Commons Sitting of 30 July 1889

THE DIVISION ON THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE.
SIR F. MAPPIN: I wish to call attention to the fact that my name appears in the Division List issued with the votes today as having voted both with the "Ayes" and the "Noes." I voted with the "Noes."
MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: The name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) also appears in both Lists, while that of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. P. Chamberlain) does not appear in either. The name of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham should have appeared in the "Aye" List, and that of the hon. Member for West Islington in the "No"List.
MR. SPEAKER: The Clerks will make the necessary corrections.

QUESTIONS.

  VACCINATION IN WALES.
  MR. ALFRED THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that there are no educational vaccination stations in any part of Wales, and that general practitioners, residing within the principality, who desire to attain certificates of competency in the art of vaccination, have to travel long distances in order to obtain them; and, whether he will take steps to remedy this grievance, and order that Cardiff should become the educational vaccination centre for South Wales and Monmouthshire?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. RITCHIE,): I can only repeat the answer which I gave to a similar question put to me by the hon. Member for South Glamorgan (MR. Arthur Williams) on July 27 last year, that there is in Wales no vaccination station at which certificates of qualification in vaccination can be obtained, and
  1698
  the Local Government Board are not aware that any serious inconvenience has been occasioned thereby. The College of Physicians, the College of Surgeons, and the Society of Apothecaries now require such a certificate for every candidate for their diploma or licence, and hence most medical men now obtain their certificates before entering on practice. It is not usual to appoint examiners to grant these certificates in towns in which there is no school of medicine. If a medical school should be established in Wales, I should be prepared to consider the question of appointing a person who could give these certificates in Wales.

  JUVENILE OFFENDERS.—CASE OF GEORGE HAYWARD.
  MR. FULLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of George Hayward, a boy of 14 years of age, who was convicted at the Petty Sessions in Warminster, on the 6th July, for stealing a strap value one shilling, and was sentenced to 10 days' imprisonment prior to five years' detention in the Wilts Reformatory; whether he is aware that the previous charge against the character of the boy was for an offence committed when only seven years of age, and that since that time his general conduct has been good; and, whether he will take steps to mitigate the sentence, in consideration of the fact that the strap appears to have been thrown away, with no intent of stealing the same but probably for a practical joke?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir; my attention was called to this case more than a week ago by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board, and in consequence of his intervention I have made inquiries into the facts, which are as stated in the first and second paragraphs of the question. I have found no reason to suppose that the taking of the strap was a practical joke, but on the whole I have come to the conclusion that the case is not one for a reformatory school. I will, therefore, advise the remission of that part of the sentence.

  THE ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the ships of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, carrying mails and passengers from this country to the West Indies, are totally unprovided with hospital accommodation; if ships of the same company carrying passengers and emigrants to Brazil and the River Plate are similarly unprovided for, though carrying from 400 to 600 Spanish and Portuguese emigrants, with whom English and Irish passengers come daily and hourly in contact, and calling at Rio de Janeiro in the height of the yellow fever season; whether, in the event of an epidemic breaking out, the unoccupied passengers' rooms are temporarily converted into hospitals, and if, failing this means of isolation, the only resource left is by hanging blankets, soaked in a solution of carbolic acid, round the patient; if this was the existing state of things when two men recently died of yellow fever on board the Neva, at the Mother-bank Quarantine Station, Southampton; and, if it is in the power of the Government to enforce regulations for securing health on board passenger steamers?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOAED OF TEADE (Sir MICHAEL Hicks Beach,): The ships of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company carrying passengers to the West Indies and South America from this country do not carry from the United Kingdom more than 50 passengers as defined by the Passenger Acts. They are, therefore, not passenger ships under those Acts, and no other ships are required by law to provide hospital accommodation. The Spanish and Portuguese passengers referred to are embarked abroad, and do not make the ships passenger ships under the Passenger Acts. Space is always provided on board the ships of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, which can be turned into hospitals in the event of an epidemic breaking out. The cabin where an infectious patient is lying is always surrounded by blankets steeped in a solution of carbolic acid or other powerful disinfectant. In the cases referred to on board the Neva the patients were removed to cabins surrounded in this manner. The Board of
  1700
  Trade has no power to enforce regulations for securing health on board passenger steamers unless they are also passenger ships under the Passenger Acts.

  IRELAND-LIGHT RAILWAY FOR COUNTY DOWN.
  MR. MULHOLLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a public meeting recently held in Porta-ferry, County Down, in support of a light railway from Newtownards to Portaferry; and whether, having regard to the desirability of assisting the development of the important fisheries at Ballyhalbert and Portavogie, and to the great want of railway accommodation in the district, he will recommend that this line should participate in the benefits of the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill?
  THE CHIEF SECRETAEY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my hon. Friend I have to say that copies of the Resolutions passed at the meeting mentioned were received by me and duly acknowledged. I pointed out in my reply that as the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill is general in its terms and does not deal with any particular line, its application to particular districts which may be decided to come under its provisions will be matter for consideration after the Bill becomes law. And the hon. Member will see I can hardly add anything to this in reply to his question.

  PORTSTEWART FISHING HARBOUR.
  MR. MULHOLLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the dangerous condition of the Port-stewart Fishing Harbour, and to the numerous accidents which have occurred to the fishermen while endeavouring to enter it in stormy weather; and, whether he will direct a portion of the available balance of the Sea Fisheries (Ireland) Fund to be expended upon the necessary alterations?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he had not yet had time to make inquiries.

  THE LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  1701
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Hume Babington, of Armagh, has been appointed by the Land Commission as court valuer, to inspect the holdings in some cases in the neighbourhood of Downpatrick, in which appeals from the Sub-Commission have been heard and the decisions not yet given; whether he is aware that Mr. Babington is a land agent in the Copnty of Armagh, and that he has frequently appeared before the Sub-Commissions in County Derry and County Antrim as valuer for the landlord, when his valuation as to rent was invariably considered very excessive; and, whether, considering that every alteration made by the Chief Commission at their last sitting at Downpatrick was to increase the rents fixed by the Sub-Commission, and the number of indignation meetings since held by the farmers to protest against these alterations, some court valuer, who has not been employed by the landlords of the district, will be appointed to inspect these holdings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners say that they cannot undertake to discuss matters connected with the adjudication of cases now pending before them.

  DOCK AT BOMBAY.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have refused to carry out the arrangement arrived at with the Government of India last year for the construction of a suitable dock at Bombay, as admitted to be necessary for Her Majesty's ships on the Indian station; whether, seeing that the Government of India are willing to pay a moiety of the expense of construction, their Lordship will still persist in delaying the completion of this work; and, if so, will he explain the grounds for this change of policy; and, if, on the other hand, their Lordships still desire that the said dock should be completed, will he state whether the delay is caused by the refusal of the Treasury to grant the necessary funds for its completion.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. Hamilton,: The arrangement proposed as to the construction of the Bombay Dock
  1702
  was that the Indian Government were to build the dock and the Admiralty to bear a moiety of the cost. This division of cost raised financial consideration in which the Treasury necessarily had a leading voice. The delay which has occurred in settling the question arises from the inability of the Treasury to treat this as an isolated question of finance, but rather as one which carries with it necessarily a review of the general contribution which India makes towards the maintenance of an Imperial Navy.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Will the noble Lord say whether there is any dry dock available?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No; there is not.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Then what will be done with a ship that meets with disaster?
  The question was not answered.

  IRELAND—MR. GILL AND MR. COX.
  MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what has been the result of the inquiry into the circumstances under which the unreliable evidence was put forward by Police Constable Robinson on the trial of Mr. Gill and MR. Cox at Drogheda?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that in the opinion of the Magistrates the evidence was not sufficient to justify a conviction. I gather that in the opinion of the same Magistrates there was no ground for taking action against the constable. I will consider whether it will be proper to make a direct inquiry of the Magistrates on the matter.
  MR. A. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will make a direct inquiry of the presiding Magistrate as to the nature of the evidence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A report has been received from the Magistrates, the substance of which I have given. I will consider how far it may be proper to make further inquiry.
  MR. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to give notice that on the Vote for the Irish Constabulary I will draw attention to the way in which the policeman's evidence was tendered, tested, and subsequently rejected.
  MR. SEXTON: Did not the Magistrates refuse to convict my hon. Friend because they did not believe the constable's evidence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What the right hon. Gentleman states is not only a fact, but a fact to which I myself gave public expression in an answer to an hon. Gentleman opposite. But the right hon. Gentleman will see that while it may perfectly well be that evidence may not be sufficient to convict the accused, yet the evidence so tendered may not of itself justify proceedings being taken against the policeman.
  MR. M'NEILL: Was not the evidence characterised by the Magistrates as untrustworthy?
  No answer was given.

  DUNGARVAN BAY.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend taking any steps in the interest of the fisheries on the south coast of Ireland to carry out the recommendations of the Allport Commission, which recommends that—
  "A landing place for the use of first-class fishing boats should be constructed at a point on the east side of Dungarvan Bay near the railway, with which it should be connected by a siding."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: For the present the Government confine their proposals with regard to the recommendations of the Allport Commission to the questions of drainage and of light railways. When the Government has dealt with these we may hope to lay further proposals with regard to the remaining suggestions of the Commission.

  THE BEHRING SEAS FISHERIES— SEIZURE OF A BRITISH FISHING VESSEL.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further details as to the reported seizure of the British schooner Black Diamond in Behring's Sea, especially as to the precise locality of the seizure and the distance from the nearest land; and, whether the schooner has since been released; and, if so, on what, if any, conditions?
  MR. GOURLEY: When will the Correspondence with the Governments of the Dominion and States regarding the Behring Sea seal fisheries, as well as those of Canada and Newfoundland, be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): No information has been received on the subject at the Foreign Office, Admiralty, or Colonial Office. As regards the presentation of Papers, I can only refer the hon. Member for Sunderland to my answer on June 4 of last year. The reasons which I then stated are equally operative now.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government have received from any of the Australian Governments any communications in support of the Grant of responsible Government to Western Australia; and, whether the opportunity can be afforded to this House in the course of the present Session to affirm the principle of granting responsible Government to the more settled portions of Western Australia, even though time does not permit of the House dealing with the further question of disposal of Crown Lands?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that, in addition to the telegram from Queensland, printed at page 3 of the Parliamentary Paper C. 5,752, the Secretary of State has received a telegram from the Government of Victoria, expressing regret at the probable postponement of the Bill, and saying that delay will be prejudicial, and create public soreness throughout Australia. The Government of New South Wales has telegraphed that all the colonies feel their interests bound up with those of Western Australia in this matter, and urges the sound policy of settling the question with as little delay as possible. And the Government of South Australia has also expressed its most hearty sympathy and hope that the efforts of Western Australia may succeed. We have also received a

  1705
  telegram from Western Australia, earnestly pressing that the Bill may be passed. Perhaps I may be allowed to read a few passages to the House:—
  "This House desires to express strong fixed opinion that colony now has reached stage of development when the present constitution is no longer adapted to circumstances. Delay in passing the Responsible Government Bill will most seriously affect material prospects of the colony and produce universal irritation. Legislature earnestly requests that Imperial Government will reconsider position as to Bill; and in the interests of the colony, so seriously affected by further delay of responsible Government, will still endeavour to pass measure this Session."
  As regards the second paragraph of the question, it is hoped that the principle may be affirmed as suggested by reading the Bill a second time.

  IRELAND—FENIANISM.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen a letter, signed "George E. Murphy," in the Times of 29th July, stating that on Sunday, 21st July, he heard his parish priest assert at mass, on the authority of the Roman Catholic Bishops, that the captain of a Gaelic Association Football Club, near Drogheda, had been sent by Government a cheque for £50, to induce his members to become enrolled as Fenians; and, what action the Government propose to take with regard to this alleged assertion of the priest?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no foundation for the absurd statement referred to, and no steps appear to be called for in the matter, except to give it a direct contradiction.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that it was an absurd statement on the part of this parish priest?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.

  SUNDAY PROCESSIONS IN LONDON.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, on Sunday, the 28th instant, during Divine Service in St. Margaret's, Westminster, a procession, with bands playing, and occupying a considerable time in passing, seriously disturbed the congregation; and, whether any steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of such proceedings on Sundays during service?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the fact is as stated. I am not aware that there is any statutory provision which could be applied effectively to prevent the recurrence of such proceedings. An appeal can only be made to the good feeling of the processionists, who, I believe, as a rule, do take care that their music shall not interfere with Divine service in churches.

  JURY PACKING IN IRELAND.
  SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has-been called to a letter of Herbert Smellie, "an Englishman and a Protestant of over 37 years' residence in Ireland," in the Pall Mall Gazette, of Thursday, 25th July, in which letter Mr. Smellie states that at the recent Summer Assizes held at Maryborough the Special Jury upon which he, Herbert Smellie, served was packed; and, whether he will have an independent inquiry made into all the circumstances of the case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no official knowledge of the matter referred to. I understand that the defendants exercised the right of challenging, and the Crown its right of ordering to stand by. If there is any suggestion that there was any impropriety in the empanelling of the jury, it is altogether without foundation.
  MR. MACNEILL: In the letter in question Mr. Smellie speaks of every Becond man on the panel having been, ordered to stand aside, and it has been proved that since the passing of the last Coercion Act jury packing has been, systematically practised at Mary borough, particularly in cases where the venue has been changed. MR. Smellie says—
  "I am satisfied that justice is not administered here in the impartial way it is in my own country."
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these statements, coming from an independent source, do not justify and even demand an inquiry.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I do not think Mr. Smellie's statements-demand or justify an inquiry. If he were as well acquainted with Irish juries as I am I do not think he would

  1707
  have felt it necessary to write the letter.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain the position that no independent inquiry is necessary, in the face of the fact that we have one of the jury asserting, "I maintain that the jury was packed."
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  DR. TANNER.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Dr. Tanner, M.P., was yesterday, at Tipperary, sentenced by Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald and Mr. Brien to imprisonment with hard labour for a month, upon conviction for an assault not involving violence; whether the Magistrates refused to increase the sentence in order to allow of an appeal; whether the Press were excluded from the Court; and, if so, why; whether the Magistrates further sentenced Dr. Tanner to three months' imprisonment for alleged contempt of Court; and, whether they had legal power to inflict imprisonment for a longer period than one week in respect of contempt of Court?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not been able to obtain a reply to the third paragraph of the question, though I sent a telegram yesterday. It is true that the hon. Member referred to has been sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for deliberately spitting at a County Inspector. He was not sentenced to three months' imprisonment for contempt of Court, but was ordered to find sureties, or, in default, to go to prison for three months. So far as I am aware, the action of the Magistrates was perfectly legal.
  MR. SEXTON: With regard to the first paragraph of the question, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that Dr. Tanner repudiated the charge made against him, and said that it gave him more pain than 20 years' imprisonment; and whether under the circumstances he approves the action of the Magistrates in refusing my hon. Friend an opportunity to have the facts re-heard. I would ask, further, whether the Magistrates had power to require bail for contempt of Court or to inflict more than a, week's imprisonment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not my duty to review the decision of the Court. As regards the first question, I am not aware whether the charge was true or untrue. Dr. Tanner declared that he was not guilty of the offence with which he was charged, but brought no evidence to prove that fact. In regard to the second question, I may point out that what was done was to bind the hon. Member over for his good behaviour, and in default of finding sureties he was to be imprisoned for three months.
  MR. SEXTON: What I ask is whether the Magistrates had only power to inflict a week's imprisonment for contempt of Court, and had no power to require bail?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not able to say whether Dr. Tanner's offence was contempt of Court and nothing else. If the action of the Magistrates was illegal, there is more than one way of dealing with it. It is not for me to review the decision of the Court.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Did not the hon. Member tell the Chairman that he looked upon him as a criminal himself?
  No answer was given.
  MR. SEXTON: I will repeat the legal question on Thursday.

  TOWN COUNCILLORS ELECTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that the Town Councillors Election (Scotland) Bill is still being persistently opposed by the hon. Member for North Camber well (Mr. J. R. Kelly); and whether, in the circumstances, the Government is able to give any hope that the Bill can be proceeded with this Session?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I am aware that the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill has been repeatedly objected to when made after 12 o'clock. I regret that the hon. Gentleman has failed to obtain an opportunity for advancing this measure; but at this period of the Session, it is, I fear, impossible to hope that it can be proceeded with.

  IRELAND.—STEAM TRAWLING.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenent of

  1709
  Ireland whether any Report has been made by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries on the subject of steam trawling in Ireland; and, if so, whether he will give Members an opportunity of considering it before proceeding further with the Steam Trawling (Ireland) Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries do not appear to have made any specific Report on the subject of steam trawling. It is true that they have on occasions made incidental references to it. But these references do not bear on the scope of the Bill now before the House.

  THE ULSTER AND TYRONE NAVIGATION ACT.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in accordance with the provisions of "The Ulster and Tyrone Navigation Act, 1888," the agreement of transfer has been ratified; whether the Company has commenced to repair the Ulster and Tyrone Canals; and, if so, to what extent; whether the Treasury has yet paid over to the Company any money; and whether the Treasury has negotiated or is in process of negotiating a loan to the Company?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. W. L. JACKSON,): My answer to all the questions of the hon. Member is in the affirmative except the last.

  DERRY GAOL.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Conybeare, and other prisoners in Derry Gaol, complained on Saturday evening last that their eyes were weakened and influenced by the glare of the whitewash on the walls of their cells; and whether, having regard to the cases of Messrs. Wilfred Blunt and Cox, M.P., whose sight has been impaired by imprisonment under similar circumstances, he will be prepared to direct the cells of these prisoners to be covered with a wash of blue or pink instead of the ordinary whitewash?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I telegraphed yesterday when a similar question was put, but I have not yet received a Report. It will require local reference.
  SIR W. FOSTER: Has the right hon. Gentleman received
  1710
  the information which he promised to obtain as to the state of the health of the hon. Member for Camborne?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I have received information which, I think, does not bear out the fears expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but I will have the matter carefully watched.

