Commons Sitting of 9 July 1889

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (SPECIAL REPORT).
Special Report brought up, and read, as follows:—
Sir Herbert Maxwell reported from the Select Committee on Friendly Societies, that it is the opinion of the Committee that there are strong grounds for believing that Richard Martin, in giving his evidence before the Committee, has been a party with others in a conspiracy to deceive the Committee.
Special Report to lie upon the Table.
Ordered, That the Report be considered upon Monday' next.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (EVIDENCE OF RICHARD MARTIN).
Copy ordered, "of the Evidence of Richard Martin before the Select Committee on Friendly Societies."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 242.]

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed to,—Coal Duties (London) Abolition Bill.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and being returned;—
Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to London Coal Duties Abolition Act, 1889, Bill.

QUESTIONS.

  THE CONTRACTING DEPARTMENT OF THE WAR OFFICE.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that two weeks have elapsed since serious charges of incompetence were brought against the Contracting Department of the War Office, to which no reply has been
  1814
  given, he will bring forward the remaining Vote of the Army Estimates at an early date, when they may be admitted or disproved?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): This question is one which should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury; but, judging by the pledges already given as to Government business, there appears to me to be no prospect of resuming this discussion at present.
  MR. HANBURY: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall put all the charges which have been brought in the shape of a series of questions, so that I may receive a definite "Yes" or "No" without further delay.

  THE LAUNCESTON WORKHOUSE.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he can state the decision arrived at in regard to the holding an independent inquiry into the condition and discipline of the Launceston Workhouse?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): The Local Government Board have received a communication from the guardians of the Launceston Union, in which they express their desire that an inquiry be instituted, and the Board propose to direct one of their Inspectors to inquire into the question of the punishments of paupers.

  IRISH PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a recent order of the Irish Prisons Board obliges warders to wear prison uniform when off duty; whether he will state the number of hours weekly that Irish prison warders are engaged on duty, and how long in each week they are engaged on night duty and day duty respectively; whether Irish prison warders are entitled to any half-holiday except after night guard, and when they have been on duty for 16 hours continuously; whether it is a fact that warders in English prisons are allowed to wear plain clothes when off duty, and to have a half-holiday weekly; and, whether he

  1815
  will consider the desirability of extending to the warders in Irish prisons the same treatment in these respects as that now given to warders in English prisons?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The General Prisons Board report that the recent order of the Irish Prisons Board is simply a renewal of similar instructions which were issued in February, 1879, and which it was found had, in some instances, come to be disregarded in practice. The hours of duty necessarily vary in different prisons according to circumstances. But the average number of hours of actual duty per week is about 82, of which 9 hours are night duty and 73 hours day duty. In most of the prisons the warders get a half-holiday on every second Sunday and prison holiday, in addition to the day after night guard. The period of 16 hours' duty alluded to includes intervals of about 2½ hours for meals. In both England and Ireland the practice of wearing plain clothes appears to be confined to cases where officers are on general leave of absence. There is no general half holiday allowed weekly in England, and only in the case of a public works convict prison in England are some of the officers relieved early on Saturday.

  THE PRINTING OF POST CARDS.
  MR. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the fact that the price of printing private or stationers' postcards has been raised from 30s. to 50s. per ream as a protection to the contractors; or what is the actual reason for a fee 2,000 per cent above the price at which any printer would execute the work?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension as to the reasons why the concession of printing postcards for private persons was, and is, allowed. The concession was intended to enable firms desiring to obtain postcards in sheets for printing or other purposes so to obtain them; but it was not intended to facilitate competition with the Government sale of postcards as such. The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that the Revenue Departments Estimates Committee last year reported that the evidence showed that there is an
  1816
  actual loss to the revenue on all halfpenny postage matter; the actual distribution, collection, conveyance, and delivery of postcards cause a loss to the revenue; and with a view of somewhat reducing this loss the charge for printing postcards for private persons has been raised from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. per 1,000 cards; but this has been done, not for the purpose of protecting the contractors for postcards, but for the purpose of diminishing the loss to the revenue.

  POSTAL ORDERS.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in the matter of "Postal Orders," any official of the Post Office (and, if so, whom), has received any reward for initiating or perfecting that system; and, if so, whether the claims of Mr. Cotton, of Exeter, as put forward by the Chamber of Commerce of Exeter, were at all taken into account?
  THE POST MASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In answer to the hon. Member, I have to say that no official of the Post Office received any reward either for initiating or perfecting the system of Postal Orders. I would add that Mr. Cotton's claims have been fully considered; but there appeared to be no justification for making a recommendation in his favour.
  SIR E. WATKIN: May I ask whether any Departmental inquiry has been made into the question?
  MR. RAIKES: At this time it is difficult to say who the first person was who originated the idea. It appears to have occurred to more than one person about the same time. The hon. Baronet seems to have a great idea of the importance of the matter; but it does not appear to me that it was a discovery which was due to the exercise of an enormous amount of genius.

  BOARD OF TRADE—TORY ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE AND SIGNAL STATIONS.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has seen an article in the Northern Whig newspaper from its London correspondent, calling attention to the want of progress in the proposed connection by cable of the lighthouse and signal station on Tory Island with the land telegraphs of Ireland, and ask-

  1817
  ing whether the Government are waiting for another shipwreck like that of H.M.S. Wasp before doing this very inexpensive but most necessary work; and what is the real position of the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I have not seen the article to which the hon. Baronet refers, which must have been written under some misconception of the duty of the Government in the matter. I understand from Lloyd's that they have been in negotiation with the proprietor of Tory Island for the land they require for a signal station, but so far without success. It is probable that Lloyd's may proceed under Lloyd's Signal Stations Act of last Session, unless they can come to terms with the proprietor of the Island.
  MR. MACNEILL: Am I to understand that, notwithstanding the wreck of the Wasp, no steps have been taken to rectify a danger of this kind?
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: That is no fault of mine.

  WAR OFFICE APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War in how many instances within (say) five years when a valuable appointment in the War Office has been vacant and advertisements have been inserted stating that no candidate above a certain age need apply, applications having been sent in in accordance with such conditions, the appointment has thereupon been given to persons above the age specified; and, whether, in the recent case of the appointment, at a large initial salary, of an Inspector of Clothing, aged 46 (all other candidates having been informed that no one above 40 need apply), any, and if any what, opportunity was afforded to any other persons above the prescribed age to compete after it had been decided to abandon the advertised limit of age?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: No other such case has occurred. As regards the present instance, the professional assessors, who were good enough to assist me in selecting an Inspector, were not able to recommend any of the candidates within the age, but considered that the qualifications of the
  1818
  gentleman selected were such that the limit of age should not be insisted on. I am satisfied that we have chosen the best man.
  MR. HANBURY: My point is that the advertisements having stated that nobody above 40 years of age should apply, I cannot understand why it should have been decided to appoint a man of 46. Was there any competition of men up to that age?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: My point is this—that the person appointed was selected from an enormous number of applicants, and I am satisfied that, so far as the Public Service is concerned, the best man has been appointed.

  THE CASE OF WILLIAM JULIAN.
  MR. BERNARD COLERIDGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of William Julian, labourer, of Cropwell Bishop, who, on the 13th of June, was charged before the Justices at Bingham, in Nottinghamshire, with being in unlawful possession of 28 partridge eggs on the 2nd of June, in which case, although it was proved that, as to 15 of the eggs, they were given to him by a man called Hardy, and that, as to 13 of the eggs, they were taken from the land of a man named Starbuck by Starbuck's permission, Starbuck being a man having the right by Law to take such eggs, according to his own evidence, the Justices fined the man Julian 5s. for every one of the 28 eggs, being the full penalty permitted by Law, and in default of payment sentenced him to two months' imprisonment; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will reduce the fine.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to this case; but it is one which does not call for interference on my part.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill; and, if so, will an early opportunity be given to discuss that measure; and, when the

  1819
  Select Committee will be appointed on the Bann Drainage Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will be more convenient that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury should answer this question, when he answers a question on the same subject by the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan). With regard to the Bann Drainage Bill, I may say that some progress has been made in the selection of names.
  MR. W. MACDONALD: The Barrow Drainage Bill stands as the eighth Order to-day. Will it be taken to-night, if it is intended to take it at all this Session? If so, will due information be given to those who are interested in the measure?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not intended to take it to-night, but the Drainage Bills will be taken in the order in which they stand on the Paper. I confess that the hope of taking it is much less than it was some time ago. The opposition below the Gangway is much more expressed than it was.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK—THE COALVILLE DISTRICT MINERS' ASSOCIATION.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if it is true that the Coalville and District Miners' Association have been refused permission to invest their funds in the Post Office Savings Bank; and, if so, whether he will state the reason for such refusal; and, whether it is a fact that Trade Unions similar to the Association referred to have been in the habit of investing their funds in the Post Office Savings Bank for over a quarter of a century without question or limit?
  MR. RAIKES: In answer to the hon. Member I have to say that the facts are correctly stated by him. The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, to whom the case in question had to be referred, informed me that they were unable to give their approval to the proposed investment, as, in their opinion, the objects of the Society as defined by its rules do not come within the scope of the 32nd Section of the Act 26 and 27 Vic., c. 87. I have made a further representation to the Commissioners, and I understand
  1820
  the matter has been submitted for the consideration of the Treasury.
  MR. HOWELL: Is it the intention of the Government to deal with this matter in some form or other this Session?
  MR. RAIKES: The question is under the consideration of the Treasury. I cannot say more than that.

  IRELAND—PRISON TREATMENT OF FATHER STEPHENS, MR. KELLY, AND OTHERS.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that from Sunday, the 30th of June, till Sunday, 7th July, Father Stephens and Mr. Kelly were obliged to keep their cells in Derry Gaol, and were deprived of exercise, owing to the Governor of the Gaol, Captain Wilson, insisting that any exercise they took should be taken in the company of the persons convicted of the insurance frauds in Belfast; whether he is aware that on Saturday' last Dr. O'Farrell, of the Prisons Board, visited Father Stephens and Mr. Kelly, who both refused to accept any indulgence in the matter of exercise, on the ground of ill-health, and stated that on principle they declined to exercise, in company with common criminals and whether he will take any, and, if so, what, steps to prevent a repetition on the part of the Governor of Derry Gaol, in refusing these gentlemen the privilege of exercise except under degrading conditions? I have also to ask whether it is true, as stated in the Daily News of Thursday, that Father Stephens and Mr. Kelly, who are serving a term of imprisonment under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act in Derry Gaol, were ordered on Wednesday morning to exercise with the prisoners convicted for insurance frauds in Belfast, and, on their refusal to do so, were, and are, still confined to their cells; and, whether, having regard to the fact that Captain Wilson committed an error of judgment (which was admitted by the Chief Secretary) in refusing to allow two female prisoners from Gweedore to wear warm clothing supplied to them by friends for the journey between Derry and Letterkenny, and also, on the 20th May, 1889, remonstrated with the Rev. John Doherty, Roman Catholic administrator

  1821
  and chaplain of the gaol, for calling to see "a certain class of prisoners, such as the Rev. Mr. Stephens, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. M'Hugh, oftener than others confined in the prison," the Chief Secretary, as head of the Prisons Board (Ireland), will take any, and what, steps to prevent future errors of judgment on the part of this gentleman?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reference to the same subject, asked whether any, and, if so, what., instructions or explanations have been issued by the Prisons Board of Ireland or by the Government as to the mode in which the Prison Authorities are to carry out the new rule with reference to the exercise of prisoners, or Pointing out the class of persons who are to be relieved from association with other criminals; whether it is a fact that the Reverend Father Stephens and Mr. Kelly, imprisoned under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act in Derry Gaol, have since the passing of the rule been required to take exercise with certain Belfast men who had been convicted of wholesale frauds and forgeries in connection with the lives of inebriates and persons suffering from fatal diseases, and whether, on declining to do so, they were deprived of exercise and confined to punishment cells; whether the Belfast forgers had, on their part, been relieved under the new rules from wearing the prison dress and from taking exercise with other felons; and, whether such action of the Prison Authorities is in accordance with instructions of the Prisons Board, or meets with the sanction of the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that it is the case that the two prisoners mentioned (Father Stephens and Mr. Kelly) were required by the Governor of the prison to exercise at the same time as the Belfast insurance prisoners, all those prisoners belonging to the class of first convictions; also that both these sets of prisoners had availed themselves of the permission to wear their own clothes accorded under the new rule. But that it is not the case, as alleged, that the Belfast prisoners have ever been exempted from exercising with other prisoners of the class of first convictions, with which class they are still exercising. The two prisoners named in the questions did forfeit their
  1822
  exercise by declining to exercise with the other prisoners referred to. No other punishment was inflicted. Before the new rule regarding exercise was adopted general instructions were issued to Governors of prisons as to exercising "first convictions" apart from other criminals. No general instructions or explanations have been issued by the Prisons Board or by the Government as to the mode in which the new rule is to be carried out. It appears that the medical officer of the prison, in the exercise of his discretion under the new rule, directed on Saturday last that on medical grounds these two prisoners should be permitted to have separately two hours' exercise. Whether they have refused to take such exercise I am not aware. The error of judgment in regard to the clothing incident referred to was at the time remedied. There was no error of judgment as regards the case of the Roman Catholic chaplain, the Governor having acted in strict conformity with his instructions. There is nothing in the points raised in any of these questions under reply calling for action on the part of the Government.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Were Father Stephens and Mr. Kelly for the space of an entire week shut up in their prison cells and deprived of all exercise because they refused to exercise in company with common criminals? When Dr. O'Farrell visited them did they state that they claimed no privilege on the ground of ill-health, but that they were determined, on the other point, to exercise by themselves as a matter of right?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course their right to dispute the prison regulation was not admitted by the Prison Board.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Will the righ hon. Gentleman answer my question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have answered it.

  JAMAICA.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to allow the Government of Jamaica to give away about 120 square miles of the Crown Lands in that Colony to a private company, and without any obligation to cultivate the same?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: It is a part of the railway agreement which has been made by the Government of Jamaica with the sanction of the Secretary of State, that the Colonial Government shall grant to the promoters who are to construct the railway extensions one square mile of Crown land for every mile of extension completed, which will amount to about 120 square miles of land.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: May I ask whether it is intended to allow the Government of Jamaica to part with a valuable source of revenue—namely, its railways, constructed at a cost of £750,000, in exchange for bonds upon which no interest is payable until 5 per cent has been paid upon the whole capital to be sunk in extensions, amounting to about £1,500,000; and, whether he will take care that in any arrangement that may be made for the sale of the railway, and for power to raise money for extending the same, so much of the public debt of Jamaica as has already been incurred in respect of it shall be a first charge upon its profits?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: In answer to the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's question, I must refer him to the reply I made to him on the 27th ultimo, in which I stated in detail the particulars of the sale. As regards the second paragraph, the public debt of Jamaica incurred in respect of the railway will continue to be a charge on the Revenues of the colony, but not on the profits of the railway after it has been sold to the company.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: Will the Government give an assurance that the Papers will be laid upon the Table before a final sanction is given to any scheme?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I am unable to do that, because I do not know when the Papers will be ready.

  COUNTRY TELEGRAPH OFFICES.
  MR. FELLOWES: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what are the rules regulating the establishment of telegraph offices in country districts; whether a parish of 1,300 inhabitants, within half a mile of main wires, and with parishes round comprising over 2,000 inhabitants, are to be put to the inconvenience and
  1824
  expense arising from a want of telegraph office; and whether, the finding of a. sufficient guarantee in a poor parish being found to be impossible, he will take into his further consideration the possibility of establishing a telegraph office at Sawtry, Hunts?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the rule laid down by the Treasury in regard to the establishment of telegraph offices is that, if it is estimated that the revenue will not cover the expenses of the office, a guarantee must be given to secure the Post Office against loss. The main wires to which the hon. Member refers cannot be made available for serving a telegraph office at Sawtry. It would be necessary to erect a new wire nearly seven miles in length; and I regret to say that it is not in my power to provide this wire and open a telegraph office unless a guarantee of £32 a year be given.

  THE NAVAL REVIEW.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it will be possible, on the occasion of the inspection of the Fleet on 3rd August, to have in line one or more of the armed mercantile cruisers earning Admiralty subventions; and whether accommodation will be provided on one of Her Majesty's ships for the Agents General of the self-governing Colonies?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The Teutonic, the largest and newest of the steam vessels under subvention with her guns in place, will be present at the Naval Inspection on August 3, but it is not practicable to have more of those ships, as detaching them from their ordinary work would entail a very heavy expense to the Crown. In consequence of a wish expressed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, I am endeavouring to find accommodation for the Agents General. of the self-governing Colonies.

  GOVERNMENT GAS STOKERS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, considering the favourable terms conceded to the gas stokers of the London Companies, he will now consider the advis-

  1825
  ability of granting an eight hours' day to the gas stokers employ ed in Government works?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Inquiries are being made as to the practice.

  HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION IN COUNTY DOWN.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the memorial received from the inhabitants of Newcastle, County Down, as to the want of harbour accommodation there, whether he can say when an answer may be expected?
  MR. JACKSON: I have to-day read the memorial referred to by the hon. Member, and I hope to return an answer to it shortly.

  RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION, EAST COAST OF INDIA.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether early sanction will be given to the construction of a railway along the East Coast of India, to connect the Northern Circars with Madras; (2) whether several municipalities, and many of the Rajahs, and other local representatives of the millions who inhabit the Circars and Orissa, have publicly brought the pressing need that exists for the railway to the notice of the Madras and Bengal Governments; (3) whether the Engineers, lately despatched by the Government of India to reconnoitre the country, have reported favourably on the scheme, so far as it relates to the country between Beyrada and Cuttack, and whether Lord Connemara has strongly urged the importance of the work; (4) whether the Famine Commissioners of 1880 suggested that a railway might be made between Calcutta, Cuttack, the deltas of the Godavery and the Kistna rivers, and Madras, to obviate the recurrence of the distress of the years 1824, 1833, 1865–6, and 1876–8; (5) whether, since distress is again showing itself in Ganjam, this work will be placed first among the railway projects of the Peninsula; and, (6) whether he can lay any information upon the Table regarding the financial prospects of the line?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The Government have de-
  1826
  cided to survey the line from Beyrada to Cuttack, beginning on the 1st December next; (2) and (3), yes; (4) yes; (5) the matter is at present receiving the careful and earnest attention of Government; (6) some Papers bearing on the subject could be laid before Parliament if moved for; but until the probable cost of the line has been more nearly ascertained, no reliable forecast of the financial prospects of the undertaking can be made.
  SIR R. PAGET: How soon will the Papers, which are ready, be laid on the Table?
  SIR J. GORST: The hon. Member can have the information in our possession at once, if he will move for it; but I can give the House no information in regard to the financial prospects of the undertaking until the survey is complete.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Will information be given as to the number of natives who have been dying of cholera and starvation?
  SIR J. GORST: At the instance of the hon. Member himself the Secretary for State has been publishing that information every week.

