Commons Sitting of 23 June 1890

MAHARAJAH OF REWAH (PETITION).
Ordered, That the Petition of the Princes and subjects of the Maharajah of Rewah, presented 10th June, be printed and circulated with the Votes.—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)
QUESTIONS.

  SALT TAX IN ORISSA.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India would grant a Commission to inquire into the whole question of the Salt Tax in Orissa, and the effects resulting from the administration of the tax being placed under the Madras Authorities; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Report from the Bengal officials concerning the present manner of levying the tax and its result on the population?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): No, Sir. In the opinion of the Secretary of State it is not necessary at present to appoint a Commission. A special Report has been called for respecting salt affairs in the district of Orissa.

  THE REGISTRAR GENERAL'S RETURNS.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that, according to the last Report of the Registrar General, in addition to 25,132 cases in which the cause of death was "ill defined or not specified" in medical certificates of death, 15,747 deaths occurred in England and Wales, in 1888, in which the cause of death was not certified either by a medical man or coroner; and whether, taking that fact into consideration, Government will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the sufficiency of the existing law as to the disposal of the dead, for securing an accurate record of the causes of death in all cases, and specially for detecting them where death may have been due to poison, violence, or criminal neglect?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,, St. George's): There were 25,132 deaths in 1888 in which the cause of death was "ill-defined or not specified," and 15,747 deaths in which the cause was not certified by either a medical man or coroner; but it is not the fact that the 25,132 deaths were all of them cases in which there was a medical
  1624
  certificate, or that they were in addition to the deaths in which there was no certificate forthcoming. The great bulk of the 15,747 uncertified deaths are, I am informed by the Registrar General, included in the 25,132 deaths in which the cause was either not specified or not sufficiently defined for due classification. As regards the 15,747 deaths without medical or coroner's certificate, it must not be assumed that these were all cases in which there was no medical attendance. Many of them were, doubtless, cases which had been attended by unregistered medical practitioners, who cannot give legally recognisable certificates. The proportion both of deaths in which the cause is ill-defined or not specified and of uncertified deaths has been gradually diminishing. Thus, in the years 1881–1887 the proportion of the ill-defined deaths averaged 5·7 per cent, of all deaths registered, but in 1888 it was only 4·9 per cent. As regards uncertified deaths, the proportion in 1879 was 4·7 per cent., and this fell gradually, until, in 1888, it was 3·1 per cent. As I stated in reply to a previous question of the hon. Member's, the Registrar General has good reason to know that a very large proportion of the cases of uncertified deaths are reported by Registrars to Coroners prior to their registration, although those officers, in the exercise of their discretion, decide that it is unnecessary to hold inquests. It is too late to entertain the question of the appointment of a Select Committee this Session, but I will promise the hon. Member that the question of the expediency of such a Committee shall be carefully considered during the recess.

  TREATIES OF COMMERCE.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if a representative of the trading interests of Canada, Australasia, South Africa, and India, will be appointed to the Committee now in process of formation, to consider the Treaties of Commerce which are about to expire?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): No, Sir. It is proposed to confine this Committee to representatives of the commercial interests in the United Kingdom.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: Then in what way is the colonial interest to be considered?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The commercial policy of our self-governing colonies, with one great exception, is altogether different from our own.

  BETTING PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. S. SMITH: I Leg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Recorder of Liverpool in some prosecutions of betting clubs which have recently been before him, in which the defendants succeeded in getting off; whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the "Waterloo Club," and to the evidence that it was a betting club, and to the summing up of the Recorder in this case, in which he is reported to have said that—
  "The Legislature had never taken a decisive course in regard to betting. Betting under the Act of Parliament had a special meaning, namely, that one person paid or received what was wagered by others. It would not be against the Act if two members of the club made a bet, and the one paid the other."
  The defendants were found not guilty on the charges of "keeping," "using," "permitting," and "assisting;" whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the "Tarleton Club," in which the defendants had been fined by one of the City Justices for keeping the club open for betting purposes, which conviction was quashed by the Recorder of Liverpool upon an exception taken by the counsel for the defendants to the convictions, on the ground that they proceeded against the defendants as owners or occupiers of the premises, whereas, though they were shareholders, the premises were rated as occupied by the Tarleton Club Company, Limited; and whether he is prepared to recommend legislation to remedy these defects in the law, as evidenced by the above cases?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the learned Recorder that the report of what he said in the case of the Waterloo Club is not accurate. What he did say was that the Legislature had never prohibited betting, or made it unlawful, but had
  1626
  only made bets irrecoverable by law. He also said that the statute 16 and 17 Vict., cap. 119, under which the defendants were indicted, had been held to apply to places where money was received in advance on one side, and not to betting generally. Unless this club could be proved to be such a place the defendants were entitled to their acquittal. With regard to the Tarleton Club, the defendants had been convicted as "owners" and "occupiers." There was no evidence that this was the case, as the counsel for the Justices admitted. The above cases do not, therefore, disclose any serious defect in the law; and I can hold out no hope of legislation on this subject at any early date.

  SWAZILAND.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give to the House any information in respect to the negotiations now proceeding for the settlement of Swaziland?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): I regret that the negotiations have not reached a stage at which it would be possible to give the House any information except that Her Majesty's Government are at present waiting for a reply from the Government of the South African Republic to the latest communications of Sir H. Loch.
  MR. S. LEIGHTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what the purport of the instructions sent to the High Commissioner is?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: It is impossible for me to give the House that information.
  MR. BRYCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will be in a position to furnish the desired information?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The length of time that must elapse will depend on the time it would take to get the answers from the South African Republic.

  THE SOUTH AFRICAN COMPANY.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House what is the estimated extent in

  1627
  square miles of the territory placed by Royal Charter under the control of the South African Company, and the estimated population of the native tribes inhabiting it; whether Mr. Cecil Rhodes, the Chairman of the Company, is under an obligation to report to the High Commissioner of South Africa, or is independent of him; and whether he can say what is the number of soldiers or police in the employ of the company, and what is the name of the officer in command of them, and from whom he receives his commission?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: No territory is placed under the control of the British South African Company by the Royal Charter. The effect of that Charter is to enable the company to exercise as a corporation any concessions and any powers of control granted by local rulers. Mr. Rhodes is not chairman of the company. As one of the officers of the company (managing director in South Africa), he is bound under Section 18 of the Charter to communicate freely with the High Commissioner, and to pay due regard to any requirements, suggestions, or requests which the High Commissioner may make to him. The number of police in the company's employment is believed to be 500. There is also a body of 150 miners and settlers, called pioneers. The officer temporarily in command of the police is Colonel Pennefather. He, of course, receives from the company any commission which he may hold for the purpose of his police command.
  MR. S. LEIGHTON: Is he obliged to report to the High Commissioner?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Any action the Company may take they are bound to report to the High Commissioner.