  FATHER M'FADDEN.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the fact that Father M'Fadden and the other persons against whom various charges in reference to District Inspector Martin's death on the 3rd February have been brought by the Government, will not be tried till the 16th October; whether they will be tried at Maryborough, where, at the last Assizes, the Crown prosecutors were accused of packing juries to secure convictions; and, whether, having regard to the fact that these trials will take place at a time when Parliament will not be sitting, he will be prepared to give the House an assurance that the juries will not be exclusively composed of persons differing in religious belief and political sympathies from the accused?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that it is the case that with the consent of the counsel for the accused, the trial of the persons referred to has been postponed till the 17th of October. As I have already stated, no juror has been, or will be, ordered to stand by on the ground of religious belief.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether, considering the great length of time that has elapsed since the case was first commenced, and that many of the prisoners are poor, the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether bail cannot be extended to them?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will make inquiries on the matter, but certainly I cannot give an answer offhand. I should imagine no change can be made, but I will inquire.

  MEDICAL OFFICERS' SALARIES.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether Local Sanitary Authorities having been recouped a moiety of the salaries of their medical officers up to 29th September, 1888, he intends that the moiety of such salaries

  1711
  for the half-year ending 25th March, 1889, is to be paid by County Councils out of the Exchequer contribution, which contribution has been considered as commencing from 1st April, 1889, only, and estimated by the County Councils as an asset available for the current year?
  MR. RITCHIE: This is a question which has been put to me several times. The last time was the 8th of the present month and by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). It was answered by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board. I must refer the hon. Member to the reply then given.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT— THE EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTION.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when he expects the Commissioners to make their awards, in those cases referred to them, where County Councils and Councils of county boroughs have failed to agree as to the apportionment of the Exchequer contribution?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am informed that in the case of 23 out of the 27 counties a settlement has been arrived at between the County Councils and the Councils of the county boroughs. The remaining four cases were to be considered by the Commissioners to-day.

  IRELAND—FAIR RENTS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the proposed Bill for accelerating the fixing of fair rents, whether it is his intention to make such provision as will compel the landlords to submit to the arbitration of two lay Commissioners; whether the tenants will have the selection of one of these arbitrators; whether he will also provide that there will be no appeal from the rents so fixed except on a point of law; and, when he will make a statement on the subject of the proposed Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to the first paragraph, I have to say that there will be no compulsion in the Bill either as against landlords or as against tenants. The lay Commissioners will be selected by the Land Commission. There will be appeal as in the case of
  1712
  rents fixed in the ordinary way before a Sub-Commission Court. The Bill will be shortly introduced, and, if necessary, a statement will be made upon its introduction. It is, however, extremely simple in its character, and is substantially identical with a proposal placed on the Paper in connection with a measure brought forward by the Government last year.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make any provision for expediting appeals?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be glad to give effect to any measure for expediting appeals, but it is impossible to find time this Session for a measure dealing with the Land Courts.

  DONAGHADEE HARBOUR.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a Memorial was forwarded, on, the 18th January 1889, to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, signed by Mr. De la Cherois, D.L., J.P., the Lord of the Manor, and by 103 other persons, representing that the present state of the Harbour of Donaghadee, County Down, rendered it dangerous to vessels entering it; whether he is aware that last winter a vessel named the William Bell was wrecked inside the harbour by being driven on a bank of silt and stones in the centre of the harbour; and, whether, as this is the only harbour of refuge between Belfast Lough and Car-lingford Lough, a distance of nearly 50 miles, the Government will endeavour to have it made a safe place of refuge for vessels by promoting such works, by dredging or otherwise, as will in the interest of the public render it available for vessels to enter and leave safely?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that, the harbour is not in a dangerous state.
  In reply to further questions by Mr. Johnston and Mr. FLYNN (Cork, N.),
  MR. JACKSONsaid: I have answered the question on the Paper. If any further information is desired notice must be given. As far as my information goes, the harbour is not in the dangerous state which has been represented.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a Memorial has been sent by the inhabitants asking for an inspec-

  1713
  tion of the harbour on account of its dangerous state?
  MR. JOHNSTON: And is it not the fact that the William Bell was wrecked inside the harbour last winter?
  MR. JACKSON: I have heard something about a ship having been wrecked in the harbour, but I believe that the wreck had nothing to do with the condition of the harbour. If the hon. Member is anxious for further inquiries, I have no objection to make them.

  THE DUBLIN RATES.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement, laid on 27th June before the South Dublin Board of Guardians by Mr. M'Donogh, a member of that body—
  "That the bulk of the rates are paid by Catholics, four-fifths of the inmates are Catholics, and yet out of the twenty doctors employed by the Board and drawing salaries to the amount of £3,166 per annum, two only are Catholic. The majority is Protestant and Conservative, because Catholics by social position, intelligence, and rating qualifications entitled to the Commission of the peace are not appointed, and Conservative magistrates, rated much lower, are sent to the Board as ex-officio Guardians;"
  and, whether the several statements in the foregoing are true; and, if so, whether he will recommend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to take some steps to rectify the inequality complained of?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The statement mentioned appears to have been made by Mr. M'Donogh. The Local Government Board have no information as to the proportion of the rates paid by Roman Catholics. The proportion of the workhouse inmates of that persuasion appears to be substantially as stated in the question. I am not aware whether the majority is due to the circumstances alleged; but the Lord Chancellor of Ireland is always anxious to place on the Commission of the Peace any properly-qualified Roman Catholic who may be recommended to him by the Lord Lieuten ant of the county.

  HOLYWOOD PIER.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. Alexander Young and James Ray, of London, were appointed under "The Holywood Pier
  1714
  and Quay Order, 1882," as undertakers for the maintenance and regulation of the pier and works at Holywood, County Down; whether the undertakers were obliged (under a penalty of £ 10 a month for the omission) to exhibit lights on the pier from sunset to sunrise; whether the pier and works have been allowed to fall into ruin, and are now in a useless and dangerous state; and, whether steps will be taken to restore them to the same state in which they were when handed over to the undertakers appointed by the Order of 1882?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am in communication with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners on this subject, and will let the hon. Member know the result of the correspondence.

  GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND ORANGE DEMONSTRATIONS.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a person named L. F. S. Maberly, an official in the Dublin Post Office, is represented in the public Press to have been present on the platform at the Orange demonstration in the Rotunda on the 12th instant, and to have otherwise participated in the proceedings of that meeting; and whether this official is the same who on a previous occasion had been rebuked by his official superiors for the display of political principles; and, if so, whether he will take any notice of Mr. Maberly's recent conduct in public, or, in case he decides to allow Mr. Maberly's conduct to pass without notice, he would allow similar liberty to those officials of the Post Office who may desire to attend Nationalist meetings?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): Mr. Maberly, who was present at the Orange demonstration of the 12th, is the same person who on a former occasion wrote a letter to the newspapers which, in the opinion of Mr. Fawcett, when Postmaster General, he had better not have written; but I am not aware that he was reprimanded for so doing. I am not prepared to inhibit officers of the Post Office from mere attendance at meetings, whether political or otherwise, which are not forbidden by law, though the regulations of the Department enjoin them to maintain a certain reserve

  1715
  in political matters, and not to put themselves forward on one side or the other. I am informed that Mr. Maberly took no part in the proceedings beyond attending the meeting.

  THE DUBLIN POST OFFICE.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will state what are the rules regulating the promotion of officials in the Dublin Post Office?
  MR. RAIKES: In Dublin the rules regulating the promotion of Post Office servants are the same as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. In the higher classes promotion is governed by superior fitness; in others, by seniority, combined with full competence and good conduct.

  MACCLESFIELD TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to the interim report on the affairs of the Macclesfield Trustee Savings Bank, so far as it relates to several persons specifically named as being on the Commission of the Peace for the Borough of Macclesfield; and, whether he will communicate with the Lord Chancellor thereon?
  THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): My attention has been called to the Report, but I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday. The matter is engaging the attention of the Lord Chancellor.

  SHALDON SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the School Board for Shaldon in Devonshire, was nominated by the Education Department in 1879; whether since that date there has been any election of members to the said School Board; and, whether the inhabitants of that place are to be deprived for an indefinite period of their right of electing their School Board?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The School Board for Shaldon, Devonshire, was nominated by the Education Department in 1879, and there has been no subsequent election by the ratepayers. An application from the inhabitants for the election of a new Board is under consideration, and has, in conformity with the ordinary practice, been referred to the Inspector for his opinion. The school under the Board is reported to be excellent.

  NAVY—COAL USED ON MEASURED MILE TRIALS.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the trials of speed of Her Majesty's ships of war, over the measured mile, care is taken to use a uniform quality of fuel so as to secure an accurate comparison in results; what was the description of coal used in the recent trial of the Trafalgar; for how long has it been used by the Admiralty for such purposes; and, what is the ascertained evaporative power of such coal?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Fuel of a uniform quality is always used in carrying out the speed trials of Her Majesty's ships. The coal used on the occasion of the Trafalgar's trials was Harris's deep navigation (Welsh) coal. This fuel has been used by the Admiralty since 1883 for this purpose. Its evaporative power is about 10¼1b. of water per 1 1b. of coal.

  MALVERN POOR LAW UNION.
  MR. HASTINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when he expects to be in a position to reply to a Memorial of the inhabitants of Malvern, forwarded to the Office of the Local Government Board more than twelve months since, in reference to the formation of a Malvern Poor Law Union?
  MR. RITCHIE: The memorial proposed the constitution of a union which would include parishes in two counties, and the consideration of the question has been deferred until the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners have been considered by the County Councils interested, and they have made such representations on the subject to the Local Government Board as they deem necessary.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland by whose instructions and on whose authority, and with what purpose, there has been added to Parliamentary Paper No. 211 of the present Session (being a Return of civil bills in ejectment, and writs for the recovery of land in Ireland) an appendix containing extraneous matter not moved for, and not included in the Order of the House of the 25th February, or in the Order of the House of the 9th May, upon which the Return was presented?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The appendix in question was added by direction of the Irish Government for the information of the House, as it was found that without the further information the Return might be misleading. The Return, as ordered, gave only civil bills entered and writs issued during certain years. The appendix shows the actual evictions during those years.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: As a point of order, may I ask if it is competent for any Member of the Government, after the House has ordered a limited Return for a special purpose, to add to that Return, of his own Motion, matter entirely extraneous to the Motion passed by the House, and giving an entirely different character to the Return?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have no hesitation in saying that such a proceeding is irregular.

  ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say what business will be taken on the ensuing days of this week after the Royal Grants Bill? I presume that the Royal Grants Bill will be the first Order.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I will endeavour, as far as I can, to give an answer to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, he is aware that at this period of the Session it is difficult to say definitely what business the Government will ask the House to take; but after the Report of the Royal Grants Resolution to-night we propose to go on with the
  1718
  Light Railways (Ireland) Bill, the Scotch Universities Bill, and I trust that we shall be able to reach the Lunacy Acts Amendment Bill. I believe there is a strong desire on the part of hon. Members to dispose of that measure. To-morrow the House will, I trust, read the Royal Grants Bill a second time, and the Government then hope to proceed with the other business as it stands on the Paper. On Thursday I propose to follow the same course, taking Supply (Class 3) after the Orders of the Day either on Thursday or Friday.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I should like to know when the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take the Tithes Bill, and to proceed with the Motion for the discharge of the Order for the Second Beading of the Sugar Bounties Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I can fix no date for the Motion relating to the Sugar Bounties Bill. I look upon that as a measure which is not very urgent.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I mean its funeral.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid I cannot admit that the funeral of a measure is very urgent. The Bill may be an interesting object to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and no doubt it is also an interesting object to the Government; but we prefer to press forward business which will require the serious attention of the House, and which must be dealt with in another place. I propose to take the Education Estimates, if possible, on Monday next, and the Irish Estimates on Tuesday, the Constabulary Vote being taken first. I trust it may be possible to deal with the Tithe Rent Charge Bill on Thursday in next week.

  IRISH SOCIETY AND CITY COMPANIES (IRISH ESTATES) [INQUIRY NOT COMPLETED].
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 290.]
  SMALL DEBTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 286.)
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Bribery (Public Bodies and Officers under the Crown) Prevention Bill, Trust Funds Investment Bill.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  THE ROYAL GRANTS. MESSAGES FROM HER MAJESTY [PRINCE ALBERT VICTOR OF WALES AND PRINCESS LOUISE VICTORIA OF WALES] [2ND JULY].
  Resolution reported.
  "That in order to prevent the necessity for repeated applications to Parliament on behalf of the Royal Family, and to establish the principle that the provision for children should hereafter be made out of Grants adequate for that purpose which have been assigned to their parents, it is expedient to grant to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund, an annual sum, not exceeding £36,000, to continue until six months after the demise of Her Majesty, and to be applied for the benefit of the children of His Royal Highness Albert Edward Prince of Wales."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not intend to trespass for many minutes on the time of the House, but there were statements made last night by the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir H. James), and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which require one word of reply from me. In the rather long speech with which I felt it my duty to trouble the House, I stated some points of law and fact which seemed to me beyond the possibility of contradiction. Of course, I do not venture to put my opinion upon legal matters against that of so high an authority as the right hon. Member for Bury. But there was an explicit contradiction given to me by the right hon. Gentleman last night. Answering a phrase of mine that, William III. surrendered nothing when he came to this country, because he had nothing to surrender, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the moment the Convention invited William to accept the Crown, and William did so accept it, the whole of the Hereditary Revenues and Crown Lands passed to that Monarch just as they had been held by
  1720
  William's predecessor. Upon the matter of law I will not take up the time of the House, but as to the question of right, I must trouble the House with a reference to the Journals. It is quite clear from the Journals of the House that these Crown Lands were granted to William III. by an express Vote of the House of Commons. And what is more remarkable, the Journals and the Statute Book show that the Parliament vacated, at the very period spoken of by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, grants of land made since February 13, 1668, by Charles II. and James II. What is still more important, in the Act 1 Anne, which restricted the right of the Sovereign to make Grants, an expression is used in the fifth section, to the effect that the necessary expenses of supporting the Crown had been formerly defrayed on Land Revenues, but that these revenues had been impaired by the Grants of different Sovereigns. The Crown Lands are in no sense an endowment belonging to the person of the Crown, but a part of the Civil Revenues of the country, and there is no pretence whatever of personal property in them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has also said in the case of George I. and George II., of whom I also said that they surrendered nothing, that they kept and used these revenues. But there was a specific Grant by the Vote of the House of Commons, entered in the Journals of the House in each case endorsed by Act of Parliament before the possession of "keeping and using" for life as part of the Civil Revenues of the country came to either of these two Monarchs. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) has doubted the accuracy of my figures, and I also understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed a similar doubt; but neither of those right hon. Gentlemen has ventured to challenge the accuracy of the figures, although it should have been easy to do so, supposing I had made a mistake. It is true that the House has been placed in possession of a fantastic balance sheet by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord R. Churchill); but I do not think it is quite fair on the part of the Government and their supporters to attribute inaccuracy as to figure, fact, and law, and yet refrain

  1721
  from putting matters straight when it was so very easy to do so. I further take this opportunity of protesting, even in the absence of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, against language used by that right hon. Gentleman the previous evening, which seemed to me insulting in the highest degree. As one of the Members for Northampton I have been charged by the right hon. Member with occupying the same position in relation to English politics that Nihilists occupy in relation to Russian politics. I could understand such language being used outside the House by reckless men, and I might even be disposed to regard such an observation with amusement if it came from the jocular lips of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, as no one believes his denunciations to be serious. When the noble Lord talks blood and thunder we know that he means it kindly and that there is nothing behind; but I take leave to say to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that his charge is as far from the truth as it is possible to be, and I am content to leave my Parliamentary conduct to the judgment of the House.
  MR. STOREY: There was an honourable understanding in this part of the House that if we were allowed ample time to state our views in the early stage of this matter the formal stages of the Bill would not be violently opposed. Not only have there been two nights allotted to the discussion of the Amendment which emanated from below the Gangway, but there has also been one night during which the Front Opposition Bench have been able to develop its own peculiar views on the subject. I would, therefore, although my view of the matter is as strong as it ever was, content myself by simply saying "No" to the Motion, reserving to myself the right when the Bill is before the House to resist it on every occasion on which I have the opportunity.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courtney, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Matthews, and Mr. Jackson.

  PRINCE OF WALES'S CHILDREN BILL.
  "To make provision for the Support and Maintenance of the Children of His
  1722
  Royal Highness Albert Edward, Prince of Wales," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 358.]