  MR. COMMISSIONER KERR.
  MR. CHARLES DARLING: I beg to ask the Attorney General, whether his attention has been called to the case of Blankensee ?. Elkan, heard in the Queen's Bench Division on Tuesday last, being an application for a new trial in an action tried in the Sheriff's Court, in the City of London, before Mr. Commissioner Kerr, and to the following words used by the Lord Chief Justice of England:—
  "Lord Coleridge said he had to repeat in this case, what he had had occasion to observe before—that the Judge refused to obey the law as to sending signed notes of the evidence taken before him, and thus inflicted on suitors serious injury. In the present case the nonsuit must be set aside, and a new trial directed."
  By whom Mr. Kerr was appointed Judge; and, what means there may be of securing that he shall conform to the Law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I believe that the report of the language used by the Lord Chief Justice is substantially correct. I am informed, however, that the facts were not correctly stated to the Court, and, unfortunately, the counsel

  1827
  of the plaintiff who had been present at the trial before Mr. Commissioner Kerr, was unable to attend in the Court of Queen's Bench on the occasion in question. The document produced to the Court was not a copy of any notes taken by the learned Judge, and, as stated in the affidavit subsequently filed by the learned Judge, in which statement he is confirmed by the counsel for the plaintiff, no application was made to him to take notes. Upon the facts it is clear that Mr. Commissioner Kerr in no way refused to obey the law. He was appointed in 1859 by the Corporation.
  MR. C. DARLING: May I call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact that the Lord Chief Justice stated that he had had occasion to comment upon the conduct c the Judge before?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not think it fitting that I should go into that matter. I am not aware of the circumstances to which the Lord Chief Justice referred. Certainly there was nothing in the facts of this particular case to justify a general censure of the conduct of the Judge.

  THE ROYAL TITLE.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can explain to the House the reason why it was that Her Majesty's recent Message to the Lords, with respect to the Royal Marriage, was signed differently to that addressed to the Commons, the former being signed "Victoria, R.I.," and initialled "V.R.I.," while that to the Commons was signed "Victoria, R.," and initialled "V.R."; and, whether it has been usual or customary to make such a difference in addressing both Houses of Parliament; and, if not, whether this is to be taken as a precedent for the use of the title of Empress in communications addressed to Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H SMITH,): The Messages to both Houses were signed by Her Majesty in the same way, and it was only yesterday that the printer's error which had occurred in the House of Lords Papers was observed. Steps were at once taken to remedy the mistake, and an amended Report of the proceedings of the House of Lords on
  1828
  the 4th of July has to-day been circulated.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill will be put down for Second Reading as the first Order of the day?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. and gallant Member will be aware that while the Local Government (Scotland) Bill is before the House I cannot name a day, but I hope to be able to fix one as soon as the Scotch Bill is disposed of.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman put it down without waiting until the Drainage Bills are disposed of?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It will certainly have precedence over the Drainage Bills.
  MR. STOREY: Will it have precedence over the Barrow Drainage Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes.

  MEMBERS OF COLONIAL GOVERNMENTS.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government have issued any new regulations or instructions relating to the use of the prefix honourable in addressing members of Colonial Governments or Legislatures?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: There appears to be a misapprehension the origin of which the Secretary of State has not been able to trace. The question has not been raised recently in any shape, and the Secretary of State has certainly issued no directions on the subject. The title of "Honourable" for many years been accorded to Members of Executive Councils and Legislative Councils in all Colonies, including the smaller Crown Colonies. It has at no time been the practice to use that title in addressing Colonial gentlemen residing in this country; but it is a common practice to accord it when the person entitled to it is absent from his own colony on a visit to another colony. The reason for not addressing Colonial gentlemen by that title when they are in this country

  1829
  would appear to be that here it is not adopted as a designation of any excutive or legislative status, being the courtesy title distinguishing sons of Peers. But although no new instructions have been issued on this subject, it happens to be the case that, during the Colonial Conference, the Secretary of State did take the new course of addressing as "Honourable" the Colonial Representatives actually serving on the Conference, feeling that their presence here on official duty might properly be so recognized.

  BOURNEMOUTH SANDS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board if the Crown exercise title and control over the sands at Bournemouth; and, if so, why are the public not allowed the free use of the foreshore for bathing and fishing; and, why has the present system of licenses for refreshment and amusement stalls been introduced?
  MR. LONG: The matter referred to by the hon. Member concerns the Bournemouth Improvement Commissioners, and I have, therefore, been asked to reply to the question. I am informed by the Commissioners that the public are allowed free use of the beach and foreshore for the purposes of bathing and fishing, subject as to the bathing to the regulations contained in the bye-laws of the Commissioners. It is stated that there is very little fishing, but what there is is not interfered with. The Commissioners further state that they have a lease from Sir George Meyrick of the sea frontage of their district for the purpose of enabling them to make regulations for the good order and comfort of those who frequent the beach, and it appears that the Commissioners have for the last few years granted licenses to persons to place stalls for refreshments on the beach and for certain amusements there. This seems to have been done in order to prevent such matters becoming a nuisance to persons on the beach, but I understand that the right of the Commissioners in this respect is now the subject of an action in the High Court of Justice, and that it is expected that the case will shortly be heard.

  FIARS COURT, SCOTLAND.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Government next Session will take into consideration the inequality of the law relating to Fiars Courts in Scotland, in order to obtain a better and more uniform system of striking corn and other averages than at present prevails?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I am unable to give any undertaking upon the subject for next Session, but I shall carefully consider whether the existing system may not be improved in the direction indicated by my hon. Friend.

  INSPECTION OF MINES.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for the Home Department, when he expects to be able to lay on the Table the report of the Inspector of Mines?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): I will inquire.

  MOTIONS.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING (MASTERS' DISBURSEMENTS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Charles Hall, Bill to amend the enactments relating to the Wages and Disbursements of Masters of British Vessels, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Hall, Mr. Gainsford Bruce, and Mr. Gully.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 320.]

    GRANTS TO MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY.
    Motion made, and Question proposed—
    "That the Select Committee on Grants to Members of the Royal Family do consist of Twenty-three Members."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
    MR. STOREY: I beg to move that the Debate upon this question be adjourned in order to bring under the notice of the Leader of the House what I cannot but regard as a serious breach of the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman to a large section of

    1831
    this House. Of course, I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of having acted wilfully; but I shall, I think, be able to demonstrate to his fair mind, and to the minds of hon. Members generally, that such a breach of faith has been committed. Yesterday, on the Motion for the appointment of this Committee, several hon. Members asked questions, and the right hon. Gentleman made a reply which was certainly not as clear as some of us desired. Upon that I put the following specific question—whether the right hon. Gentleman would give us such notice as would enable us, in accordance with the Rules of the House, to give due Notice of Amendments? I will repeat to the House the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. He said—
    "I wish to act with perfect fairness to hon. Gentlemen who differ from the Government. I will put the names on the Table this evening. They will be in the possession of the Clerk at an early hour, and any hon. Member may see them. It will then be in the power of any hon. Member to give notice of any opposition or change he may desire."
    I have ascertained from the authorities of the House that, in a case like this, Amendments can only be moved after Notice. For instance, we may move without Notice to except any hon. Member's name, but we cannot move to add any other name without Notice. What are the facts of the case? The list, instead of being handed to the Clerk at an early hour, was placed before them in an authoritative form about quarter to twelve o'clock. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman, nor do I accuse him of doing this deliberately. We all of us know that he would not have done such a thing, and that the delay must have arisen from circumstances over which he had no control. I know the delay arose from causes over which the right hon. Gentleman had no control, but what I want to particularly point out is that theist, as a matter of fact, did not reach us till a quarter to twelve. Now we had but a quarter of an hour in which to conceive, to concoct, and to put down any Amendment we might think necessary. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, was that anything like a fulfilment of his promise to act with perfect fairness? I will state a fact of which he is probably not cognisant. Those of us who could hastily meet together—and at that time there
    1832
    were by no means so many of us to be got together as we could have desired—those of us who could, hastily met together and decided upon an Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) agreed to move that Amendment. Before we had concluded the arrangement of the Amendment, my hon. Friend, aged and reverend as he is, had absolutely to run at the top of his speed up the Lobby in order to get his Notice of Amendment put in at the Table in time. If I may be allowed to say so, without unduly complimenting him, the hon. Gentleman in his old age exhibits an energy and a determination to do his duty which I myself and many others might well emulate. Now, that being the fact, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, with his sense of fairness, if these were the cases under which we were able to introduce one little Amendment, how was it possible for us, in the limited time at our disposal, to examine the 23 names critically, and to decide as to whether the composition of the Committee was fair, as to what hon. Members we should make objection to, and as to whom—a much more difficult matter still—we should· propose in their places; and I think it will be apparent to the Government and to their supporters that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman has not been fulfilled—owing, no doubt, to no fault of the right hon. Gentleman. The large and important section of this House—you may call us a section, but I beseech the right hon. Gentleman to believe that upon this question he will find us a militant section—the large and important section of hon. Members of this House who are opposed to the present proceedings, and who certainly will not agree to them, except in forms that will give a perfect opportunity to us to place our views before the House and the country—I say this particular section have a right to require from him that he shall give to us what it has been an unfailing practice of Parliament to grant to any opposing section of hon. Members; that is, time to examine the proposal of the Government, and to suggest to the authorities of the House, in due form, the Amendments which they may think desirable. Now, I think I am not asking too much, especially when we consider the hasty

    1833
    way in which these proceedings, from the first, have been sprung upon the House and upon the country, when I ask that instead of engaging in a wordy Debate this afternoon, which cannot but be long, the right hon. Gentleman should spend the day in the more congenial and loss violent duty of carrying on still further the debates on Scotch matters, and then on Thursday, when the Liberal and Radical Members of the House have had ample time to consider the names, and have had time to put their Amendments upon the Paper—then, and not till then, to present his Resolution for debate in the House. I beg, therefore, to move that the Debate be adjourned until Thursday.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I beg to second the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Storey.)
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I have listened with regret to the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland. I am aware that this is a question on which the militant section of the House referred to feel very strongly, and I have been most anxious to extend to them, on behalf of the Government, the utmost possible consideration to which their views are entitled. I made every effort in my power to place the names upon the Paper early last evening, and I think they were in the hands of the Clerk a little earlier than has been stated, but I will not contest that point. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that the aged and reverend Gentleman the Member for Swansea, a gentleman whom we all revere and respect, had ample time to put an Amendment on the Paper, and that an Amendment was received by the Clerks. I do not wish to lay much stress upon that fact, but rather to point out that it is open to the House to reject any single name that is put from the Chair, and it is also open to any hon. Member to give Notice today of any name he proposes to add to the Committee, and such Notice of Motion will be considered and disposed of by the House before the Committee can enter upon its duties. That being so, hon. Gentlemen will see that I have substantially redeemed the engagement I have entered into. The course now pursued is hardly worthy of the position
    1834
    hon. Members desire to maintain. Let them deal with this matter, as they are fully justified in doing, on the sound ground of principle because they object to any further grant to the Royal Family; but they will not promote the object they have in view by putting obstacles in the way of the transaction of public business. It is obviously desirable, in the interests of public business, that the Committee should be appointed, enter upon its work, and report to the House as quickly as possible, so that the House may deal with its Report; and when the House does so, then hon. Members will have an opportunity of offering opposition to further grants.
    MR. PICTON: I shall be the very last to cast any doubt whatever upon the general fairness and intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I have known him too well and too long in other capacities in this House to suppose for a moment he would be willingly guilty of any unfairness. But I do not think he fully estimates the importance of giving to this section of the House a fair opportunity of considering this matter. It is all very well to say that we can oppose names that are proposed and give Notice to propose others on another day; but I suppose if any hon. Member were to succeed in throwing off any name from this Committee, which is in the highest degree improbable, and then give Notice of the substitution of another name, he would be entirely at the mercy of the Government and of hon. Members opposite who might block his Notice and prevent it being brought on. If the Government are going to favour us at all, I cannot see why they should not favour us now and let us have an adjournment until Thursday. I suppose that all courtesy has been shown, as is proper, to the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench. No doubt in the case of minor matters of business the right hon. Gentleman is justified in concluding arrangements with the Leaders of the Opposition. There are scores, perhaps hundreds, of matters of business coming before the House in which such arrangements may be perfectly justifiable, but I contend that this is not one of them. This is a most important matter. It is intended to settle a very grave question of national

    1835
    business for another reign, and I do not think that a matter of such grave importance should be settled by any secret conclaves between the two Front Benches. In a matter of this kind all Members may claim equal privilege. The First Lord of the Treasury said he would give Notice of the names early last evening. Such Notice, he now says, was given before a quarter to twelve. He cannot say that Notice was given early in the evening. We are not all made of cast iron. We cannot all stop here all night. Many of us have done too much of that already, and are suffering the consequences. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of this important question, will not huddle up this matter and give an impression to the country that he dare not face free and open discussion. Everything will turn upon the decision of the Committee, and if we have a Committee unfairly constituted we shall have what we consider an unreasonable and unjust Report. I contend we are not only within our right, but that we are morally justified in urging most earnestly that this important and grave subject shall be put off at least until Thursday when we may have a fair opportunity of considering it.
    The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 233.—(Div. List, No. 185.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. DILLWYN: The course which the Government have adopted will, in my opinion, -neither insure a fair inquiry nor fulfil the ordinary practice of the House as regards the appointment of the Committee. In 1886, when my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton proposed a Resolution respecting grants and pensions, he was met by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill), then Leader of the House, with a promise to grant an inquiry. The present First Lord of the Treasury has since confirmed the promise made by the noble Lord. The question has often cropped up, and from time to time the inquiry has been put off. It has now, I may say, been forced on the Government. Unfortunately, the Committee proposed to be appointed by no means carries out the intentions of those who desire to have a full and fair investigation.
    1836
    The practice of the House has always been that the Government should have in such Committees a majority of one; but the proposal of the Government will give them a majority of three, because the two right hon. Gentlemen belonging to what is usually called the dissentient Liberal Party—the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain)—may be much more securely relied upon to vote with the Government than even the Government's own supporters. Of course that addition entirely turns the scale. If it had only been 10 Members to 11 I should not have objected to the constitution of the Committee, but the present proposal gives the Government 13 to 10; and having watched the conduct of the noble Lord and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, we know that in all matters in which the Government take an interest they are Tory even beyond Tory. They may occasionally vote against the Government, but never when the question is one of great moment to the Government. I think it is important that we should insist upon the usual practice being adhered to in this as in other cases. A Committee, after all, generally savours of a foregone conclusion; but in this case, with majority of three instead of one, the foregone conclusion is clear and distinct. Under these circumstances, I beg to move that the Committee shall consist of 25 Members instead of 23, and if my Motion is carried I shall afterwards move to add the names of two hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "twenty-three," and insert the words "twenty-five."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    Question proposed, "That the words twenty - three,' stand part of the Question."
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman appears to be under the impression that, as regards this Committee, the House and the Government are departing from some course which has been generally adopted in the present Parliament. I would ask him to refer to the constitution of any Committee which has sat during the course of the present Parliament, and he will

    1837
    find that the proportions recommended to the House on this occasion are the proportions which have been adhered to absolutely in the constitution of all other Committees. There is nothing in which the Government have been so careful as to remove any thought of their attempting to obtain an unfair advantage. The question which is to be referred to the Committee is, I hope, not a Party question. It ought not to be dealt with on Party considerations. There are times when the House of Commons can, and, I hope, will, rise far above those considerations which divide us into several camps. The question is so associated with the Constitution of the country that it is best for the House of Commons to consider what is most advantageous for the interests of the country at large. But what I now desire to impress upon the House is that we have followed precedent strictly in the constitution of this Committee; that we have done that which has been done always in regard to the appointment of other Committees in the course of the present Parliament; and that practically this is a Committee which, I hope, will fairly and fully represent all the sections into which the House is divided—all the different views and opinions which are entertained by hon. Members in this House. And I am perfectly certain that their opinions and views will receive from other Members of the Committee who may not be disposed to agree with them the most careful and respectful consideration. I trust, therefore, that the House will not accept the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. CREMER: I intend to vote for the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), although I do not much care whether there are 23 or 25 Members on the Committee, because I am opposed to the appointment of the Committee, to any inquiry, or to any grant, and, for myself, I shall not feel bound by the Report of the Committee, because the substance of that Report is a foregone conclusion. On behalf of my constituents I repudiate the appointment of a Committee which is evidently intended to make out a case and delude the people into the belief that the majority of the House and the country are in favour of such grants as that proposed. I shall therefore feel it to be
    1838
    my duty to oppose every stage of the Report of the Committee. There was a time when only six or seven Members of the House went into the Lobby to vote against Royal grants; but now that number, as the last Division shows, has increased to 80, and even that is not the full strength of the opposition, as I believe will be made manifest when the Report stage is reached. In the country there has been a large growth of public opinion upon the subject; and if there is one question upon which the democracy are agreed—the Tory as well as the Liberal democracy—it is upon the question of these Royal grants.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that the question before the House is not that of Royal grants, but whether 23 or 25 Members shall be included in the Committee.
    MR. CREMER: I at once bow to your decision, Sir, and will reserve what further observations I may have to make until the Report of the Committee is presented. I only feel it right to say that I shall not feel bound by any Report that may be presented by any Committee appointed for the purpose of deluding the people.
    MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to the difference between a Committee of 23 and a Committee of 25 Members, that difference is evidently not very important numerically, and I should have been perfectly satisfied with either number which Her Majesty's Government might have selected as most proper. But I think it only fair to sustain the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as far as it turns on a matter of fact, and likewise as far as it turns on the exercise of the discretion of the Government in making the best distribution they could of the number 23 which they have chosen. It is undoubtedly the fact that some time ago the practice prevailed according to which it was usual, and, I believe, invariable, at least in Committees of smaller size, that a majority of one should be conceded to the majority of the day. I must say that I never admired that plan. I always thought the rule a bad rule, and I was always glad to avail myself of an opportunity of modifying it and altering it according to the practice which prevailed for a good many

