statement of accounts. We have no means of knowing whether the sum set down as representing the present value of the land unsold at date is correct. I submit that it was not a right thing for the Committee to accept the City's estimate of its position without further investigation, and now the city comes and asks for a compassionate allowance in order to enable them to discharge their debts contracted to the bondholders who took tip their securities. The debt in connection with the Holborn improvements, was contracted first of all upon the security of the Statutory Coal Dues which expire on the 5th inst., and ultimately upon the general estates and revenues of the Corporation amongst which are any prescriptive rights to which the City may lay claim. Therefore, the important point which the Committee had to consider, and which I submit they decided against the City, was—What is the value of those prescriptive rights? The City rights are practically worthless, If the Corporation contest them in a Court of Law it is more than doubtful whether they will be established. The difficulties of collecting the dues in virtue of charter would be immense. They only extend to sea-borne coal, and the whole trade would be transferred to the railways on account of
  1412
  the keen and equal competition. The City Chamberlain, examined before a Committee in 1861, as to the Acts under which the City levy a duty of 1s. 3d. per ton on coal coming into London by certain lines of railway, stated that these rights were repealed by implication by the General Act of 1845. In regard to six railways the City makes no claim, and among these are the Great Northern and the Midland, which bring into London half the amount consumed. Even if we grant to the City the whole of that which they claim, and give them the right to levy a duty on sea-borne coal, I do not suppose it would bring them in more than £10,000 or £12,000 a year. The last time they exercised the right was in 1829, when they only got £15,000; and in order to compensate them for the abolition of that right, you are now going to give them what they calculate at £150,000, being the proceeds of the duty for next year. I trust the Committee will take the view that it is a most unjust thing that the whole of London should be called upon to contribute towards the liquidation of this City debt. We made an offer to the City, and I think it should have been accepted. There is, in the hands of the City, £60,000, being the surplus of the drawback for coal brought into London for re-exportation. We should have admitted their claim to that, and should have been prepared to give them the £100,000 outstanding in the account of the Kew Bridges Joint Committee, but they were not satisfied. In order to make up for waste and extravagance they asked to be allowed to levy this tax for two years over the whole of the Metropolitan Police area, although the people of that area had nothing to say from beginning to end about the construction of the Holborn Viaduct or the carrying out of the other works. I do trust that the House will reverse the decision of the Committee upstairs. Of course, it is very unfortunate that we have not the evidence before us. Most valuable evidence was given before the Committee by Mr. Boulton, on behalf of the London Chamber of Commerce, in opposition to the renewal of the duty. The City, according to the account of the Chamberlain, is not in a bad financial position. He said the City's finance was perfectly

  1413
  sound, that the City credit was good, and that its estates were solvent. If so, I think it is rather beneath the dignity of the City to come here in formâ pauperis to ask for a compassionate allowance to enable it to meet its liabilities. The Bill is so changed that I consider that those who voted for the Second Reading will be fully entitled to oppose it now.
  MR. BAUMANN: As a Metropolitan Member, I support this clause as amended, although I moved an Amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill. I should like to explain to the Committee what I take to be the situation. There is an outstanding debt on the Holborn improvement of £744,000. The Corporation ask that the Metropolis should take a moiety of that debt, £372,000, upon its shoulders. From that moiety of £372,000 the Corporation offer to deduct £160,000—£100,000 being the surplus after freeing the bridges, and £60,000 being the surplus in the hands of the Corporation from the drawback, thus leaving £212,000, which the Corporation regard as the share of the liability in the Holborn Valley improvement which the Metropolis should bear. One year's Coal Duty at 4d. produces £143,000; and so the Committee, in amending this clause, grant the Corporation half their demand, which I think is a very reasonable compromise, indeed. The Corporation of London have certain prescriptive charter rights to levy duties on coal, and that those rights were confirmed by the Statute of William and Mary, recognized by the Statutes of William IV. and the present reign, cannot be denied by any sane or reasonable man. Whether the ancient rights to levy a duty on sea-borne coal were extended to railway-borne coal by the modern Statutes is, I think, a very nice question in Statute Law. The money value of these rights is therefore difficult to appraise; but that they have some money value is proved by the evidence of the Registrar of the Coal