  CYPRUS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any step has been taken to meet the wishes expressed to Her Majesty's Government by the deputation from Cyprus last year, either in the way of reforms in the civil administration or of relief from taxation; and, if so, whether he will state what changes have been introduced?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The views of Her Majesty's Government on the representations of the deputation from
  1628
  Cyprus will be found in the Parliamentary Paper C, 6,003, recently distributed, especially in the Secretary of State's Despatch of the 22nd of March, 1890, at p. 23. Various reductions of expenditure have been made, and some other reforms will be initiated, as described in the papers referred to; but it would be impossible to state the particulars within the limits of an answer.
  MR. S. LEIGHTON: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the question on the Estimates.

  LUNACY.
  MR. W. CORBET: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy for the year 1889 will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Commissioners that this Report is now with the printers, and they hope to be able to lay it on the Table of the House at the end of the week.
  MR. W. CORBET: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Report of the Inspectors of Lunatics for the year 1889 will be laid upon the Table?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUK,): The Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums hope to be in a position to lay the Report in question upon the Table of the House during next month.

  NEW DOCK AT GIBRALTAR.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will undertake, with reference to the proposed construction of a graving dock at Gibraltar, to follow the precedent set in the case of the Somerset Dock at Malta, and submit to Parliament all designs and papers referring thereto before entering into any contract or arrangement for its construction.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The design and details of the Somerset Dock at Malta were not submitted to Parliament, but certain correspondence and plans showing the position of the new dock were presented to Parliament after the work had been taken in hand. The responsibility for

  1629
  the selection of a suitable site and plan of the proposed dock at Gibraltar must rest with the Government, and the Board of Admiralty are fully prepared to accept that responsibility.

  CARDIFF RIFLE VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Western Mail, of the 19th instant, in which it is reported that great dissatisfaction exists among the Rifle Volunteers of Cardiff, in consequence of the amalgamation of the two detachments; whether, in consequence, only very few members attend parade; whether it was a well known fact that the amalgamation was very distasteful and would be resented; whether previous to the amalgamation both detachments were numerically strong and efficient; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made, in order to make arrangements that will be satisfactory to members of both detachments?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The amalgamation referred to was a regimental arrangement, which would have been carried out much earlier if it had not been for debts on the part of one of the detachments. It is reputed that since the amalgamation the attendance has improved, and that the strength is greater than before it took effect.

  UPPER DIVISION CLERKS.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury Minute relating to the Upper Division Clerks will be laid upon the Table?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I regret that I must refer my hon. Friend to several previous answers I have given, explaining the reasons for the length of time which it takes to deal with this important question.

  ENGLISH HOPS.
  MR. H. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States Government intend to increase the duties upon English hops by 25 per cent.?
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): According to a late edition of the Tariff Bill published in America, it appears that the duty on British hops is to be raised from 8c. to 15c. (4d. to 7½d.) per lb., or nearly doubled.

  HOME OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether complaint has been made that the plastering, or a portion of it, at the new Metropolitan Police Office has been sub-let by the contractor to a piece-master named Charles Peak; whether complaint has been made that the subcontractor is an unfair employer; whether his attention has been called to a report of a case tried at Bow Street on 10th June, when the said Charles Peak was summoned by four plasterers for money due to them, and condemned to pay the claim and all costs; and whether complaint has been made that the plastering is being done in an imperfect manner, and with adulterated or inferior material, so that the Clerk of the Works has been compelled to condemn some of the work?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Charles Peak was employed by the contractor to superintend the work of the plasterers at the new Police Offices. He was not a subcontractor. He was paid a weekly wage, and he did not pay the men or supply the material. He engaged the men, and had the power of dismissing them. No complaint has been made to the Receiver of Police that Peak is an unfair employer. I have not seen a report of the case in question, but I am informed that it had nothing to do with Peak's employment at the Police Offices. Complaint has been made that some of the architraves and mouldings had not been done in accordance with the specifications. They have been condemned by the architect, and will be made good by the contractor. The further services of Charles Peak have been dispensed with.

  THE GOVERNOR OF NEW SOUTH WALES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when does Lord

  1631
  Carrington's term of office, as Governor of New South Wales, expire; has any successor been appointed to succeed him; and whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has unofficially submitted the name of Lord Carrington's successor to the Prime Minister, Sir Henry Parkes; or is it his intention to do so?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Lord Carring ton has expressed a wish to resign in November. No successor has yet been appointed. The Secretary of State's Despatch of the 8th July, 1889, presented to Parliament in the Paper C, 5828, shows the views of Her Majesty's Government as to consulting the Colonial Governments before appointing Governors, and I have nothing to add.

  ZANZIBAR.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement contained in an interpellation to the French Government, of which, according to a Reuter's Despatch dated Paris, 19th June, M. Deloncle has given notice to the effect that in 1862 Lord Cowley, on behalf of Great Britain, and M. Thouvenel, on behalf of France, signed a declaration by which the two countries mutually agreed not to interfere with the independence of Zanzibar, and that Germany gave her adhesion to this declaration in 1862; and whether any such agreement as that alleged was entered into between France and this country; and, if so, was the consent of France to the abrogation of the agreement obtained before entering into the arrangement regarding Zanzibar, announced in Lord Salisbury's Despatch to Sir E. Malet of the 14th inst.?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The agreement in question was entered into, but Her Majesty's Government are not of opinion that it is interfered with by the assumption of a Protectorate of the dominions of the Sultan with his full consent.
  DR, CAMERON: Is it true, as stated in an Exchange telegram published this afternoon, that satisfactory communication has passed between the French and English Governments on the subject of the Protectorate of Zanzibar?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir; that is not true. I can only say that information of the intention of England to assume this Protectorate has been conveyed to
  1632
  the French Government, but it had not reached the hands of the Minister when he made his speech on the matter to the French Assembly. Information has been conveyed, but no reply has yet been received.

  MILITIA NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.
  MR. R. T. REID: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why non-commissioned officers of Militia Corps (on Army engagement), performing the duties of pay sergeants of companies during training, are not remunerated in the same manner as those performing similar duties in the Regular Forces?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The allowance given to the Regular Forces was granted when the captain's contingent allowance was modified. No change has been made for the present in the contingent allowance of the Militia captains; but should any be adopted, the subject raised by the hon. Member will not be lost sight of.

  THE INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the case of entailed estates it is the practice of the Inland Revenue Department on the succession of each heir to charge any Probate, Succession, or other Death Duty in respect of heirlooms such as jewels, gold and silver plate, books, &c, often of great value; if so, upon what scale; and, if not, can he explain on what grounds?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Heirlooms, such as jewels, plate, pictures, and books, are charged with Probate Duty as part of the personal estate of the deceased person who, by his will, directs them to be held as heirlooms; but they are not charged with any Legacy or Succession Duty so long as they are enjoyed in kind only by any person or persons not having any power of selling or disposing thereof, so as to convert the same into money or other property yielding an income; but when the heirlooms are actually sold or disposed of, or come to any person having power to sell or dispose thereof, or having an absolute interest therein, then Legacy

  1633
  or Succession Duty is exacted as upon any other legacy or succession.
  DR. KENNY: Is it true that in regard to the Hamilton heirlooms no duty has been charged upon them, and will Succession Duty be not charged as the result of the sale of the so-called heirlooms?
  MR. GOSCHENasked for notice of the question.