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) [GRANT, &c]
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to make a free Grant, not exceeding the sum of £600,000, or an annual payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, in aid of the construction of Light Railways in Ireland; to authorise the Treasury to give a guarantee, not exceeding the sum of £20,000 per annum, on the capital of such Light Railways, and to make an immediate payment of any guarantee for which they would be subsequently liable; and to authorise the payment of the expenses of working any line so far as they are not paid out of the receipts."
  Resolution agreed to.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 261.)
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Order for Committee be discharged, and that the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
  MR. STOREY: I did not understand that this proposal would be made tonight, or I might have spent a little more time in discussing other matters. I did hear the Chief Secretary say the other day that he proposed to move the discharge of the Order, in order that the Bill might be sent to the Grand Committee, but to that course a considerable number of hon. Members on this side of the House entertain strong objection; and I did hope that as we have now by the magnanimous course we have pursued provided time for the Government this afternoon, they would at once have proceeded to consider this Bill in Committee of the Whole House. That is what we think ought to be done in the case of a Bill of this nature. It is not the kind of measure which ought to be sent to a Grand Committee, because it deals with large sums of public money, which it is deliberately proposed to give away, and it raises questions which are seriously contested by a considerable section of the House. Everybody knows that the Bill proposes to hand over £600,000 to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Board of Works, and the

  1723
  Treasury, for the purpose of expending that money in Ireland—where and how we know not.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the only Question before the House is whether the Order for the committal of the Bill shall be discharged, and the Bill referred to the Grand Committee on Trade.
  MR. STOREY: I bow to your ruling, Sir. I will only say that I think it has always been the practice of this House, whenever a Bill of a contentious character, or raising large questions of public policy, has been introduced to consider it in Committee of the Whole House, and not to refer it to a Grand Committee. If the Government persist in their Motion, I shall certainly take the liberty of resisting it.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): Notice was given of this Motion some time ago, and no serious objection was taken at the time, provided hon. Gentlemen interested and Irish Members were added to the Grand Committee by the Committee of Selection for the purpose of considering the Bill. The principle of the Bill has been affirmed by the House, and it is such a measure as can be more usefully considered by a Standing Committee than by a Committee of the Whole House. I think the course proposed to be taken is not only in accord with the practice of the House, but with the feeling of hon. Members who desire that the question should be dealt with fully and fairly.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: I think that the experience of those who have served on the Grand Committees would bear out the admirable nature of those tribunals for dealing with the details of a Measure of this kind. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) says that the Bill is of a contentious character, and would not have been referred in former times to a Committee upstairs. No doubt that was so formerly, but at that time Standing Committees had not been instituted.
  MR. COSSHAM: I am certainly of opinion that we ought not to part with any portion of our control over the expenditure of the public money. This Bill involves a very large expenditure, and therefore I think that the details of the measure ought to be
  1724
  considered by a Committee of the Whole House. If the Government persist with the Motion I shall vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the Government give an assurance on the part of the Committee of Selection that steps will be taken to secure that among the 15 additional Members a reasonable number of Irish Members connected with the districts affected by the Bill will be included?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I think I can speak with some experience on that point, having had to take charge of several Bills which have been referred to Grand Committees. The Government have no right, nor have they ever attempted, to interfere with the Committee of Selection in the choice of the 15 Members who are to be added to the Grand Committees for the consideration of any particular Bill. I think that I may appeal with some confidence to hon. Members who have served on the Committee of Selection whether in all cases the Committee have not exercised their power of adding Members with great care and to the satisfaction of all concerned? I have no doubt that they will pursue the same course now.
  MR. CRAIG: When do the Government propose that the Grand Committee should meet?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It will meet as soon as the 15 Members have been added, and this will depend on the Committee of Selection.
  MR. WHITBREAD: As soon as the order is given by the House the Committee of Selection will be prepared to act.
  The House divided.—Ayes 231; Noes 60.—(Div. List, No. 262.)
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to move the Instruction which stands in my name. The effect of its adoption would be to enable the promoters of a light railway in certain cases to save a large sum of money by the purchase or hire of steamers in cases where, by reason of intervening arms of the sea, the length of the line and the cost of the construction would be excessive. Take, for instance, the case of Loch Swilly. A railway is projected from Gweedore to Londonderry, and

  1725
  between these two places is Loch Swilly, which runs in 30 miles from the Atlantic. About eight or nine miles up the loch is exceedingly calm, almost like an inland lake, and I think it would be infinitely better to enable the promoters, in cases where they satisfy the Government they can make a reasonable arrangement, to come to some terms for the use of steamers to carry their traffic across the lake instead of running their line all round the coast. I hope, under the circumstances, the Chief Secretary will accept the Instruction which stands in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the said Committee that they have power to insert Clauses in the said Bill enabling the promoters of a Light Railway in proper cases to use their capital in construction of piers and in the purchase or hire of proper steamers in cases where otherwise, by reason of intervening arms of the sea, the length of the line and the cost of construction would be excessive or the lines of railway might be required."—(Mr. O'Doherty.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I take it that the object of the hon. Member is to enable the use in connection with the new lines of steamers for a short route of sea transit with a view of rendering unnecessary the construction of a long length of railway, and I understand that the hon. Member is desirous of enabling the Railway Company to have facilities for making such arrangements. I imagine there would be very few cases in which an opportunity would arise for doing this, but on behalf of the Government I am quite prepared to accept the Instruction.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER: As to the Instructions standing in the name of the Member for North Cork, I rule that they are out of order, inasmuch as it would not be necessary to give the Committee such Instructions in a matter which they have already power to deal with.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 307).
  Further proceedings on consideration as amended.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: In Clause 16
  1726
  it is indicated that Dundee College shall form part of St. Andrew's University, but these words are omitted from Clause 15, and it might be construed from the omission that the affiliation of colleges with Glasgow or Edinburgh University is intended to be of a weaker and looser character than that of St. Andrew's and Dundee. Therefore I move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 15, page 14, line 14, after the word "them," to insert the words "and by making such colleges form part of such Universities."—(Sir George Trevelyan.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in the inferences he draws from the insertion of these special words in Clause 16. In that case Dundee is specially marked out for a particular kind of affiliation. The matter was very carefully considered before the words were inserted, but I do not think it would be well to apply the same principle to the other colleges and Universities. On the contrary, I hold that our general object would be better served by leaving the clause as it now stands.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I do not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: My next Amendment refers to a much more serious matter, and I shall be obliged to press it unless the Lord Advocate shows me good reasons against it. Of course, my object—and the object of those who think with me—in regard to the affiliation of colleges, is to make these colleges an integral part of the University, and to make their members members of the University in every sense, both educational and sentimental. Now, I should like to know from the Lord Advocate whether the students in an affiliated college would have the privileges of students at present in the University, whether they would be admitted to their associations, whether they would be able to take part in the election of the Rector and the Students' Representative Council, whether they would have entrance to the University Libraries and Museums as a matter of right, and

  1727
  whether they would be able to compete for University bursaries and scholarships. If the students could not enjoy these privileges, then the affiliation means very little indeed. It means nothing except the mere power of obtaining a degree. And it would appear to me on the surface that the professors and teachers also should have the same influence and rights as the University professors and teachers, and it is in order to secure this that I beg to propose the Motion which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 2, after Sub-section 4 of Clause 15, to insert as new sub-sections:—
  "The principal, professors, lecturers, and otter teachers of any college which shall be affiliated to any University under the provisions of this Act, shall, as such, he members of that University.
  "The students of any college which shall be affiliated to any University under the provisions of this Act shall matriculate in such University, and shall be subject to the University discipline and obligations, and be possessed of the same rights and privileges as students belonging to the college or "colleges of such University existing at the passing of this Act."—(Sir George Trevelyan).
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIK: The object which my right hon. Friend has in view is, no doubt, at first sight rather tempting, but I would submit that it is impossible to accept his Motion. For instance, take the case of English colleges. No doubt some would be very glad to affiliate themselves to Scotch Universities. I take it the medical colleges at Birmingham, Leeds, and Manchester, and in other parts of England, would ask to be affiliated with the medical colleges in Scotch Universities; but it cannot for a moment be contemplated that their professors and lecturers shall have the same position and title as the professors and lecturers at the Universities to which they are affiliated. And as to the second part of the Amendment, I think it would be a very hard thing to compel students of affiliated colleges to matriculate at the University, and to subscribe, in order to enjoy the advantage of admission to the Library and Museum, which indeed they may never see in their lives. I think the adoption of this Amendment would entail hardship both upon students and upon pro-
  1728
  fessors, and it would obviously put the University in a very absurd position; because while it would give the professors and lecturers of the affiliated colleges a right to take part in the management of the Central University, the University Authorities would have no part in the government of the affiliated colleges. I think the proposal altogether unworkable, and I trust that my right hon. Friend will not press it.
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I think the right hon. Gentleman, in proposing this Amendment, must have had in his mind? the English University system rather than the Scotch, where a University is a college as well as a University. The great object of affiliation is not, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, to incorporate the colleges with a University, but rather to extend the University system by making the course of study at a college a qualifying course towards taking a University degree. It by no means follows that the students of the affiliated colleges should necessarily have the same privileges, the same position, and the same responsibilities as the students of the University proper. No doubt in some cases it may be arranged that they shall, but it is a different thing to say that in all cases it shall be necessary. Commissioners are under the Bill to be entrusted with the-power of conducting affiliation and laying down the regulations under which it is to be carried out, and it would be hampering them very much in their operations if this House were to lay down a general rule that the teachers and students of affiliated colleges should be put in exactly the same position as the teachers and students of the University itself. There is still another objection to the proposal. The Treasury have set apart a certain sum of money for the purpose of carrying out this Act—calculated upon the average amount of Parliamentary Grants to the Universities and other payments for them from the Treasury, during past years, with a certain addition for the new charges to be laid upon them by this Bill—and if an indefinite number of colleges are to have a claim to share in the distribution of that money, it will entirely upset all the financial arrangements. Dundee College stands, of course, in an exceptional position. It was necessary to

  1729
  attach it to St. Andrew's to make that University complete. The other Universities, however, are complete in themselves. I would, in conclusion, urge that if the Commissioners are left with a free hand, they will be better able to carry out the general purposes of this Bill.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I think the proposition of my right hon. Friend is not altogether in the interests of the widening of the benefits of the Universities, and I therefore hardly see my way to support it. The proposal, for instance, that the students of affiliated colleges should matriculate at the University in order to entitle them to take a degree there, would tend, I believe, to narrow the liberty of the University in granting medical degrees.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: After what has been said it is quite plain that it is useless to press the first paragraph of my Amendment. I therefore ask for leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR. G. TREVELYAN: I quite see it would be useless to press the first part of the Amendment I have just withdrawn, but there are students whose case, it appears to me, requires the attention of Parliament—namely, those who belong to affiliated colleges actually within the bounds of the locality in which the University is situated. It appears to me to be a great and undeniable grievance that these students should not be able to have the advantages of the students of the existing colleges, and therefore I propose to move an Amendment, providing that the student of any college which shall be affiliated to any University under this Act may matriculate, and shall be subject to such discipline and obligations and possessed of the same rights as students of the college of a University already existing. Under this Amendment any student who values the historical associations of such Universities as Edinburgh and Glasgow and wishes to enter into the spirit of the place, which after all forms by no means the least valuable part of the education of a University, will be able to do so by paying his fees and matriculating. If he resides at a place which is too distant, we may be quite sure he will not pay the fee unless he is able to profit by the advantages he may get from it; but if
  1730
  the student is on the spot, it may be very hard indeed to exclude him from everything that makes them famous, and most of what makes them valuable. I shall deem it my duty to press this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 2, after Sub-section 4 of Clause 15, to insert as a new sub section:
  "A student of any college which shall be affiliated to any university under the provisions of this Act may matriculate in such university, and such students shall he subject to the university discipline and obligations, and be possessed of the same rights and privileges as students belonging to the college or colleges of such university existing at the passing of this Act."—(Sir G. Trevelyan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR L. PLAYFAIR: I think that what my right hon. Friend wishes to obtain would be advantageous, but I do not think legislation is required on the subject. According to the system of the Scotch Universities, any student may present himself for matriculation, and matriculate, and not attend one of the lectures in the University. He will appear on the roll of the University, and on payment of his matriculation fee will enjoy all the rights and privileges of the University.
  MR. HUNTER: I think there is an advantage in adopting these words, because I have heard of cases in which, on the eve of a rectorial election, obstacles have been thrown in the way of the matriculation of students in order to keep down the number of those who can take part in the election. I think it ought to be made perfectly clear that students have a right to matriculate and to obtain the privileges of the Universities.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I must object to placing in this Bill a clause o this kind, which is superfluous, and which, in my opinion, might be misleading. I believe the Amendment is intended to meet some case which the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind, and I rather deprecate proceeding in regard to individual instances. I think also great difficulties might be imposed upon the Commissioners if the proposal were adopted.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I understand that the Lord Advocate——
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause 16.
  MR. HUNTER: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth) I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name, that is to say, to leave out the word "conjoint" in Clause 16. I have never been able to understand what is meant by the word in this connection, and it is objected to by the College of Dundee under some apprehension that it will give rise to erroneous ideas with respect to regulations proposed for the colleges.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 16, page 15, line 29, to leave out the word "conjoint."
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I sincerely hope the Lord Advocate will stand firmly by the friendly arrangement which he accepted in Committee. It was agreed at that time that an arrangement of this kind would prevent any friction in the future. As the case now stands the combination between St. Andrew's and Dundee would make an excellent University, and I do not think there is much prospect of Dundee standing alone.
  SIR L. PLAYFAIR: I hope the Commissioners will be allowed a free hand in drawing up a conjoint scheme. The University of St. Andrew's is not a thoroughly equipped school of medicine, but the College of Dundee will, I hope, become one. The University of St. Andrew's has even now a Chair of Medicine or Physiology, one of Chemistry and one of Natural History. It really is an extremely active small University in regard to some of these subjects of teaching, and in regard to natural history there is really no University in the country which is more active in the work it performs. I think that the interests of the new college should not alone be considered, but that the Commissioners should have a free hand in making a conjoint scheme instead of allowing one institution to be the rival of the other.
  MR. C. S. PARKER: I hope the Lord Advocate will put a word or two into the Bill to explain what the arrangement is. I do not think the simple word "conjoint" conveys a great deal in itself.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The clause, as it stood without the word "conjoint," rather suggested that the object of the affiliation of the College of Dundee was to furnish an equipped school of medicine. The word "conjoint" was inserted to show that the University of St. Andrew's was to be included in the scheme, and I think it very fair that that word should be left where it is.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I hope the House will allow me to explain why I propose the rather strong measure of deleting from the Bill Clause 18. In Committee the Lord Advocate intimated that this was a clause which might be conveniently discussed on Report. The question of University tests was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), and on that occasion I found myself unable to join with him, being unavoidably absent from the House. There are one or two circumstances connected with the question which make it more convenient that a Division should be taken now. When the House first considered the question it had to deal with it in regard to all the Chairs of general culture, as well as with those Chairs which are termed theological. I thankfully acknowledge the concession made by the Government, that tests with regard to-Chairs of general culture shall cease and determine. Let us consider the composition of the Commission to whom the question that remains is to be referred. It is a miniature of the House, and contains a majority of Conservative Members. The Scotch Universities ought to be Liberal Institutions in order to fulfil the purposes of their existence. I submit that we know already what Report will be given by the Commission in regard to theological tests. Undoubtedly it will report that theological tests ought to continue, and that the test to be applied is that of a confession of faith in conformity with the Church of Scotland as esta-

  1733
  bished by law. Why, then, should the Commission have the trouble of bringing up a Report on the question? No Member of this House requires a Commission to enable him to make up his mind in regard to the subject of theological tests. The question is decided by the constituencies. It is not a matter which can be submitted to any Commission whatever. I take my stand upon the question of principle. I belong to a religious denomination which for 150 years has believed that the State has no right to apply public money to teach any religion whatever, and if they have no right to do it elsewhere they have no right to do it in the University. But I call for the abolition of these tests upon the general ground of economy, and also upon the ground that it will promote harmony. We have in Scotland Presbyterian and Dissenting denominations teaching theology not inferior to the theology of the Church of Scotland. The expense is defrayed by the contributions of the members of the different denominations. The Church of Scotland is the wealthiest Church in Scotland, and it is better able to provide Theological teaching than other denominations. My contention is that if we abolish these tests, and are to have Thelogical Chairs at all, we might have the Chairs supported not by the Exchequer of the country, but by the whole of the Presbyterian Bodies, if not by the whole of the Churches in Scotland, upon economical and efficient principles. At present they are neither efficient nor economical. We have Chairs maintained for the fewest possible students, and they are maintained at each of existing Universities. I hope the time is not far distant when even in Scotland there will be greater harmony upon ecclesiastical questions. We are now entering upon University reform, but by this clause we are proposing to perpetuate the old ecclesiastical bickerings which are brought into all political questions. We are keeping up in the different parishes of Scotland, those ecclesiastical differences which are wasting the general contributions of the people and the endowments which the Church has from the State. All these things could be remedied and set at rest; these ecclesiastical differences could be taken out of the arena of politi-
  1734
  cal debate. If this clause were deleted we should be in a position to take up the question and decide it upon its merits. At present the question is to be practically hung up for the next two or three years. I raise the point again on Report in no captious Spirit, with no desire to accentuate any differences which may exist. In the interests of the Commission, I propose that we should not submit to them a subject that they know very little about and cannot decide to the satisfaction of the House. I readily acknowledge the fairness with which the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland have met us upon this Bill, and the desire they have shown that we should have a full opportunity of expressing our views. I hope I have shown no desire to detain the House at undue length. I stand here on a matter of principle, and I am obliged to take a Division. I hope I may be accompanied in the Lobby by all those who want to put an end to those ecclesiastical differences and bickerings which have already survived too long.
  Amendment proposed, in page 16, to leave out Clause 18.—(Mr. Esslemont.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 18 stand part of the Bill."
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am glad my hon. Friend has brought forward this question, and I think the House will agree with his last remark, that it is very important to take a Division upon the point without any prolonged Debate. The hon. Member is quite right in bringing it forward, because it is a new question. It is a question now whether this matter of principle should be referred to the University Commission appointed, as we think, for very different purposes. We have not yet had a vote upon that important point. I could not put my own view more strongly than in that sentence if I spoke for half an hour.
  MR. W. P. SINCLAIR: My hon. Friend (Mr. Esslemont) has spoken of the Commission necessarily coming to a foregone conclusion. If I thought that were the case, I should certainly vote for my hon. Friend's Amendment. But it is because we look at the clause it is proposed to delete and consider it with the names and characters of those who compose the Commission, that we