  1414
  Market, who told the Committee that the nett produce of the 4d. duty on seaborne coal was £50,000 a year. But the first question to consider is this—Is Parliament prepared to destroy the ancient charter rights of the Corporation to receive an income by way of a rate or duty without any compensation? I submit that such a course on the part of Parliament would be entirely without precedent. The precedents are the other way. When the Tin Dues in Cornwall were abolished, Parliament met the case by a grant, and when the church rates, which were mortgaged, were summarily swept away, Parliament granted a temporary continuance of them. Then there is the case of the Holborn Valley bondholders. Ought we in equity to grant any continuance of these duties for the sake of those who lent their money for the Holborn Valley improvements? On the face of the Holborn Valley debentures there is printed the title of the Act, by means of which the money was raised; and I do not think any one who bought those debentures knew anything about the ancient prescriptive rights of the City. The people who bought these bonds knew, probably, that the City had a right to levy a duty on coal at that time and for sometime afterwards, and they also knew that the money was borrowed with the sanction of Parliament; but I do not believe that they took any trouble to inform themselves when the statutory powers came to an end or what prospect there was of a renewal of them. I do not think that the ease of the bondholders is at all strong, but far stronger than it, and far stronger than the claim under the charters and under the prescriptive rights, is the fact that the debt was contracted for carrying out Metropolitan improvements, and therefore it would he most unfair and inequitable to throw the whole burden of those improvements on the shoulders of the Corporation of the City of London. There is a debt of £750,000 contracted for improvements such as the Holborn Valley Viaduct, and surely it would be unfair to make the City Corporation bear the whole of that. It is sometimes complained that more was spent on these works than was originally sanctioned; but those who have had to do with builders and architects know

  1415
  that estimates are always exceeded, and therefore I say that it would be monstrously unfair to call upon the Corporation to pay the whole of the debt, especially as the City has had to pay its share towards the liquidation of the debt of the Metropolitan Board of Works. I say that the City Corporation has an equitable claim on the rest of London to bear its share of the cost of these improvements. I say that as a Metropolitan Member, though, of course, if the Metropolis were to repudiate its liabilities it would be a pecuniary gainer. I have no interest in pressing the claims of the City. I have no connection with the City. It has been suggested in a Radical organ that I am under some mysterious obligation to the City. Sir, I owe nothing to the City except a sick-headache, after dining with the Lord Mayor some years ago. But I have a prejudice in favour of people paying their share of a Bill in incurring which they took a part. I protest against the way in which certain hon. Members of this House speak of the City Corporation as if it were a kind of "Long Firm." What has the Corporation of the City ever done that it should be treated like a delinquent in the dock—to be denied the ordinary amenities, the customary equities, of civilized life? I am quite sure that the ratepayers and artizans of London are willing to discharge their share of the liabilities which have been incurred for public improvements, by means of a fourpenny Coal Duty for one year. I believe that they would rather do that than pay an increased rate; and, for the reasons which I have given, I beg to support the Clause as it stands.
  MR. FIRTH: I think the situation is much more serious than either the Government or hon. Members who support this Bill seem at present to think, and if the Bill is passed in its present form, it will have far reaching effects in a direction which has not yet been thought of. We do not want this Bill. Let it be dropped, and if it is dropped, all question about repudiation of liability—and these are scarcely proper terms to use—will come to an end.