  METROPOLITAN POST OFFICE COUNTERMEN.
  MR. CREMER: I had intended to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a Petition from the countermen of the metropolitan postal districts, which was transmitted to him through the Postmaster of the West Central district on the 13th of last month, asking him to favour a Committee of their class with an interview; and whether, seeing that he recently granted a similar application to the telegraphists and sorters, he will accede to the request of the countermen? I will postpone the question until to-morrow.

  IRELAND CHARGES AGAINST THE POLICE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the Report of the proceedings at the Rathmore (County Kerry) Petty Sessions on the 14th instant, from which it appears that a number of men were charged with having assaulted the police, and that two of the police assaulted (Constables O'Connor and Lett), who were at the time carrying rifles, admitted that they had been drinking previous to the occurrence; whether the two policemen, Burns and Cullinane, concerned in the disturbance at Timoleague, County Cork, on the 3rd of September last, in which Daniel Donohoe lost his life by a revolver shot fired by Constable Cullinane, also admitted that they had been drinking previous to the occurrence; whether his attention has been called to the increasing frequency of cases of this kind, pointing to the spread of drinking habits among the Irish police; and, whether the rule which formerly existed, prohibiting constables from drinking or visiting public houses while on
  1634
  duty, is still in force; and, if not, when and why it was abrogated?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The case referred to in the first paragraph is sub judice, having been adjourned to the 30th instant. With regard to the general allegation as to increase of drunkenness amongst the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Inspector General informs mo that, having given special attention to this point, he is able testate that offences of this kind have, during recent years, very much declined. It is at present, and always has been, a strict rule of the Service that men should not enter a public house when on duty, unless the duty itself requires their presence.

  THE CLANRICARDE TENANTRY.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Timothy Clarke is at present undergoing a sentence of three months' imprisonment in consequence of his signing the Relieving Officer's book, in his capacity as Guardian in the Portumna Union, for outdoor relief given to Lord Clanricarde's evicted tenants, and for which he was surcharged by the Local Government Auditor, summoned before Petty Sessions Court, and ordered to be imprisoned for the above term; whether it is a fact that on a former occasion Mr. John Eyre, J.P., late Chairman of the same Board, signed the Relieving Officer's book for a sum four times the amount given by Mr. Clarke; whether Mr. Eyre, although surcharged by the Auditor in the amount signed for by him, and decreed at Petty' Sessions for same, no attempt was made to levy the amount, and no punishment was inflicted upon him for his default; and if he will explain why such different treatment was accorded to these two Guardians?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that Mr. Clarke was proceeded against in the circumstances stated in the first paragraph, and that the Magistrate issued a warrant of distress for the amount, £47 10s., with the alternative penalty of three months' imprisonment. Upwards of two and a half years previously Mr. John Eyre was proceeded against for a surcharge of £40 10s., a decree obtained, and a warrant issued

  1635
  to levy the amount, which, however, proved unproductive. The failure in Mr. Byre's case and some other cases about the same time arose from the fact that the proceedings were taken under the 28th section of the 10th Vict., chap. 31, which gives no power to the Magistrates to order imprisonment in the event of failure to distrain. To obviate the possibility of a recurrence of a miscarriage of this nature, the auditor has brought all cases since then under Sections 95 and 103 of the 1st & 2nd Vic, chap. 56, which gives the power of imprisonment in the event of the amount of the surcharge not being recovered.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the attention of the Lord Chancellor been called to the case of Mr. Eyre, who is a Magistrate and a man of substance?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That question does not arise out of the question on the Paper. I was simply asked why two different modes of procedure were taken in two separate and distinct cases. I have pointed out that the proceedings in the first case were abortive.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it the fact that a Conservative Magistrate escaped scot-free, while a Nationalist got three months?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The procedure in Mr. Eyre's case was at the time the usual procedure.

  BELFAST POST OFFICE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to defer until to-morrow a question of which I have given notice, to ask the Postmaster General whether seven members of the first class of clerks in the Telegraph Department of the Belfast Post Office hold the additional appointment of provincial clerks in charge; whether five of these had this appointment bestowed upon them in recognition of long service, and in consequence of their having been, at the time at which it was conferred, superseded in promotion to the first class; if so, upon what grounds were they permitted to retain this appointment, subsequently, on receiving promotion to the first class; whether the discharge of the duties incident to that of provincial clerks in charge obliges the holders of the position to be absent for long periods from Belfast; and, if so, have their duties during their absence to be discharged by members of the
  1636
  second class without any extra remuneration, and does their absence also cause present members of the first class, who are not provincial clerks in charge, to be more frequently employed upon night duty; and, if this be so, whether he will constitute the present holders of the position of provincial clerks in charge supernumeraries upon the staff of the Belfast office, and promote an equivalent number of the second class to be members of the first class, so that members of this class shall not be called upon to undertake responsible first class duties without the emoluments appertaining to the position?

  THE LONDON COMPANIES IRISH ESTATES.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what are the amounts still held by the Purchase Commissioners for "the Fifth" Guarantees retained by them in the case of the sales of the London Companies' estates in Deny; and can any hope be held out that the Government will introduce Amendments in the Purchase Bill to prevent these amounts being paid over to the companies until the question of the liability of these bodies to the trusts for religion and education in Ireland, imposed by their charters, has been settled?
  MR, A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that the guarantee deposits held by them to the credit of the London Companies in respect of sales on their estates are as follows:—Drapers' Company, £19,156; Salters' Company, £46,418; Skinners' Company, £26,884; Fishmongers' Company, (including £237 lodged by the purchasers), £24,174. I hardly think an Amendment in the Purchase of Land Bill of the nature suggested by the hon. and learned Member is necessary, inasmuch as under the Ashbourne Act the question of paying over these guarantee deposits will not arise for some 20 years after the date of purchase.