    1839
    years before that rule, and which has prevailed during the existence of the present Parliament. That is to say, that any Committee of the House should be made—especially when there is a matter of very great public interest, importance, and delicacy—as carefully and as nearly as may be the accurate representation of the sentiments in this House. But the right hon. Gentleman said that this is not a Party question, and therefore it is not from Party necessity that there is a motive for careful and accurate selection. But it is a matter of great political and national importance, and therefore that motive applies in its fullest sense. That being so, I believe my hon. Friend will not find it possible to shake the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the matter of fact. As to the distribution of the numbers, the hon. Member says a majority of three is possessed by the Party opposite. I am extremely sorry that they have that majority, but I am bound to say they are fully entitled to it by the state of opinion in the House. If we can destroy that majority in the House which gives them a title to that majority of three, by all means let us do it, but there it is at the present moment. It is not according to an ideal or a future House of Commons, but according to the present and actual House of Commons, that the Committee has been chosen. The right hon. Gentleman has had a duty to discharge rather more difficult than commonly falls to Leaders of the House. In old times there were only two units in this House, and it was then more easy to divide the numbers on a Committee when there were only two sections in the House than now, when it is divided into four. We have four recognized Parties or sections in the House, and those Parties or sections happen to be exceedingly unequal in number, consequently the rules of arithmetic, combined with the impossibility of dividing the unit, represented by the Member, into any smaller fraction, involved an operation which to a humane man like the right hon. Gentleman it would be impossible to accomplish. I am bound to say that so far as I am able to form a judgment the right hon. Gentleman has performed his duty in a spirit of equity and consideration. If I take those with whom I have the honour more immediately to act,
    1840
    undoubtedly we have quite as many Members on the Committee as we are entitled to. Although I observe the Motion is to give us two more, I am sorry we have no ground whatever for making the claim. As to the Nationalist Party from Ireland, who must, of course, be represented on this Committee, I admit, when we come to apply minute fractions to their case, it has not been possible to give them quite as much as their numerical strength deserves. At the same time I do not see that the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to discharge his task with greater mathematical exactitude. Upon the whole, if we take these four Parties as they are divided upon the most important questions of the day, I do not think it would be possible to make a more fair and equitable distribution. I shall feel it my duty to support the right hon. Gentleman in the proposition he has made.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I am in a position of some difficulty in regard to this Amendment, because while I agree that the Committee is fairly apportioned as to numbers, and that the distribution follows the rule pursued in this House, I am going to vote for the Amendment because I am entirely opposed to Royal grants, and because I want to raise every possible difficulty in the way of those grants being made. If the original terms of the Reference had included an investigation of the savings on each class of the Civil List, I should have been satisfied with the numbers apportioned to this side of the House; but I know that as the majority will interpret the terms of the Reference, there will be no inquiry into the savings on the various branches of the Civil List. I intend to vote for an increase in the numbers proposed by the hon. Member for Swansea, and I take it that the Vote is a declaration on the part of the Liberals and Radicals, both above and below the Gangway that the Reference to the Committee is unfairly limited. I shall give my vote for the Amendment, not as alleging any breach of the ordinary arrangements which govern the nomination of these Committees, but as a protest against the exclusion of facts which are really material in determining whether these grants should be made or not.
    MR. STOREY: I desire before I proceed to make a few remarks, to relieve myself from a position of some embarrassment. My name appears upon the consequential Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, and I wish to say that those two names were hastily arrived at last night. I am commissioned on behalf of my hon. Friend and myself to say that if the House is willing to substitute the names of any other two Gentlemen holding somewhat the same views—[a laugh]—I do not suppose the hon. Gentlemen opposite deem me so foolish as to desire two more names from their side of the House, when my object is to show that already they have more than they are entitled to. I contend that the precedents in such cases show that a majority of one is all the Government are entitled to, although I admit that there has been a newfangled arrangement during the present Parliament, consequent upon the fact that in this Parliament for the first time, and I hope it will be the last, consists of four distinct Parties. Radical as I am, I am constitutional enough to prefer the ancient practice to that which now exists. The Committee is not appointed to vote but to inquire, and therefore the minority should be as large as possible, so that there may be a freer power of discussion. As the Committee is at present constituted, the decision cannot be other than prejudiced and one-sided. It is to be appointed to inquire into two specific cases and into a principle, and we cannot decide the cases without deciding the principle, and vice versâ; the principle being that not only shall provision be made by Parliament for the Sovereign and the children of the Sovereign, but for the children of the Heir Apparent to the Throne. We Radicals are sticklers for constitutionalism. We object to the introduction of the Crown into this matter at all. We have to do with the Ministers only. The proposal is a Ministerial proposal, upon which the life of the Ministry depends, and, of course, their supporters will vote in favour of it. What chance is there of their giving a vote which would terminate the existence of their own Ministry? The Conservatives have not only a majority on the Committee, but the Government will be supported by the Liberal Unionists. There is the
    1842
    noble Lord the Member for Rossendale, with whose history and ideas we are well acquainted, and there is not the slightest chance that he will do otherwise than support the Government. Then there is the Member for West Birmingham, of whom we used to have some hope, but now he has cast in his lot for ever with those "who toil not neither do they spin." The right hon. Gentleman can only vote as he is directed by the Government. A pretty pass that for an ancient Radical leader to come to. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to get up in this House and say whether, having regard to his utterances and his character for consistency, he can do anything other than support the Government.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not think the hon. Member is in order in discussing at this stage the antecedents of any proposed Member of the Committee.
    MR. STOREY: I admit, Mr. Speaker, that the course I am taking is inconvenient, and I will content myself with saying I think I have already demonstrated that the majority of the Committee must vote for the Ministerial proposition. In that case, the decision of the Committee is prejudged. I admit that the Irish Members have a right to have two Members on the Committee, and that the Gentlemen selected may both, from their position of authority and their inherent ability, be very properly placed there. But I do not forget that they represent Irish interests, and that their views and actions will be regulated by circumstances that will make for the freedom and self-government of their country. I want the House to realize the position which English Radicals have taken in this matter. At the head of the Committee is a name comment upon which would be dangerous even if it were desirable. No such Committee would be complete without the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party. If the right hon. Gentleman choses to give his services, far be it from me to say anything against it. Speaking for myself, I should like to say that having studied and followed the incidents of his great career——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the names. The question is rather the

    1843
    quantity of the Committee than the quality of those who compose it.
    MR. STOREY: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I bow to you at once, but I was endeavouring to show that the composition of the Committee is such as to prejudge the conclusion of the Committee. I contend that the majority for the Government being even more than the number mentioned by my bon. Friend who moved the Amendment, the Radicals are entitled to add two names to the Committee. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) represent most fairly the Radical element in this House. Now, Sir; if we knew beforehand what the Committee will decide, is it not fair that there should be such an amount of opposition as will deprive the Government of that which they want besides the decision? The Government want not only the decision but also the moral effect which will spring from the decision of a Committee the great majority of which is in their favour. So far as I can see, the Government have practically 15 Members of the Committee who will go with them. Does anyone believe that the hon. Member for Swansea District (Sir Hussey Vivian) represents Liberal opinion in this matter? If the voice of Wales is to be heard I am amazed that such a choice should have been made.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the hon. Member objects to the names he should do so when they are read out.
    MR. STOREY: Very well, Sir. I will object to that hon. Gentleman when the time comes; and in the meantime I will assert that the antecedents of the hon. Member for Swansea District——[Cries of "Order" and "Name."]
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. STOREY: Why am I to be interrupted by hon. Members opposite calling out "Name?" I am trying to keep myself in order as well as I can. I will conclude by stating that the point of my argument is that the Government, so far from having 13 Members on the Committee who sympathize with and hold their views, have at least 15 and probably 17. I assert that the
    1844
    enormous majority of the Liberal electors in the country hold the views I am expressing, and they will be represented probably by four and perhaps by six. It is most unfair to send to a Committee so constituted, not the consideration of the general question merely, but the consideration of the specific questions raised by the Government, and with which is bound up the fate of the Government. Looking at the constitution of the Committee, I can come to no other conclusion that unless it be altered so as to give to the Liberals of the country, at least a sufficient number of representatives to enable thorn to make a serious protest against the unfair and one-sided conclusion which is already registered, although it may, perhaps, influence hon. Members opposite and their constituents, it will be deprived of moral weight for all the Liberals and Radicals of the country.
    The House divided:—Ayes 300; Noes 105.—(Div. List, No. 186.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That the Committee do consist of 23 Members.
    Question, "That Sir Walter Barttelot, Mr. Burt, Dr. Cameron, be Members of the said Committee," put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir Archibald Campbell be one other Member of the Committee."—(Mr. Wiliam Henry Smith.)
    MR. STOREY: I beg to move that Sir Archibald Campbell's name be omitted. Of course, it is perfectly understood, both by that hon. Member himself, whom I have not the pleasure to know, and also by all the House, that this opposition to his name is not dictated by any personal disrespect to him. I will tell the House why I take this course. The hon. Member is put on the Committee, I suppose, as in some sense a representative of the opinion of Scotland. Now, Sir, I submit that if the opinion of Scotland were asked in this matter, it would not be the hon. Member to whose name I object that they would ask to be their spokesman. Supposing this Amendment should be carried, and I hope the good sense of hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow us to carry it, I shall propose that the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Hunter), whose name

    1845
    has already been put before the House should be added to the Committee.
    The House divided:—Ayes 304; Noes 86.—(Div. List, No. 187.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Joseph Chamberlain be another Member of the said Committee."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
    MR. STOREY: I understand that this Committee is to be a representative Committee. The right hon. Gentleman to whose name I now take objection is, in my judgment, and in the judgment of many others, representative of nobody except himself. The days have been when we in this quarter of the House, and those who think with us in the country, looked upon the right hon. Gentleman as a tower of strength, and as one who believed in Radicalism and would support Radicalism. Now, whom would the right hon. Gentleman represent on that Committee? He does not represent the Liberal Party; he does not yet represent the Conservative Party; but it may be urged that he represents the Liberal Unionists. I submit that all the Liberal Unionists who are Liberal are fittingly represented by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), and that those of the Liberal Unionists who are Conservative are fittingly and fully represented by the 11 Conservatives who have been nominated on the Committee. I object to the right hon. Gentleman now, but there have been days when I should have objected to him more. I remember the days when the right hon. Gentleman developed, or was supposed to have developed, a wild, extravagant form of Republicanism, which, as far as I understood it, was as dangerous in its purposes as it was futile in its methods. In those days, for the sake of something which we hoped to gain from him, we may have been content to use the right hon. Gentleman for a time; but now I submit that the right hon. Gentleman has delivered himself, bound hand and foot, into the hands of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and will go into that Committee so pledged and committed as to the decision which he must give that he will be in no sense a free and fair representative of opinion upon that Committee. Now, I will prove the serious allegation I have made. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; I will prove it. The Committee will have to con-
    1846
    sider a proposal which has bean introduced by the Government, and upon the fate of which depends the fate of the Government. The Committee has to decide that fact. The right hon. Gentleman, if he were put upon the Committee, must give his decision; but what would be the result, supposing he and others joined with the Liberals on the Committee and defeated the proposal of the Government? If that proposal were defeated the Government would be defeated, and would come to an end. Are we to understand that this is not so serious a Ministerial proposition that the fate of the Government is not bound up in it? Well, I do not expect to see right hon. Gentlemen opposite sitting on the Treasury Bench a day after such a proposal is defeated, if it ever be defeated. The Government, being like all other Governments, will, I expect, have too much self-respect, and too much regard for ancient Constitutional practice to remain in office if this proposition of theirs is defeated. How could the right hon. Gentleman vote for the defeat of that proposition? Has not the right hon. Gentleman told us and the country, again and again, that the keynote of his policy is to do nothing that will defeat the present Government; and if he does nothing to defeat the present Government he must go with the Government upon that Committee. Therefore, I submit that I have amply proved that, so far from being free to give an opinion the right hon. Gentleman is bound hand arid foot as to the opinion he will give. He is like Sampson of old—he has been shorn of his Radical locks—shorn of his Radical principles, wherein lay his strength, here and in the country. He has been delivered into the hands of Delilah. [Laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] He has been delivered by Delilah, the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings), into the hands of the Philistines, by whom he has been bound hand and foot. Neither on this question of Radicalism, nor on any future question of Liberalism is the right hon. Gentleman free to vote, and therefore I resist his appointment on the Committee, and suggest—for I can do no more than suggest—another name instead of his. The name I would suggest and put in opposition to that of the right hon. Gentleman is

    1847
    the name of one who has made this question his own; whose full possession of the facts and whose fairness of judgment entitle him to confidence on this side of the House, and have, despite the past, entitled him to the confidence of many Members on the other side of the House—I mean my hon. Friend the junior Member for Northampton. If the proposition I now make, that the name of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain be excluded from that Committee be carried, I shall move, at the proper time, that the name of Mr. Bradlaugh be substituted.
    The House divided:—Ayes 299; Noes 95.—(Div. List, No. 188.)
    Question, "That Sir James Corry, Mr. Elton, Mr. Gladstone, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Goschen, Marquess of Hartington, Mr. Samuel Hoare, and Mr. Illingworth, be other Members of the Committee," put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Labouchere be one other Member of the Committee."
    MR. ELLIOT LEES: I readily admit it is expedient that we should have upon the Committee a Member of that school of politicians to which the hon. Member for Northampton belong, as representing a section of opinion in the House, and possibly, to some extent, in the country. But I would venture to suggest to the House whether it would not be better to select a politician who has taken, perhaps, a more serious interest in this question in preference to the senior Member for Northampton. We have heard from the hon. Member for Sunderland what a deep and serious interest is taken in this subject by the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and though I disagree with the views of both hon. Members, if Northampton is to be represented on the Committee, I would suggest it should be in the favour of the junior Member for the borough, whose name I would substitute for that of Mr. Labouchere.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Question, "That Mr. John Morley, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Parnell, and Mr. Sexton be other Members of the Committee," put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That Sir Hussey Vivian be one other Member of the Committee."
    MR. STOREY: I regret to have to trouble the House once more on this matter. When we were told we were to have a certain number of Liberal Members on this Committee, limited in number, we thought it the more important that they should be Gentlemen representative of the opinion held by Liberals throughout the country on this question. I do not care how it may be reported upon in this House. I challenge contradiction when I say that throughout the country, not merely mild Liberal opinion, but the sober Liberal opinion of the thoughtful, intelligent, well-to-do among the Liberal Party is entirely opposed to the multiplication of these grants. That being so, it was only fair that the Liberals to be put on the Committee should be Liberals indeed. I have no personal objection to the hon. Member whose name has been read. He is, I believe, a Liberal, and now, I think, a Home Ruler, though on this point he once felt some hesitation, as he had a perfect right to do on such a large question. But I am not troubled about the hon. Member on that point. I have to consider his views in relation to his appointment to this Committee. His opinions, so far as they can be ascertained, entitle him to be counted as one of the Conservative supporters of the Government on this matter. He certainly does not represent Liberalism or Wales on this point. I hope the hon. Gentleman is here, for I am about to draw attention to a book the hon. Gentleman has published—an unfortunate thing to do—describing a visit he made to the United States, and I will take the liberty of making a reference to that book as indicating the hon. Member's opinions:—
    "If Americans could only get over the first wrench and elect a King of the old stock ["Hear, hear," from Sir H. Vivian] under the same limited Constitutional conditions as our own Sovereign, they could weld their separate States into one compact and mighty nation! I cannot help suspecting also that they would not be sorry to transform their Senate into a House of Lords. There are fortunes amply large enough to support hereditary rank; and the men who will not now enter political life upon any consideration would doubtless do their duty as patriotically as our Peers if not compelled to face the dirt of candidature."

    1849
    Well, are these Liberal opinions? Is there anything in this to lead us to suppose the hon. Gentleman will represent Liberal opinion on this subject? Unless the hon. Gentleman has changed his views, he in no sense represents Liberal feelings in the House or in Wales. I move that Sir II. Vivian's name be struck out of the list for the Committee; and if my Motion is successful, I shall afterwards move that the name of Mr. B. Rowlands be added.
    The House divided:—Ayes 307; Noes 71.—(Div. List, No. 189).
    Mr. Wharton, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Whitely, and Mr. W. H. Smith nominated other Members of the said Committee.
    MR LABOUCHERE: There are some words omitted from the Motion, probably by accident, and I propose to insert them. I shall move that the following words be added:—"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records." There have been expressions of opinion as to the meaning of the words of reference, but those expressions will have no sort of influence on the minds of the Committee, because it is for the Committee and not for the individual Members to decide on their meaning. It must, however, be clear to the House that the Committee should have power, if it wishes, to call for papers, records, and witnesses. Those words are usually put in, and that is why I said I supposed they have been omitted by accident. I do not suppose there will be any opposition to this Motion; but if there is, it will tend to show that the whole proceeding upon which we are now engaged, and the proposal before us, is a mere farce and a sham.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. W. H. SMITH: These words were omitted not by accident, but by design. The Government have followed strictly the precedents which have been set by the Committees of 1831 and 1837–38 on the Civil List, and following these precedents we think it will be the duty of the Ministers who happen to be Members of the Committee to endeavour,
    1850
    to the best of their ability, to furnish information to the Committee to enable them to arrive at a proper and definite conclusion. The hon. Gentleman will himself realize that the inquiry which he desires power to hold might be made in a manner highly inconsistent with the judicial purposes of the Committee. Under these circumstances it is my duty to resist the addition which the hon. Gentleman proposes.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I regret very much to hear the declaration of the First Lord of the Treasury. I also regret to hear my Colleague speak of the Committee and its proceedings as likely to be a "farce," and I regret that because his name is on the Committee, and I do not quite understand his accepting a sham position when he will have to play one of the characters in it. So far as I am concerned, I do not intend by my Vote in the Division Lobby to approve of anything which is likely to be a farce, and I contend that the Committee cannot be a reality in this case unless it has an opportunity of taking evidence. On all these matters Ministers may inform the Committee according to the best of their judgment, but it is to be borne in mind that the whole developments of the Civil List during each Act of Parliament has been in the direction of giving more to the Crown. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury speaks according to his view on this matter; but I am bound to say that I have during the last twenty years given my closest attention to the investigation of the Civil List, and the whole working of the Statutes, and the draftsman's changes in the words used show a disposition on the part of the Advisers and Representatives of the Crown—on the part of each succeeding Ministry—to enable the Crown to take larger sums from the nation time after time, while appearing to take less. The right hon. Gentleman puts it that Her present Majesty and the present Royal Family receive less from the State than other members of the Royal Family have ever received since the Great Revolution. In point of figures that is not true. It is perfectly true that the nominal amount of the Civil List is £385,000, and that the annuities to members of the Royal Family added to it make a lesser sum than the amounts

    1851
    previously paid; but it is also perfectly true that sums, many scores of thousands of pounds, which are paid do not appear upon any total estimate, so that while the amount is nominally less, it is really greater, and you can only tell what is the amount taken by the Royal Family at the present moment, not by taking the sum total of the charges on the Consolidated Fund under the head Civil List, not by taking the annuities to members of the Royal Family which appear, but by going carefully through the Estimates, and seeing the sums of money, one after another, all borne in the Civil Lists of George I., George II., George III., George IV., and some of which were even contained in the Civil List of William IV., and which are not in any way paid out of the £385,000 of Her Majesty's Civil List, or from any charge on Royal annuities otherwise. I think, if the Committee is unable to take evidence, it will be left entirely in the dark, unless some Member of it happens to be perfectly well-informed. I think they ought not to have to depend solely upon the statements of a Minister who may happen to be a Member. I am pledging my word distinctly that, according to my research, the First Lord of the Treasury's statement is inaccurate; and I say that when such a difference arises between a representative of the people on the one hand, and a Minister of the Crown on the other, it ought not to be determined by an expression of opinion on the part of a Minister, but it should be determined by clear evidence put before the Committee. It may be said it is the intention of this inquiry to shut out every investigation into such facts. If that be so, then I share the opinion of my Colleague in saying that the proceedings of the Committee will be a farce, and I add that he will be wrong in sitting upon it and giving the weight of his position to it. But I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian intends it to be a farce. If he does—and that is an almost impossible supposition—then the promise made by him when he was Prime Minister that there should be an investigation into this matter before any other grant was taken, must have been made with an intention that it should be broken,
    1852
    although the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself to this House upon it. I trust that the House will pardon me for speaking upon this subject with a considerable amount of decision, and perhaps an undue amount of feeling. It is perfectly true that there are hundreds and thousands of men and women in this country who feel a deep interest in this question. I do not agree with the declaration of the hon. Member for Leicester as to the feeling of the people in this matter. I believe there is a disposition among the bulk of the people in favour of Monarchy in this country. I also believe that they have been irritated over and over again during the last few generations by the way in which grants have been made, some of them upon the loosest statements in this House, and some upon statements which have frequently been contradicted outside this House, and have never been examined into. It must not be forgotten that during the time I have had the honour of a seat in this House I have challenged the Estimates year by year. I have always challenged the first item of expenditure connected with the Royal Family, and I have asserted that it is the only portion of our national expenditure upon which it is impossible for an unofficial person to form a judgment of the expenditure within twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty thousand pounds. I imagine I can prove that the cost of the Royal Family to the nation at the present moment is nearer £800,000 than any other sum; but the fact that I cannot turn to an account to prove this is a disgrace to the country. If I am incorrect in my assertion, it should be possible to show me, by turning over the Estimates, that I have made a rash statement without any kind of verification; but the fact is, that it is impossible to do so—it is impossible to say what is the real cost of the Royal Family; and we have had the Chancellcr of the Exchequer obliged to stand up in his place in Parliament and say that the savings on the Civil List are matters on which the Treasury will not inform this house. I have said, outside the Committee, that the savings on the Civil List have been so large that if Parliament were right in fixing the List at the beginning of the reign at the amount it did, then those savings are large enough to maintain the grandchildren of Her Majesty, and