  1416
  There is no repudiation of liability if we drop the Bill, and whatever liabilities may arise will, in that case—if they can—be enforced. Now, Sir, the situation may be understood by the simple statement that the House is, by passing this Bill, imposing a tax upon the ratepayers, which otherwise they would not be called upon to pay. There are equities on both sides, and the representative body of London, I am sure, would be both willing and anxious to do absolute justice in regard to this and any other matter arising between the Corporation of London and other public bodies or private individuals. They represent an enormous area of coal consumers, and it is their duty to see that no tax is imposed upon those consumers, and that no burden is placed upon their shoulders except that for which they are legally and equitably liable. But my contention is that in this case there is neither legal nor equitable liability. The claim put forward by the City is in a very shadowy form—a form which has exhausted all the eloquence of the hon. Members who have spoken in favour of it to support. The hon. Member who last spoke is now in favour of it, although on a previous occasion he was very strongly opposed to it. How long since is it that we have had the spectacle of the kind in this House? How long is it since a Member who strongly and vehemently opposed a Bill, shortly afterwards was transformed into one of its most urgent supporters. In whose interests is the Bill introduced? We know something about that now. It is introduced solely in the interests of the sea·borne coal-owners of the North of England. It was introduced in their interests simply because they feared that they would suffer—and only in a fragmentary degree—by the dues taking an ordinary course. And since then the City has put in a claim for £475,000 for the abolition of these shadowy rights. Now, the importation of coal into London from all sources last year was about 12,000,000 tons. Of that quantity, 7,400,000 tons, or more than one-half, came by the Midland and Great Nor-

  1417
  thern Railway Companies, whom, it is admitted, the City cannot tax. And, moreover, it cannot be denied that those companies would, if necessary, bring all the coal into London that is required, fur they tap the great Midland and Northern coal districts. Now, the claim of the City to tax the coal brought in by other companies is also a very shawdowy claim; and, therefore, my first point is this: we could absolutely have a full supply of untaxed coal brought into London by these lines on and after Friday next. And yet it is now proposed by this Bill to put a tax on this coal. You say you put it on because of the City debts, but why should you not equally well tax us one shilling in the £ in order to pay off those debts? I say that if coal can come into the Metropolis free of this duty by these railways, it is a very serious step which you are taking in proposing to sanction the continuance of these duties. It is suggested that if this arrangement is not accepted, it may lead to serious litigation; but are the people of London to be taxed on that account? If there is serious litigation, it will be between the Corporation and the railway companies, and that is a matter for them to decide between themselves, and not for the ratepayers of London generally to have to decide. The only liability for which the enormous compensation claimed by to have the chartered rights of 8d. and 4d. enforced against them. Now, I have taken the trouble to examine into this matter very carefully, and the first point which arises in my mind is, what are these prescriptive and chartered rights? There is the chartered right to weigh at 8d., and the prescriptive right to measure at 4d. The City cannot touch the 8d., because they cannot by any possibility weigh the coal which is brought into London. The 4d. depends upon old prescription, the existence of which I do not deny, and which goes back as far as the reign of Henry V., though the amount is not specified. The late Mr. Ayrton, who knew more about this question than almost anybody else, doubted the existence in these days of the prescriptive right of 4d. The right itself depended upon the measuring of the coal, which the City Chamberlain himself admits to
  1418
  be impracticable, and the claim has never been established in a Court of Law. Besides which the measuring of coal is illegal by statute, and even assuming the City to be right in its contention, what is the value of its right to this 4d. under the circumstances? That value can only be ascertained by calculating how much of the total amount of coal coming into the Metropolis comes by the railways. There is certainly no justification to pay a tax of £475,000 in compensation for a duty which in 1829 was worth only £15,096. The calculation would have to be made in assessing the amount of compensation, how much of the coal which now comes by sea could be brought by railway. And now comes the question of the City and Holborn Valley debt. Repudiation seems to be a word which comes readily to the lips of hon. Members opposite, but as I said before, if you drop the Bill, there is no necessity whatever for suggesting anything about repudiation. But with respect to the Holborn Valley debt, it is said that it was incurred by the City on the faith of this existing inherent right. Was it? I will give the Committee the facts. The first charge in connection with this Holborn Valley debt was upon the 4d. Statutory Duty which is gone. The second was upon the estates and revenues of the Corporation. It has been suggested that this included the four-penny duty, but that argument is absolutely inadmissible, and would apply equally to market bonds and Tower Bridge bonds. Then the question would have to be considered, how far the Holborn Valley, and other improvements, were Metropolitan improvements. No doubt some of the Holborn Valley improvements were Metropolitan, although for their own purposes the City kept them in their own hands. There can be no doubt that the Tower Bridge was a Metropolitan improvement, but the City took upon itself the cost of that bridge, because they wanted to have it under their own control. And surely they are not entitled to come now and ask us to to pay the cost. The next point which arises is in reference to the Kew Bridge Bill. According to this Bill, the Kew Bridge Committee are to pay over £100,000 to the City, which, it was fondly hoped, would have been distributed ratably among the London