  POLICE "SHADOWING."
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a report in the Freeman's Journal of the 11th

  1637
  instant, in which it is alleged that the Rev. Fathers O'Doherty, Callan, and Shiel, of Carrickmacross and Donaghmoyne, in the County of Monaghan, were shadowed by four police constables on several Sundays and holy days, recently, while attending the chapels of Corcreagh, Corduff, and Donaghmoyne, for the purpose of celebrating Mass and discharging the other functions of their sacred office; that Fathers Callan and O'Dwyer were on several occasions shadowed by police to the houses of persons whom they were called to attend to in serious illness; whether this report is correct; and, if so, has he any objection to state the grounds and the authority upon which this police shadowing is carried on; and will he order it to be discontinued?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that the rev. gentlemen referred to have been watched by the police in so far as it was necessary to prevent them from holding meetings of the National League, which has been suppressed in that district as an unlawful association, in consequence of the boycotting and intimidation practised by it there. Two of these rev. gentlemen openly in chapel advised their congregations to defy the law in this respect, one of them asking for subscriptions for the purpose, and directing his hearers, if the policemen asked them any questions, to tell them a bundle of lies; that to do so was no sin—not even a venial one. On one occasion when the police were following Mr. O'Doherty he entered a house where a sick person was. The police at once passed on for about a distance of a quarter of a mile, where they remained. The police observation of these rev. gentlemen will, of course, cease immediately upon their ceasing from their attempts to defy the law.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman name any day in last month when these gentlemen attended an illegal meeting. Is it not the fact that they were watched in consequence of the boycotting of a railway company, and seeing that they have triumphed, as the people always will, is there any reason for watching them now?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of
  1638
  persons "shadowed" in Ireland, and the number "watched" by the police, and the number of policemen engaged in these operations? I have also to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it would be possible to grant a Return, giving the names and addresses of the persons "shadowed" or "watched" by the police in Ireland, and the causes therefor, for each year since 1884; and, if not, can he give the numbers respectively in each year?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that it would be impossible to state accurately the number of persons watched by the police from time to time, and the number of the latter who discharge this along with their other duties, as the necessity varies from day to day. It would be impracticable, but even if practicable inexpedient in the public interest, to give a nominal Return of the nature indicated in the second question. But I am informed that, speaking generally, the present number of suspects in Ireland is believed to be very inconsiderable, as compared with the earlier years under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state who or what the suspects were. But the point of my question was, How many persons are now shadowed in Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I have answered the question of the hon. Member.
  MR T. M. HEALY: I suppose I could not have made my point clear. I want a distinct answer as to the number-of persons now shadowed in Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have told the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is impossible for mc to give the information asked for.
  MR T. M. HEALY: Does the inability of the right hon. Gentleman to provide the information arise out of his reluctance to give it, or from the number being so large that it is beyond computation?
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: No, it is not beyond the powers of computation. It arises largely from the fact that the necessities vary from day to day.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House the number shadowed on any particular day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider that question, but I am afraid that no accurate inference could be drawn from it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then to-morrow I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the number for a week.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether it is true that Mr. James O'Brien, of Killeagh, was arrested at Youghal Fair, last Monday, by a common policeman in plain clothes, who was occupied in closely "shadowing" Mr. O'Brien; and if he can explain why Mr. Redmond, R.M., was specially telegraphed for to investigate the charge of this gentleman accused of obstructing his "shadow"? I would further ask whether it is a fact that Mr. O'Brien was kept in a black hole, in a filthy unsanitary condition, for several hours, during which the Prison Authorities treated him with the utmost cruelty?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I should think the matter alleged in the further question is not a fact. The Constabulary Authorities report that O'Brien was arrested by a constable in uniform on a charge of wilfully obstructing a constable on detective duty in plain clothes. The charge being brought under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act the attendance of a Resident Magistrate was necessary.
  DR. TANNER: Was the constable who arrested Mr. O'Brien "shadowing" him in an offensive way, and is it the fact that the only charge laid against Mr. O'Brien was that he followed the constable in question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know nothing about the second part of the question. With regard to the first part the policeman who followed Mr. O'Brien was in uniform.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is it the fact that when Mr. O'Brien was brought before a Magistrate he asked to see a solicitor and a friend, and that both requests were denied, as also was an offer which he made to find bail in £1,000 to answer any charge that might be made against him? Further, is it the fact that Mr. O'Brien was insulted by the policeman and beaten, that when taken to prison he was stripped naked, and that his clothes, which were taken from him under the plea that it was
  1640
  necessary to search him, were not returned to him for 24 hours?
  MR. FLYNN: Why was Mr. O'Brien arrested at all instead of being summoned in the ordinary way?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask for notice of these questions.
  DR. TANNER: I will put a question on the Paper to-morrow about the scandalous and blackguardly behaviour——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must observe Parliamentary propriety in his questions.
  DR. KENNY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year, when the two hon. Members for Clare (Mr. Cox and Mr. Jordan) attended at Ennis in response to a summons sent to them by the Registrar of the Clare Infirmary, of which institution they are Governors, to take part in the election of a physician to the infirmary, they were shadowed by the police during their entire stay in Ennis, and that during the entire time the election above mentioned was proceeding a police guard was stationed in the immediate vicinity of the infirmary, and whether he can state by whose direction the police acted in the manner above described?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the hon. Members in question were watched by a policeman, who had a reason to suppose that they were going to hold an illegal meeting. No police guard was stationed at or near the infirmary.
  MR. SEXTON: Was there any "shadowing" by the police at the last fair at Dungarvan, County Watorford, as there had been at every previous fair in the same place for some time past, and have any instructions to restrain or restrict the practice of "shadowing" been lately issued on the part of the Government to any officials in Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The authorities report that the police had instructions to watch for any boycotting, but no boycotting was attempted. No instructions have lately been issued to restrain or restrict the practice called "shadowing."

  LICENCES.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the unanimous judgment of the Court of Queen's

  1641
  Bench in Ireland, of the 17tli instant, upholding a decision of the Justices at Lurgan Quarter Sessions on 28th May, refusing to grant a transfer to Patrick Blayney of a licence for the house, 49, Church Street, Lurgan, held by his brother, the late James Blayney, on the ground of the "unfitness of the applicant" and "the unsuitability of the premises"; has he observed that it was proved in the case as follows: that the house in question was licensed for 70 years, and no objections had been made against the persons who held the licence during that time; that Patrick Blayney died in March, leaving the house to James Blayney, who got a protection order enabling him to carry on the business until the Quarter Sessions; that on the case coming before the Quarter Sessions, six Magistrates voted against the transfer, and five in favour of it; that the County Court Judge (Judge Kisbey) made it a rule not to vote on these eases, but intimated that if he did vote he would have voted in favour of the transfer; that the police made no objection to the transfer, but it was opposed on behalf of the Lurgan United Temperance Association; that there was no other opposition of any kind; that the house was largo and commodious: that the applicant resided a mile and a half from the house, but his son resided on the premises, and was 30 years of age; that Chief Justice O'Brien said the police appeared to have rather supported the application; that the only suggestion as to the "unfitness of the applicant" was that he was a Catholic, while the majority of the Justices were Protestants; and that, nevertheless, the Queen's Bench felt constrained to refuse even a conditional order to quash the Justices' decision on the ground that the matter was purely within their discretion; was Probate Duty charged on the licence-asset in this case during the 70 years the licence lasted; and will orders be given after this decision, and that of "Sharp v. Wakefield," that Probate Duty shall no longer be levied on licensed property; or will a test ease be taken to decide whether a licence is a mere precarious asset or a practically permanent property?
  COLONEL WARING: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask whether it is
  1642
  not a fact that the "large and commodious" premises in question were only 13 feet in front, and 26 feet in depth, that they were old and dilapidated, had a thatched roof and an unenclosed garden, that was open day and night?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot answer that question. With regard to the question on the Paper I have to say that, if the facts are as described by the hon. Member, it would appear that the Queen's Bench Division refused the application for a conditional order to quash the Justices' decision on the ground that the matter was within their discretion, and that they had found the applicant unfit and the premises unsuitable. So probate was charged on the will of the late Mr. James Blayney (not Mr. Patrick Blayney), who died in March of this year, as the gross assets were sworn under £100, and the licence was not accounted for an asset, being probably considered of no value, as the concern is a very small one. The same circumstances have probably applied to the licence in question during the last 70 years. This decision, and that of "Sharp v. Wakefield" do not convince me that Probate Duty should not be levied on licences. When the goodwill of licences ceases to be bought and sold for valuable considerations, then the time will come to consider whether Probate Duty shall cease to lie levied on licensed property.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it a fact that after a licence had been attached to the premises for 70 years it rests with the Magistrates to take it away. Will the Government allow a test case to be taken to see whether it is legal to continue to charge Probate Duty under the circumstances detailed in the question?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Probate Duty is not in the first instance assessed by the Government. It is brought in in the schedule of assets by the executors of a deceased person. If there is no value put on the licence asset, there ought to be.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will lay upon the Table, as Parliamentary Papers, the following documents in connection with the licensing case of "Sharp v. Wakefield;" the statement of the case, and the judgments delivered in the Court of Appeal?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have made inquiries as to the case of "Blunt v. Byrne," which was cited by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton as a precedent for the hon. Member's proposal. I find that there was no authorised record of that case until the Report revised by the Judge was printed as a Parliamentary Paper, it not being the practice to include Jury cases in the Irish Law Reports. There is, therefore, a clear distinction between that case and the case of "Sharp v. Wakefield." But, apart altogether from any question of precedent, I remain of opinion that in the latter case there is no good reason to supplement the authorised Law Reports in the manner proposed.