    1853
    no grant ought to be asked for from Parliament at the present moment.
    MR. PICTON: This is a much more serious matter than the nomination of particular Members of the Committee, and it ought not to be lightly passed over. The hon. Member for Northampton is acknowledged to be a master of this subject; no one has answered him, and therefore the discussion must proceed. The right hon. Gentleman the Loader of the House refers us to the precedents of 1831 and 1837. Sir, we are living in the year of grace 1889, and that makes an enormous difference. Since 1831 successive enlargements of the franchise have been given, which have brought the people closer into contact with the Crown, and they now insist on having full information before they sanction these Votes. The right hon. Gentleman says that if these words were added to the Resolution the probability is that the powers would be used for the purpose of interfering with the judicial proceedings of the Committee. But, Sir, who is to blame for the selection of the Committee? All the Members nominated by the Government have, as was expected, been elected, and if, among those so chosen, there are any who would make an improper use of the power of sending for documents and examining witnesses, it would be a great dishonour to the Committee. The Government do not realize the changes that have occurred since these precedents were set. My hon. Friend behind me, the Member for Northampton, says I was wrong in suggesting that among the public there was any kind of indifference towards the Monarchy. I am not aware that that was what I said. What I did say was that there was a considerable amount of soreness of feeling upon this subject, which, if it were not properly treated, might lead to such feelings. Now, Sir, I must say that if there is one course of policy more likely than another to lead to these ill-consequences, it is a policy of concealment. If facts are concealed the people feel that there must be something behind which would justify them in taking an adverse view. Make it clear to the people that there are no savings on the Civil List which would be available for the maintenance of members of the Royal Family and all objection would disappear.
    1854
    But unless there are documents to prov it, unless witnesses can be examined, you will not get the people to believe it. Once let them think there is anything to conceal, and discontent will spread rapidly on all sides. I therefore earnestly hope that the Government will make this concession, and will act on the advice of those whose experience and patriotism are not less than their own.
    MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend, in making this Motion, founded his remarks very much on what he believed to be a fear that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had departed from precedent in the proposal he is now making. But that is not the fact; on the contrary, Her Majesty's Government are only asking the House to act in exact conformity with precedent. There have been two previous occasions upon which similar Committees to this one have been appointed, in 1831 and in 1837, and in neither of these cases was any such Instruction as this given to the Committee. In both cases the Committees were appointed to consider the question on the supposition that the House had confidence in them, and the votes which have been given to-day—the large majorities recorded—show the general confidence in the Members of the present Committee. It was the duty of those Committees to consider matters which were extraneous to the immediate terms of the Reference. I do not recollect that those terms included the gathering of information; but we know very well, from the Report of 1837, that the Committee did collect information, because on page 4 it is stated that while their powers were limited, papers were laid before them and explanations given by the official servants of Her Majesty. It is also clear that not only was the information given to the earlier Committee extended, but much fuller and more detailed explanations were given in order to assist the Committee in their deliberations. Certainly it is clear that the Committee were not hampered in the fulness of their investigation by the absence of such an Instruction as is now proposed. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has now given a perfectly clear assurance that no information will be withheld which the Committee deem material to the investigation. The right hon. Gentleman will,

    1855
    I am sure, excuse me—and will not suppose that the observation implies any mistrust of his word—on which I rely entirely—if I point out that if the Committee are not satisfied with the manner in which Her Majesty's Government redeems that pledge, it will be within the power of the Committee to come to this House and state that they are hampered in their investigations, and ask for the power which it is now proposed to confer on them by this Amendment. Under these circumstances, I cannot refuse to support the action of Her Majesty's Government, which adheres to the rules followed in former cases, and which in former cases have been found to be satisfactory, especially having regard to the fact that if Her Majesty's Government do withhold information which ought to be given, the matter can be brought up for review in this House. I attach great importance in these matters to precedents. These things have not been lightly done or in bad times, but in times when men of high character, and ability, and statesmanship applied their minds to them; and so long as nothing more than a speculative objection to the course adopted on former occasions is adduced, I am content to follow in the footsteps of these men, until some strong and practical reason is forthcoming for departing from the precedents they have furnished.
    SIR W. LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman has made, as usual, a very ingenious and able defence of the course he thinks the Committee ought to take; but those who followed his speech carefully will see the admission that the majority of the Committee will have power to do as they choose. Now we want to give an Instruction to that majority. We want the House to say what ought to be done, and not leave it to the majority of the Committee—in which a large section of the Members of this House have no confidence—to do as they like. I am strongly impressed with the opinion that the vote we are about to give is far more important than any other vote we have given this evening. I look upon it as' a crucial vote, and I hope that the votes of hon. Members will be carefully scrutinised in the country. We have had a weighty speech from my hon. Friend the junior
    1856
    Member for Northampton, who we know is a master of this subject, and perhaps knows more about it than any man in this House. He has made it his study for many long years, and when he tells us that these papers and documents are necessary in order to get at the truth surely the statement ought to weigh with this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House says there is no precedent for this. But why cannot we make a precedent? Why, in the earlier part of the evening the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition himself said he was glad we had departed from precedent in adopting certain modes of appointing the Committee. It appears to me, Sir, it is of no use talking about the precedent of 1837 in the year 1889. We now have a new Heaven and a new earth—although I am sorry to say I cannot say that therein dwelleth righteousness. It is of no use quoting old stories about 1837. I honestly believe that if this Instruction is not given to the Committee the country will rightly look on the whole proceeding as a fraud. It is unworthy that a great nation like this should not go about the business in a more straightforward manner, especially when dealing with such an important matter as the administration of public funds.
    The House divided:—Ayes 136; Noes 272.—(Div. List, No. 190.)
    Ordered, That seven be the quorum.—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)

ORDERS' OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 187) AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS BILL. (No. 188.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 19.
  MR. HUNTER: We now come to one of the important parts of the Bill. Up to the present we have been dealing with nothing but an empty shell. I now ask the Government to abandon their very imperfect and unsatisfactory scheme, and for once in the course of this Session agree with the people of Scotland. Now, Sir,

  1857
  under this clause the Government propose to appropriate Scotland's share of the Probate Duty. It is supposed that the sum will this year amount to £234,000, and out of this they propose to give only £113,000 towards the relief of school fees, £30,000 towards the relief of local taxation in the Highlands, £70,000 for roads, and £21,000 to the Parochial Boards. A short time ago Lord Lothian received a deputation from the School Boards of Scotland, and he told the members of it that the Government had not acceded to the principle of free education, but had only agreed to grant relief from the payment of fees in the first three standards. I will not quarrel over words; if the Government think that the operation they have performed will smell more sweetly to their supporters under this name, far be it from me to deny them the gratification. Now the views of the Government have been before the people of Scotland for some time, and there has been an absolutely unanimous expression of opinion from School Boards and schoolmasters in condemnation of the proposals. The School Boards for Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leith, and Aberdeen went so far as to send a deputation to the Government pointing out very weighty objections to the scheme, and asking the Government to at least extend the relief to the compulsory standards four and five. The schoolmasters also agree that it is a mistake that this relief of fees should not be extended to the fourth and fifth standards, and they contend that serious injury will be done to education in Scotland if the extension is not agreed to. The Edinburgh School Board are of opinion that partial relief from school fees will lead to serious difficulties of administration; it will lead to irregularity of attendance; and it will prove a temptation to parents to withdraw their children from school if they are disappointed in their application for relief from school fees. A body representing the elementary teachers of Scotland also sent a deputation to the Lord Advocate. They pointed out that there was a growing tendency for children now to leave school at an early age; that it constituted a serious obstacle to real educational progress; and that if fees were abolished in the lower standards and retained in the higher
  1858
  that tendency will be intensified. Surely that would be the natural result of not making parents pay fees when school attendance is absolutely compulsory, and insisting on payment when there is really no compulsion for attendance. This is strong testimony as to the injurious and practical consequences of the half-and-half measure of giving, relief in the three lower standards. The success of the schoolmasters in cramming children in order to get through the lower standards has been so great that they are able to leave school a year earlier than the age laid down in the Act. That is most unfortunate thing, because they are crammed merely for the purposes of examination, and they leave school at so early an age that the lessons they have learned are apt to become obliterated. I believe the general opinion in Scotland among the teachers is in favour of making the sixth the compulsory standard, in order to keep children at school a sufficient time to impress upon their minds the lessons they have learned. Another difficulty is this—that the new proposal will disorganize the whole finance of Scottish School Boards. The theory upon which the Government proceeded was that the total school fees in the three lower standards amount to £155,000, or exactly one-half of the entire school fees in Scotland. No doubt, generally speaking, that is correct; but it is not absolutely true in some cases—for instance, Glasgow—which would lose about £5,000 under this scheme. It would also involve much hardship and loss in other cases. If the Government once relieve the three lower standards from payment of fees, it will be impossible in future to compel the parents to pay fees for their children in the higher standards; and the end of it will he that the Government will be obliged to apply the whole of the Probate Duty to the relief of school fees, thus freeing all standards below the sixth. All classes of the community in Scotland are awaiting the decision of the Government with anxiety, particularly the poorer classes, with whom the question of school fees is a more serious matter than with people in a similar position in England. I may mention that England's share of the Probate Duty exceeds all school fees in England by £100,000, while Scotland's share

  1859
  falls short of the school fees by £70,000. Hon. Members will now see how serious a question this is for Scotland. There is one part of the scheme in support of which I do not think it would be easy to advance any argument, for everybody has condemned it. It is the proposal to throw upon School Boards the burden of discriminating what children, on account of their necessitous circumstances, shall be relieved from the payment of fees. The School Boards, one and all, declare that this is a duty which it is out of their power to perform, because they have no means of discovering what the situation and circumstances of the parents may be. That is the sort of work to be discharged by the Parochial Board with the means at their disposal, and which the School Board can never discharge to the satisfaction of the Scottish people. What the Committee have to consider is not so much the abstract merits or demerits of the proposal in the Bill, but a comparison of the two ways of spending the money at our disposal. I say that the very same arguments, the very same considerations, that drive the Government to give up the three standards apply á fortiori to completing the task begun, by giving up the five standards. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell), in a speech made on the Second Reading of the Bill, referred to some figures I had given; and though he did not attempt to contradict them, he tried to palliate the force of those figures, and gave an illustration of the mode of distribution by the Government, and the application of the money to school fees. But the case the hon. Baronet referred to was that of a man paying £12 a year rent. Now out of 22,800 rate-paying householders in Aberdeen only 4,336 would come within the category of paying £12 a year and upwards, so that the illustration left out 18,500 of the inhabitants of the town. The argument for applying this money to the relief of school fees is simple and reasonable. In the first place, that application of the money would have an educational value; and, in the next place, it would have a social value. The educational value is this—that it removes the obstruction to the attendance of children. Generally speaking attendance I compulsory; but compulsion has not
  1860
  been carried out to any considerable extent. School Boards in Scotland are not stringent in carrying out the compulsory clause; and one main reason for this slackness is that in so many cases parents cannot afford the fees, and the School Boards are reluctant to compel them to go upon the pauper list, in order that their children may attend school, and so we feel that this concession, apart from the limitation to the three standards, will be attended with the greatest possible value to education in Scotland. But there is also the social value. I do not wish to press this argument too far; but when the Committee remembers that the payment of fees is not voluntary—the law imposes the payment upon parents, whether they have the means or not, for the education of their children, and releases them from that obligation only by affixing the stigma of pauperism—the relief from the payment of school fees is undoubtedly a great boon; but it would be a much greater boon but for the alternative proposed by the Government to give relief to local rates also. Owing to circumstances, it is not now necessary for me to enter into the subject. We in Scotland laugh at the burden of rates which is felt to such an extent in England. To the great bulk of the community the relief to the rates proposed in Scotland will be unappreciable, and to the larger ratepayers insignificant. I take, by way of illustration, the figures of distribution among the householders of Aberdeen, and considering these an average for the whole of Scotland, £100,000 devoted to the relief of the rates would yield the following results:—7,721 persons would be relieved to the extent of 1½d. a year; 9,945 would get 3¾d.; 3,470 would get 7d.; 1,176 would get 1s. 4d. a year; 360 would get 2s. 10d.; and only 38 in Aberdeen would get more than that. It is obvious, therefore, that £100,000, or even twice the amount given for relief in this way, would be unappreciable. You might as well throw the money into the sea. I do not wish to deprive the Government of the claim to popularity that no doubt will be recognized in that they have gone so far as the three standards, and I would not drive them from that position—better that than nothing at all to the relief of education; but I insist on the folly of stopping short

  1861
  there, and not making this a real benefit to education and meeting a wide-spread grievance. I deal now with the grant of £30,000 to the Highlands, and here we have to consider—shall we relieve the landlords, or shall we abolish school fees? My first objection to the Highland grant is one of principle. The Highlands ought to get their fair share in the distribution of the money in Scotland. If they get more than a fair share, the grant ceases to be justice and becomes alms. I do not say that there may not be circumstances that may justify a Government in giving alms; but, if such alms are given, they should be given from the Imperial Exchequer, and not out of the money assigned to the people of Scotland. I may refer to the Drainage and other Bills now before the House, by which it is proposed to devote a million of British money to various industrial enterprises in Ireland, and there is a recognition of the principle. I maintain that when you have exceptional distress or difficulties to meet, the funds should be provided from the Imperial Exchequer. In my view, the chief distress in the Highlands has arisen from the misconduct of the landlords, from the exorbitant rents they have exacted, and their refusal to give the people land to cultivate. The Imperial Government in 1886, recognizing their obligations in this respect, appointed a Commission, and that Commission has reduced the rents, and I hope beneficial results will follow. This is a recognition that the distress in the Highlands arose from the action of the landlords and Parliamentary negligence; but why are the people of Scotland to pay £30,000 for this? Suppose that the landlords in these Highland districts get immediately or ultimately £24,000 of this £30,000, it would only mean the addition of £14 to every £1,000 of the landlord's income. Now, I put it to the Government, are they prepared to say, from platforms in Scotland, that the reason why they could not abolish fees in Standards IV. and V. was because they wanted to give assistance to landlords in the proportion of £14 to every £1,000 of rent? That is putting the case for the Government in the most favourable light. It is doubtful whether the landlords would benefit to the extent of £14. Last year the Government
  1862
  gave, I believe, about £23,000 to the relief of the poor rates, and £3,000 to the School Boards; but after all their experience in squandering public money the Government could find no means of expending £4,000, and it went back to the Exchequer. Of the £23,000 appropriated to the relief of the rates, £11,500 went to the relief of the landlords, the other moiety to the tenants. But the total reduction of rents by the Crofter Commission was less than £8,000 a year; so that at once you give the landlords a larger sum than is taken away by the Crofter Commission. But this is not all. It cannot be disputed that of the other £11,500 the larger portion will find its way into the pockets of the landlords. It is difficult to form an exact opinion on this head; but, taking four parishes as typical cases, it would seem that about £3,000 goes to the relief of crofters and cottars, the remainder of the £11,500 being divided among larger farmers and. sporting tenants. I may remind the Committee that since the Education Act of 1872 was passed, the cost of education has ceased to fall entirely on the heritors, and is divided between occupiers and landlords. As regards the poor rate in the Highlands, of course it is quite true that it differs in different parishes; but it is not true that the high poor rate is the growth of very recent times. If we examine the records as to the Highlands in the past, we shall find it is sufficiently old to be called a hereditary burden, and lands have passed through various hands, and the amount of the poor rate has been taken into consideration in fixing the price. But what is this terrible poor rate? We are familiar in London with local rates exceeding 5s. in the £1. The rate in Argyleshire is 1s. 6½d., including education and poor rate, and the other rates too small to be worth talking about. In Inverness it is 1s. 10¼d.; elsewhere 2s., 2s. 2d., 2s. 5d., and in Shetland 3s. 6d. Hon. Members from England are familiar with much higher figures. The average throughout Scotland is 1s. 1½d. the average in the Highlands is 2s. I do not consider these rates as so exorbitant as to require the special intervention of Parliament. In arguing the case the supporter s of the Government proposal never fail to quote the fam-

  1863
  iliar instances of Lochs, South Uist, and other parishes in which these rates are exceptionally high; but these are the very parishes that have given so much trouble to the Government, and the rates are exceptionally high there because the landlords have been more than usually extortionate, and there they should suffer for their ill-doing. Again, I say, if in a few exceptional cases relief should be given, that should be given from Imperial Funds; it should not be a charge upon the Probate Duty. While the distribution of the money among the Highland lairds will do them little good, the refusal of relief from school fees in the fourth and fifth standards will be severely felt by the occupiers; and if the Government deliberately say the Highland lairds are to be preferred to the people of Scotland, the Government and their Party will inevitably suffer for it in the future
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 9, leave out all the words after the word "applied," to the end of Subsection (1.)—(Mr. Hunter.)
  Question proposed, "That the words by or under the direction of the Secretary,' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. FRASER MACKINTOSH: My hon. Friend has, as he usually does, stated his case with procision and clearness, but I think we have heard most of it before. I entirely disagree with his conclusions, and I car say that the £30,000 specially granted to the Highlands and Islands last year was productive of very great benefit indeed, when it was most needed, and I hope the Government will not consent to give up that part of their scheme. I am quite as much in favour of free education as my hon. Friend, and years ago I took a prominent part in the movement; but, at the same time, I recognize that the Government have made a very great step in the direction I wish them to go, by freeing the three standards, and so far as I am concerned, I am in the meantime satisfied. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen was strong in his denunciation of the manner in which the £30,000 was distributed, and he seemed to imagine that it, in a great part, went into the pockets of the landlords, chiefly great landlords. But he forgets that the great landlords, of whom his greatest complaint is made,
  1864
  form but an inconsiderable part of the whole number. In Inverness parish there are almost as many landlords as occupiers, and the sum that fell to Inverness last year out of the £30,000 amounted to £1,600; and I can assure the Committee that it was the means of affording most substantial relief—not to the great landlords, for we have none in the parish of Inverness, but to a great number of small landlords and occupiers. It must not be forgotten that the rates fall half on the owners, half on the occupiers; and speaking for Inverness-shire, and more particularly for the Islands, I say great benefit has been derived from the assistance, and I protest altogether against the position taken up by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, in his reference to the condition of the Highlands. We have to deal with counties in an exceptional position; we must take facts as we find them. There is much distress to deal with, and which cannot be met in the way the hon. Member suggests. The hon. Member takes exception to the source from which the grant comes, and says it ought to be made from the Imperial Funds. That is all very well, and he may be right; but, meanwhile, I do not see any chance of a Government grant, and this being offered from the Probate Duty, I accept it. All I wish to say is, do not let the Committee run away with the mistaken idea that this grant goes to the relief of the great landlords; the relief to small landlords, widows, and occupants is most substantial, and I hope the proposal will be left as it stands.
  MR. HOZIER: I am firmly convinced of the advantages of free education as far as Scotland is concerned. My experience on the School Board in a poor district brought vividly to my mind the destitution of the poor parents who were brought before us to be reprimanded for the non-payment of school fees, and I have never forgotten the scenes I then witnessed. I am very strongly in favour of a scheme of free education, provided that, as far as possible, no additional burden is cast on the rates, and that the position hitherto occupied by the denominational schools is not interfered with. I consider that the scheme now before