  1419
  people. It was understood that the Coal Dues would absolutely expire in 1888. I have been so informed by Mr. Ayrton, and his view is confirmed by the fact that in 1869 an Act was passed extending them for one year, and that Act is important in corroborating Mr. Ayrton's statement. But now the City not only wish to take the £100,000 in respect of Kew Bridge, but they also want a share of the eightpenny and penny duties which were allocated to London generally, as well as the fourpenny duty. I venture to say there is neither law nor equity in the claim of the Corporation. I am dealing with the matter purely on its merits, and not from a political point of view. From a political point of view I could imagine nothing better but that this Bill should be forced through the House. I can only say that it looks very much like taxation at the point of the bayonet, and unless this clause is omitted, I think the Bill ought to be rejected altogether, and sent to that limbo from which, it is to be regretted, that it ever emerged.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the exact state of the case. The hon. Member says this Bill has been altered without warranty by the Hybrid Committee to which it was referred and of which I was Chairman. But that Committee was instructed to consider, first, the Corporation debts still due in respect of the Holborn Valley improvements; and, secondly, what provision should be made in the Bill in respect of such debts. What the Committee has done in altering the Bill was done under the latter instruction. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green spoke of me as the ornamental head of the Committee. I do not know exactly what he meant by that. I went into the Committee with a perfectly blank mind on the subject. I knew absolutely nothing about the Coal Duties, and I never had been interested in them, and I must say that every member of the Committee worked in the fairest and most assiduous manner; they worked hard, and they, with one dissentient only, came to the conclusion embodied in the Bill. With that one exception all the members of the Committee were in favour of the Bill as now presented to the House.
  MR. LAWSON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will excuse the interruption; but the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Temple), and the hon. Member for Peckham, proposed an alternative scheme which was not accepted.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: Yes; the two hon. Members named wanted two years' compensation; but they entirely agreed with the Bill when the vote was taken, and it was decided that there should be a continuance of the dues for one year only. I do not now propose to go over the ground which has already been traversed. The Committee examined into the ancient prescriptive rights and saw the original charters, and came to the conclusion that so far as we could without the matter being decided by a Court of Law that there were ancient charter rights which might have survived, and which, indeed, the City claimed to be prepared to substantiate in a Court of Law, if the right were not, as proposed to be done by this Bill, swept away. One of those rights was the taxing of all coal coming into London, except by the Great Northern and Midland Railways. I do not intend to express any opinion as to the validity of those rights. I would prefer to leave that to a Court of Law; but I should like to explain in what position we are. The first statute that gave this right of taxation on coal was the Act of William and Mary, which provided that the produce of the tax should be applied to a specific purpose, and should be levied only for a specific time. Other Acts followed which continued the tax for other specific purposes and specific times, and then came the Holborn Valley Acts—three in number—which gave the Corporation power to borrow certain sums mentioned in the Act, and the Corporation, in virtue of such power, did borrow, but not to the full extent permitted. For instance, one of their Bills gave power to borrow £99,000, whereas the Corporation has,

  1421
  as a fact, only borrowed £15,000? Therefore they have not exceeded their statutory rights of borrowing for these Metropolitan improvements. The public lent the money upon three certain securities, and on one of a doubtful nature, to which probably they did not give much consideration. The first of these securities was the fourpenny rate up to the 5th of July in this year; the second was the general property of the City; and the third the charter or prescriptive rights of the Corporation to tax coal. The doubtful security was the hope that Parliament would continue the tax as it had done in many successive Acts since the first Act of William and Mary. Under these Acts the Corporation borrowed £1,715,000, and of this £744,000 is still owing; and the question submitted to the Hybrid Committee was whether there was any equitable claim for relief in respect of this large sum? The City made a proposal which the majority of the Committee considered a generous one. They said that as this was primarily a great City improvement they would not ask that the whole of this sum should be provided; but that Parliament, which encouraged them to enter upon this large expenditure, might well be asked for half this sum—namely, £372,000. The Committee did not see their way to accept this proposal, but they endeavoured to see whether there was any way of providing some assistance without imposing taxation; and they found that there was the sum of £100,000 under the Kew Bridge Act, which was claimed by the Corporation, but which was really at the disposal of Parliament as provided by the Act. The Corporation certainly claimed this £100,000 as their property; but, as a fact, neither the City nor the London County Council had any right to deal with it, because the Act specifically says that any surplus arising under the Kew Bridges Act shall be disposed of by Parliament as it chooses. We thought it only fair that this £100,000 should be utilised in the way proposed in the Bill. There was also £60,000 available in respect of the penny drawback. This undoubtedly belonged to the Corporation; but they were quite willing that it