  1735
  think it is fair and wise to refer this question for enquiry and report to the Commission, and their decision is not necessarily a foregone conclusion. The hon. Member speaks of gentlemen being on the Commission who know little of the subject in hand, but I think that accusation simply requires to be stated in order to carry its own refutation. The Commission may not decide to the satisfaction of the House? No, and the Commission is not asked so to decide; they are asked to make a special Report on the matter to hand to Her Majesty. They can come to no definite conclusion; they can simply report. On this subject it is most essential we should have an investigation and a Report—a Report which will satisfy the people of Scotland, who already know it is not a foregone conclusion. The subject will be considered by the Commissioners with practical ability and in a conscientious manner, who will then report to the House and the country on the subject.
  MR. HUNTER: I think the great objection to the clause is that it throws upon the Commissioners a great deal of work, and that work will simply be spoiled work, for it is absurd to suppose that any number of persons will be to the slightest extent affected by the opinions of individual Commisisoners on this subject. The question of theological tests is not one that requires investigation. The inquiry upon which these gentlemen will embark is a perfectly useless and wasteful inquiry. While I make these remarks, I think it is immaterial whether the clause is retained or omitted, for it is certain that nothing in the inquiry by the Commissioners, or the opinion of the Commissioners, will, in the slightest degree influence those of us on this side who are disposed at the earliest opportunity to put an end to the injustice connected with theological tests in connection with the Universities of Scotland.
  The House divided:—Ayes 178; Noes 98.—(Div. List, No. 263.)
  MR. HUNTER: The Amendment I wish to insert is met, I believe, by an Amendment the Lord Advocate is about to propose.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 20, line 14, to omit the word "there from," and insert the words "from such scheme
  1736
  or any part thereof."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  MR. BUCHANAN: I do not gather whether this carries out the intention of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will explain.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I have shown the Amendment to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. The words I propose are taken from the Endowments Act, 32 and 33 Vict., o. 56, and provide for what the hon. Member desires, that if the objection of Parliament is to any particular part of the scheme the objection may be so stated and the other part may be proceeded with.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 20, line 15, to add the words "Or any part thereof to which such address does not relate."—(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 21, page 18, line 26, after the word "been," to insert—
  "Approved by Her Majesty in Council, and that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to refer such ordinances to the Universities Committee, who shall report to Her Majesty thereon: Provided further, that such ordinances shall be."— (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 25, page 19, lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words "charged upon the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof," and insert the words "paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament."—(Mr. Hunter).
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments in Clause 26 (Mr. Hunter), agreed to.
  MR. HUNTER: There is an Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. Wallace). I do not know whether the Government will accept it. I will move it.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment, which provides that no portion of the sum shall be appropriated to the payment of compensation fixed under this or any other Act, is not in order.
  MR. HUNTER: The understanding was that no pensions should be paid out of this fund.
  MR. SPEAKER: The understanding would not affect the point of order.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 29, page 21, line 18, before the word "thousand," to insert the word "forty-two."— (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  MR. HUNTER: Upon this point I may ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement in which he said this £42,000 would be clear of certain charges.
  MR. GOSCHEN: No.
  MR. HUNTER: Well, that was our unfortunate understanding. Perhaps the best course will be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state exactly what he intends to do with the £42,000, and especially with reference to the compensations we had in mind for professors whose interests may be injuriously affected by ordinances made under this Act under Clause 14.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am glad the bon. Member has raised this point; it is one upon which it is desirable there should be no misunderstanding. I think I can, in a few words, recall to the memories of hon. Members how this matter stands. I said I would consider a method of assisting the settlement of these claims for compensation; but I said I could not agree that these claims should altogether be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund. When I was asked to put the whole amount upon the Consolidated Fund, I pointed out that in that case we should not have the support of the Royal Commission in the endeavour to keep down the amount of compensation. I stated that I could not undertake the whole of the compensation, or pledge the Treasury to an unlimited extent. What I offered was that, seeing that these claims might be a heavy charge upon the funds at the disposal of the Commission, I should be willing, if the Commission presented a fair case to the Treasury and made reasonable proposals, to assist the Commission in that case to a moderate extent. That is substantially what I promised. We will offer assistance on condition that the Commission will present claims that are not extravagantly high, and in this way the
  1738
  Treasury and the Commission will assist each other.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: That is the impression left on my mind by the previous speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I fancy there may still be some misapprehension left on the minds of some of my friends. The assistance of the Treasury will be beyond the limit of £42,000?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I was pressed to agree to throw upon the Treasury the expenditure beyond £42,000; but this I, on the part of the Government, declined to do. Feeling, however, the difficulty the Commission might have in settling these claims, I undertook to assist the Commission to a moderate extent, if a satisfactory claim was put before us.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 30, line 25, to leave out the third "of," and insert "or."—(Mr. J P. B. Robertson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 30 line 26, before the word "which," insert the words "thereof existing at the passing of this A.ct."—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I should like to hear a few words on this subject from the Lord Advocate—
  MR. SPEAKER: I have decided the "Ayes" have it.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 30, page 21, line 30, to leave out the words from, "and to enable," to end of Clause, inclusive.—(Mr. J. A. Campbell.)
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Undoubtedly it is a somewhat late period to take exception to an Amendment which is very like a consequential Amendment to that the hon. Member has just succeeded in carrying; but I regret that the first Amendment was carried without a word or two from the Lord Advocate, because it appears to me to very seriously weaken the hold of the University over the affiliated colleges, a hold which I understand the affiliated colleges in all cases would not object to.
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I must confess that I expected the right hon. Gentleman would have intervened, but

  1739
  as he did not do so on the first Amendment, I rather gathered that his objection had disappeared. I cannot say that I feel this is very important; but it appears to me that as the former part of the clause has been altered it is right that these words should go out. But I do not think it is a very important matter.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 32, page 22, line 30, leave out the words "or senior principal if more than one." —(Mr. J. P. B. Robertson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I would appeal to the House to allow the Bill to be read a third time at once.
  MR. HUNTER: I must object, on the ground that some Members desire to make a few observations on that stage of the Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Under these circumstances I will not press the Third Beading on this occasion, but I trust there will be no objection to taking it to-morrow.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS] (No. 199.)
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
  MR. MACINNES: I desire to move that the Bill be re-committed in respect of a new Clause as to the removal of pauper lunatics to their places of settlement. This Bill was referred to a Grand Committee, but did not occupy three full days discussion therein. When the Committee sat the time devoted to the consideration of the measure was short, there being no interest taken in the matter. It was, in fact, with difficulty that a quorum could be made. It will be seen that, since we had it from the First Lord of the Treasury that the Bill had been carefully considered, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself has put down various Amendments which, though they will not occupy a long time in discussing, show that there is need for further consideration. The point I desire to bring
  1740
  before the House refers to the anomalies in the present law as to the removal of pauper lunatics to their place of settlement, which only affects certain parts of the country, and is little felt in the inland counties. It affects especially English counties on the Scotch Border, and on the seaboard facing the Irish coasts. These counties have in their asylums many pauper lunatics from Scotland and Ireland, which they maintain at the expense of the English ratepayers. They cannot by law send them, back to their place of settlement; but in the case of English pauper lunatics, in either Scotland or Ireland, the law allows them to be sent from Scotch and Irish asylums to England, where they become chargeable to the English ratepayers. It is a sad fact that many of these pauper lunatics are comparatively young. Statistics and one's own experience in visiting the asylums show this to be the case, consequently the burden to the English ratepayer is a heavy one. All we ask for is that in this matter there should be reciprocity as to the law of removal, and that Parliament should no longer allow a heavy and anomalous burden to rest on certain English counties solely on account of their geographical position. It may be said that this is not the time to bring the question forward. Well, I do not bring it forward as a personal question, but on behalf of many Public Bodies, who have considered the matter, such as Magistrates in Quarter Sessions, and Boards of Guardians. It has long been felt a serious grievance, and I sincerely hope that the Government will deal with the matter, and will indicate whether, in their opinion, it is, or is not, reasonable that the present state of' things should exist—that Irish and Scotch asylums should be able to send back English lunatics, whilst English asylums are obliged to retain Irish and Scotch lunatics. It will be a matter of disappointment if this Bill does nothing to remedy the grievance.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now considered," and adds the words—
  "Recommitted in respect of a new Clause (Removal of Pauper Lunatics to a place of settlement)."— (Mr. Maclnnes.)
  Question proposed, "That the words now considered 'stand part of the Question."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I quite understand the motive with which the hon. Member brings this Motion forward. The hon. Gentleman brought this subject before the Standing Committee, and the Chairman ruled that it was out of order, on the ground that it was wholly foreign to the subject-matter of the Bill. I also would urge on the hon. Member that he is asking for an inquiry which would be totally foreign to the Bill. We are not dealing with the Law of Settlement, or anything which would tend to remove any inequality which may exist in connection with the Law of Settlement. The question raised by the hon. Gentleman is by no means clear; it is a thorny one, and one of great perplexity and considerable difficulty; it would excite hostility in various parts of the House, especially from the Irish Members; and if we attempted to deal with it it would impede the progress of the Bill, if it did not prove fatal to the measure. At present there are about 1,600 Irish pauper lunatics in English asylums, and supposing that only 1,200 were removed, the grant in aid payable by the Treasury would have to be increased by no less than £12,000 a year, in addition to which there would be a large extra burden thrown on the ratepayers in Ireland. And the change proposed, if adopted, would necessitate a variety of subsidiary enactments, in order to meet the burden and deal with the new state of things. I will not give an opinion on the law of removal of pauper lunatics, but in the interests of the passing of the Bill, I would ask the hon. Member not to press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered.
  A Clause (County Court judge and magistrate,)—(Mr. Secretary Matthews,) —brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
  Another Clause (Notices as to letters and interviews,)—(Mr. John Ellis,)— brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I should hesitate to move such a clause as this were it not that the clause was originally contained in the Bill, and was struck out in the Grand Committee, of which I was a member. The clause was first proposed by the hon. Member for Swansea in the Select Committee to inquire into the Lunacy Laws in 1878. The proposal at that time was carried unanimously, and since then the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and the present Government, in every Bill they have introduced on this question, have adopted the clause. The weight of authority, therefore, is overwhelming in its favour. However, in the Grand Committee this Session it was struck out by 15 votes to 9. As I understand, that my proposal will meet with, the support of the Government, I will not trouble the House with any further remarks.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I would point out that the Grand Committee on Law struck out this clause after full discussion. I oppose the clause because I think that the best medical testimony is unanimous that the fact of hanging these notices all over lunatic asylums will tend very greatly to retard the recovery of the patients by unsettling their minds and leading them to brood over fancied grievances. We should regard insanity as much a disease as that of any other organ of the body, and we should remove the patient from all influences likely to prevent recovery.
  MR. A. O'CONNORI do not think the hon. Member who moves this clause realises fully the probable effect of his proposal. If his acquaintance with the inside of lunatic asylums were very large, he would know that many patients spend most of their time in writing letters to the Lord Chancellor and other persons. I know of a case in which two sisters spent every day, from morning to night, in writing letters to the Lord Chancellor, and another in which a person was continually writing to Satan. The hon. Member seriously proposes that all the multitudinous letters thus written should be delivered to the Commissioner or visitor, if not forwarded to their address. The idea is ludicrous in

  1743
  the extreme if you have in mind the nature of the correspondence of many hundreds of these inmates. But there is another objection I have to make to the clause, and that is the invidious distinction drawn between private patients who happen to have friends of a certain status in life and their more unfortunate pauper brethren. I would ask the hon. Member whether he has consulted any Lunacy Commissioner or Master in Lunacy as to the desirability of his proposal? I do not think he can have done: so, or he would have been told that the almost infallible result of his clause would be to disturb the minds of the patients, to enormously increase the work of the Commissioners, and give a large amount of unnecessary trouble to the staff of the asylums. Moreover, instead of having a calming and beneficial effect on the minds of the inmates, it would have a precisely opposite effect. The provocative effect of such notices as those proposed could not be exaggerated. No doubt it would be a good thing if instruction as to the forwarding of letters were given by the Commissioners in cases in which patients would not be unduly encouraged to abuse their privilege. That would be a sensible regulation to which no objection could be taken, and I would, therefore, suggest that the words "whenever the Commissioners shall direct" should be inserted in the clause. No doubt the hon. Member (Mr. J. E. Ellis) considers that there is danger of sane people being confined in lunatic asylums. I used to think so, too, at one time; but I have now, after 10 years' experience in connection with lunatic asylums, come to the conclusion that the danger is not such as to warrant the serious step proposed by the hon. Member. Besides, the Committee upstairs thrashed the matter out, and by a decisive majority threw out the clause, and I think it is a strong step to take to come down here after the Committee has so decided, and move the re-introduction of the clause. No doubt if it were a great matter of principle, the hon. Member would be justified in the course he is taking; but I do not think that, on a matter of internal economy and admistration of lunatic asylums, the hon. Member is justified in renewing the fight that we had upstairs.
  SIR J.DORINGTON: I was fortunate enough when I moved the rejection of this clause in the Committee to be able to convince hon. Members of the desirability of striking it out, the arguments advanced by myself and the hon. Member for Aberdeen being sufficient to convince our Colleagues. I am convinced that if the authors of this clause had taken the evidence of any expert gentleman on the question of lunacy, they would have been informed that the introduction of this proposal would be a most mischievous thing so far as our lunatic asylums are concerned. It is certain that Medical Authorities are agreed on the matter, and that the Lunacy Commissioners themselves concur with us in condemning the clause. The clause would keep the unfortunate patients in our asylums in a perpetual state of fret—which is, ordinarily, one of the commonest symptoms of their malady. You want, as far as possible, to remove from them all irritating influences, and to allow their minds to be at rest, and I submit that to put up the notices contemplated by this clause would have an exactly opposite effect. If there was any foundation for the idea that these people are suffering from some wrong, it would be right to have such notices put up; but the Commissioners, in their Report, declare that all the suggestions as to the wrongs of lunatics turn out to be baseless, and that the abuses which existed in our lunacy system some years ago have been altogether eradicated. We ought not to try experiments on these unfortunate people, for this is an experiment, and it is not justified by any sound opinion.
  MR. MATTHEWS: It seems to be forgotten that the object of this Bill is to provide additional safeguards against the improper confinement of persons in asylums; and the Committee upstairs has passed a clause giving every alleged lunatic the power to write to certain official persons, and to have letters forwarded at once unopened.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I do not object to the inmates writing letters, but to their minds being constantly irritated by the publication of those notices.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I would point out that the clause was inserted by the Lord Chancellor to carry out the

  1745
  deliberate recommendation of the Committee of 1878, that printed notices should be affixed to the walls of all lunatic asylums setting forth the right on the part of the inmates to appeal by letter to the Commissioners. They desired to provide protection against abuse in those institutions; and they must run the risk of many unfounded complaints being made in order that an occasional case of real grievance might be brought to light and redressed. I shall, therefore, support the clause if it is pressed to a Division.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I think it necessary to state, as a Member of the Committee, that I and some six or seven other Members of the Committee were not present at the Division on the clause, having to attend to other business of the House. But on my return I was astounded to find that the clause, of which I was in favour, had been struck out.
  MR. H. DAVENPORT: I hope the clause will not be now inserted, as it is against all authority. Every proper opportunity is now afforded to patients to make their complaints, and the effect of carrying out this clause will be prejudicial to their recovery.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I object to this clause mainly on medical grounds, because I think its effect would be to produce on the minds of the patients a continual irritation leading to repeated outbursts of excitement, which would hinder their cure. The clause originated at a time when there was a "scare" in the public mind, it being supposed that persons were wrongfully shut up in these asylums. That scare has been shown to be groundless, and it no longer exists.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I hope the Government will re-consider this matter. As far as I am concerned, I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Donegal.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: If the object of this Bill were simply to provide for the better treatment of lunatics, the opinions of the hon. Members for Derbyshire and Aberdeenshire would have overpowering weight. But the object of the Bill is to protect people who are, but who ought not to be, in lunatic asylums. The Division in the Grand Committee,
  1746
  when only 24 out of 80 Members were present, and when the majority was only 15 to 9, could not be regarded as conclusive. It is said that all the authorities on the question are on one side, but it is late in the day to learn this fact. The Bill has been brought before Parliament several times. It has gone through the House of Lords year after year under the conduct of such Lord Chancellors as Lords Selborne, Herschell, and Halsbury, and no such objection has ever been before urged. If, therefore, an enormous weight of authority is against the clause, that authority has been an unusually long time in finding expression. If public asylums alone were in question, the objections of hon. Members to the clause would have great force, for the county asylums are, perhaps, the best managed institutions in the world. For my own part, I should wish that all private lunatic asylums were abolished, and I find fault with the Bill because it permits the continuance of private asylums for a much longer period than, is desirable. But the Bill deals with private asylums, kept by private persons, under no public control or supervision whatever. The history of litigation shows that people are wrongfully placed in private lunatic asylums, and that there are temptations for their detention in such places. The crucial difference between the public and private institutions is, that while in the case of the former there is no temptation to detain, persons a moment longer than is proper, in the ease of the latter such temptation might exist. Another clause of the Bill, which no one challenges, provides that the superintendent of every asylum should forward, unopened, all letters written by patients and addressed to Lunacy Authorities; and yet, if anything is likely to irritate a patient's mind, it would more likely be the writing of the letter than merely seeing the notice. I am willing, however, to accept an Amendment which would give the Commissioners more latitude in fixing the method by which patients should be informed of their right of addressing authorities.
  MR. MOLLOY: In reference to the statement that the Lunacy Commissioners, who are the highest authority on this matter, are opposed to the clause, I must remind