  1865
  the House fulfils both these provisoes, and therefore I cordially support it. I myself look forward to the happy day when the fees will be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer; but we must walk before we can run, and until that happy day arrives I content myself with what we can get. I am greatly in favour of the amount at present allocated towards freeing the standards being increased by the addition of the sum at present assigned to the Highlands and Islands. There is no doubt whatever that the Highlands and Islands require and deserve a grant of public money; but I do say that if exceptional distress occurs in any part of the United Kingdom it ought to be relieved by a grant from the Imperial Exchequer. If there were exceptional distress in Cornwall, for instance, relief would surely be obtained, not from the English rates, but from the Imperial Exchequer. The same thing happens in the case of exceptional distress in Ireland. I would refer the Committee to a few words that appeared on the 8th of June in the Economist, a newspaper which I should not say is saturated with Scottish notions. The writer of an article on the Scottish Local Government Bill points out that when special grants are made to the poorer districts of Ireland, such, for instance, as the sum now to be given for Irish draining and railways, the money is taken, not out of local, but out of Imperial Funds; but that in Scotland the money to be devoted to such purposes is to be derived from a fund set apart for the relief of Scottish rates, so that the richer districts of Scotland will not only be made to support the poorer districts of their own country, but have also to contribute along with England towards the relief of the poorer districts of Ireland. "Is this right?" asks the Economist. I answer most emphatically No, and I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment, which is practically the same as that of which I have myself given notice.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am a little sorry the Amendment has been brought forward in its existing shape, because I think it a little prejudices the view which the hon. Member opposite takes, and which I share with him. The Government have so far committed
  1866
  themselves to freeing education that they must find the money sooner or later. The principle I should like to apply is that the Imperial grants in aid should be maintained, and all that remains should be devoted to the freeing of education, and no part of the surplus should be devoted to the further benefit of the ratepayers. The particular question we have before us on the first subsection relates to the £40,000 which is proposed to be given for the special relief of the Highlands. There are no doubt districts of Scotland where the rates are too high to be maintained, but I wish to take my stand wholly and entirely, not on the question of whether the necessity is so great as to demand the making of this grant, but whether it is not unjust that this special burden should be thrown upon Scotland. I ask myself why in this matter should the County of Fife, with which I am connected, be placed in a position of less advantage than the County of Middlesex or the County of Kent? We are still a United Kingdom, and we have no Home Rule for Scotland. I should be very glad to obtain a certain amount of financial Home Rule for Scotland, and when we do obtain it no doubt it will be fair enough that we should be told we must provide for our poorer districts. But that day has not yet arrived, and it is not for a moment suggested that in other parts of the kingdom the poorer districts should be supported by their immediate neighbours. With regard to the Irish Drainage Bills, I may say I do not like them, and have opposed them tooth and nail on the ground that they are not fit subjects for eleemosynary aid. But when we take the case of the light railways, I am satisfied that some assistance may properly be afforded. It has, however, never been proposed that the money needed to provide that assistance should be derived from Ireland alone, and it is to come from the Imperial Treasury. I think the Government would find it totally impossible to suggest for one moment any reason why this special grant should be imposed on Scotland rather than upon the Imperial Exchequer, or why the Lowland counties of Scotland should receive less Imperial aid than the counties of England. I can conceive no reason for that course. On the contrary, the figures, I think,

  1867
  prove that curious injustice has been committed in this respect. I have never been able to understand quite the ground on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer settled the 11 per cent of the Probate Duty he has to give to Scotland. He said it depended on complicated figures that he could not submit to the House, and he has not satisfied the House as to that proposal. No doubt he gives us what we are entitled to in regard to population, but we have a right to expect more, as he said the amount would be settled on the combined basis of population and taxation. Well, I do not think it can be denied that Scotland is more highly taxed than England, having regard to the duty on whiskey, and to the fact that Scotland is a whiskey-drinking country.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not confining himself to the question before the Committee.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I will not pursue that argument further, but I hold that there is no reason why this grant should be saddled on Scotland rather than the whole of the United Kingdom. No doubt this claim is one the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds it difficult to resist, and that accounts for his absence from the House at this moment. I strongly support the Amendment.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I must say I rather deprecate the bringing of the Highlands and Islands into conflict on the question of free education. The Government and the Committee should face the fact that if the money at the disposal of the Government is not sufficient to free education, the school rate should be raised for that purpose. But though I deprecate the arguments used for and against the grant of £30,000 to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, I would submit this for the consideration of the Government. I have been recently down in Fifeshire, and I know the opinions that are prevailing there. More than that. I myself represent a large number of agricultural labourers and fishermen in Aberdeenshire. Many of these people are very poor, and are contending with the same disadvantages as the Highlands and Islands, and it is no disrespect to my constituency or to the Highlands of Scotland to say when Inverness is spoken of, that that county is no more
  1868
  distressed than the Lowlands, so far as regards ability to pay school fees. We are willing to discuss the question of the Highlands and Islands and this grant on its merits. The poor people of the Lowlands are to be asked to pay their share of the £30,000, and at the same time pay school fees after the Third Standard for their own children. We submit that the fishermen of the Highlands have got a great deal done for them—and we do not grudge them what they have obtained—but we do complain of our poor fishermen in the Lowlands being deprived of that share of school fees which they think they are entitled to. I grant that this being perhaps the most important Amendment on the Paper, we ought to consider it gravely in all its bearings. I hold the opinion that we ought to give remission of the school fees rather in the higher than in the lower standards, though I quite admit that it will be a boon to give them in the lower standards. It will, however, introduce into our schools a new principle altogether, and so far as I have been able to obtain the opinion of people engaged in the School Board Schools, and interested in education, they are unanimous in thinking that to complete this boon and make it satisfactory, you can by no manner of means stop at the Third Standard, but should go to the Fourth and Fifth Standards. But we are not really to stop at the Third Standard form, we are to the fourth and fifth, by placing the present duties of the Parochial Boards on the School Boards, making the latter an inquisitorial body, who in place of having their minds directed solely to the education of the people without regard to their condition of life, have to take upon themselves the work of the Parochial Boards, and to go poking round to see who are to receive the surplus money on account of their poverty. Having had many years' experience, I am one of those who from the outset thought it a bad thing to send people, particularly those on the verge of poverty—widows and working men out of employment—to the Parochial Board simply to obtain remission of school fees. When you send people to the Parochial Board for this purpose you degrade them and show them a new road to the obtaining of assistance, to which they are very apt to return. Once they get over the pangs of having their

  1869
  school fees paid, it is easier for them to go for eleemosynary relief later on. Therefore, I have always been against parochial relief of fees; and I say the objections to the system will be as great if you require the poor people to go to the School Board for remission of fees. They will be unable to obtain the relief without submitting to an inquiry into their circumstances and making out a case; and I submit that it is not relieving us of a difficulty in this matter to send the people to the School Board for relief. But even this difficulty might be got over were it necessary. We all know that it is not necessary. The experience we have of collecting the school fees in some of the large districts in Scotland, is, such as to make it not worth while to collect the money, and teachers of great earnestness and ability have told us again and again that the work getting in the school fees and looking after the financial arrangements of the schools is a great hindrance to education. Therefore, if there is one thing to which there should be no degradation or disability attached in the eyes of the law, it is the school. Why should we not have our children attending elementary schools on the platform of equality? Having gone nine-tenths of the way, why do we not go the whole length of declaring that as education is a necessity, and as it is the duty of the State to look after it and enforce it if necessary by pains and penalties, the State should find the means for it and put the burden on those who are best able to bear it—namely, the taxpayers. Considering what we have to gain, I do not think it is worth while to discourage the sending of children to the higher standards by limiting the relief to the Third Standard. And, in conclusion, I would ask, is it worth while to discuss this side issue of the Highlands and Islands, putting the one against the other when we know we have the means of giving relief to the five standards without inflicting the slightest hardship on any part of the country. The Lord Advocate knows when he is giving this first instalment of what we call "free education" in Scotland, but which is really providing for the abolition of school fees, that we can never stop at the Third Standard. It is in his power to put a stop in Scotland to the agitation, which will undoubtedly continue until
  1870
  our object is attained. Would it not be better then, I ask, for the Government themselves and for the country at large to make this concession fully and freely?
  MR. FIRTH: I must say that it was with a feeling of the utmost satisfaction that I saw that an Administration, and above all a Conservative Administration, had in Sub-section 4 of Clause 19 introduced a proposition that a large sum of what may be regarded as public money should be directed towards providing free education. It is a thing upon which we may not only congratulate ourselves but also congratulate them. There can be no doubt that this is the thin end of the wedge, and the sooner the wedge is driven home the better. It is now some years ago since, as a member of the London School Board, I had an opportunity of forming an opinion on this question. I regard it as creditable to Scotland, that has always led the van in educational matters, that it should have been owing to the pressure that she has brought to bear on the Government that we have obtained any recognition at all of this principle of free education. Well, now, we compel parents to send their children to school, and deprive them of their Common Law right to their services. On the other hand, if it be to the interest of the nation that all children should be educated, the nation should take care that that interest is secured at the least possible cost to the parents. In this Bill you are prepared to give relief up to the Third Standard. But the Third Standard is not far enough. I confess I see no reason for stopping there except expediency, governed by the amount of money you have available after these other allocations. You have a duty towards the education of the poor. It is a duty which extends not merely to the earliest age and to elementary, but perchance to secondary, education also. I certainly hope the time will come when we may have education free, not merely in its elementary stage, but as it is in the great cities of America, and has been for a hundred years, right enough through the high school to the normal school. In that way only can you give all children the best opportunity of developing such talents as they have. I hope the Amendment of my hon. Friend may be passed, not because I have for one moment any

  1871
  doubt as to the advantage which would accrue from the allocation to the Highlands and Islands, but because it seems to me that the establishment or extension of a system of free education may rightly be defended as a sound economical policy, wise in itself, likely to be productive of general good, and likely, by extending the area of what may be termed the Scotch object lesson on free education, to bring about through all the kingdoms that result which, in my opinion in this matter, is especially to be desired.
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present,
  MR. CALDWELL: It is important to keep in view that this is a part of what is termed the Probate Duty allocated to Scotland, and it is also important to remember the fiscal policy upon which that Probate Duty was granted. In the Budget speech of last year, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) pointed out that as regards Succession Duty 3 per cent was paid by personalty, whilst the amount paid by realty was, be said, a great deal less. He said that the reason for the difference was that local taxation was borne entirely by real property, whereas personal property paid no share whatever of such taxation. With the view of making personalty contribute towards local taxation, he took l½ per cent of the personalty and handed it over as being, in the opinion of the Government, the just contribution of personalty towards local taxation. He raised the Succession Duty 1½ per cent, and handed l½ per cent of the Probate Duty over to local taxation. I am not going to argue the question whether the policy of the Government was right or wrong, but that policy was that local taxation was to get the whole of the Probate Duty. Accordingly, in the case of England, the Probate Duty grant goes entirely to the local ratepayers, and the same thing happens in the case of Ireland; but in regard to Scotland the Government, for some mysterious reason, say—"We have some money in hand, and we will leave it to the Representatives of Scotland to say where that money shall go." Now, it is a fallacy on the part of the Govern-
  1872
  ment to say that this money is at the disposal of the Scotch Members for any purpose they may think fit to devote it to. It was part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's fiscal arrangement that this money should be devoted to local taxation; and it is for the Government to explain why it should be withheld from local taxation and applied to a different purpose. They have departed from the terms of their own fiscal arrangement, and they will find that it will be contended that personalty does not pay the local rates. Take the case of house property in a burgh. Who is it that pays the local taxation? A purchaser purchases the property with the burdens upon it, and it cannot be said that he really pays the rates. The rates are found out of the rent, which comes directly from the industry of the people. As to the special sum dealt with by the Amendment—£30,000 for relief of local taxation in the Highlands—I am not going to argue whether the Highlands require that relief or not. Assuming, however, that they require special relief, out of what pocket should it come? I venture to say that as long as there is Imperial control, exceptional distress must be met by the Imperial Government. There is no special difference betwixt the case of the Highlands and the case of many parts of Ireland. This Session Drainage Bills have been introduced to meet the case of exceptional distress in Ireland, and large subsidies are to be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer to provide necessary drainage works in poor districts in Ireland. On what principle is it that this is done in Ireland, and that we are not to have the exceptional distress in the Highlands met out of the same Imperial purse? We are asked to contribute towards the relief of exceptional distress in Ireland, and, at the same time, we are invited to devote our share of the Probate Duty to the relief of distress in Scotland. The proposition is most monstrous. We do not dispute that Ireland is entitled to assistance out of Imperial funds if she requires it; but we say that if there are parts of Scotland equally poor, they ought not to be treated. in a different manner. The policy of a Unionist Government would be to treat every part of the United Kingdom alike, but here Scotland is being treated as if she were part of an

  1873
  independent kingdom. The policy of the Government seems to be to split the country up into independent kingdoms, and to treat Scotland as if she were one of such kingdoms by making her pay for her own poor. I object to the manner in which this money is proposed to be distributed by the Secretary for Scotland. I moved for a Return showing how the distribution was to be made. I find from that Return that in the County of Argyll there is a parish which is to get £609, although it is only assessed at 11¾d. in the £1. Dunoon is to get £500 of the money. I am not aware of any exceptional distress in Dunoon, and the assessment is only 5d. in the £1. There never was a more disgraceful expenditure of public money than is proposed in that case. The average assessment in Scotland is 1s. in the £1, and Dunoon has no poverty whatever in it; but, of course, Dunoon is in Argyllshire, which is represented by an hon. Member on the other side of the House, and that is why the people are so favoured. Then we come to the case of Inverness. That town is to receive £1,600, and the total assessment is only 1s. 4d., or little more than the average. Did anyone ever hear of any exceptional distress in Inverness? St. Andrew's, in which the assessment is only 9d., is to get £141. These illustrations show clearly that the money is to be expended in an improper manner. I contend that relief of local taxation will afford no relief whatever to the poverty-stricken Highlander. Who pays the rates in Highland parishes? They are most of them paid by the landed proprietors, and only a small proportion by what is called the crofting population. The people who suffer from the distress will not get one farthing of the £30,000 which is to go in the relief of local taxation, because they are too poor to pay any rates whatever. If the money is intended to benefit the Highlanders it should be spent not upon grants in aid of local taxation, but for the purpose of developing the resources of the districts by opening up communications with the fisheries and constructing harbours. This £30,000 represents a capital of about £1,000,000. I say that if you expend £1,000,000 in opening railway ommunication where necessary and herwise developing the districts, the esult will be enormously beneficial in
  1874
  putting an end to a great deal of the privations which the people now suffer and enabling the people to live by honest industry. You will also benefit the landlords, because the people will cease to be a burden on the poor rates, which will necessarily decline as prosperity increases. If you pursued a policy of this kind you would be doing no more in the Highlands than you are doing in Ireland. I object to the assistance proposed to be given to the Highlands being granted out of Scotland's share of the Probate Duty; I object to the £30,000 being handed over to the relief of local taxation, and I object to its allocation in the manner proposed by the Secretary for Scotland. In regard to any special grant with respect to education, I maintain that that also must be paid out of the Imperial purse in accordance with the usual arrangements which have been recognized for many years, and I have no hesitation whatever in opposing the introduction of this clause and in supporting the Amendment.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I do not propose to reply at any length to the somewhat lengthy speech of my hon. Friend opposite, but I shall endeavour to explain the reason why I intend to vote as I do on this question. I can only regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to hear the almost unamious expression of opinion on the part of the Scotch Members that this sum of £30,000 ought not to come out of the Probate Duties. I hope the Government may see their way to give way on this point. I do not at all grudge, as my hon. Friend seems to do, the £30,000 to the Highland parishes. I have looked most carefully into their positions, and have good reason to know how much they have suffered for some years past. I do not think the House ought to turn a deaf ear to the claims of these parishes or refuse to give a sum of money equivalent to the £30,000. I should like to say one word in regard to the question of free education. In Scotland, from one end to another, the opinion on the subject is so strong that no Government could resist it. My own inclination, I am bound to say, is very strongly in favour of freeing the education given in the Sixth Standard, and working down-