  1422
  should be included in the arrangement. That makes altogether £160,000 obtainable without any taxation. How, then, was the remainder to be provided? The Committee decided to allow the continuance of the 4d. tax for one year, which was calculated to produce £143,000. I, however, estimate that in the current year it will produce between £150,000 and £160,000; at any rate, taking the City estimate of £143,000, we get £303,000 provided, and I must say I look upon the proposal embodied in the Bill as a very moderate one. I do not know of any case in which, on the compulsory abolition of rights and duties, compensation has been refused. When the church rates were abolished they were, in certain cases, allowed to be continued until debts and mortgages raised on the security of them had been paid off. I repeat, I look on this as a very moderate proposal. The Committee have taken advantage of a sum of £160,000 over which Parliament had control, and they only recommend that the duties should be continued for one year at 4d. We think that this is an equitable and fair arrangement, seeing that the City is quite willing, from its own resources, to discharge the remainder of the debts incurred for these public improvements. I therefore hope that the Committee will accept the recommendation embodied in the Bill.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I have listened with very great care to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, in order to see if he would lay before the Committee any proof that the City has made out something like an equitable claim. But instead of doing that, he very carefully told us the nature of the decision at which the Committee arrived, and he did not give us any evidence whatever of an equitable claim having been established by the City. I say that the right hon. Gentleman failed to traverse the able and learned speech delivered by the hon. Member for Dundee, who, as we know, is thoroughly conversant with this question. The statement of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee remains, in fact, unanswered,

  1423
  and nothing has been said which in any way controverts the strong and logical position which he has taken up in this House upon this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds said there were three claims put forward as to the security of the bondholders in relation to the Holborn Valley Improvement. But I venture to say that what he suggested was completely at variance with the provisions of the Holborn Valley Improvement Acts. Section 40 clearly explains what was the security given to the persons who lent money for the Holborn Valley Improvement, and that security was undoubtedly based on the credit of the fourpenny duty, which expires on the 5th of this month, and on the credit also of the revenues of the Mayor, Aldermen, Commonalty and the City of London. But as to any other security, it was never dreamt of. I think it was most unfortunate that the Committee should have been asked to do its work in a hurry, for no one who has yet spoken on this question has been able to show that the demands of the City are in any way legitimate. I think the best proof that the City Corporation has no case is to be found in the readiness which they have shown in accepting the reduced terms now proposed to be conceded to them by the Select Committee. If they had had a strong case they certainly would not have been prepared to accept such terms. We are told that we are fighting against an equitable compromise; but what was the action of the City? They wanted just double what they are going to get. And now I wish to say a word with regard to the surpluses. Surely the City has no claim whatever to have these surpluses handed over to them as proposed in the Bill. It has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds that Parliament alone has control over these surpluses; but the Committee has proposed to hand them over to the City, and I wish to know what special claim the inhabitants of the City have to this money as compared with the claim of
  1424
  Greater London? We strongly protest against the way in which this matter has been hurried through. We fear that some of our friends, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, who went into this case, have not had time to deliberately examine it; and we wish to know why the inhabitants of Greater London should be taxed in order to help the City pay its debts—debts which it could have paid long ago if it had chosen. Remember that Greater London is, at the present time, more heavily rated than the City. I will not take up much more of the time of the House; but I may say that I am fully prepared to go into the Lobby and let the people of London judge who are best looking after their interests. I hold no brief for the City of London. I have resisted their mild invitations, and I leave it to the people of London, when they are paying the tax, to judge who in this House have their interests at heart. There are some Members in this House who represent constituencies far from London; but there are others who represent places nearer home, and I hope that they will hear a good deal about this Coal Tax before the next General Election. I am prepared to say that no case has been made out for the City of London for a continuance for 12 months of this tax on coal, and neither has any claim been made out for handing over to them the surplus, which belongs legitimately to the people of the whole of London.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 82.—(Div. List, No. 173.)
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  SIR J. PEASE: I think the House will consent to the Bill being now read a third time. [Cries of "No."]
  MR. SPEAKER: It must be postponed till another day.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.
  It being after Six of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Seven o'clock.