  1747
  the House that the Lunacy Commissioners opposed the Bill in toto, as they opposed every previous Bill of a similar nature. The control of private asylums by the Commissioners is in reality an absolute absurdity, and if private asylums are left uncontrolled another public scare will be the consequence.
  DR. McDONALD: I think, Sir, that the great Mot in this Bill is that it does not bring private asylums under public control. I believe that all objections to the clause would be removed if an Amendment were carried providing that the notice to patients should be private instead of public.
  The House divided:—Ayes 180; Noes 46.—(Div. List, No. 264.)
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I desire to move an Amendment to the clause, to introduce at the commencement of the clause, the words, "whenever the Commissioners shall so direct." I believe those words will probably meet the points raised in the previous discussion. For instance, we may be well satisfied that in all private asylums the Commissioners will direct that such notice as is referred to shall be given; but that in other institutions where the holding out of a perpetual incentive to public notice would work mischief, they will not consider it desirable that the notice should be placarded.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not object to the Amendment. I assume that the hon. Member means the Commissioners of Lunacy. I think "of Lunacy" had better be inserted.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I accept the suggestion.
  Amendment proposed, at the commencement of the Clause, to insert the words, "Wherever the Commissioners of Lunacy so direct."
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I think that Sub-section (a) of the clause must be amended, because it states a right which no longer exists in the Bill. I move to leave out all the words after the word "forwarded," and to insert the words, "In pursuance of the last preceding section."
  Amendment proposed, in Sub-section (a) of the proposed new clause, line 3, to leave out all the words after the word "forwarded," in order to insert the words "in pursuance of the last preceding Section."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'in pursuance of the last preceding Section' be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 1, page 1, line 9, to leave out the word "January," and insert the word "May."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'January' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MOLLOY: The Report of the Commissioners is always a long time in arrear, and I wish to know whether this Amendment would cause any further delay?
  Mb. MATTHEWS: The Report is ready for this year, and this Amendment merely postpones the operation of the Act.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the word 'May' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. MOLLOY: In the absence of the hon. Member (Mr. Corbett), I should like to move one of his Amendments, to leave out Sub-section 4 of Clause 55. My objection is that the clause seems to leave the way open to an increase of the number of private asylums in this country. I wish to limit the number, and should be glad to see them all done away with.
  Amendment proposed, in page 32, line 11, to leave out Sub-section (4) of Clause 55.—(Mr. Molloy).
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (4) stand part of the Bill."
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I think the domestic treatment of insanity will be more successful in the future than to aggregate the patients in large herds. It will be better to segregate them in small numbers in domestic houses, where they will have occasional asso-

  1749
  ciation with the sane and not always be in contact with the insane in overcrowded institutions. I think the clause should be adhered to.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I would also point out to the hon. Member that to limit the number of places would take from patients a benefit which they desire.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. ATHERLEY JONES: This Amendment to leave out Sub-section 6 of Clause 55 raises a question to which I have given careful attention. I have conferred with a large number of persons well qualified to inform me, and the conclusion I have come to is that it must be prejudicial to the advantageous treatment of the insane that there should be a monopoly of private asylums in few hands. When the matter was debated elsewhere, there was a very prevalent opinion in this country that it was expedient, as far as possible, to abolish private asylums altogether, and that it would be a most desirable thing if the treatment of the insane could be exclusively confined to public institutions. I think there is a very general concurrence of opinion in the country upon that point, but elsewhere it was considered that there were immense practical difficulties in the way. I think I am not exaggerating when I say there are between 3,000 and 4,000 private asylums in the country. Had the proposal been adopted in its original form, we should have—by the stroke of a pen—abolished all private asylums. As a compromise this clause was inserted, and I think I shall have the sympathy of hon. Members when I refer to that compromise as a most unfortunate one. It certainly enables public authorities to provide accommodation in public lunatic asylums for private paying patients, but it is not compulsory so far as the County Authorities are concerned. No doubt the object of this clause is to gradually extinguish private lunatic asylums; henceforth, no new licenses are to be issued, and existing licenses are only to be continued at the discretion of the Commissioners. This must give rise to manifold evils. Hon. Members, if they refer to the section, will see it gives power to the Commissioners to authorise the proprietor of any private lunatic asylum to enlarge his residence
  1750
  for the reception of patients, or to provide a new building in place of the old one. By this clause you increase the value of private asylums to an appalling extent. I have consulted several gentlemen connected with private asylums, and they tell me that already the value of these institutions has gone up 100 per cent, thanks to the monopoly which this clause will create. Monopolies are bad things; but having created one in this case, the question arises whether under it you will get more effective management of these institutions. If you get that, then I quite admit that the force of the objections which I am urging will be very much diminished. But on this point I am again assured by those who are competent to speak that you will not get improved management. Remember that the proprietor of a private lunatic asylum need not be a specially qualified man, he need not be a medical practitioner; a layman, and even a woman, may own such an institution. This clause will tend to increase speculation in these undertakings, and I know of a case in which, in view of the passing of this clause, a very considerable sum has been offered for one of these institutions. Then, again, this clause will inflict grievous harm upon a competent class of men, men who have served in public institutions, and who are desirous of themselves starting private lunatic asylums. I have in my mind's eye at the present moment a gentleman who has recently severed his connection with one of the largest asylums in the kingdom, after a period of service there in which he did himself the greatest credit. He wrote a short time ago to the Lunacy Commissioners requesting them to grant him a license; but he was told that in view of the passing of this Bill, no new licenses would be granted. The result is, that this man who has saved his money, and is in every way a desirable person to have charge of a private lunatic asylum, will be debarred from carrying on a professional duty of a most difficult character. It is a remarkable thing that when this Bill was first introduced the proprietors of private lunatic asylums took great umbrage at it, and their opposition to it might almost be described as malevolent and vindictive. But as soon as they discovered that a monopoly was to be

  1751
  created in their favour, the opposition collapsed. I might urge a great many more reasons against the creation of this monopoly; but as I think the right hon. Gentleman will realise the undesirability of its creation, I will not further trespass on the time of the House. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 32, line 30, to leave out Sub-section (6) of Clause 55.—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (6) stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I must point out that the omission of this sub-section would practically necessitate the omission of the whole clause. Hon. Members will see that the first five sub-sections of the clause are simply and solely introduced on account of the prohibition against granting new licenses. When the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, the clause consisted of the subsection alone; and it was the intention of the framers of the Bill to put an end to the private house system altogether. The sub-section meant that all private asylums come to an end after 12 months from the passing of the Act. It was felt that men who have invested capital in these private asylums and who have devoted their lives to the profession, if it can be called a profession, would suffer great hardship under the section, and the earlier sub-sections were therefore introduced to modify the harshness of the prohibition in Sub-section 6. No doubt the clause is open to the objection that it does, to some extent, create a monopoly; but people who invest money in these private asylums must understand that the licenses have to be renewed every 12 months, and that the slightest mismanagement will expose a private asylum to the non-renewal of the license. In fact, the owners of these institutions are in no better position than the holder of licenses under the Licensing Act. I should very much like to see the clause abandoned, which it certainly must be if this sub-section is struck out.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: We occupied so short a time in the discussion of this Bill on the Second Beading stage that I do not think any excuse is required for taking this opportunity of discussing the point raised by
  1752
  the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that this clause embodies one of the most essential points in the Bill. Of course, it partakes-of the nature of a compromise. Some people thought that private lunatic asylums should be swept away altogether without compensation, but public opinion has not yet reached that point. We know that an enormous amount of capital has been invested in these institutions, and I am inclined to think that no case has been made out for interfering with their status quo. It has been pointed out that the monopoly created by this Bill will eventually give rise to very great evils. For instance, it may happen that in years to come there will only be one private lunatic asylum in the whole country. It does not follow that the asylums which will survive will be the fittest, while the clause will do away with a large number of small houses all over the country, in each of which two or three of these unfortunate people are treated. I do not think the general public will ever be content to give up private lunatic asylums. Some of these institutions are conducted with a liberality of expenditure and have a splendour of internal decoration and comfort which offer greater attractions to those who can afford to pay than are possessed by the annexe of a large public asylum. People in a position to pay have a natural horror of sending their friends to an institution which is partly maintained at the public expense. Private asylums will always be a necessity of our civilisation, and if they were abolished it would be impossible to get the same beneficial results in a private portion of a public institution. I will just say, in conclusion, that after giving a great deal of attention to this subject, I am not at all satisfied that a case has been made out against private asylums. There has been a great deal of vague talk and of melodramatic and hysterical writing outside this House which has created somewhat of a scare, but I do not think that anything has been proved which renders it necessary to interfere with the present condition of things. I do not think, also, there is any prospect of securing a more effective supervision by this Bill. It is absurd and preposterous to think that a small number of Commissioners can satis-

  1753
  factorily superintend the enormous number of lunatics placed under their charge. In Scotland, however, an excellent system prevails. There there is a larger number of Commissioners and a marked absence of the legal element, and the division of the district is so well managed that each Commissioner knows every patient under his charge. I fear, however, I should be out of order in discussing this matter. I repeat I do not think any case has been made out against private lunatic asylums, and I do not think it is in the interest of the general public that they should be interfered with.
  MR. MOLLOY: I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the discussion which has taken place. I have taken part in this movement, and the reasons which have been cited by the Home Secretary led me to the conclusion that it would be impossible to do away with private lunatic asylums altogether. My hon. Friend who last spoke fears the clause will put an end to the system of distributing lunatics in small numbers in domestic circles; but if I read rightly Section 4 of this Clause, I believe that will not be the result, because the joint licensee may separate their interests, take in new partners, and separate their interests until each one has only two or three lunatics in his charge. There will be no difficulty in doing this, so long as the total number of lunatics for which the license is issued is not exceeded. I think this matter has been sufficiently discussed, and I can only say that if this clause is struck out, we shall have to do our utmost to prevent the Bill passing into law.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 39, line 7, after the word "lunatic," to insert the words, "either to the asylum of the county in which the workhouse is or." —(Mr. Molloy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR J. DORINGTON: I think these words unnecessary. I take it that the object of this clause is, in the case of affiliating unions, to allow the Justices to decide whether or not they shall send a lunatic to an asylum in the county in which the workhouse is situated, or to the asylum of the county for which the Justices act. Therefore, these words are unnecessary.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not quite followed the argument of the hon. Baronet, but I may point out that the object of the insertion of these words is to enable the Justices to send a lunatic to the asylum of the county to which he belongs, or to the asylum of the county in which the workhouse in which he is confined is situated.
  SIR J. DORINGTON: This is purely a legal question. The question we have to consider is the lunatic who is sent to the workhouse from, another county than that to which the workhouse belongs. Another Amendment of the Home Secretary gives permission to send the patient to the wrong asylum. I wish that he should be sent to the proper asylum, and it is on that ground I oppose the insertion of these words.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL (No. 224).
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th July] "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: In continuing the speech which I was delivering in opposition to this Bill on the 19th inst., when I was interrupted by effluxion of time——
  Notice taken, that 40 members were not present; House counted, and 40 members being found present,
  MR. J. ROWLANDSproceeded: I will, so far as I can, avoid travelling over arguments I used previously. When I last spoke I was pointing out the densely-populated neighbourhood in which this prison site is situated, and I gave the House some indication of the vast number of new blocks of model dwellings erected or being erected around and near this site, and in the Holborn Division outside the radius of Clerken-well. Those acquainted with the district will remember the block of dwellings named after a late Member of the House esteemed on both sides, the late Colonel Duncan. These model dwellings are erected without those little garden spaces that used to attach to the small houses, and they have simply small

  1755
  asphalted areas. The case of the Government, as stated by the Postmaster General, is a good one from their point of view, that they secure a valuable plot of ground for the concentration of their various Departments now scattered over various parts of London and the economy and convenience of such a concentration, of course, is admitted. The only question is, where and how is this site for a Post Office depôt to be secured? I contend that the inhabitants of London should not be called upon to find a costly site in order that a wealthy Department like the Post Office may economise and show a little increase in its revenues. We have to look at this from the point of view of the people of London. Are they to be asked to contribute this site to enable the Postmaster General to make this saving of £300,000? If the Department were concentrated and centralised on some other spot near the great railway termini, the Post Office would still make their great saving. The Government have proceeded with works upon this site without any authority whatever. They have violated the Act of 1877, and, on discovering their mistake, they cause the present Bill to be drafted so as to whitewash them for what they have done. The ground is not covered; much of the old building is not cleared away yet. Our great contention is that Clause 34 of the Prisons Act of 1877 has not been carried out. We contend that a public sale is necessary under that Act; but the Government have simply, by private negotiation, handed over the site to a Government Department, transferring the money from one pocket to another, so to speak. I cannot accept the figures of the Postmaster General—I mean this in no invidious sense—and I maintain that something should be done to obtain the full value of the site. The whole raison d'être of the Bill is the doubt that has been thrown upon the action of the Government in proceeding, as I say, in contravention of the 34th clause of the Prisons Act. We have a very strong case in the recommendations of the Royal Commission—a very strong Commission which sat for three years, and took evidence in reference to the question of housing the working classes. The Royal Commission recommended that the sites of Millbank, Coldbath Fields, and Pen-
  1756
  tonville Prisons should be conveyed to the Metropolitan Board of Works, in order to secure additional land for the erection of dwellings for the working classes, and for open spaces connected therewith. Since the Commission reported, three or four blocks of artisans dwellings have been erected around this site, and the neighbourhood has become still more densely populated, and the requirements for open spaces are greater in proportion. I may be told that the House did not accept the recommendations of the Commission to the fullest extent, nor did it; but in the Housing of the Working Classes Act it was provided that the land should be acquired at the fair market value. The recommendations of the Commission carried weight with the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, and certainly I think the recommendation of the Royal Commission should have great weight with the House. Remember His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales was at the head of it; and among the other members were Cardinal Manning, the Marquess of Salisbury—who is the head of the Government which is bringing in a Bill now which will frustrate the object aimed at in the Report of the Commission—Lord Brownlow, Lord Carrington, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord Cross. Thus the House will see that no fewer than three Members of the present Cabinet were on that Royal Commission, and I am waiting with some anxiety to hear the reasons which have induced the Government to go in the face of the Report of that body. The Commission was a strong and thoroughly representative body, and I repeat that its recommendations ought to have great weight with the Government. Now, no doubt, it will be urged against us that the Clerken well Vestry do not want these open spaces. I beg the right hon. Gentleman opposite not to trust to such a broken reed as the opinion of the Clerkenwell Vestry. I believe that that body has changed its opinion on this subject three times, and when we have succeeded in getting this as an open space, no doubt the Vestry will come to the conclusion that it ought to be utilised as such. I am not bound to defend either the consistency or the inconsistency of the Clerkenwell Vestry, but, allow me, Sir,

  1757
  to point out that, after all, Clerkenwell is only a small portion of the area interested in this matter, and I believe that the only reason why they have gone back on their former decision in favour of making this an open space is to be found in the fact that they hope to secure a contribution to their rates if the Post Office cover this site with Government buildings. They do not care about the health of the neighbourhood in question; all they are looking for is a small addition to their rates. There has been a lot said about open spaces in this neighbourhood, and I am aware that two squares have been opened there through the kindness of the Marquess of Northampton; but, after all, they only cover a space of two acres between them, and the children living immediately around are more than sufficient to crowd them on a summer's evening. I was not surprised that the Metropolitan Board of Works did not see their way to purchase this site for the purpose of erecting artisans dwellings. The charge which it was proposed to make for it, namely, £180,000, was too excessive. I believe there is a general opinion that this site should be converted into an open space. I have said, and I repeat, that no more large buildings are wanted in the neighbourhood. There have been, within the last two or three months, the foundations laid of another large block of buildings in a street just within a stone's throw of this site, and three other large blocks have been erected within the last 18 months, and therefore it cannot be said that there is any need for more dwellings for the working classes to be erected on this spot. Remember that the districts of Clerkenwell, Holborn, St. Pancras, and St. Luke, which are interested in this matter, are very densely populated, and I should like to give the House a few figures to show the density of population. There are, I believe, 380 acres in Clerkenwell—although some people say 340; I prefer to put it at the higher figure—and upon this small area there is a population of 70,000 persons. Now, what do we find to be the density of population in other parts of the Metropolis? In St. George's, Hanover Square, the average is £5 of population to the acre, at Paddington 91, at Kensington 74, at Hampstead 20, and at Hackney 47. These figures are surely enough to prove
  1758
  where lungs are absolutely necessary, and I do hope that something will be done not only for the children, but also for the grown-up people by converting the site of this prison into an open space. When the working classes occupied small houses, they each had a small back garden in which to spend their spare time; but since these huge buildings have been erected they have lost all this occupation, and are compelled, practically, to stay in their own rooms, and I say that some space ought to be provided to compensate the working man and his family for the loss of these little plots of ground. I believe that something in the way of providing open spaces is absolutely necessary to be done in this district in the interests of the health of the children, and I make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government to seriously consider the claims of the people to have this site converted into an open space. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and add, at the end of the Question, the words "this day three months."—(Mr. James Rowlands.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. L. H. ISAACS: I rise to second the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member. I take exception to the very high-handed manner in which the Government have dealt with this question. I think a bad example is being set by a Government, which is so very much engaged in maintaining law and order, that they should in this instance absolutely set the law at naught in the manner in which they are dealing with this site. It is a great pity, too, that they should pay so little regard to the inquiries and Report of the Commission on the Housing of the Poor, which sat for three years, and the Chairman of which, the Prince of Wales, went into Clerkenwell and the neighbourhood of Holborn to see for himself the conditions under which the population were living in those crowded districts. If ever there was a ease in which the Government should act generously to the people of London it was in this case. The sight was in the centre of London surrounded by a poor and densely-