  1875
  wards; but I believe that if we get the first three standards, the others cannot be left out of consideration, and it does not require much foresight to perceive that the whole thing must be made free in the near future. I am sorry that the otherwise able speech of the hon. Mover of the Amendment should have been marked with so much bitterness towards landlords in the Highlands. I have no property in the Highlands myself; but I believe that that many of the hon. Member's censures are most undeserved, and that many of the Highland landlords have suffered great privations from what appears to me to be the unjust intervention on the part of the State. Speaking from great experience, I think it would never do to impose heavier or larger rates than at present exist. The great thing we have to do is to endeavour to make the rates fall as lightly as possible upon those who have to bear them. I do not follow the last speaker in regard to the cases he cited in which parishes, with comparatively light rates, were to receive grants from this money. I should have thought that the exceptions proved the rule. Although there may be cases in which assistance is not wanted, there are, at the same time, so many other cases in which assistance is really required that it was hardly worth his while to stand up in this House to quote two or three cases which certainly would hardly bear inspection.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: As the Representative of one of the constituencies to be affected by this grant of £30,000 I do not object to the Highlands receiving it, but I do object to the claim of the Highlands to such a grant being pitted against the right of the whole of Scotland to free education. I regret very much the case has of necessity taken that form. I do not blame those who are anxious to get free education in Scotland; the necessity has been forced upon them. There is one point, however, to which I wish to call attention, and that is—that in the granting of free education to Scotland, the Highlands will benefit just as much as other parts of Scotland. No special grant to the Highlands could be so beneficial to the people as a grant for free education. Money devoted to free education secures the best return. There have been practi-
  1876
  cal examples of the desire of the people of the Highlands for free education. I could mention several School Boards in my own constituency the members of which have shown their appreciation of the value and necessity of free education by abolishing school fees. I could give the names of several parishes in the County of Sutherland the School Boards of which have reduced the school fees to the nominal amount of one penny. I do not wish to detain the Committee by pointing out why this Nemesis has overtaken the landlords. It is utterly impossible for the landlords to escape the result of their policy in the past. It has been well pointed out that the reason why there is necessity for a grant of some kind is that the landlords of the Highlands have hitherto created and fostered pauperism. If you turn the land into deserts, the people must of necessity fall into pauperism. I rose principally for the purpose of emphasizing the appeal that has been made to the Government by Members of the House who have got a claim upon them, such as the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division. I think the Highland people have a claim to a grant; but from what I know of the sentiments of the people, I am persuaded they would rather continue to bear the burdens they now have to bear than be the means of depriving the whole of Scotland of the boon of free education in which they themselves would participate.
  SIR A. CAMPBELL: This has been a very valuable discussion; but I think one point has been forgotten, and that is, that the Probate Duties were originally given in relief of rates, because personalty did not contribute the same amount to the relief of local taxation as realty. I yield to none in my desire to see education brought as cheaply as possible to everybody's door, more especially when we insist upon the operation of the compulsory clauses. But we have to look to the source from which the money has to come, and during the two elections I have fought the question was brought up, and I had to oppose what was then called free education, because I was opposed to making the ratepayers who had been put to great expense in educating their own children pay for the education of

  1877
  the children of others. But when I find that, in consequence of the admirable manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has managed the financial affairs of the nation during the last two or three years, there is a considerable surplus of money to be given to meet local taxation, then I think the thing is very different. I am sorry that the sum to be devoted to this object is not larger. I wish a grant could be made in respect of education in the whole of the six standards; but we must cut our coat according to our cloth, and I think that the Scotch people will not be sorry to find that a boon has been given without imposing an extra penny of taxation upon them. Many allegations have been made as to the effect of this boon. It has been said it will actually cause a deterioration in the education of the country. I do not think that is very likely. Surely those who have had so much money expended upon them will like to finish their education. There is one class in whose behalf I desire to plead, and that is the clerks. There are many artizans whose earnings are larger than the average amount of money paid to clerks. A clerk has to keep up a respectable position, and if his master found he was not giving his children a good schooling, he would most likely lose his situation. To this class this relief will be a great boon. Now, as to the grant of £30,000 to the Highlands, we must look at the reasons for the giving of the grants on the first occasion. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say that the money given will only go into the pockets of one class. It is true those unhappy crofters who do not pay any rates will not get any benefit at all; but surely it would be wrong, when you are giving certain money from the Imperial Exchequer in relief of rates, to exempt landlords and the small proprietors from participation in the relief.
  SIR G.TREVELYAN: I do not propose to speak longer than we are accustomed to speak in Committee, because we have had two speeches—that of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) and that of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Caldwell)—which have put the whole case in such a manner that it is impossible to supplement it. I only regret the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  1878
  had not the good fortune to hear the speech of the hon. Member for St. Rollox, for it must have brought conviction to the breast of any hon. Member accustomed to finance. What hon. Members do not appear to have noticed is that we are not here to discuss the question whether we shall give £30,000 to the Highlands. We are discussing whether we are to make an eternal and immortal appropriation of £30,000 a year from the taxation of Scotland for the relief of an exceptional part of Scotland. We all know what will happen. If the Government stick to their guns a great number of English Members who have not heard the debate will come from without and outvote the nearly unanimous voice of Scotland. And this will be an occasion when the monstrosity of that proceeding will come out in the liveliest colours. We have spent the best part of two evenings—and I do not regret it—in resisting the so-called relief of Ireland, from the pocket of the taxpayer, in the shape of drainage loans and drainage grants, but on that occasion hon. Members who had not heard the debate were dealing with their own money and with the money of their own constituents. But on this occasion they will come in and vote for the relief of a special part of the country, not even out of the money of their own constituents, but out of the money of the limited number of Scotch Members, every one of whom, except the official Members, and the Members for the districts, which are said to be benefited—[Cries of"No!"]— except some of them, and I am glad to hear it—and except the hon. Member for Renfrewshire (Sir A. Campbell) will be heartily opposed. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer know what he is doing? He is actually giving out of Scotch taxation £30,000 to relieve certain special districts of Scotland, and to what quarter that relief will go has been shown by the hon. Member for St. Rollox in a manner that cannot be answered. We were complaining lately that grants from the English Exchequer were given for drainage purposes to rich districts of Ireland. But here we have the money of the taxpayers of Scotland that is given to the relief of the rates in parishes, which are very lightly rated as compared with the great number of parishes which will

  1879
  be taxed to relieve them, and this is being done for ever. What a waste of money is this Under this clause £100,000, as nearly as possible, is being devoted to various purposes, in some of which the Scotch have very little interest, and to the first of which the great majority are absolutely opposed. We have heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen how that will maim and render almost nugatory the concession which is being made. I have here the figures of the proportion of Scotch children who attend school during the various ages. Out of 98,000 children between the ages of 6 and 7, 72,000 attend school; out of 95,000 between 7 and 8, 83,000 attend school; out of 92,000 between 8 and 9, 83,000 attend school. The same proportion holds in the case of children between 9 and 10, 10 and 11, and 11 and 12. But does any one in these advanced days of education say that education should stop at 12? And yet we find that even now out of 85,000 children between 12 and 13, only 57,000 attend school; and out of 84,000 between 13 and 14 only 31,000 attend school. That is the normal and natural drop at present. Just imagine how that will be increased when the fees are paid up to the Third Standard; that is, during the time that the schools are full, but when fees are exacted at a time when parents are only too willing to take their children away. This enormous difficulty and danger to education in the future might largely be removed if the Government would accede to the almost unanimous wish of the Scotch Members, and strike out the three first items in this 19th clause, beginning with the one which we are are now contesting. In special districts this scheme of the Government, as it at present stands, will raise the greatest difficulties. Take the great city, one district of which I have the honour to represent. Glasgow has a School Board which, perhaps, is second to none of the great educational machines of the country. That School Board, writing most deliberately and with a full knowledge of the subject, represents to the Government and to Parliament that while under this scheme they will obtain £17,000 a year they will sacrifice £22,000 a year; so that in order that you may do this worse than useless operation of giving £30,000 to certain
  1880
  districts, you condemn Glasgow, and, in proportion, other places situated like Glasgow with a perpetual fine of £5,000 a year. I would be the very last person to wish to snub the Highland people. The hon. Member for St. Rollox admirably put before the Committee the shape in which we ought to assist the Highlands if we intend to assist them, and I must beg the attention of the Committee to this fact—that if you accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, you will assist in the very best and just shape those parts of the Highlands which must be assisted, and assist them exactly in proportion as they suffer. There is a great deal to be said about increasing the poor rate in connection with the agrarian difficulties of the Highlands; but the immense school rate has grown up, in consequence of circumstances for which no one is to blame, but on account of the lamentable circumstances in which the great bulk of the population are placed. Taking four parishes in the Highlands, I find that the average attendance at schools under the School Boards is only half of what it ought to be, and that of £190 that ought to be paid in fees the sum of £5 1s. was actually paid. Now, here you have the causes of educational distress, and on the Motion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen you have the means of relieving it. If you accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend then you will have money enough to remit the whole of the fees, for I am afraid these poor people do not carry on the education of their children to the higher standards, and this addition to the £100,000 will probably fulfil all demands for the remission of fees both in the Highlands and in the Lowlands. I am glad to think that the Representatives of the Highlands themselves repudiate the idea of being put in the invidious position of being the cause of the denial of free education to their countrymen; they do not wish to have this subsidy at the expense of this boon to the whole of Scotland; they do not wish to have it thrown in their teeth that it was owing to the Highland counties that this great boon so earnestly desired was denied to the whole of Scotland.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): Let me recall the Committee to the precise question

  1881
  before us. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen is to eliminate the provision of £30,000 for the Highlands, and yet with the utmost frankness he has declared that his primary object is to pick up items that will supply the required funds for providing what he calls free education for the whole of Scotland. Of course, the Committee will understand the Amendment is part of the scheme for securing free education, and the hon. and learned Member begins by depriving the ratepayers of the relief provided for them in this part of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman has so high an opinion of the value of freeing education that he will make this sacrifice of the relief to local taxation. In the first place, I invite the consideration of the Committee to the question whether it considers itself to be under some obligation to free all the standards in the Scotch schools—to that I maintain a negative—and, secondly, whether the £30,000 for the Highlands and Islands is, on its own merits, so bad a provision that it ought to be rejected. I would like to ask whether any Party in the House, least of all the Government, is in any way committed to the theory that education must be free in Scotland? 'To this I say, most certainly not. It has been well urged by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire there is no such compelling sense of duty. Before we advance further, I should like to remind the Committee how very important it is that we should not yield to any sentiments, however generously expressed, however liberal in views, as stated by the hon. Member for Aberdeen. We must adhere to our duty in the distribution of this money, and we have primary obligations to the ratepayers which we must meet in the sense of being just before we are generous. Local taxation, which has been exceedingly harsh and oppressive, has fallen, and must necessarily fall upon every householder in the community, but school fees do not fall upon the whole of the ratepayers. It is all very well to lavish eulogies upon a Liberal policy in the matter of free education, but we must recognize the duties that belong to us by seeing that we give benefits arising from public money equally to all who have contributed to it. I am bound to say I
  1882
  think the Committee is under an obligation to restrain those generous and liberal sympathies, and to adhere to the policy that has been followed for a long course of years of devoting grants in aid of local burdens of ratepayers. The hon. Member, with reference to a most legitimate object, has awowed at the outset his purpose in making this attack on the clause.
  MR. HUNTERI may explain that I did refer to the rates, but my objection is to the deduction of this £30,000 from the Probate Duty when it should be provided from Imperial Funds.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Yes, I think the Committee will understand the object of the hon. Members for Aberdeen is to enter upon a predatory expedition against the ratepayers in the interests of the parents who pay school fees. He makes his attack in detail, and hopes to get the support of the enemies of this grant on this occasion, though he may not keep their support hereafter for his scheme of free education; but I desire to impress upon my hon. Friends on both sides of the House that the Government are not proposing any general scheme of free education as a duty upon the State. We are merely applying moneys available for Scotch local purposes to an object which is found to be most congenial to the wishes of the Scotch ratepayers. I protest against the Motion that this is a case in which the Government are proposing to found this £30,000 for districts on the ground of their poverty alone. If that were so there would be much to be said for and against the proposal to take the relief from Imperial Funds. It may be said that, where a community is poor to that extent that it is a danger or a special burden to the body politic, relief should come from Imperial sources. But we have not to deal with a position of that kind. We find that in the distribution of the money provided out of the Probate Duty and the Excise Duty there arises a special anomaly regarding the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and the object of the Government is to supply out of those moneys a provision which should meet and supplant the grants hitherto made out of moneys hitherto annually voted by Parliament. An injustice is done in the case of the Highland counties, and the only way to

  1883
  redress that is to give them a bonus such as is represented in this grant. It is said that we are going to put this money into the pockets of the landlords. That is not the fact. We merely put it into the pockets of the landlords if and in so far as the lord lords pay the rates. Would the Government be justified in adopting a method of appropriation which would land the money in the pockets of anybody except those who pay rates—those who run the machine of Local Government? If the crofters choose to pay their share of the local burdens, the grant now to be made will flow into their pockets as well as into those of other people who pay rates. I am bound to say I cannot but be surprised that the hon. Member, who usually speaks with so much intelligence and candour, should over and over again, in entire disregard of the answer which over and over again has been rendered, ignore the fact that in these Highland districts the pressure on the ratepayers is exceptionally heavy, and those against whom these stale denunciations are launched suffer as much as any other class. I have studiously abstained from discussing the question whether the money should be granted in aid of the school fees in the higher or in the lower standards, because it would confuse the Debate to mix it up with the other two questions, which were raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, and with which I have dealt.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has wisely narrowed the scope of the present discussion; the point as to the particular form in which relief to school fees should be given will be raised later. My hon. and learned Friend, in his comprehensive and instructive speech in moving the Amendment, did cover nearly the whole ground, as we might expect from him who has given so much attention to this subject. The object of my hon. and learned Friend is twofold—to relieve his countrymen from an oppressive burden and to promote the interests of education; and he does not find the second of these objects secured by the proposal of the Government, however much the first may be. The Lord Advocate is, no doubt, anxious to have the Committee
  1884
  believe that the Government are not in favour of free education. The truth is, the Government have offered a benefit, and they are anxious to increase its value; but there sits behind the Front Ministerial Bench a row of Gentlemen—I do not wish to be offensive in calling them wolves—who are waiting to pounce down from the English fold and to gobble up the little Scotch ewe lamb. But we will deal with those Gentlemen when they make their attack. The presence and influence of the hon. Members in question, however, has had such an effect upon the Lord Advocate that he is most anxious to tell the Committee that he does not accept the idea of free education. The fact as represented by the Lord Advocate would seem to be that he has gone about seeking how he could employ this money, and, as a happy thought, it occurs to him, "Let us abolish these school fees." Well, I do not think the Government will be able to stop there. Although the right hon. Gentleman makes a comparison between the relief he proposes to afford and that of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, and points out how he desires to relieve the great body of Scotch ratepayers, I think he must bear in mind that those who are most keen on the subject are, perhaps, those best qualified to express the minds of the Scotch ratepayers on the matter. This question, though it lies at the root of the matter, has been interwoven with another, because, as the first step towards the accomplishment of his ultimate object, my hon. and learned Friend proposes to withdraw the proposal to grant £30,000 to the relief of Highland rates. Now, we have had a great deal of light thrown to-night on, the nature of this grant of £30,000. For my own part, until b heard what has been said to-night, I was rather in, of favour this grant; but the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Mackintosh) was the first person to open my eyes to the nature of the grant, and I must say that I never heard a more extraordinary argument than that used by the hon. Member for Inverness, developed since with much fervour and ability by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Caldwell), who unfortunately spoke when few Members were in the House, and I may perhaps, therefore, repeat some of the information he gave us. Let the Committee remember that this grant of

  1885
  £30,000 was given in aid of certain parts of the Highlands which, we were told, were in a deplorable condition, where the poor rate had reached an almost fabulous amount, and exceptional means of relief were required. Here we have the hon. Member for Inverness coming forward and saying that in the parish of Inverness, where he resides, this grant has had most most beneficial effects, and that £1,600 has been spent there out of the whole £30,000. Well, on looking at the return, we discover that in the parish of Inverness the rate stands only at is 4d. in the £1. The whole of the parishes of Inverness shire receive £5,000, and of that sum this parish of Inverness, where there is really no necessity for relief at all, receives no less than £1,600. Thou the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow quoted the case of Dunoon, a large and flourishing watering-place in Argyll-shire, which, with a total poor rate of 5½d. in the £1, has received £500, and I have found for myself another instance worth quoting in the case of Campbelltown. This, again, is a prosperous and flourishing locality, and with a total rate of 11¼d. it has received £610, an entire misappropriation of the money. The Lord Advocate says the money is not given on the ground of poverty alone, but—unless I am very much mistaken—it was on the ground of poverty that Parliament was induced to grant it. With great ingenuity the Lord Advocate seeks to make out that this is a bonus given to these counties because by the substitution of the Excise duties for the present Parliamentary grants they lose heavily in comparison with other counties. But is that so? I have not had the opportunity of looking closely into the matter; but I have taken the first two counties on the list, and I find with regard to Aberdeenshire that it is losing, through not receiving the Parliamentary grant it used to receive, £19,612. That is the loss to Aberdeenshire, which has to bear the whole burden of its own misfortunes. In the case of Argyllshire, which receives this special assistance, the loss has been £9,482.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): How
  1886
  does the hon. Gentleman arrive at those figures?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: From the Return as to License Duties, Probate Duty grant, and Parliamentary grants dealt with in this Bill. Let the Committee mark the comparsion between the two figures I have quoted. One would expect, from the argument of the Lord Advocate, the figures as to the Excise Duties, which are to be given in substitution, to be widely different from this proportion; but in Aberdeenshire the licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors amounted to £7,811, and in Argyllshire to £3,400, which is not far from the same proportion.
  MR. RITCHEIn order to draw a proper comparison you must take the grants that are discontinued and the License Duties given in lieu of grants in both counties. The hon. Member will find that in Aberdeenshire the total amount of grants discontinued was £19,000, and the amount of License Duty to be received is £19,800, leaving a balance in favour of licenses, whereas in Argyllshire the amount discontinued was £9,500, and the amount of licenses to be given in lieu is £8,600.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThen Argyllshire, on account of the difference between £9,400 and £8,600, is to receive this large eleemosynary contribution to assist it. I venture to say that no ground has been shown in these figures to justify the distribution of this £30,000. The Lord Advocate regards with great satisfaction the fact that the bulk of this money will go into the pockets of the landlords. The landlords no doubt pay half the rates but we have been accustomed to look on this—and it has been represented to us and the world generally—as being a contribution in aid of special distress; and if the landlords in the Highlands and Islands are in any condition of special distress, it is largely owing to their own misfortune or misconduct in the management of their estates in past years. The rates they have to pay they have succeeded to with their property, and we are not at all disposed to regard the handing over of this money to the landlords of the Highlands and the Western Islands as a proper appropriation of the money. I must say I think those hon. Gentlemen who repre-

  1887
  ent these counties deserve some thanks for standing out against what they consider to be an improper employment of the money, even though its distribution will be of some benefit to their own constituents. But there is the further point, that although we should not object to the £30,000 being spent in proper relief, we do not see that any argument has been advanced to show that it should be done at the cost of all other parts of Scotland. If relief of any special sort is due to any part of Scotland let it be given at the expense of the Imperial taxpayer as it has been our habit to give it in other cases. How would English Members—some of whom are here watching against this policy of free education for Scotland—like it if they were told that out of the Probate Duty paid to England some £260,000 or £270,000 was to be given for the relief of exceptional distress, say, in Wales? So far as this money is given to the Highlands and Islands it is taken from the other counties. I trust that this proposal, having been supported as it has in the most candid and straightforward way by Members who do not usually act with my immediate friends, will receive more favourable consideration at the hands of the Government than has yet been accorded to it.
  MR. WALLACE: I must say one word on the ingenious speech of the Lord Advocate. He has failed to draw the distinction between a State grant given in relief of or assistance to the ratepayers and a State grant given in compensation of parents who are by law compelled to educate their children. It seemed to me that his speech was very much an endeavour to refute the popular proverb that we must be just before we are generous. A State grant in aid of ratepayers seems to me to be a gift—an act of generosity on the part of the State. The Lord Advocate said that the assistance ought to go to the people who are running the machine; but I would ask in whose interests are these people running the machine? It is only in their own interest and for their own benefit. When people pay rates they do not give them away for nothing. They pay them for something in return, and they receive a return which they consider worth the money. Therefore, if they get this gift from the State it is
  1888
  so much put into their pockets for nothing; but when you turn to the case of compulsory education by the State it is a different matter. A parent who is educating his children under a compulsory law is making a sacrifice. He is losing the services of his children, and he acts not in his own interest, but in the interest of the State. He is compelled to make the sacrifice by the State in the interest of the community, and accordingly, when a grant is made to him to save him from paying fees which he is obliged to pay by compulsory law, he is simply receiving compensation for the sacrifice the State has required him to make. Accordingly, on this general principle, I feel myself totally unconvinced by the arguments the Lord Advocate has advanced. The Lord Advocate himself recognized this principle when he introduced the measure, and he recognized in Scotland also that the claim was diferent from the nature of the claim in Eng land. In England, the first claim, so far as the popular demand went, was, he said, for relief in respect of the ratepayer, whilst the claim in Scotland was for relief in respect of school fees. It seems impossible to me to put the two demands on the same footing; and I think justice demands that we should give full compensation in the matter of school fees, before we make a present to the ratepayers.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I trust the House will understand this matter before we go to a Division. The issue is a narrow one—whether the money for the relief of the Highlands should come from an Imperial Fund, or from the Lowlands of Scotland? That issue has been somewhat obscured in the Debate which has taken place. It is much to be regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been present to take part in the discussion, and that he should have left the Lord Advocate to exercise his forensic arguments in making the best of a bad case. Not a shred of argument has been advanced to show why this money should be advanced by the Lowlands; but, on the other hand, scandalous abuses have been pointed out in the distribution of this £30,000. Some of the places selected for relief are amongst the richest districts in Scotland.
  MR. CALDWELL: I would reply to, one observation of the Lord Advocate.