  IRISH LIGHT RAILWAYS.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the West Donegal Railway Company, which is promoting the proposed Light Railway to Killybegs, in the County of Donegal, is notoriously insolvent, judgments having been marked against it for the price of rolling stock, and proceedings for a Receiver being pending; whether the company is largely in arrear for both principal and interest to the Treasury on foot of previous advances; whether the granting of State aid to a company so circumstanced is a violation of the principle laid down by Parliament in Section 4, Subsection 3, of "The Light Railways Act, 1889"; and whether the Killybegs line is that promoted by Mr. Barton, and reported on by Mr. Price?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSOS,): I am not aware that the hon. Member is justified in stating that the West Donegal Railway Company is "notoriously insolvent." The company has not yet begun to repay the principal of its debt to the Board of Works; but it is paying over £1,300 a year on account of the £1,600 due for interest, and the Revenue prospects are encouraging. Section 4, Sub-section 3 of the Light Railway Act, 1889, forbids the advance of a loan to a company in arrear with principal and interest, or to a company having a working agreement with a company in arrear. It is not, however, proposed to make any loan to this company. As regards the last paragraph, it would be
  1644
  equally true to say that Major General Hutchinson of the Board of Trade reported on the Killybegs line.
  MR. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman says it is not intended to make a loan to the railway. Is it intended to make a grant to it?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not in a position to say. That was not the question put to me. The question was, whether the Light Railways Act of 1889 forbids the granting of State aid. It does not forbid State aid, but it does forbid a loan.
  MR. CLANCY: What guarantee has the Government for the making of the line, seeing that the company by whom it is promoted have been unable to pay their way. Do the Government propose to make a grant to a Railway Company in regard to whom it is not sure that they will be able to pay the working expenses of the line?
  MR. JACKSON: The accounts would have to be audited by a person appointed by the Treasury.
  MR. CLANCY: Is a grant to be given in this case because the line is promoted by Mr. Barton?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not in a position to say that a grant is going to be made, and certainly not because the line is promoted by Mr. Barton.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any intention or proposal to appoint Mr. Barton, C.E., one of the promoters of the Killybegs Light Railway line, to any position in connection with the construction of light railways in Ireland, in which he would be placed in authority over the projects of rival promoters; and whether, if the Treasury sanction a grant in favour of the Killybegs line, they will put up the further engineering of it in competition?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not aware of any such intention.

  FAIR RENTS.
  MR. LALOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of cases of appeals from the fair rents fixed by the Sub-Commission for Queen's County that were disposed of by the Chief Commission at its recent sitting; and in how many cases were the rents fixed by the

  1645
  Sub-Commissions reduced, confirmed, and increased respectively?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that 60 Queen's County appeals were listed for hearing' at the recent sitting of the Court. Of these, 15 were cross appeals, leaving 45 cases for hearing at the sitting, which were disposed of as follows:—19 withdrawn, seven settled, seven confirmed, six rents raised by the Courts, one rent raised on enlarged area, one rent raised on consent, one adjourned in consequence of death of the party, two adjourned by request of the parties, and one stands over for judgment.

  MR. BARRY, P.L G.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Mr. Barry, P.L.G., at the instance of a policeman named Drought, against whom Mr. Barry had previously instituted legal proceedings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the defendant, having failed to appear to a summons on a charge of assaulting the sergeant, a warrant was issued for his arrest.

  TREATMENT OF POLITICAL PRISONERS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the manner in which the police escort behaved to two political prisoners, Messrs. Thomas and William Kent, who were brought from the County Court Gaol to a Court held in Fermoy on Monday the 16th of June, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and why and for what reason were the prisoners handcuffed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the prisoners mentioned were handcuffed at the request of the prison officer who had them in charge with the object of producing them in Court under a writ of habeas corpus. The handcuffs were only used when passing through crowds with a small police escort. On the return journey handcuffs were not used, the escort having been increased.

  THE BISHOP OF DERRY.
  MR. T. M. HBALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the letter of the Most Rev. Dr. O'Doherty, Bishop of Derry, in the Freeman's Journal of the 20th instant, in reference to his statement that
  "The Prisons Board were most anxious that the Bishop should nominate a clergyman (to be chaplain of Derry Gaol), and they requested him to do so, but up to the present he had taken no action;"
  whereas his Lordship asserts that, al though elected Bishop on 2nd October and consecrated on 2nd March, he never since, directly or indirectly, received any communication from the Prisons Board; can any explanation of the discrepancy be given; what were "the evil effects of the action of the Roman Catholic Bishop" of which he complained; and did Sir Lintorn Simmons, while in Rome, or any other English official, make any representations to the Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Catholic Church upon the action of the Lord Bishop of Derry or his clergy?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not seen the letter referred to. Apparently, the Bishop trusted to the Freeman's Journal report. I mentioned the vicar capitular. There is, therefore, no discrepancy. It was presumed that the new Bishop would be acquainted with business affecting the diocese brought before the locum tenens who presided over the See. I am glad to think that the failure to appoint a chaplain may be due to this opinion being erroneous. The matter has been now formally brought to the attention of the present Bishop. The last question should be addressed to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What does the right hon. Gentleman refer to when he speaks of evil effects?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I stated before that the evil effects of the failure of the Roman Catholic Authorities were that a great number of prisoners of that religion are deprived of the religious services of their Church.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman apologise to the Bishop for this statement?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not necessary to apologise to him; if he will read the account of what passed in the fuller report in the Times, he will see that the only attack, if it can be said that I made any attack, was that either he did not consider himself bound to know what took place while his predecessor was in office, or, having made himself acquainted with what had taken place, he did not take the necessary steps to appoint a chaplain.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman says he does not road the Freeman's Journal; does he expect the Roman Catholic Bishops to read the Times?