  1759
  packed working class population. In the vicinity of this Bite there are 10 or a dozen huge blocks of artisans' dwellings, five, six, or seven storeys in height, and the children who dwell in them see little else but bricks and mortar and asphalted courts. However excellent may be the internal arrangements of these blocks, their very height shuts out air and sunshine, the absence of which must affect the health of the occupants. In the playground at the top of the building, the children are, in certain conditions of the atmosphere, enveloped in the smoke and soot that come from the surrounding chimneys, while the sunlight can rarely penetrate to the floor of the court, which is only half as wide as the dwellings are high. There is, therefore, the most urgent need of open spaces in the neighbourhood of these blocks of dwellings; and certainly the people ought not to be deprived of this site for the sake of giving a pecuniary advantage to the Post Office. Indeed, I hold that the Post Office should not be so much looked upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a money-earning Department, and when it pays its way the profits should be devoted to, say, reducing the rates of postage to the Colonies, or lowering the cost of telegrams. There would be some excuse for using a portion of this site for a technical school in the very midst of a population requiring it; but the health and well-being of the people are too important to be sacrificed to the development of the Post Office on commercial principles only, and I therefore trust the Bill will be rejected.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I should also like to urge that this Bill be not read a second time. I know perfectly well the line of argument taken by the Government is that this is a convenient site, and that it is required for Post Office purposes. That may be very true; but I submit that the needs of the Post Office do not justify the appropriation of this site in the midst of a densely-crowded population and only just over a mile from the Bank of England. It is easy to say the Government have a right to do what they are doing; but it is rather a strong order for the Government to anticipate the authority they have brought in this Bill to obtain, and before the Bill
  1760
  is read a second time to spend a large sum of money in covering the site with buildings. The Government claim to have the right to this site; but it is remarkable that of the 10 clauses of the Bill, no fewer than four are intended to remove doubts as to whether the Government really have or have not the rights which they claim. It appears from two clauses that doubts had arisen as to the validity of the sale and transfer, and as to the powers of the parties to the agreement, and two other clauses are to-put an end to claims or demands in the future upon any of the parties to the transfer. Therefore there are doubts in the case; and it is reasonable to ask that the people of the district should have the benefit of those doubts. If the Government, admitting that these doubts exist, would agree to make six out of the eight acres into an open space, possibly some of us might withdraw our objections; but if they persist in their proposal, they will have to deal with formidable opposition from Conservative Members. It is conceivable that Hyde Park or Kensington Gardens would, if built upon, give a material addition to the rates; but this is not a matter which should be looked at from the pecuniary interests of one district; it is a matter which concerns not merely Clerkenwell— it concerns London as a whole. I say the health of the centre of London is a matter in which we are all interested. I base my opposition to the Bill on this simple ground, that I challenge the Government on their rights. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is as keenly in favour as any of us of open spaces, and I therefore appeal to him. Inasmuch as there are doubts as to the legal aspect of the question, and as among a large number of their own followers there is a strong opinion that this site should be an open space, I think the Government are bound to take these doubts into consideration, and do something to grant our request. It has been said that we want to take this land and not to pay for it. That is not so. We want the Government to look into the facts, for it is extremely doubtful whether the ratepayers have not really already paid for this land. Granting, however, for argument's sake that the Government have, technically, some claim upon it, I think we are bound, in

  1761
  the interests of all parties, that if the Government cannot see their way to give us the whole site, to oppose the Bill in every possible way, in order to see whether we cannot secure some substantial part of this ground for an open space in the centre of London.
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTON: Mr. Speaker, what are the main arguments that have been put forward in favour of this proposal? The first argument is strictly a financial argument. The Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to the assertion that the Government have a right to this site. I challenge that right, and, independently of any social consideration whatever, I challenge it upon the strict ground of finance. I have no doubt the Home Secretary will remind the House of the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1885. I quite admit—I regretfully admit—that a certain number of political doctrinaires got the better of the House at a late period of the Session, the 11th August, and inserted the words—"a fair market value." But my right hon. Friend will say that, therefore, the Government are obliged by Act of Parliament to hand over this site at a fair market value. What is the real literal history of this transaction? When the present Government was formed and the noble Lord the Member for Paddington was Chancellor of the Exchequer, tenders were sent out on the part of the Treasury seeking for somebody who would erect on the land artisans' dwellings. One of the largest Artisans' Dwellings Companies in existence with which I am connected, and whose shares, both ordinary and preference, stand at a very large premium, made an offer to the Government of £100,000 for the site. The Postmaster General, in the course of his speech, told the House that the site had been valued by the Government at £96,000; therefore, taking the strictly financial view, the Government neglected their duty in refusing the offer. Why did they refuse to accept our offer of £100,000? They cannot shelter themselves under the clause of the Act of Parliament. Why did they not accept our offer at a "fair market value?" There is no answer to that except the fact which leaked out afterwards that the Post Office, already a large trading concern, wanted to take
  1762
  advantage of the site. The Postmaster General has quoted a large extract from the Report of the Vestry in favour of his scheme. The matter has been referred to in the Report of the Royal Commission, and it has been dealt with and emphasised in a special Memorandum of the Prime Minister. It is ridiculous to quote the Vestry of Clerkenwell, when we consider the influences which must have prompted their recommendation. The Vestry wanted a large influx of population to add to the local trade and to reduce the burden of the rates, but such considerations are not worthy of influencing the House of Commons in the matter. The Royal Commission suggest that the sites occupied by Mill-bank and Coldbath-Fields Prisons should be conveyed to the Metropolitan Board of Works in trust for those parts of the town which are most overcrowded, and that in fixing the price of the sites due regard should be had to the purposes to which they are required. The Prime Minister, in his special Memorandum, said that if the sites are sold at cost price to some authority or trust which will build working men's dwellings, the result will be to satisfy some special want under which, from its peculiar circumstances, London labours. Secondly, that the State, by making London the centre of Government, had both swelled the population by its employés and diminished house room; and, thirdly, and consequently, to use these prison sites in the interests of the people of London more closely resembled the provision of compensation than the offer of a gift. I come now to the peculiar case of Clerkenwell. The great trade of the district is the watch trade, and the ordinary apparatus by which that trade is carried on is so costly that none of the workmen are able to buy the whole of it. The consequence is, that they have to go around and borrow from one another, and the district is very crowded. The Conservative Party, led by Lord Salisbury, have deservedly obtained great popular credit for enabling the Royal Commission to sit and make their very able and interesting Report; and this is the first case in which the Government are able, in a practical way, to show their sincerity in this question. But they are going not only to cover with large buildings one of the most

  1763
  crowded parts of London, but to pour into it a mass of their own employés. We know that what applies to the people of Clerkenwell must apply to all who are or will be employed in the Post Office, the Telegraph Office, and the other Departments which the Government may maintain in that district. They will be obliged to live close to their work, and will be brought into competition with the already overcrowded poor who have to live at Clerkenwell. It came out in evidence before the Royal Commission, and was also shown before the Committee on the leasehold question, that the proportion which the ordinary workman pays out of his wages in rent is one which, having regard to the middle and upper classes, is an exorbitant proportion. Therefore, Parliament ought to resist any proposal which would artificially raise the rent of the working man. It is a strange coincidence that while the noble Lord the Member for Paddington is educating his Party on this question we should be confronted in the House of Commons by a proposal of this kind made by a Government of the Party to which that noble Lord belonged. In the Committee on leaseholds the evidence taken went to show that they could not erect dwellings suitable to the requirements of the working classes in central London, and pay a reasonable amount of interest on the capital expended, unless they got the land at less than the market value. The Peabody trustees were enabled to pay less for their land than they would have had to pay on strict commercial conditions, because the Metropolitan Board of Works undertook to clear the sites on which they erected their buildings. On the other hand, they could not reduce the cost of erection by cheapening the character of their buildings. The wear and tear connected with artisans' dwellings were enormous, and the dwellings must be built in a very substantial, and therefore expensive manner. But the great landlords of London have shown themselves equal to, and capable of, appreciating their great responsibilities. Lord Portman has let land to an artisans' dwellings association for 2d. per superficial foot, which is worth 6d. in the market. The Duke of Westminster has also offered sites on his valuable London
  1764
  property at one-third of the market value, and Lord Northampton has acted in a very similar manner. The example set by the great London landlords ought not to be set at defiance by the Government. Those great landlords have spared Parliament the necessity of having to interfere in this matter; and it is infinitely better that such social reforms should be dealt with by a sense of public spirit and the force of example-rather than by the dangerous method of legislative interference. If the Government repudiates its responsibility and refuses to assist in the solution of the social problem in London, it will become tenfold more difficult to induce the small landlords in London, who are a considerable body, to perform their part and do their duty. If the Government treat this subject as they propose to do by their Bill, they may gain a little money for the Treasury, but they will strike a serious blow at the interests of Conservatism in London—using the term in no party sense; because they will implant in the minds of the people of London the conviction that their interests are being trifled with, and they cannot look for relief to Reports of Royal Commissions, or Memorandums of Prime Ministers, but to the Party of extreme views who are already a powerful Party in London, and who, if encouraged by unfortunate and inept proposals of that kind, may at any moment become supreme.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The noble Lord who has just sat down has declaimed against legislative interference, but the-scheme which he has himself advocated cannot be carried out without legislative interference. The noble Lord appealed to the Government to assist in London improvements. We decline to do so out of funds which do not belong to London. The House will remember the sort of bargain that was made between the State and the Local Authorities when the prisons were transferred in 1877 to the State. The general scheme of the Act of 1877 was that each Local Authority was bound by the Act to hand over to the State buildings containing; adequate accommodation for a number of prisoners representing the average numbers which the Local Authority had been bound to look after in the preceding five years. If the Local Authority provided accommodation in excess of

  1765
  that average, it was to be paid £120 per cell as compensation for the extra value; and, on the other hand, if there was a deficiency, it was to pay £120 per cell to the State, which had to provide the requisite accommodation for the prisoners. That being so, it is idle to urge, as the hon. Member opposite has done, that that prison was built at the expense of the rates. All the prisons were, of course, paid for out of the fund provided, and were handed over to the State. Where there was more accommodation than was wanted, the Local Authority was compensated for the excess; and, on the other hand, where the accommodation was insufficient, a deduction was made. Middlesex was one of those counties compensated, and a fair bargain in that way was made. Do not let it be supposed that the State has spent nothing on the Clerkenwell Prison since it has been in possession of it. From 1879 to 1885 £204, 615 of public money was spend on maintenance, repairs, and general outlay. Therefore it was not a profitable bargain to the State, and it was a great saving to the Middlesex Magistrates. The Act requires that if the use of a prison be discontinued it has to be offered, in the first place, to the Local Prison Authority upon payment of £120 per cell, which, in the present case, would amount to £186,960. It was offered to the Middlesex Justices at that price, and if they had bought it they might have devoted it to whatever purposes they thought fit. The Middlesex Justices, however, with very great prudence, entirely declined to pay the price—acting as wise stewards of the Public Purse—and the Secretary of State could not ask less. The Middlesex Magistrates acted with their eyes open, because when the Tothill Fields Prison was offered them at the statutory price they did buy it, and afterwards resold it to a speculator at double the price. The Middlesex Magistrates got the advantage when the market price was higher than the price fixed by the Act, and they were bound by the Act when the market value was less than the statutory price. The site of the Cold bath Fields Prison vested in the Secretary of State as trustee for sale, and he was bound to sell it on the Very best terms. Having sold it he had to pay into the Exchequer the amount
  1766
  required to be paid to the Local Authority. If by any contrivance, by art of sale, auctioneer's puffing, device of cutting the land up into lots or otherwise, it could be made to produce £186,960, every shilling had to be paid into the Exchequer, and if it could be made to produce more, then the surplus belonged to the Middlesex Magistrates. The estate had two cestui qui trusts behind it, as will be seen on perusal of the Act of Parliament. The Secretary of State was a trustee for the sale, and was bound to sell to the best advantage. Up to £186,960 this site was an asset of the Exchequer, and it was quite obvious that the interest of the Middlesex Justices was too remote to be worth considering. Well, that was the state of things when the prison was discontinued. Then came the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885. The opinions of the members of the Commission—of Prime Ministers, and Foreign Secretaries, and so on——
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTON: Your own Prime Minister.
  MR. MATTHEWS: No doubt; but the opinions to which the noble Lord so eloquently referred were not accepted by Parliament. The Act contains a clause which was binding upon my predecessors, which is to the effect that in the event of the removal from its present site of Coldbath Fields Prison it should be lawful—for whom?—for the Justices of the Peace of Middlesex to sell and convey the site to the Metropolitan Board of Works at a fair market price. Fair market price, therefore, was insisted on by the Legislature, and the Legislature only gave power to the Justices of Middlesex because it assumed they would have first offer under the Prisons Act, 1877, paying for it out of the ratepayers' money, the price fixed by the statute—namely, £186,960. Therefore the Commission on the Housing of the Poor has nothing to do with the matter.
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTON: I stated as a fact that the Government asked for tenders for the site for the erection of artisans' dwellings, and that they received an offer from a responsible company above the valuation at which the Government had themselves appraised the site.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not reached that point yet. I am coming to it. I want first, as a good deal has been said

  1767
  about the Housing of the Working Classes Act, to draw attention to the fact that the conditions of that legislation do not affect the position of the Secretary of State the least in the world. He had no additional powers given to him, but even if he had fallen under that Act he would not have been able to sell to the Metropolitan Board of Works for less than a fair market price. We may, therefore, put aside the Housing of the Working Classes Act. My predecessor, bearing in mind the labours of the Royal Commission, and the want that London felt, or was supposed to feel, of improved labourers' dwellings, did in April, 1886, offer this property to the Metropolitan Board of Works for the purpose of erecting workmen's dwellings, and they were asked if there was any chance of their taking it at a price somewhat lower than the market value. In making that offer I think that my predecessor was running some little risk, and that he would have been wise in obtaining an Act of Parliament to ratify what he did. The Metropolitan Board of Works took some time to consider the matter, and at length came to the conclusion which has been stated by the hon. Member for St. Pancras—namely, that no more artisans' dwellings were wanted in Clerkenwell. Undoubtedly it would be very desirable to turn this site into an open space. ["Hear, hear."] Yes, it is always desirable to get an open space at someone else's expense. ["Oh."] We are not particularly anxious to have the site covered with buildings. The Secretary of State was bound to sell it to the best advantage, and it was offered for sale to the Metropolitan Board of Works, but they thought enough had been done for Clerkenwell, and were not disposed to put their hands into the ratepayers' pockets for this large sum. That was the state of affairs in 1886, and up to that point I consider that the Secretary of State discharged his duty, having even volunteered to take less than the market value. My own responsibility commenced about this time. I caused the site to be offered for sale, and offers were made for it, which were ridiculously below the value of the site. One offer was £48,000, one £60,000, one £70,000 and one £80,000, and lastly there was the offer of the benevolent company to which the noble Lord belongs of
  1768
  £100,000. That was a price a little beyond that which one would have expected to get if the transaction was one which it was sought to complete in a hurry. No doubt it would have been accepted if the demand of the Post Office had not arisen. Let me remind the House that if I had accepted the £100,000 from that Company, the amount would have been handed over to the Exchequer as an asset, but the Exchequer had a perfect right to say, "No, we prefer to take the land instead of the £100,000, which is the price of it." In saying that is any wrong done to any human being? The Middlesex Magistrates are entitled to nothing save any excess in the purchase money beyond £186,000, but there was no excess. The site was handed over to the Post Office for£100,000—at least that was the form the transaction took, for so far as the Treasury were concerned it was only transferring the amount from one account to another. It might have been said by a subtle lawyer if the price had been fixed at £186,000, "How is it made out that if the land had not been transferred from one Department of the State to another, but had been sold in the open market, there would not have been a surplus to pay over to the Middlesex Magistrates?" and litigation might have ensued in order to show what the real value of the land was. The best test of the value of land is what you can get for it, and for this site I was never offered more than £100,000; therefore in parting with it to the Post Office the value was assessed at £ 100,000. Without legislation it was impossible for the Government to give this site for an open space or artisans' dwellings, or any other similar purpose. I had no authority to do that. I could not do that which the House had deliberately condemned—that is to take an Imperial asset and dispose of it as suggested. The Metropolitan Members have the audacity to come and ask me to take this Imperial asset of the value of £186,000 and hand it over, not to the Metropolis, but to Clerkenwell, a small district of the Metropolis. They ask me to do that which the Legislature has repeatedly, for years, refused to do. Why, the Legislature refused to go on paying for the London parks out of Imperial funds, and, I ask, how can they expect that this property should be taken

  1769
  and handed over to Clerkenwell as an open space? No doubt Clerkenwell is a desert of bricks and mortar and asphalte, where the children get little of the light of the sun and never an opportunity of enjoying fresh air in an open space, and where life has to be endured under such conditions as render ithardly worth living; but I contend that the Government have no right to put their hands into the pockets of the taxpayers of the country in order to provide the Clerkenwell children with a park. If the principle of doing such a thing were admitted, I should like to put in a plea for Birmingham, where there are also children who never see a green leaf or the light of the sun. I might with as great propriety put in a plea for Birmingham as hon. Members put one in for Clerkenwell; and when hon. Members talk about the duty of the Government in this matter I would ask them to reflect upon what they are proposing. They are asking us to give £186,000 of the taxpayers' money to the poor children of Clerkenwell—that and nothing less. No doubt money was spent very freely in this way in former times. London was treated as a spoilt child; and even yet a large amount of Imperial money is spent on local objects in London in a manner that hardly bears the test of critical examination. I must say I am surprised to hear such doctrines as that Imperial Funds should be expended on Clerkenwell come from the strict economists sitting opposite. They actually come forward—no doubt Tinder pressure from their constituents —and blame the Government for not giving public money to Clerkenwell, founding themselves on a fancied claim of the Magistrates of Middlesex to some surplus over the £186,000 which the Government had fixed as the value of the Clerkenwell site. The Government, however, are convinced that they have discharged their duty in the arrangement they have made. No reason has been given why the Post Office should not acquire this site for £100,000. In the interest of the taxpayers themselves the arrangement is a good one, for the reason that if the Post Office were compelled to look elsewhere for a site it would cost them £150,000 or £200,000. Taking all the circumstances into consideration it seems to me that it was obviously the duty of the Government to acquire the land.
  MR. FIRTH: The speeches n which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General introduced the Bill and the Home Secretary has supported it, have been remarkable. They have been remarkable for their absolutely unnecessary vigour of expression and denunciation. The Home Secretary has thrown out defiance to the House and the language of the Postmaster General was more vigorous still. We have heard from both of those Ministers the strongest condemnation of those who want money out of other people's pockets; we have heard much about confiscation and so forth. The Postmaster General went out of his way to speak in a manner which was not wise, if, indeed, it was courteous, of the London County Council, who had not dealt with the question at all. But surely all this excitement hides something that ought to be brought to light. In the first place, let us see what the other people's pocket argument amounts to. It amounts to this, that 100 years ago people whom we represent to-day paid out of their own pockets for the site and the building of the prison. [An hon. Member: So did every other county.] That is an observation that has not the slightest bearing on what I am saying, because we are dealing with what happened in Middlesex. What the people of Massachusetts, or of the county that has the privilege of being represented by the hon. Member did is perfectly immaterial to this argument. The ratepayers of Middlesex paid for this site and building, and in 1877 the prison was taken from them by the Government. How about confiscation so far as that was concerned? At the time the hon. Member for the Horsham division of Sussex said it was a serious matter of confiscation, and a number of hon. Members on that side of the House strongly denounced what we are now told was a bargain that we agreed to. The property was taken from the ratepayers of Middlesex without any sort of compensation whatever. [Cries of "No, no."] I mean compensation paid down. Of course there was what was understood to be an equivalent, namely, the maintenance of the prison. But there is not an hon. or right hon. Gentleman who will suggest it was ever anticipated that Clause 34 of the Prisons Act would apply to the case which has arisen in London.