  1889
  His contention was that the sums given to these Highland parishes were given to place those parishes in an equal position with other parishes of Scotland. Well, the case of Dunoon shows the entire fallacy of that contention, the local rate there being only 5½d. in the £1, and £500 having been given in aid of the local rates. In addition to this £500 Danoon had received £380 in other grants. The thing is monstrous, yet no explanation has been given by the Lord Advocate. [A laugh.] it is all very well for him to sit there and laugh; but these things will be brought before the Scotch people. Take, again, the parish of Campsie, of the Parochial Board of which I am Chairman. There the total rates are £1,349, or 1s. 1d in the £1, and the parish has received out of the £30,000 £489. And people wonder how it is that the Scotch Members are not in touch with the Government. Why, they bring in English Members to mow us down, so to speak, when we endeavour to resist these acts of injustice. But this matter will not rest where it is, for this money, if it is allocated to Scotland, must be allocated on a just principle.
  MR. HUNTER: The Lord Advocate started a new argument when he said that owing to the distribution of the Licence Duties there would be a deficiency in some of the counties. Well, I have looked up the subject, and I find that the deficiency will be £8,000 over the whole of the Highland counties, and how that can justify a contribution of £30,000, I think it is difficult to understand. It is said I have spoken rather unfairly of the claims of the Highlands. I do not think so. I adhere to everything I have said; but I am quite prepared to admit that something should be done to relieve the Highland parishes of the debt they have contracted for school buildings, recognizing that the expenditure falls more heavily per head on sparsely populated districts than on others.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 154; Noes 141.—(Div. List, No. 191.)
  DR. CLARK: I somewhat reluctantly consented last year to the passing of the clause relating to the money to be used for the benefit of the crofters in the Highlands and Islands. I consented because I thought the distress in those districts had been caused by the action of this House.
  1890
  But, Mr. Courtney, when I saw the Return to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox has called attention, and when I saw how the money had been allocated by the Secretary for Scotland, I felt very indignant, and considered that the Government had got the Bill under false pretences. Now, I heard the reason given to-night by the Lord Advocate, and in order to test it I will take a typical Lowland and a typical Highland parish, and you will see how much weight there is in it. I take the parish of Inverness, where the hon. Member for that constituency has had a considerable reduction of the rate on his property, and I take the parish of Kilmarnock, in Ayrshire. I find Kilmarnock has lost £1,370, and will gain by licences £2,070—a net gain of £709. Inverness parish will lose £1,469, and gain £2,246—a net gain of £777. Inverness parish, therefore, will not lose one single farthing, but will gain nearly £2,400. Inverness is a town of middle-class people—it is, of its kind, the most prosperous town of Scotland. As to Dunoon, seven-eighths of its population consists of retired Glasgow, Paisley, or Greenock merchants. They have no poverty, and hence they have a low rate. The money, I say, has been obtained upon false pretences, and if you wish to ameliorate the condition of the people of Scotland you will apply it differently, and instead of using it for the landowners and for the large farmers you will limit it on the lines of the Amendment which I am about to move. My hon. Friend on the other side argued as if poverty could only be found on one side of the Clyde; but there is as much poverty round the Mull of Galloway as round the Mull of Cantire. In fact, there is more poverty in the parish of Wigtonshire than in Argyllshire. Now, we have the Lord Advocate defending a very much abused class—namely, the sporting tenants and big farmers. How on earth have the sporting tenants suffered I should like to know? Ingenious and clever as the right hon. Gentleman is, I think it will be very difficult for him to prove that sporting tenants, who spend thousands on sporting for amusement, have suffered by heavy taxation. The graziers and large farmers in the Highlands have suffered, it is true; but they have not suffered

  1891
  any more than the graziers and farmers in the South of Scotland. It is true that the large farmers in the North of Scotland have been suffering, because the land is fast going back to a state of nature. They cannot send their 6,000 or 7,000 sheep to he runs as they used to do; they cannot send more than 3,000 or 4,000; and, labour and capital being now withdrawn, the condition of the land is going back until, instead of good grass, it produces nothing but heather and rushes, and other growths that have taken the place of the grass. The men whom the present occupiers have replaced have gone across the Atlantic and the Pacific, and are sending home produce which makes it impossible for the land they have left to pay. If my Amendment were carried, instead of throwing away money on the Highland landlords, who have suffered no more than those of the Lowlands, instead of giving the Highland landlords au unjust privilege and monopoly, the House would be doing something to prevent what may yet prove a serious danger to the Highlands of Scotland. My proposition is that the amount the Government propose to give in relief of local taxation shall only he given for the benefit of the cottars and crofters. The large farmers are capitalists, and can look out for themselves; and the sporting tenants go to the Highlands for their own amusement and because they have plenty of money; but, of course, they have a good deal of interest in this question, inasmuch as the grant proposed by the Government will be in reduction of their rates. Neither of these classes deserve this unnecessary generosity, and the result of what is about to be done will be this—that while you have been sending a Crofters' Commission to reduce the unfair rents, you are now offering the landlords a reduction of their rates and 50 per cent more. This being so, it must be a good thing to be a Highland landlord. If, however, my Amendment be accepted, Scotland would still be the recipient of so much money for the benefit of a poor and deserving class; and if that of the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire (Mr. Sutherland) were adopted, the money would be granted to the County Councils to carry out much needed improvements in the Highlands. It should be remembered that the Highlands are peculiarly situa-
  1892
  ted, and are unable to get at anything tending to the development of their industries, unless they are able to offer substantial guarantees. For instance, the Postmaster General will afford them no facilities unless guarantees are forthcoming; in point of fact, it is almost impossible to get a telegraph or a post office in some parts of the Highlands, without a guarantee that there shall be no loss to the Post Office Department. We are, furthermore, in need of light railways for the development of our fisheries, and piers and harbours to prevent our fishermen from being drowned, as hundreds of them are, very frequently, in sight of land. A few hundreds of pounds judiciously expended would be the means of saving hundreds of lives; and if the Government will give the money asked for they may largely aid in relieving the condition of many over-populated districts, Of course, if it is intended to assist either in migration or emigration in or from the Highlands, money must be expended for the purpose; but if you do not intend so to employ the money, we shall then know that the Government have no intention to benefit the crofters and cottars of the Highlands. As far as I can see, all the Government want to do is to benefit the big farmers by reducing their rents, and to put so much a year in the pockets of the landlords through the reduction of the rates. I do not propose to say anything against the Highland landlords. Some of them have behaved as reasonably as we could expect landlords to behave.
  An Hon. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
  DR. CLARK: Yes; as reasonably as we could expect landlords to behave. I do not say that Highland landlords are any worse than other landlords, or that they are guilty of the rack-renting which is so much denounced, and which I think is not so much due to them as to the competition which has taken place for the land, and which has taken the best portion of it away from the people and driven them to the sea-shore and other localities, where there is nothing but the worst description of land. I am not blaming the men of the present day for the sins of their forefathers; but I do not see why the existing class of landlords and large tenants should be advantaged in the way proposed by the Government. The Highland land-

  1893
  lords are no more deserving than the Lowland landlords—it is probable that the landlords of both Highlands and Lowlands are about on a par—and I do not see why we should be asked to rob Peter in order to pay Paul by giving a special grant to the Highland landlords, to the detriment of those in the Lowlands. Probably the Government will refuse to accept my Amendment; but if they can see their way to its adoption. I think they would find things would be much better for them; for in that case there might be some defence of their position—a defence which they certainly require, considering the small majority by which they succeeded in the recent Division. Surely they might make some compromise in this matter. I voted against the money going to the landlords because I thought the people of the Highlands would be more benefited if the money were spent in the way suggested by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter). According to the statistics of the Royal Commission it is my belief that of the £30,000 it is proposed to give for the relief of local taxation, £15,000 would go direct to the landlords, £11,000 to the sporting tenants and large farmers, and only about £4,000 would go to the crofters and cottars. Even where this latter class is paying only 1d. per week in school fees, they would gain more by having that payment abolished than they would gain by the proposed reduction of local rates. In conclusion, I beg to move the Amendment I have placed on the Paper.
  Amendment proposed, page 10, line 12, to leave out the words "local taxation," in order to insert the words "the crofters and cottars."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'local taxation' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I will not attempt to follow the hon. Gentleman through the long list of accusations he has thought proper to make against those who bear the burden of local taxation and who discharge the, duties to which he has referred; but I will express the hope that the Committee will adhere to the principle of applying the money it is proposed to grant to the relief of local taxation. I must strongly deprecate the attempt to divert the attention of the
  1894
  Committee from the main object we have in view, which is the relief of local taxation, and to fix it on the vague purpose of giving a dole to one particular class—namely, the crofters and cottars. I am unable to discover the slightest ground on which such a proposal can be argued. I can understand the feelings that may be entertained towards that class; but I hold it absolutely indefensible to disregard a principle such as has been laid down for the purpose of advantaging one particular section of the community. The hon. Gentleman has accused me of having misrepresented the true state of the facts in reference to what he called Inverness. I did not say one syllable about the comparative receipts of Inverness as between the present grants and the local duties of the future. I did say something about the county including Inverness, and that at present the grants, in the case of Inverness, were £8,963, while the local duties would only be £6,741, leaving a large deficit. Bat because the county and parish bear the same name the hon. Member attempted to fix on me a misrepresentation. I can only reply that those are not my methods. I will now pass from this subject. Various remarks have been made, and certain anomalies have been pointed out, as to the receipts of particular parts of counties which are to enjoy the proposed advantages; but I would point out the sub-section under consideration is one that gives the fullest power to the Secretary for Scotland, as it proposes to give—
  "The sum of £30,000 for the relief of local taxation in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, in such proportion and manner as may be from time to time directed by the Secretary for Scotland."
  Now, Sir, my noble Friend will draw up a scheme which will be the subject of very careful scrutiny. Observations have been made which will probably direct attention to anomalies that are susceptible of rectification. Some parishes, from their affluence and other circumstances, need not receive so large a share as at present falls to their lot, and it is the object of our clause to enable rectification and re-consideration of the scheme. On this subject I have no hesitation in saying that my noble Friend will give consideration to any suggestions that may be made

  1895
  It will, undoubtedly, be necessary to reconsider the question of the requirements of certain parishes, and the point may be raised whether the whole amount of the proposed grant is required to meet the exigencies of the district. The primary point is, however, whether or not it may be better allocated than as at present proposed, and upon that point I will engage there shall be careful consideration.
  MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: Then are we to take it that before we arrive at Clause 23 the Government will consider Sub-section 1 of that clause, and come to a decision whether the £30,000 is required, or whether it shall be appropriated in a somewhat different way?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The first question will be whether there could be a better apportionment of the £30,000 in the prescribed area, and the second whether so large a sum as £30,000 is required. I do not think we could give a final decision on these points before the Report stage is reached.
  DR M'DONALD: I fail to see how the speech of the right hon. Gentleman constitutes an answer to my hon. Friend's Amendment. I do not think it touched upon the real point raised—that the money should be given to the crofters and cottars in the Highlands. I went into the Lobby with the Government on the last Division, because I wanted to keep this money for the Highlanders. I entirely disagree with the money being taken from the rest of Scotland; but the Highlanders are poor, and as the money was offered to us we could not refuse the bait. I think that after all the Highland people will get very little of the amount; the grant seems to me to be made by the Government for the benefit of Highland landlords, to recoup them the losses they have sustained through the action of the Crofters Commission. I happened to look the other day at some of the most recent decisions of that Commission. I find the reductions of rent and remissions of arrears, if capitalized, would represent a donation of £30 to every crofter whose case has been dealt with; and if a landlord who takes £30 from every small tenant on his estate is not a bad landlord, I do not know what is a bad landlord. Now, we want this
  1896
  grant for the people of the Highlands, and not for the landlords; and if the Government do not give way on this Amendment, it seems to me their conduct will be open to the assumption that the grant is intended as a sop to the landlords for the losses they have incurred by the action of a Commission appointed by the Government to revise the rents of their tenants.
  DR. CAMERON: So far as free education is concerned, the crofting people of the Highlands will practically derive no benefit from it. The entire subsidy in favour of free education will go into the pockets of the ratepayers, of whom the landlords form by far the most considerable portion. In 1881 I brought in a Bill to permit free education being given in Scotland, and we had a Second Reading defeat on it. But in connection with that Bill, I obtained a Return showing the amount of school fees in different districts, and the rateable value of those districts. That Return showed that, in a great number of the Highland parishes, the school fees were almost nothing. In one parish in which a penny in the £1 produced £21 15s. 7d., the school fees in the year ending June, 1880, were only 13s.; in Barra, another Highland district, the amount of school fees received were only £1 5s. 5d., and that sum represents the entire relief that will be gained by that district by the remission of school fees. In a third district——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I do not see how this is appropriate to the Amendment.
  DR. CAMERON: I am dealing with the abolition of fees, and endeavouring to show that the remission will be merely a reduction of the education rate. Your theory is that you are going to give a great boon to the working population in the ratepaying district, and I desire to show that the benefit will not be reaped by the crofters and the cottars. The Return to which I have referred showed that in 182 out of 930 school districts in Scotland the total fees not paid by the Parochial Boards were less than the produce of a penny rate, and therefore the poorer population of a great number of parishes in the Highlands will not really be benefited. But there is another matter to which, I think, the

  1897
  House should have special regard, and that is the absolute discretion proposed to be placed in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland. If it were a simple matter of the distribution of a temporary grant, I should not object to it; but the same phraseology is followed in subsequent sections of the Bill, which deal with the permanent disposal of the money, and we are asked to grant this £30,000 to be distributed at the discretion of the Secretary for Scotland. I object to giving a blank cheque to the Secretary for Scotland. It has been shown conclusively that the distribution, according to the discretion of the Secretary for Scotland, has been highly unsatisfactory. In fact, it has been made on a perfectly unintelligible basis, and I hold that we ought to have in the Bill a direction how the money voted shall be applied.
  MR. CALDWELL: The question raised by this Amendment is whether this £30,000 shall be given to the Highlands, or whether it shall be left at the disposal of the Secretary for Scotland. I should like to point out the case of two towns like Inverness and Kilmarnock. While the population of Inverness is 22,000 and of Kilmarnock 26,000, the assessment of Inverness £5,690, of Kilmarnock £4,832, and the rate in Inverness Is. 4d., and in Kilmarnock 1s. 2d., the grants in aid to Inverness were £1,628, and to Kilmarnock £920. Besides the ordinary grant Inverness also got a special grant, which brought up the amount of the grant to Inverness to £3,257 on a total assessment of £5,690. The question, therefore, is whether we are to give the Secretary for Scotland a discretion which may be exercised in the way I have pointed out.
  DR. CLARK: I am sorry that the Lord Advocate should have taken offence at my remarks. The right hon. Gentleman was defending the grant to the town of Inverness on the ground that it lost by the change. I wished to point out how my own county was also losing. I beg to withdraw any remarks that may have given offence.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 173; Noes 109.— (Div. List, No. 192.)
  It being after midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  SUPPLY [18th June] REPORT.
  Order read, for Further Consideration of Postponed Resolution:—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £11,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Martial Law, including the cost of Naval Prisons at Home and Abroad, &c. which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1890."
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,: The House will remember that this Resolution was postponed because the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Coventry wished to make certain observations on the case of the boy Henry Thompson; and as the hon. Member for Northampton did not wish to express any opinion on the case so long as it was awaiting judicial decision, I undertook to postpone the consideration of the Resolution until the Court of Law bad dealt with the issue. I think that if I now make a short statement in relation to this very remarkable case it will tend to shorten the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton. The facts are very peculiar. Her Majesty's ship Calliope was in New South Wales in the month of November last year, and in the first week of that month two men deserted from the vessel, one of them being a young seaman named Floyd, 18 years of age, and 5ft. 1in. in height. Details of his desertion were forwarded home, and were in the hands of the police in this country in the month of January. In the first week of the month of December a young man, by name Henry Thompson, ran away from his parents who were living at Coventry, and wandered about the big towns in the Midland Counties endeavouring to enlist in the Militia. He was early in January in a state of great destitution, and he absconded with some money belonging to a man in whose house he was lodging, and who had taken him in out of pity. A warrant for his arrest was issued at the instance of the wife of the man whose money had been stolen, and the police were on the look out for him. This is the governing consideration in what happened subsequently. The boy went on to Derby and lodged there at a