  RIFLE RANGES IN IRELAND.
  MR. J. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of Government to rent or purchase, at Castlecomer, a new rifle range for the use of troops stationed at Kilkenny; whether, about five years ago, on the advice of experienced officers, the lease of the rifle range at Duncannon was renewed at a yearly rental of £130, and that this lease has still many years to run; whether any difficulty has been found in accommodating troops in the excellent barracks at Duncannon Fort, and in tents in the Fort; and whether he can explain on what grounds it has been determined to give up this old station, and to sacrifice many hundreds of pounds which must be paid to the owners of the Duncannon range during the unexpired years of the lease?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: In an answer given to the hon. Member for North Kilkenny on the 26th November, 1888, it was shown that a range in the neighbourhood of Kilkenny was much required, but that serious local difficulties had occurred in acquiring the necessary ground at Castlecomer. Those difficulties are now, I hope, about to be overcome, and a range will be formed for the troops in Kilkenny. The rangeat Duncannon Fort is held for 21 years from 1885, at a rental of £125 a year, and it will still be used for the troops at Waterford and Wexford. There is no difficulty in accommodating troops at Duncannon Fort; but a large expense in transport will be saved if a range be established near Kilkenny.

  SCHOOLS AT TIPPERARY.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the statement in the Times of the 20th instant, to the effect that a number of children attending the Convent and National Schools, Tipperary, left, because the children of some policemen were received as pupils; that they marched through the streets in a body, and were eventually dispersed by the police; and what was the reason for their dispersal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that on the 18th, 19th, and 20th instant children stayed away from the Convent and National Schools, Tipperary, on account of the children of the police and other boycotted people attending those schools. On the 18th the procession was not disorderly, and was not interfered with. On the 19th it was disorderly, and two flags were taken from it, whereupon it dispersed. On the 20th some grown lads joined the procession, stones were thrown from it at a tenant who was believed to have paid his rent. A little girl was seriously injured by being struck upon the head with one of the stones. Two policemen arriving upon the scene, the procession dispersed.

  PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as the Prisons Board have reported that one warder has complained of being subjected to annoyance in public while wearing the prison official uniform, if such warder has attributed such annoyance arose from belief that warders were engaged in odious duties as regards Irish political prisoners?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The warder referred to did not make any such allegation as that suggested in the question. His objection was one on general grounds. He mentioned one instance in which a drunken man had insulted him.

  TULLAMORE GAOL.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will direct the

  1649
  discontinuance of the rule that after every interview of a solicitor with a client in an Irish gaol, as admitted in the cas3 of the interview of Mr. J. J. O'Meara and Mr. M'Enery in Tullamore Prison last week, "that such prisoner is searched;" whether on the occasion of the visit of Mr. M'Gough, solicitor to Mr. Finucane, M.P., last year in the same prison, the interview took place in a private room, and not in a corridor in sight of warders, as in Mr. M'Enery's case; and if he will explain the reason of the change?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that the question of searching of prisoners for prohibited articles lies in the discretion of the Governor, who is responsible for preventing the introduction of such articles into the prison. On the occasion referred to in the second paragraph the prisoner was in hospital, and the interview was in one of the vacant wards, but, as usual, under the observation of an officer, through an opening in the door.

  THE OLPHERT ESTATE.
  MR. DALTONpostponed until Tuesday a question to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at Falcarragh Petty Sessions, on Tuesday the 17th, in which a man named Peter M'Ginley was charged by a bailiff on the Olphert Estate named Conaghan with assault, and in which, on a cross summons, Conaghan was charged by M'Ginley with assault and with having presented a revolver at him and threatened to shoot him, and to the decision of the Court, consisting of two Resident Magistrates, that, though Conaghan's conduct was reprehensible in this ease and generally in going about the country with a revolver and threatening to shoot people M'Ginley should be imprisoned for a fortnight and then be held to bail to keep the peace for 12 months, while Conaghan should be held to bail merely; whether he will direct the attention of the Lord Lieutenant to to this decision with a view to the remission of at least the latter part of the sentence inflicted on M'Ginley, who would appear to have acted only in self-defence against a murderous attack on his life; whether the bailiff Conaghan
  1650
  was given a licence to carry firearms; and, if so, by whom, and whether his licence will now be withdrawn; and whether, in view of the fact that this is the third instance within a recent period of human life being threatened in the Falcarragh district by persons licensed to carry firearms, a revision of the list of persons so licensed will be ordered with a view to the removal from it of the names of all persons who have abused the privilege conferred upon them, or who have not furnished satisfactory guarantees that they will use the privilege with discretion?

  FERMOY PETTY SESSIONS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by whose orders were two Magistrates present at the Fermoy Petty Sessions to hear a summons for assault brought by Mr. Barber, a newspaper correspondent of Fermoy, against a policeman named Kelly, on Monday the 16th instant; whether it is usual for two Resident Magistrates to attend ordinary Sessions; and, whether Mr. Hodder, R.M., is a Magistrate for the County Clare?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Two Resident Magistrates attended at Fermoy on the occasion in question to adjudicate in cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act. It is not usual for two Resident Magistrates to attend ordinary Petty Sessions, except where they may happen to be available or their services required; the reply to the inquiry in the last paragraph is in the affirmative.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the largo and increasing expenditure of time consumed by the putting and answering of questions, many of them involving matters of no public importance, the Government will consider the possibility of dealing with this serious hindrance to public business by restricting the number of questions to be put by any one Member; by not allowing- a question to be put by proxy or to be put a second time, should the Member putting it on the Paper not be in his place when called upon; by limit-

  1651
  ing the number of questions to be put to a fixed number, Members to ballot for places, except in the case of a question asked by special leave of Mr. Speaker; or by fixing a certain time, say half an hour, as the time permitted for questions?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am quite sensible of the great waste of time that takes place in consequence of the great increase in the number of questions; but I am afraid the only way of altering the present system would be by new Rules of Procedure, and the time will not admit of such a course.
  MR. J. MORLEY: On this subject may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered the suggestion made to him the other day that the Irish Constabulary Vote should be taken on an early day?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not know whether that question arises out of this, but I will endeavour to make arrangements for taking the Irish Constabulary "Vote as soon as possible consistently with the other business.