  1771
  The Home Secretary read a certain portion of the clause and then stopped. He never suggested to us how it was he had not carried out the definite provision of the clause which says "it shall be sold." It has not been sold. Suppose it had been put up for public sale what would have happened? I apprehend some one representing Londoners would have been willing to bid for it and to turn it into an open space. The Home Secretary was correct in saying he was a trustee. That was distinctly stated by Mr. Selwin Ibbetson on the Prisons Bill; he said that so long as the prison continued to be used as such so long would it remain in the name of the Home Secretary as the trustee for the county. Well, that is the position, and I really do not see why the Home Secretary should ask the House to sanction a proceeding which amounts to an evasion of the Act. He has not told us how it is the Post Office entered into possession of this place a couple of years ago; on what possible legal ground did they do that? Is this not a case in which the Government have set at naught the Statutes altogether and have disregarded the interests of the people? On the 24th of February, 1887, the Home Secretary said—
  "Any proposal either from the Metropolitan Board of Works or the Vestry for the retention of the site of Coldbath Fields Prison as an open space will receive my careful attention."
  Will any such proposal receive his careful attention now? I suppose it will be considered that matters have gone too far. What is the price the Post Office have paid for the place? Is there any price to be paid? A transaction of this kind ought to be carried out in strict accordance with the law. As a matter of fact the Post Office have obtained possession of the site without a line of law to support them. This is certainly not a case in which the Government have any right to talk about confiscation and outrage. I hope the concessions of Members for London interested in the preservation of its rights and open spaces may ultimately succeed in bringing such pressure on the Government as to make them either alter the Bill or withdraw it altogether.
  MR. COCHRANE-BAILLIE: I imagine we are all disposed to say that all proper regard should be paid to the feelings of the Local Authorities in a matter
  1772
  of this kind, but my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington has, I think, estimated the opinion of the Vestry of Clerkenwell at its true value. He has shown us that it is only a few years ago-the Vestry expressed a contrary opinion to that they express now; secondly, that the Vestry of Clerkenwell are not of sufficient importance to be considered in a matter which deals with a far larger neighbourhood than that of the very limited district of one the Vestry presides, and also that the Vestry of Clerkenwell are not a body directly concerned in this matter, and that originally those who had to deal with this question were the Magistrates of the County of Middlesex. It was evident from what fell from the Home Secretary that the Post Office had made a very good bargain indeed. The last statement made was, that if the Post Office had not got this site they would have bad to pay £150,000 or £200,000 for some other site, and, therefore, the Post Office were only too glad to obtain this site on such advantageous terms. As I agree that the Post Office should not be regarded as a mere money making concern, that after proper attention has been paid to its immediate affairs, the public interests in other matters should be considered, and, more particularly, as I understand that the proposed extension is solely for the carrying on of the Parcels Post, which is, in the opinion of some, altogether extraneous to the proper functions of the Post Office, I hope we shall be able to force the Government to accept some compromise in this-matter.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I hope I shall be able to convince my hon. Friends on this side of the House who represent country constituencies that the Representatives of London are by no means so unreasonable and grasping as they are said to be. The Home Secretary appeals to the bargain made in 1877. He says that in 1877 the State took over as going concerns, if I may use the term, the prisons of Middlesex, subject to the burden that they should maintain the prisons and prisoners, and subject also to the condition that if any of the prisons were discontinued they should, upon certain terms, revert to-their original owners. The rational and logical conclusion of the Home Secretary's speech was that the Government

  1773
  should insist upon the carrying out of the bargain upon which they rely. That is exactly what the Government do not do. They come to the House and ask us to revise the bargain which was then entered into. If the bargain is to be re-opened I submit there are certain equitable considerations which have arisen since the year 1877, and which may well be taken into view. The burden which the State undertook in 1877 has been by no means so onerous as was at the time anticipated. In 1877 the daily average of prisoners to be maintained was over 20,000, whereas last year it was only 15,000. Therefore, the State's part of the bargain has been one-fourth lighter than could be at the time fairly anticipated. That is an equitable consideration which applies, I admit, not to the Metropolis only, but to every case in which a prison is discontinued, and where the Local Authority puts in a claim for the use of the site of the prison. A word, however, in reference to the particular case of Clerkenwell Prison. The Home Secretary says the Act of 1885 has nothing whatever to do with the question. But the Act of 1885 amounts to a declaration on the part of the Government of that day, which is for all practical purposes the present Government, that it is desirable that the site of this prison should be used for a public metropolitan purpose. It is provided—
  "That the Justices of Middlesex may, if they think fit, sell and convey the prison to the Metropolitan Board of Work at a fair market price."
  But the Justices of Middlesex were not at the time any more than now the owners of the site. The State was the owner of it, and, therefore, if the present contention of the Government is true, when with a great flourish of trumpets they put forward the Bill of 1885 to facilitate the Housing of the Working Classes, they must have known this site could not be secured for that purpose except at a price which was double its commercial value. There can be no doubt in any candid mind that the intention of the Government at the time was not to insist upon the statutory price then which now they insist upon. Since then the Post Office has put in a claim for this site, and if the Post Office had not done so, I believe the Government would have been willing to do now what I submit
  1774
  they were ready to do in 1885. We are really reduced to the position which my hon. Friend stated a little while ago, namely—that the Post Office, a large money-earning institution, is to have the advantage, and the people of London are to go to the wall. May I contrast the action of the Government in, this matter with what it is believed very generally out of doors is intended to be their action with reference to Newgate. It is commonly believed that the Government are entertaining the idea of handing over the site of Newgate to the Corporation of the City of London, upon condition that the City will erect upon a portion of the site a new Criminal Court. What is the-difference in principle between handing over the site of Newgate to the Corporation upon such terms and handing over the site of Clerkenwell prison for an open space for the people? I hope the Government will assent not only to the appeal which is made to them from this side of the House, but to the great pressure which has been put upon them by their own supporters, and will not only do a gracious act, but an act which, will very materially contribute to the health of the Metropolis.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I should like to give the reasons why I intend to support the Amendment. After hearing the speech of the hon. Member for East Finsbury the other night, I went down to the neighbourhood of this prison. Hooked about for open spaces. I found a great number of industrial dwellings, seven, storeys high, built or in process of construction, but the open spaces were very few. I noticed two small squares, in the case of one of which there was written up—"This not a playground." The Board School playgrounds were locked up—it was Saturday—and indeed there was no place whatever where the children of the neighbourhood could play. I consider it the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do what they can to help the people in that locality; certainly they ought not to-step in and prevent the site in question being turned into an open space. The provision of proper means for the recreation of the people is an important matter from a military point of view-In 1883 only 396 per 1,000 of our recruits were rejected, whereas in 1887 the number had risen to 456. I attri-

  1775
  bute the deterioration in the physique of our men very largely to the want of sufficient open spaces in which they can in their younger days play. The health of the people is a serious matter, and as far as my vote will do it, I shall secure as many open spaces as it is possible to secure.
  MR. COURTNEY: When demands are made by Metropolitan Members, of whom there are now so many in the House, it is not unbecoming for hon. Members who do not sit for any part of London to watch with some jealousy the contentions put forward. This question is supposed to rest upon the circumstance that the ratepayers of Middlesex bought the site of Coldbath Fields Prison and paid for what was erected thereon. I observed that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green abandoned that position and dwelt entirely upon the language of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885. It is worth while to devote a little attention to the preliminary contention that, because the ratepayers for Middlesex bought the site and erected the prison they are entitled to have the site restored to them. The site of the prison was taken from them by the Act of 1877 upon perfectly well-understood principles. Up to that time the county of Middlesex was charged with the duty of maintaining its prisons. The Government of the day thought that the prisons should be taken from the Local Authorities and handed over to the country. The policy was much contested at the time; it was opposed very strongly, as I remember well, by the late Mr. Rylands. The localities were discharged from the duties attached to the prisons. There was a fair counterbalance of interest. Although, no doubt, valuable property was taken, a most onerous duty was at the same time removed from the locality. As to the fairness of the bargain there was no question at the time, neither was there any question as to the fairness of the provision that, if under certain circumstances, the prisons were no longer wanted, the sites might be restored to the original owners at a fixed price. It is conceded in this discussion that the price so named is prohibitive, so that the right of pre-emption, although it theoretically exists, is practically of no Value whatever. I contest altogether
  1776
  the suggestion that the people of the London County have any claim to this property because they originally bought it or their predecessors bought it, because whilst undoubtedly they did so they held the property subject to the most onerous trusts, of which the nation has relieved them. That being the case, how is the matter altered by the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885? I confess I do not look upon that Act, or rather on the circumstances attendant upon the conception and inception of that Act, with any very great favour. The Act originated in the excitement which was promoted by an article in a sensational newspaper, and by rival articles which were written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the present Prime Minister. Each wrote an article in a review in connection with this outcry, and the Royal Commission, who were looking about for some means of solving the problem, were struck with the happy thought that, at all events, there were some sites in London which might possibly be appropriated for the relief of congested districts, and their Report was partly embodied in an Act passed immediately before an appeal was made to the country in 1885. I think we should be justified in looking upon that Act with extreme jealousy, but I am glad to say a provision was inserted in the Act of sufficient strength and vigour to bar any such pretensions as this on the part of the Metropolitan Members; that the Metropolis should only acquire sites at a fair market price. If the London County Council is disposed or was disposed to give a fair market price for this Clerkenwell site— and I look on a fair market price as that which it would fetch in the open market—they had the right to claim it; but they did nothing of the kind. They put forward a sort of claim upon the recommendation of the Commission that the working classes of London should be relieved at the expense of the Imperial taxpayers. They did not use their claim of pre-emption at a fair market price, and I do hope the House will resist altogether most strenuously, most persistently, claims of this kind. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, the representatives of London are agreed that it is desirable to make this claim on behalf of their constituents, but do not let us be betrayed

  1777
  into a cession or partial cession of this claim at the expense of the country at large. I remember when the Bill was in progress my right hon. Friend immediately behind me was full of extreme jealousy of this provision. I shared that jealousy, and did what I could at that time to insert some safeguard, and I think that in the outcome of the Bill there was a sufficient safeguard in this provision. But do not let us weaken it any further, let us abide by it as it is. We put into that Act a provision, rather a curious thing to put into an Act of Parliament, that the Metropolis might have pre-emption at a fair market price; but the Metropolis does not make that offer; they want the land at a great reduction from the market price. The Metropolis never took steps to acquire the site at the market price, and all the rest that has been said and done does not touch in the slightest degree what is the essential point to be considered, which is, shall the country make any sacrifice to accommodate what are the natural feelings of representatives of London? I, at all events, shall heartily support the Government in this matter.
  MR.LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.): I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has thought it necessary to insinuate that the Metropolitan Members are acting together from the lowest motives of Party politics. The Home Secretary, with dramatic emphasis, said that in Birmingham they never saw the light of the sun. Well, we are not prepared to say that that is the normal state of our existence. But at the same time we do believe that the provision of open spaces for reasonable recreation and exercise easily accessible are essential to the health and happiness of our overcrowded population. The opinion of the London County Council on this point has been well expressed by the Petition of the Vestry of Clerkenwell to the Metropolitan Board of Works in 1887, in which the following facts are set out:—
  "The parish of Clerkenwell, containing nearly 70,000 inhabitants, consists of 380 acres, showing an average of about 785 per acre, whilst in St. George's, Hanover Square, the population per acre is about 85, or Paddington 91, Kensington 74, Hampstead 20, and Hackney 47.
  "That Clerkenwell is therefore, and from its situation must always continue to be, a densely populated parish, and is surrounded by
  1778
  other crowded parishes, for instance, St. Luke's, Holborn, and St. Pancras.
  "That there are at the present time a great number of model dwellings in the parish containing over 1,200 tenements, providing accommodation for a population of between 6,000 and 7,000, with no provision for open playgrounds for children except in the Peabody Buildings.
  "That other parts of London have their open spaces, whilst the crowded district of Clerkenwell is absolutely without any such open space, beyond the several ordinary squares in the parish, and the inhabitants have a long way to go to reach an open space such as most other parts of the Metropolis enjoy."
  We hold that on this subject the Metropolis should be treated as a whole. I may point out to the Chairman of Committees that we have never had a chance of purchasing this land at a fair price for an open space. I believe a large section of the London County Council would make an effort to give a fair market price for the land, but all I wish to point out is that they have never had the opportunity. As a matter of fact, it was offered to the Metropolitan, Board of Works for other purposes, and at a price that is admitted by the Home Secretary and the Postmaster General to be utterly ridiculous, having regard to the commercial value of land—£120 per acre. I have been looking through the Debate on the Prison Act of 1887, and I observe that Lord Cross remarked that Local Authorities in having power to repurchase at £120 per cell must take the rough with the smooth. It is peculiarly unfortunate that in London there is nothing but rough, and so the arrangement presses very unjustly upon us. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) said that the nation relieved the Metropolis from a trust, but it really relieved the Metropolis only of a property. The trust was fulfilled for a very short time—from 1877 until 1885. This is a piece of sharp practice of which the inhabitants of London are the victims, more worthy of a pettifogging attorney than of Her Majesty's Government. I know it is said that a Government Department will do anything, but I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government would have shown more consideration to the inhabitants of London in this respect, considering that the Bill is one of indemnity to them for certain illegal transactions in which they have engaged. The Home Secretary has himself admitted that an astute lawyer might find out that the Government had

  1779
  no title, and I gathered that that is his own opinion. I know that in August, 1887, Parliament sanctioned the outlay of £14,000, but Parliament never gave any sanction, in any form, to the proposal that the Post Office should take this site. Really, the Postmaster General tried to anticipate the decision of Parliament, and now thinks he can turn round and appeal to the House on account the great business of the Post Office. Of course we all appreciate the administrative ability displayed by that Department, but that has really nothing to do with the discussion. Has compulsory powers to go anywhere for premises? We only now ask that if the Government are not prepared to admit that the Metropolis has been treated with unfairness, at least they should revert to the position they occupied in 1885, and which the Home Secretary seemed to hold in 1887, when he said he would consider whether it would not be possible to offer facilities for the provision of an open space on the site. At least the County Council should have the chance of competing with any other purchaser in the open market, in order that they may devote the land to Metropolitan purposes. Are the Government still prepared to resist this claim? They assume that we ask this as a free gift or as a matter of charity; but all we do is to base our claim upon the language of the Prisons Act. I may point out that Members for London are practically unanimous. [Cries of "No!"] Well, then, I will say almost unanimous; the Press of London is unanimous; and the County Council have unanimously petitioned against the Bill, and in favour of devoting this site to the purpose of an open space. It should be recollected, when hon. Gentlemen talk of this being an Imperial asset, that two years ago, when the Government had to deal with the two Royal Parks of Battersea and Victoria, they might equally have been considered as Imperial assets; but they did not then ask London to pay the full market price. An hon. Friend suggests to me that they might equally have claimed to set up Post Office buildings in Battersea and Victoria Parks, but they did not do anything of the kind. The First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are both Metropolitan Members, and I appeal to them particu-
  1780
  larly, and I ask them, on behalf of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, if some measure of justice could not be dealt out to us. We do not ask for anything more; we do not ask for charity, but for equity, in the treatment of London in regard to this matter.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): There are a few words I should like to say on this matter, and before I proceed to say them, I should like to correct one or two misapprehensions that, from the statements we have heard, appear to be entertained. The House has almost been led to believe that the Government before dealing with this property did not afford the Local Authority the opportunity of purchasing it. The hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Lawson) has told the House that the County Council are anxious to have the opportunity of acquiring the property, but that they never had had the opportunity. Now the hon. Member knows perfectly well that the Metropolitan Board of Works to which the London County Council is the successor was given the opportunity of offering for this site, but declined it.
  MR. LAWSON: At the rate of £120 per cell?
  MR. JACKSON: The Board of Works had the opportunity; and I may point out that the Board of Works made no counter offer, they declined altogether to purchase the land either for Artizans' Dwellings or for an Open Space. It is not fair, therefore, to lead the House to believe that in this matter the Government acted precipitately or without giving the fullest opportunity to the Local Authorities, and particularly to the Middlesex Justices to acquire this property if they desired to do so, for any public purpose. But the hon. Member comes forward now with this demand, when he knows and the House knows that the Government have spent upon this property a good deal of money, which must, if this land is now devoted to other purposes, be wasted and thrown away. It appears to me it is rather too late for hon. Members to come forward and make this claim now that some £40,000 or £50,000 of the taxpayers' money has been expended, and simply because somebody is seeking to do something, that opportunity was offered for doing before, but declined. The House knows perfectly well that the