  1899
  public-house, the owner of which noticed that he was in a state of great nervousness and apprehension. The boy told him, with every appearance of truth, that he was a deserter from the Navy; that the seaman with whom he had run away had been taken; and he was hesitating as to what he should do.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: hope the noble Lord will say whether lie is stating anything which is outside the affidavit.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The hon. Member must recollect that the affidavit made by Thompson was made in order to set the Court of Queen's Bench in motion to sue out a writ of habeas corpus, but it never came under the cognizance of the Court and was in no way used. The only affidavit which came before the Court was one in relation to the particular case affecting the contempt of 'Court, and the statements I am about to make are statements that can be proved. A day or two afterwards Thompson enlisted in the Militia. The publican met a policeman to whom he narrated these facts, and on referring to the Police Gazette the policeman found a description of a deserter which exactly tallied with that of the young man. The policeman arrested the young man, who again said he was a deserter, and asked if his friend had been taken. Before the commanding officer the young man repeated the statement that he was a deserter from Her Majesty's Navy. In the opinion of those who investigated the case there was no doubt that the young man was a deserter, and he was sent under arrest to Portsmouth. On his way thither he made much the same statement; but when he came before Captain Woodward, of Her Majesty's ship Duke of Wellington, he said he was not a deserter, and that his name was Thompson. He gave two addresses, and his denial was made in such a way that it did not carry conviction. On his arm were the letters "W.F.," as Captain Woodward thought, which exactly corresponded with the tattooed marks on the actual deserter. In height he was two inches taller than the deserter had been the year previous when he was last measured; but Captain Woodward thought that as boys grow it was not improbable he had grown two inches during the year. After investigating
  1900
  the case Captain Woodward arrived at the conclusion that he was a deserter, and sentenced him to 90 days' imprisonment with hard labour. On the way to the gaol he again said he was a deserter from Her Majesty's ship Belleisle. At the gaol he said he was not a deserter. The Governor remanded him, and be then ascertained that the prisoner had informed the escort on the way from Portsmouth that he was a deserter. The Governor had him up again, and taxed him with the fact that he had told the escort that he was a deserter, and that his name was Floyd. He was punished for making a false statement. During the whole time he was in prison, neither to the Chaplain nor to the Visiting Justices did he say that he was other than a deserter from Her Majesty's ship Calliope He served his term of imprisonment and went back to the Duke of Wellington He then said he had not been a deserter. Captain Woodward ordered the boy to be brought before him the next day for the purpose of investigating the case. Captain Woodward telegraphed to the Chief Constable of Coventry, and the reply of the Chief Constable was such as to verify the boy's statement. Further examination was made, and two days afterwards Captain Woodward made a Report to the Commander-in-Chief. The Report was sent to the Admiralty; and six days from the time the boy made this last statement an order was sent from the Admiralty for his release. Therefore, as soon as the error was detected, every possible effort was made to remedv it. A local solicitor interested himself in the case, and Captain Woodward told him all the facts. The solicitor induced the boy to sign two false statements in an affidavit—that he was seven years younger and two inches and a half shorter than was the case. How any solicitor could have induced the boy to make that statement, when it was contrary to the fact, I cannot understand. That affidavit was accompanied by another, in which it was stated that the solicitor had called Captain Woodward's attention to these facts. Two days after the young man's release application was made to the Court of Queen's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus. Captain Woodward, on receiving a telegram to this effect, did not at first quite know what was to be

  1901
  done. Direction were given that the young man was to be delivered up to the Court of Queen's Bench on the Tuesday following. To comply with that the boy had to be kept more or less under restraint, and Admiral Commerell and Captain Woodward thought the best way was not to revoke the orders which had been given. In arriving at that decision Captain Woodward apparently committed a contempt of Court; but there is a good deal to be said for that decision from a commonsense point of view. As soon as I heard what had occurred I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that no delay should occur in delivering up the boy to the Court of Queen's Bench. My right hon. Friend undertook that no delay should occur, and the necessary orders were given; but, in the meantime, further complications had ensued. As soon as Thompson's whereabouts and identity had become known, the police, who had been waiting since January with a warrant in their hands, immediately pounced upon him. I then went to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to get possession of the boy; and, so far from there being collusion between the three Departments as has been insinuated, everything has been done which was possible to give effect to the writ of habeas corpus, and the whole difficulty arose from the nature of the circumstances which had to be dealt with. Captain Woodward made another technical blunder. On the second day he was required to appear he brought a copy of the writ instead of the writ itself, and the Court declined to take any notice of his presence, although his counsel undertook to have the writ in Court before 4 o'clock, if the Court would sit until then. Ultimately the Judges decided that Captain Woodward had been guilty of contempt of Court in not acting on the telegram, and they fined him £50. There was not the slightest desire or wish on the part of the Admiralty to evade in any way the order made by the Queen's Bench. Several questions have been put to me on the subject of compensation, and I have replied that, in my view, the lad's own conduct having largely contributed to the injury he has suffered, it is not a case for compensation. I do not,
  1902
  however, pretend to be a judge of these matters, and I have, therefore, before coming to a final decision on the matter, referred the question to the Law Officers of the Crown. They have advised that the question of the imprisonment should be considered apart from the, antecedents of the boy, and that they think it a case for moderate compensation. Acting on that advice, I will, with the assistance of the Law Officers, look into the case, with a view of assessing the damages to which the boy is entitled. After the accusations which have been made against the Admiralty I think it only right to point out that, as soon as the mistake was discovered everything was done to remedy it. With regard to summary proceedings, I will, so far as possible, strengthen the safeguards and precautions against such a mistake occurring in future.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I have, first of all, to thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in adjourning this Vote from the other evening, when I was too unwell to attend. Having said that, I desire to express my deep regret that the noble Lord has thought it right to introduce into this case matters which he tells us his Law Advisers have advised him ought not to have influenced his judgment. I will not discuss the question whether or not this unfortunate lad committed a felony of 18s., because the Magistrates practically dismissed the charge. I will not discuss the cases connected with the writ of habeas corpus, because the High Court of Justice has held that Captain Woodward was in the wrong there, and has inflicted a fine upon him; but I will address myself solely to the grievance which I think it my duty to submit to the House. The grievance is that this young man was tried and sent to gaol for 90 days, without a particle of evidence being taken as to his identity.. The lad denied he was the person he was said to be; but Captain Woodward made no inquiry as to the truth of the statement, until the lad had suffered 90 days' imprisonment. A more monstrous case was never submitted to the House. Thompson was arrested as a deserter. It is said by the noble Lord in the instructions furnished to him that Thompson admitted to the police officer he was a deserter. The police officer never ventured to make an affidavit to

  1903
  that effect. The young man denies that he made the statement, and the evidence is in his favour, because Captain Woodward admits that when the young man was brought before him at first he denied he was a deserter, and that he (Captain Woodward) had the young man shipped in consequence of that denial. So that it is clear the young man if he had been foolish enough to make the statement to the policeman who had everything to gain in the shape of a remand for the arrest of a deserter, did as we find from Captain Woodward's affidavit deny he was a deserter. Captain Woodward's own affidavit states—"The young man denied that he was a deserter, so I had him stripped."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): The constable made an affidavit on June 1, which was handed to the young man's representatives.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: That affidavit was not filed a fortnight ago. But, in any case, then is Captain Woodward's sworn statement. Without a scrap of evidence, and in spite of his denial, the young man was sent to gaol for 90 days. He was asked to sign his name in the prison book, and he signed his real name, Thompson. For doing so he was punished, and further punishment was threatened if he signed Thompson again. The noble Lord did not frankly admit that Captain Woodward acted hastily and regret what had happened; but he brought up a statement that the young man had at some time or other stolen 18s., and therefore deserved to be sent to gaol for 90 days. ["Oh."] If not, why was the statement made to influence the House? It is not fair to bring against the lad a charge which the Magistrates investigated and dismissed. The captain admitted that Thompson denied that he was a deserter, and that he gave two addresses before he was sent to gaol. But only after his punishment was over were the police sent to inquire about the genuineness of the addresses given. No doubt the lad was a fool for trying to enlist two or three times; but that is no reason why one of Her Majesty's Ministers should say that he deserved to be sent to gaol for 90 days. It is on the statements of Captain Woodward that I base my claim; and
  1904
  I move to reduce the Vote by £500. I hope the matter will not be treated in a Party spirit, and that the Government will not allow any consideration but that of the unjust punishment inflicted to weigh with them in the question of compensation.
  MR. BALLANTINE: I beg to second the Motion. I have interested myself in this case because the parents of this young man have long been settled in the town I have the honour to represent. First, I would point out that there is one salient fact in the case that the young man was serving in the Militia under his own name, so that the authorities had warning from outset of the blunder they were about to commit. The constable who arrested him said that Thompson admitted himself to be Floyd, a deserter from the Navy but how could Thompson have heard of Floyd unless the name had been suggested to him by the constable? The captain in his affidavit states that he had satisfied himself that Thompson was Floyd. But how? He said he had the lad stripped and found tattoo marks on the left arm agreeing with the description of Floyd, and Thompson prevaricated in giving two addresses. But there was no prevarication, because one address was that at which he had lived with his parents before joining the Militia, and the other was the address to which his parents afterwards moved. With regard to the tattoo marks, it turned out that Thompson was never tattooed at all. The marks on his arm were occasioned by an accident with a loom. The evidence of identity was, in fact, the same as in the burlesque. "Have you got a strawberry mark on your left arm?" "No." "Then you are my long lost brother." But did the captain use due caution. There is not only the difference in age, but also the difference in height. It is absolutely immaterial whether he was shorter or taller than the deserter Floyd. He was arrested because of the resemblance. But when the captain found there was this difference of height, ought he not to have paused? Captain Woodward took no advantage of the two addresses given by the boy, until offer his return from imprisonment on 11th of May when he was nevertheless, detained on the Duke of Wellington, and

  1905
  was not released even when the captain had satisfied himself that he was not Floyd. In fact, the boy was kept in detention until the 24th of May, and then sent under arrest to the Militia as though he were a deserter, although taken from the Militia by force. The constable then arrested him for theft; but the opinion which the Magistrate entertained of this charge was shown by the fact that he released the boy in his own recognizances in £10. Mr. Justice Mathew suggested the possibility of vindictive motives in the Admiralty Authorities. The First Lord's statement has only aggravated the injury. No regret has been expressed, no compensation offered, and the only thing done has been to attempt to blacken the boy's character by a vamped up charge of theft.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: How vamped up?
  MR. BALLANTINE: I do not mean vamped up by the noble Lord. I speak of this case as indicated by the action of the Judge who tried it and dismissed it. Suppose a German subject had been arrested as a deserter, what would the Government have replied to a protest on the part of the German Government? Would they have said, "True the man is not a deserter, but then he is a 'liar'"? They would, of course, have offered instant compensation and reprimanded the captain of the ship. The First Lord has suggested that Thompson made a false statement. But there is no evidence of that. Mr. Justice Manisty had said that the Court entirely distrusted the instructions given to the Admiralty counsel. If there is falsehood on one side or the other, on which side does the motive lie? On the side of the boy who got nothing but imprisonment, or on the side of those who had imprisoned him, and had a distinct motive in evading consequences of their unlawful act? It is said that the marks "W.F." or "W.T." agreed with the description of Floyd. No doubt Floyd was marked "W.F.," but Thompson could not have been tattooed "W.F.," so two pair of initials were suggested to excuse blunder. This is a matter dependent upon eyesight, and the House will be surprised, as I have said, to learn that the man was never tattooed at all. Where was this story designed? Perhaps in the Constructor's
  1906
  Department; and, as to type, I should suggest the Admiral class. Contrast the case of Thompson with the inquiry lately held on the loss of the Sultan. Does anybody suppose that the Duke of Edinburgh and Thompson are equal in the eyes of the law? Two out of the five persons comprising the Court Martial in the Sultan case were Captain Woodward and Admiral Commerell, whose judicial capacity had been so admirably shown in the case of Thompson. I shall advise Thompson to wait and see whether a satisfactory offer is made to him, because there is no doubt, after the expressions of judicial opinion in the case, that he will recover substantial damages in an action for false imprisonment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£11,400," in order to insert £10,900." —(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
  Question proposed, "That '£11,400' stand part of the Resolution."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I regret that the hon. and learned Member should have imported into his speech the observations with which he concluded. Sir J. Commerell is well-known in this House, and Captain Woodward's career in the Navy might have spared him from the insinuations that have been made, especially as the inquiry with regard to the Sultan has nothing to do with this case. The hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. and learned Member for Coventry appear to think that this House ought to accept as gospel every statement made by this young man Thompson, without any regard to the fact that there was overwhelming evidence that he, at any rate, made a number of deliberate misstatements. The noble Lord did not suggest that the man's imprisonment was justified by his misconduct; but he did suggest that that imprisonment was in no small degree due to the misconduct on his part, and therefore it was necessary to refer to that misconduct. This is not the case of a person who throughout has given a true and consistent account of himself, and who by the misconduct of certain naval officers has been wrongfully imprisoned. The hon. and learned Member for Coventry alluded to the man's parents. Well, we have nothing to do with the respectability of his parents, but

  1907
  there is this point in regard to his parents—that for some reason or another he never communicated with his parents from the month of December, 1888, when he left home, and they did not know where he was. The next fact in the case is that Thompson told several persons that he was a deserter from the Navy, and actually described to one of them the kit that he had when he deserted; and on January 26 there were no fewer than six persons to whom he stated that he intended to make a clean breast of it, that he joined the Navy under the name of Floyd. Then there was the fact that he gave two addresses, and though this has been explained by the hon. and learned Member, it was not explained at the time. Then there is the all-important fact that he himself admitted he was a deserter from the Navy.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: At the very moment that he was brought before Captain Woodward be denied that he was a deserter, and gave the two addresses of his parents, but he was sent to gaol for 90 days without any inquiry as to those addresses being made.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: No doubt under ordinary circumstances inquiry would have been made; but in this case there were facts which naturally led to the conclusion that Thompson was not telling the truth. It is so very easy to be wise after the event, and to judge people's conduct by the light of what has now come to our knowledge. It is suggested that the statement that he was Floyd was extorted from the young man after he had been put for three days upon bread and water. That is an entire mistake. He was sent to prison on the 11th of February, and on the very next day the chaplain saw him and asked him a question, in reply to which he said he was William Floyd, and that his training ship had been the Lion.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The affidavit is clear that when he went to gaol and had to sign the book he signed the name of Thompson, and that he was punished for so doing by being put for three days on bread and water. It was after that that the chaplain saw him.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I state from the affidavit of the chaplain the answer he
  1908
  gave the chaplain on the 12th February. The different and contradictory statements which he made naturally induced the authorities to think that they could not put confidence in what he said. It is clear that he continued to pass under the name of Floyd, and that on leaving the prison he signed the book in the name of Floyd. What motive he could have had for doing this when he must have known that he could not be punished I am at a loss to imagine. The hon. Member for Coventry stated that there was no tattoo mark on the young man's arm, but that statement has never been made until to-night. It certainly was not contained in the affidavits either of Thompson or his solicitor. On the other hand, it has been specifically stated that his arm was examined, and that there was something tattooed or marked on it which was certainly a "W." and something else that looked liked an "F" or a "T." Then the hon. Member for Coventry said suspicion ought to have been aroused by the fact of Thompson being two inches taller than Floyd; but has not a youth been known to grow two inches in height in ten mouths? ["Oh."] Well, I myself have known of such a case, and I can give proof of the fact. Now, I do not say that this young man was rightfully imprisoned. From all the circumstances, it is clear that this young man was imprisoned by mistake, and therefore I have advised the First Lord of the Admiralty that there ought to be no attempt at justification of the illegal detention, and that there is a case for reasonable compensation. But the First Lord of the Admiralty would, I think, be neglectful of his duty if he were to shut his eyes altogether to the conduct of the boy, who by his own action to a great extent led to the mistake which caused his imprisonment Therefore, there is not the least ground for censuring the Government. The House is not now considering whether the strictures of the Court of Queen's Bench were absolutely justified, or whether there was a right return to the writ of habeas corpus, but whether there has been any such conduct on the part of the Admiralty as should induce the House to decline to agree to the report of this Vote, and I think the answer which the House will give to that question will be in the negative.
  SIR H. DAVEY: I am only going to say a few words at this late hour; but I would point out that the Attorney General, in the speech he has just made, has absolutely failed to answer the real gravamen of the charge. The charge against Captain Woodward is that he committed Thompson to prison for 90 days absolutely without any evidence whatever against him. Captain Woodward made no inquiries at either of the addresses which were given until after the boy had been let out of prison. I wish the House to understand that as far as the Attorney General's speech is concerned no answer whatever has been made to the charge that Captain Woodward sent the boy to prison without any evidence whatever as to his identity. So far as I know, Captain Woodward had never seen Floyd, but he chose to assume that the prisoner was Floyd, though the boy denied it, and said he was Thompson. Notwithstanding the boy's statement, Captain Woodward sent him to prison for 90 days; and it is perfectly shocking that an officer, be he a captain in the Navy or not, should have power to send a man to gaol for 90 days with hard labour, whether he has evidence of identity or not. Then as to the order of the Court of Queen's Bench. It is not necessary to have a lawyer at one's elbow to know what is the meaning of an order to bring a person into Court. Yet Captain Woodward did not attend the Court on the first occasion.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I said Captain Woodward had been wrong, owing to a technical mistake in regard to procedure.
  SIR H. DAVEY: Captain Woodward did not think fit to attend the Court.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: He did.
  SIR H. DAVEY: Subsequently he did, but not on that occasion. Altogether, I do not know of a more scandalous case of overbearing officialism.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: There were two remarks in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down which ought to be answered. He states that it was the duty of Captain Woodward to obey a plain order. The communication received by Captain Woodward was a telegram informing him that the Court had been moved to call upon him to show cause why a writ
  1910
  of habeas corpus should not issue, and this, to a sailor, not very intelligible in formation had to be considered side by side with a clear order from his superiors at the Admiralty to send the boy to his regiment. As to evidence, Captain Woodward found that the boy's tattoo marks, age, and other features corresponded with the description given of the man who had deserted. On the 5th of May, 1885, Floyd was 5ft. high, and on the 24th of April, 1888, when he came to man's rating, he had only grown ¾in. Thompson when measured 10 months after that date was 5ft. 2¾in. high. It is said that he could not have grown so much in such a short time. Why, after being 3 months in prison the lad had grown 1¾ in. more. It is all very well to be wise after the event; but had Thompson been brought before any Member of the House, he would probably have been treated in the same way as he had been by Captain Woodward.
  The House divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 59.—(Div. List, No. 193.)
  Resolution agreed to.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital for the year 1889–90, presented to Parliament pursuant to Act, 48 and 49 Vic. c. 42, be approved."—(Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett.)
  ADMIRAL MAYNE: I wish to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will give us any assurance that the question of the appropriation of some part of this fund to a purpose for which it was never intended will be looked into between this and next year. The Lords of the Admiralty have on several occasions pointed out that they are misappropriating the Greenwich Hospital Fund by using part of it for the purpose of pensioning reserve seamen at the age of 50 instead of at the age of 55. If that object is a proper one at all, money ought to have been provided by Parliament for the purpose, instead of which the amount needed is taken from the Greenwich Hospital Funds, so that those who are entitled to receive those funds have to go short. I hope the Civil Lord will be able to give us some assurance that the money will be de-

  1911
  voted to its proper purposes in the future.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The hon. and gallant Admiral has correctly stated the views of the present Board of the Admiralty upon this question—namely, that it is most undesirable that the funds of Greenwich Hospital should be applied to the payment of the pensions of seamen who have joined the Naval Reserve. He is no doubt also aware that at least five letters have been addressed during the last ten years by different Boards of Admiralty to the Treasury asking that the misappropriation should be put an end to, and that pensions to the Naval Reserve should be paid out of naval funds. I can only assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, so far as I am able to promise, similar representations shall be made on an early occasion to the Treasury, but I cannot say that I am hopeful of being more successful than my predecessors have been.
  Question put, and agreed to.

MOTION.

  COINAGE (LIGHT COINS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Bill to amend "The Coinage Act, 1870," as respects Light Gold Coins, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 321.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  On the Motion for the adjournment of the House,
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to give Notice, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, that on Thursday he will move that Government Business have precedence for the remainder of the Session.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Two o'clock.