  THE LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in accordance with his promise made on 12th November, 1888, he has examined carefully into the status of the Law Officers of the Crown, in order to see whether it would be advisable that they should continue to be allowed to take private practice; what conclusion the Government have come to on the subject; and what steps they propose to take in order to prevent the public duties of the Law Officers from being interfered with by their private practice?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The question has been receiving the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but, as I have stated before, it is one more for the decision of a future Government, as no change is practicable while the present Law Officers are in office. I may say, however, that no inconvenience or injury to the public interests will be caused by the present practice.

  THE SWEATING SYSTEM.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury
  1652
  whether the Government have abandoned the idea of legislating this Session in accordance with the suggestions contained in the Report of the Lords Committee on the Sweating System.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary informs me that he is preparing a Bill on this most important subject, and that there are some amendments to the existing law which, if the general consent of Members interested was forthcoming, might even, in what remains of the Session, be passed into law. The Government could not attempt to deal this Session with any controversial parts of the subject.

  THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the extinction of licences clauses of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government have had under their consideration the Amendments on the Paper to this Bill, and the nature of the opposition directed against it, and they have arrived at the conclusion that it is practically impossible in the present state of public business to pass the Bill in its entirety without calling on the House to submit to sacrifices the Government do not feel themselves justified in imposing. The licensing proposals in the Bill consists of three parts—(1) The allocation of a certain portion of the new taxation on intoxicating liquor for the purpose of extinguishing licences; (2) the power proposed to be conferred on County Councils to purchase and extinguish licences; (3) the suspension of the issue of new licences. The first of these proposals has received the assent of the House, both on the Second Reading of the Bill and after much discussion in Committee, so far as England is concerned. The Government, therefore, propose to proceed with the clauses dealing with the same point so far as Scotland and Ireland are concerned, thus setting aside the sum originally allocated for this special purpose. So far as the second part is concerned—the conferring of power on the County Councils to purchase licences—the Government do not propose to proceed with these clauses, at which the great bulk of the

  1653
  Amendments are directed, but they will ask the House to insert words the effect of which will be to allow the fund for the extinction of licences to accumulate until Parliament deals with the whole licensing question. This is very similar to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford. The third part of the licensing portion of the Bill is one which it is believed commends itself to all Parties in the House, I mean the suspension of the issue of new licences, and the Government propose to proceed with it. It will thus be seen that the practical result of the change proposed by the Government will be that the money will remain earmarked for the purpose of the extinction of licences under any general reform of the Licensing Laws to which Parliament may assent; but that until this takes place the money, instead of being available for the purpose of extinction of licences by the County Councils, will be allowed to accumulate. Accordingly, Sub-section 2 of the clause now under consideration, as amended, will read that—
  "The sum of £50,000 shall be applied to the purpose of such extinction of licences in Scotland as may be hereafter provided by any Act amending the Licensing Acts, and until such Act is passed shall be invested and accumulated as provided by this Act."
  According to this, Clauses 5, G, and 7 will disappear from the Bill.
  MR. CAINE: Arising out of the question, I wish to ask whether it is the intention of the Government during the present Parliament to introduce any measure amending the Licensing Laws so that this Amendment may be applied?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the hon. Gentleman must be satisfied to postpone any question of that kind until we have arrived at a further stage in the history of the present Parliament.
  SIR W. LAWSON: May I be allowed to give notice that there are a number of us who will oppose as steadfastly as we possibly can any proposal to vote any money to the purchase or extinction of licences.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  SIR W. HARCOITRT: I should like to ask a question of the right
  1654
  hon. Gentleman of which I have given him private notice—whether, in view of the anxiety at present prevailing with regard to the Metropolitan Police Force, he will make arrangements for the speedy settlement of the question by proceeding with the Police Superannuation Bill, and fixing the Second Reading for— I would suggest — tomorrow?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I trust the announcement I have made will shorten discussion on the Licensing Bill. I think it ought to do so, and therefore I hope that it will be in the power of the Government to propose the Second Reading of the Police Bill next week at the latest. Certainly it will follow on this Bill as soon as it is possible to make arrangements.

  CIVIL SERVANTS.
  MR. SAMUELSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how many Civil servants over the age of 70 years are drawing salaries of £500 and upwards, and what total number of years' service under the Crown each of these has given, including broken and continuous service; whether in the interests of economy and the efficiency of the service, and considering the probable paucity of such veterans, he will consider the advisability of retiring them, upon pensions as liberal as can be granted under Section 9 of "The Superannuation Act, 1859," such pensions to be based upon the total number of years they have served under the Crown, irrespectively of the total period of service having been broken?
  MR. JACKSON: There are no central records immediately available which would enable me to answer the first part of the hon. Member's question. There is power to require the retirement on the ordinary pension rates of any officer who is unequal to the performance of the duties of his position, and the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments has reported in favour of the retirement of Civil servants at 65 on ordinary pension. Section 9 of the Superannuation Act only permits special pensions to be given in recompense for special service, and it is not, therefore, applicable to the cases mentioned by the hon. Member.

  DERRY GAOL.
  MR. HARRISON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report made on the sanitary condition of Derry Gaol by the expert who was commissioned to investigate it; also, to ask whether an official from the English Prison Department visited Derry Gaol in the autumn of 1889 with a view to professionally examining into its sanitary condition; if so, whether he is prepared to lay this official's Report upon the Table of the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will lay the Report.

  THE LIMERIGG POST OFFICE.
  MR. J. BOLTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that the Sub-post Office at Limerigg, Slamannan, Stirlingshire, has been closed for about a month, to the great inconvenience of the residents in that district; and if he can state that the office will be re-opened, and when?
  MR. JACKSON: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. The Post Office at Limerigg will be re-opened as soon as a suitable person for the situation of Sub-Postmaster can be S3lected and instructed in the duties of the office. The inconvenience which has been caused by the temporary closing of the office is regretted, but was unavoidable, and every effort will be made to re-open it at an early date.

  H.M.S. TRIUMPH.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the obstruction caused by the position of the present guard ship Triumph stationed in Cork Harbour; whether he is aware that, in swinging at change of tides, the ship obstructs the entire channel; and why she is not moored in that part of the harbour known as the Man-of-War Roads, instead of the narrowest portion of the river near the town of Cove?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Triumph is so moored as to leave a sufficient passage for navigation on either side, whichever way she swings, and no com-
  1656
  plaints have been made either to the Admiralty or the Naval Authorities at Queenstown on the subject. There are serious objections to mooring the ship in the Man-of-War Roads, and as the present arrangement has been agreed to by the Cork Harbour Commissioners, I see no reason at present for any change.

  GREAT TURK AND CAICOS ISLANDS.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any inquiry will be made into the condition of the people resident in the Great Turk and Caicos Islands; and whether, considering the recent Colonial Report upon the chronic destitution there prevailing, some practical steps will be taken to relieve and remedy the poor people's pressing wants?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: No such inquiry is proposed, as the Secretary of State learns from periodical Reports that the inhabitants, though not well off, are as prosperous as those of many other parts of the West Indies, and that they are cheerful and orderly. The destitution mentioned in the Report for 1888, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, was exceptional, and was caused by the hurricane; but a sum of between £800 and £1,000 appears to have been spent by the local Relief Committee upon the sufferers by that calamity. The prosperty of the poorer class-depends chiefly on the salt industry, which fluctuates from year to year, but it is hoped that the fibre industry will shortly be introduced. The Commissioners of Turks Islands have spared no pains to ameliorate the condition of the people; a savings bank has been established, and has been eagerly taken advantage of; and mail communication with the islands has been improved.