  1781
  Government before entering upon the utilisation of this site at all, came to the House and asked for a Vote of money in the Estimates to convert this prison site to its present purpose. The House was completely informed as to the Government's intention, and how they were going to deal with this land, and if the House had had a desire to stop the utilisation of the land for the purpose proposed, there was full opportunity for doing so. But not only did the House not do so, but the House expressed approval of the Government's intention. I remember how, from both sides of the House, the Government were applauded for the transaction they were entering into, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walworth (Mr. Isaacson) was one of the Members who complimented the Government on their action, and the admirable manner in which they were dealing with the property, and my hon. Friend pointed out with great force that if the Government had been obliged to purchase in some other part of London they would have had to pay twice the amount that this site cost. So I really do not understand how it is my hon. Friend deserts the Government now when formerly he applauded our action. In addition to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has laid about the way in which the State acquired this property, and the consideration it gave for it, I would emphasise what has been said by the Chairman of Committees by pointing out that the taxpayers took over a burden which, as regards Middlesex, represented an annual charge at that time of £65,000. Now I ask the hon. Member for St. Pancras, who takes a great interest in this subject, what would be the capitalised value of £65,000 a year, of which the Middlesex ratepayers were relieved at that time? If he will put the capitalised value of this against the value of the property the Government got, he will find the Government paid amply for what they got. The hon. Member talks about the rough and the smooth—
  MR. LAWSON: I quoted an expression used by Lord Cross.
  MR. JACKSON: Yes; but the hon. Gentleman quoted it with approval, and went on to say that the metropolis could only get the rough. Well, the fact is, that the Middlesex ratepayers have taken the smooth and left the
  1782
  rough to the Government. There were three prison sites, Clerkenwell, Cold-bath Fields, and Westminster. Now the Westminster prison when it was closed was offered to the Middlesex Justices, and the Middlesex Justices saw that the fixed rate of £120 per cell, though a high price, did not represent the value of the site, and consequently the Middlesex Justices, in the exercise of their option, bought the site—giving £68,000 for it. And I understand upon good authority that it was a very good transaction, and that the land was subsequently sold for something like £120,000. At any rate, I know that the Postmaster General came to the Treasury a short time ago with a demand for £30,000 for a very small part of the site of what used to be Tothill Fields Prison; therefore I say it is not the Government who have refused to take the rough with the smooth—the Middlesex ratepayers have got the benefit of the smooth, leaving the Government with the rough. Now, I am not going into the general question at any length. The position is this: it has been abundantly proved that the Government are Trustees in possession of this property on behalf of the taxpayers of the country, and to ask the Government to give this property for the purpose of local experiments in London is practically equivalent to asking the Government to come down to the House and ask for a Vote for £185,000 for Metropolitan purposes. It is only a short time ago since the Government of the day were beaten in an attack led by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) on the question of local parks, which, it was held, ought to be maintained at the cost of the local ratepayers. The consequence was that the Government brought in a Bill to give effect to the decision of the House of Commons, and to throw the charge of Battersea and Victoria Parks on the Metropolitan ratepayers. But the hon. Member for St. Pancras says the Government did not then charge London with the capital value of the Parks, and I understand him to say that, as the charge is not justified in the one case, so it is not in the other.
  MR. LAWSON: I was pointing it out as a precedent. We are quite willing to maintain the charge if the land were handed over in the one case as in the other.
  MR. JACKSON: The House of Commons a short time ago expressed an opinion on the general principle and the general policy to be followed, and I do not believe for a moment that the House of Commons has changed the opinion expressed on that occasion. I should be extremely surprised if it were so. I can understand hon. Members' desire to get the benefit for their constituents, and it would no doubt be a very good thing to get this, but I would ask them to look a little beyond their own constituencies and to take a broader view. There is a great principle involved, a great principle at stake, and I say it is the duty of Metropolitan Members, if I may venture to use the phrase, to look not only at the interests of their constituents but to look beyond and consider how the principle may be applied against them on some future occasion. Let them hold fast to what is a sound principle in dealing with such property. I should like to quote the opinion, which is on record, of the hon. and learned Member for Stockton (Sir Horace Davey), in a discussion in this House, and curiously enough in reference to this very prison site. The hon. and learned Member said he hoped the Government would persist in the contention that they could not deal with State property or public property in this manner—meaning by giving it away or selling it at less than the full value— without injustice to the great body of taxpayers. The hon. and learned Gentleman objected to this clause in the Housing of the Working Classes Act, to which reference has been made, and he contended that the Government had no right to appropriate the property of the nation to the benefit of the people of London or of any other part of the United Kingdom. Prisons are being closed in various parts of the kingdom, and it is the bounden duty of the Government to make the best use of the sites, and get the best price for them they can. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) has quoted with approval, with which I entirely sympathise, statistics showing the reduction in the rates of the prison population, and I think he rather sought to argue from that that the Local Authorities have not benefited in this case to the extent which has been represented, inasmuch as the burden to-day received has been less than at the time the prisons
  1784
  were taken over. There are three principal causes for our being able to close-these prisons. One is a slight diminution in the general prison population.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Twenty-five-per cent.
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, I know, Sir; but the hon. Member in making his calculation takes into account the convict population, and the main reason why the so-called local prisons have been closed is that there has been a very large-diminution in the long-sentence prisoners, and we have been enabled to-utilise prisons which were formerly convict prisons only for short-sentence-prisoners as well. Another reason is-that in the neighbourhood of London the Government have built a gaol with 2,400 cells, at a cost of £300,000, which accommodates both long-sentence and? short-term prisoners. Outside, therefore, of the diminution of long-sentence prisoners, the additional accommodation provided has enabled numerous local prisons to be closed. I would venture-to point out that if the House agrees to-the Second Reading of this Bill it will be referred to a Select Committee, and Metropolitan Members will be able to-make any representations they desire to-that Committee. I think that is in itself sufficient justification for asking the House to read the Bill a second time. I can assure the House that the Government have as much desire as hon. Members to provide open spaces for the benefit of the artisans and toilers, not only in the Metropolis, but in the crowded towns of the North. In my own constituency of Leeds I could find many districts which would compare unfavourably with Clerkenwell. I trust the House will believe that the Government have dealt with this matter solely and simply in the interest of the taxpayers. At the time this arrangement was made there was no competition for the site, and it was impossible to sell it for a price considered' to be adequate, and the Government are convinced that in what they have done they have not only acted wisely, but that the transaction is an extremely economical one in the interest of the taxpayers.
  MR. R. CHAMBERLAIN: It is always to listen to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. He is always so reasonable, so fair, and so courteous to those who differ from him, that at all

  1785
  events we can always agree to differ. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in the course of his rather extraordinary speech should have thought fit to launch against those who object to this Bill accusations of spoliation, and to say that they are really in favour of the infraction of the law. His charges were chiefly made against the Metropolitan Members, the majority of whom are supporters of the Government. His speech was filled with sneers at the philanthropic and benevolent ideas of those who believe it to be for the benefit of the population that open spaces should be maintained in London, and he wound up with an extraordinary misstatement. He said this site was worth £186,000, and he repeated several times over that it was that sum of which it was proposed to rob the taxpayers, whereas one of his colleagues admitted that the value of the site was something like half that. With regard to the terms of the acquisition of the prison site by the Government, I think there is some misapprehension. I am in a position to speak tolerably accurately about it, because whilst I have read up the Debates in this House, I was at the time Chairman of the Financial Committee in Birmingham, and was watching the Measure to see what it would do for Birmingham, which possessed a prison of its own. In the Debates in the House and in the country on the subject the sole question taken into consideration was that the Government took upon itself the burden of maintaining the local prisons. The County Members objected, not because of the sites, but because of the centralisation proposed. It was never contemplated at that time that the Local Prisons were going to be abandoned, and that the Government would come in for the valuable inheritance of the sites. It is said there is a desire on the part of the Metropolitan Members to obtain undue aid from the taxpayers in relief of the burdens of the London ratepayers. I entirely repudiate that idea. I cheerfully supported the Government in the idea that London should bear the expense of its own parke. I think, however, that these prisoh sites have been paid for by the ratepayers, and if they are no longer required for the purpose for which they were acquired, the taxpayers have no property in them. It is
  1786
  not a question of London alone. The same principle applies to Manchester and Sheffield, and any other town. Although technically and legally no doubt the Government are in the right, the sites themselves were no part of the consideration in the arrangement that was made, and I say that as the prisons are no longer required, the sites ought to revert to the localities, when the localities are so much in need of them as in the present ease. It seems a little hard that we should be told that it is impossible for the Government to restore this site to the ratepayers of the Metropolis because it would be illegal, and yet they come to the House with this Bill in order to indemnify themselves against the illegality of building on a site to which they have no right. Of course it is only done in the interests of the public service, but I think that if they had the desire which their Chief, Lord Salisbury, has over and over again expressed, to do something to relieve the hard lot of the dwellers in towns, they would have put forward a Bill of a different kind in order to maintain this land as an open space for London.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: The conciliatory speech of the Secretary to the Treasury shows that the Government have not been insensible to the almost universal expression of opinion on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman said that in the Estimates two years ago the appropriation of this site by the Post Office was considered and approved by the House. Surely that could hardly be the case; surely the situation as laid before us to-night could hardly have been laid before the House then, or it would not have been necessary to come before the House with this Bill of indemnity, as it has been called. No doubt the situation is a rather awkward one. The Post Office have been put in possession of this site, and have already spent some thousands of pounds on it, and begun to erect a building, although the title to the land is so doubtful that an Act has to be passed to ensure it to them. I am informed that by no means the whole of the site is to be occupied with buildings. If, therefore, the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury means that something may result from the reference to the Select Committee, and that the scheme may be so altered

  1787
  as to meet the views of those who desire that some part of the land shall be reserved as an open space, that will be satisfactory to all of us, including some who are not Metropolitan Members, who wish to obtain an open space at this point. I hope that some more distinct assurance will be given by the Government that the intention shadowed forth by the Secretary to the Treasury means what we hope it means, namely, that a portion of this land may be reserved for the purpose of an open space, and that, at all events, an opportunity may be given to the London County Council to offer for the remaining part of the site such sum as in their wisdom they may think fit.
  SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.): Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two, as my constituents are largely interested in this matter. They are not of opinion, nor do I think that it is the desire of any of the ratepayers of the Metropolis, that the property should be given to them. Nobody has asked that this land should be given to the Metropolis for nothing. I am told that the County Council are prepared to give a fair market price for a portion of the site in order to make it an open space. I say that the representatives of London up to the present time have not had a fair opportunity of acquiring the property. They were offered it at a price which is admitted by the Government to have been an unreasonable price, namely, £186,000. The Government tested that by putting it up to auction, the result being that the highest bid obtained was £100,000. I believe that if the London representatives had been offered the property at £100,000 they would have bought it. The Post Office cannot require the whole of the site, and I would suggest that the remainder should be sold to the County Council at a fair market price fixed in the ordinary manner. The ratepayers do desire that some opportunity should be given to form an open space in this very crowded district of London, and they do not desire to do it at the expense of the taxpayers generally. What, therefore, we ask the Government to say is, that in Committee they will look at the matter in a favourable light, and give the London County Council the opportunity of purchasing
  1788
  such portion as they require and as the Post Office does not want.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHER,): In order to avoid any misunderstanding, which would be regrettable, I feel bound to state that my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke) has exaggerated the inferences he draws from the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson). The Bill must be referred to a Hybrid Committee, and before that Committee petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, through counsel or agents, will be heard against the Bill, and counsel will be heard in support of it. Therefore every hon. Member will have an opportunity of stating his case.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: It is not unfair that a provincial representative should come forward and state that, in his opinion, the Government is taking the only sound position in regard to the country at large. The whole of the Metropolitan Members appear to be unanimous in trying to force the Government to commit a breach of their duty to the taxpayers at large. The hon. Members are urging, in formâ pauperis, that, London being congested, it is essential that something should, be done to relieve the congestion. Nothing could be fairer than the observations of the Secretary to the Treasury. There is the greatest possible anxiety in every part of the House that open spaces should be provided for all parts of the Metropolis where the congestion exists. The town from which I come has provided itself with five parks, and I undertake to say that our open spaces in proportion to the population are far less than are those in the Metropolis. There is no reason why the ratepayers of the Metropolis should come to the taxpayers, and ask them to discharge a duty which belongs exclusively to the Metropolis. An immense share of the taxation levied in this country is expended in London, and to try and increase that share still further seems unjust and unfair in the highest degree. When the claims of London are pressed too far, it seems to me to be necessary for the 600 Members of the House who are not identified with London representation to stand by any Government which tries to act upon the principles of justice.
  The House divided:—Ayes 173; Noes 57.—(Div. List, No. 265.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of seven Members, four to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection; that all petitions against the Bill presented two clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents be heard against the Bill, and counsel heard in support of the Bill; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that three be the quorum."—(Mr. Raikes.)
  MR. LAWSON: I object.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I move that the Question be now put.
  MR. SPEAKER: This is a consequential Motion. The Bill has been before the Examiner, who has decided that it came within the Standing Orders. There is no other Committee to which the Bill can be referred.
  MR. LAWSON: The reason I objected was that the Committee might be constituted of Provincial Members, and we would have a great many partisans against us.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL [LORDS] (No. 351.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I expected the Attorney General to make a statement as to this Order. He has not done so, and I would suggest that the Order be discharged.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The Government are anxious that the Bill should be proceeded with, but if there is any general desire that this should not be done, the Government, in view of the understanding that no Bill to which there is any serious opposition should be pushed on at the fag end of the Session, will certainly not press it. They will, however, withdraw the Bill with some regret, and in the hope that it may be taken up again early next Session. I suggest that the Order shall not be discharged until the feeling of the House has been ascertained on the subject,
  MR. HALDANE: The Bill in its present form is bound
  1790
  to meet with most strenuous opposition from Scotch and Irish Members, because the English Lord Chancellor would have the power of altering the law of trusts in Scotland and Ireland.
  MR. WHITLEY: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill will meet with a strenuous and strong opposition.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I quite agree that the question is an important one. But I would suggest that this Bill, and another lower down on the Paper, should be referred to a Select Committee, where the whole subject could be thoroughly threshed out. This Bill will meet with the most strenuous and consistent opposition. It is a Bill not to legislate, but to give the Lord Chancellor power to legislate.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, after that declaration, I move that the Order be discharged, on condition that the Order for the other Bill is also discharged.
  Order discharged accordingly, and Bill withdrawn.

  SUCK DRAINAGE BILL (No. 260.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I beg to move that the Order for the Second Reading of the Suck Drainage Bill be discharged. I may explain that I hope the measure may be passed in a form substantially not very different from that in which it has been submitted. I believe the arrangement is sanctioned that the Bill should pass as a Private Bill, except so far as the money clauses are concerned, and these will be brought in as a separate measure. I move that the Order be discharged.
  Order discharged accordingly.
  Bill withdrawn.

  CANADA (ONTARIO BOUNDARY) BILL [LORDS]. (No. 346.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.

  PASSENGER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS]. (No. 327.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  MARRIAGES (BASUTOLAND, &c.) BILL [LORDS]. (No. 352.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  WINDWARD ISLANDS APPEAL COURT BILL [LORDS]. (No. 353.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) BILL. (No. 349.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [29th July] on Consideration of Bill, as amended.
  And which Amendment was, in Clause 18, page 7, line 35, after the word "higher," to insert the words "or other."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Debate resumed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SETTLED LAND ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 275.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, considered.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES BILL. (No. 294.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  STEAM BOILERS INSURANCE BILL. (No. 50.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  TRUST COMPANIES BILL [LORDS]. (No. 345.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  IRISH SOCIETY AND CITY COMPANIES SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Adjourned Debate on the Motion for the discharge of Mr. J. Morley from this Committee.
  MR. SEXTON: The Government have kept this notice on the Paper for a week after five Members of the Committee have seceded from it and formally separated themselves from it. I now find that the remnant of the Committee who have continued to sit after the withdrawal of hon. Members on this side have now performed the "happy despatch." They have instructed their Chairman to report to the House on the evidence which they have furtively taken; and as this evidence is of no value, the question is entirely unaffected, and remains to be dealt with by a new Committee. When the new Committee comes to be appointed, care will have to be taken that the inquiry is begun anew.
  Order postponed.

  MOTIONS.

    CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Rathbone, Bill to amend the Law relating to Charitable Trusts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Rathbone, Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Thomas Ellis, Viscount Wolmer, Mr. Cozens-Hardy, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Ho worth, and Mr. Bryce.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 359.]

    REGULATION OF RAILWAYS (No. 2).
    On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Bill to amend the Regulation of Railways Acts, and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks Beach and Baron Henry de Worms.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 360.]

  TRUST FUNDS INVESTMENT BILL. (No. 280.)
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 361.]

  FACTORS ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL. (No. 80.)
  Order [27th May] that the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c, read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.