  HELIGOLAND.
  LORD H. BRUCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before Heligoland is handed over to a Foreign Power, the wishes of the inhabitants will be consulted as to their remaining under the Union Jack?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I am afraid I must ask my noble Friend to be satisfied with

  1657
  the numerous answers which have been already given on the subject. We believe the Agreement to be one which will certainly not be to the disadvantage of the Heligolanders.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman state to the House whether the question of the cession of Heligoland did not come from Germany?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sure that the hon. Member will see that that is a question which ought not to be put in this House.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken to ascertain the views of the inhabitants of Heligoland on the subject of the proposed cession of the island to Germany; and whether it is intended that, in the event of the cession taking place, the inhabitants shall be liable to military service?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No steps have been taken to ascertain the views of the inhabitants of Heligoland. It is intended that all existing inhabitants shall be exempted from compulsory military service.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask wether a recent demonstration in Heligoland has not proved conclusively that the inhabitants wish to remain connected with this country; and whether the attention of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has been drawn to the statement in the Pall Mall Gazette that the people are extremely hostile to the proposed cession of the island?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have no official information of these statements.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I will ask whether any information has reached the Foreign Office with regard to the alleged conflict between French and Newfoundland fishermen, and what steps the Government propose to take to bring the dispute to a settlement?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am not in a position to answer that question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down for to-morrow.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I will.

  ALLEGED SHADOWING OF ENGLISH LADIES IN IRELAND.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by what authority and upon what evidence or suspicion of crime or criminal intent were three English ladies shadowed by the police in Tipperary on or about the 8th or 9th of July of last year?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that no English ladies were shadowed at Tipperary last July, as alleged in the question.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I stated last week the names of the three ladies who were shadowed. Does the right hon. Gentleman presume to set the statement of the Royal Irish Constabulary against the word of these ladies?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; but I think it is very likely the ladies were mistaken.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. H. L. W. LAWSON: I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether it is true that the new Chief Commissioner of Police has forbidden the Metropolitan Police to hold meetings of any kind for the discussion of their grievances?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The only prohibition of which I have heard is the prohibition of a meeting at Bow Street in special circumstances. The Commissioner of Police has prohibited that meeting, but he has-informed the men that their wishes and desires can be communicated in the regular way to the Government.

  THE LICENSING CLAUSES OF THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Having listened with satisfaction to the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the efforts which he has made to shorten the Debates upon the Licensing Bill; and bearing in mind that we are placed in some difficulty by the fact that we are to consider at once some of the Amendments which he has announced, I would ask him, as this particular proposal does not touch the substance of the proposals of the Government, whether he will consider the propriety of giving up the ear-

  1659
  marking of this money I That proposal has no practical effect, and I believe that the withdrawal of it would not weaken the position of the Government, and would greatly simplify the passage of a large portion of the Ministerial scheme.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I appreciate the spirit which has prompted the question of the right hon. Gentleman, but the Government cannot disregard the fact that this principle has received the approval of the House by a considerable majority. The Government do attach importance to this question. The money is to accumulate, to be at the disposal and under the direction of Parliament on future occasions. I will read the words again for the information of the right hon. Gentleman—
  "The sum of £50,000 shall be applied for the purpose of such extinction of licences in Scotland as may he hereafter provided by any Act amending the Licensing Acts, and until such Act is passed shall be invested and accumulated as provided by this Act."
  The money, therefore, will remain at the disposal of Parliament.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That leaves the Irish Question exactly where it was. Are we to understand that the section applying to Ireland is to remain as it stands?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I certainly propose that the words shall stand.
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the object of the great majority of the Scotch Members is to obtain this sum of £50,000 for the advancement of free education, and does the right hon Gentleman propose, by pressing this ear-marking clause, to announce the determination of the Government to disappoint the nearly unanimous wish of Scotchmen?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I need hardly point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is almost impossible to meet the wishes of everybody in this House. We are obliged to adhere to the plan we have indicated.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed to announce nakedly——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I withdraw that expression. I recognise that I went too far; but I wish to ask, how is it that the
  1660
  Government are not afraid to assert nakedly that in the case of Ireland this money is to be used for the extinction of licences? Why are not the words in the Scotch and Irish clauses to be the same?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There is no difference between the proposed application of the money in the case of Scotland and the application of it in the case of Ireland. The hon. and learned Member must have misunderstood my statement.
  MR. STOREY: Is there any precedent for passing an Act of Parliament for the purpose of creating a fund to be hereafter used in this or a future Parliament?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It has been done.
  MR. C. J. DARLING: I would ask whether, if this ear-marking clause is passed, it will in any way prevent Parliament from dealing with the money in another Session, or even in this, precisely as it pleases?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I know of nothing that can prevent Parliament from dealing with the money as it may think fit.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Does the Chief Secretary intend to persevere with the provisions relating to new licences, seeing that, as drawn, they are wholly inapplicable to the condition of Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is my intention to persevere with the proposals. If it should be shown to be necessary, the words will be altered to meet the case of Ireland.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to tell the House that if the clause applying the money to the purpose of extinguishing licences is passed, it will be possible for Parliament to deal with the money anew without first repealing the clause?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly not.
  MR. SCHWANN: I would suggest that, after the announcement of the First Lord of the Treasury, it would be advisable to postpone the further consideration of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Bill and to proceed this evening with other Orders.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I may remind the hon. Member that the Committee have now under consideration the 1st sub-section of the clause, and that it does not involve any reference to the

  1661
  question of the extinction of licences. Therefore, it would be quite out of the question to adjourn it further.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: But we shall come almost immediately to the 2nd sub-section, upon which the whole question will arise. I endorse the appeal of my hon. Friend that we should be given time in which to consider the character of the Government's proposals. The matter is very important, for if what the right hon. Gentleman opposite calls the ear-marking provision is inscribed in the Statute Book, supposing that in a future Session or future Parliament the House of Commons does not approve of applying the money to the purpose of the extinction of licences, it could not be applied to any other purpose without the consent of the House of Lords. We are to be committed in this Session to appropriating this money and accumulating it in future years to the purchase of licences, and that policy cannot be altered in the future without the consent of the House of Lords. If that is so, the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing to shorten the proceedings on this Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it is perhaps undesirable that I should enter into an argument on this question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is very desirable.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not sure whether it is perfectly in order to do so. I will only point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposal the Government has made was embodied in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford, and for which he voted last week.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Not to be devoted to licensing.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The effect of the proposal of the Government is substantially the same, only it is of a much more extended character, as the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Central Bradford last week. The proper course, undoubtedly, is to discuss the question when we arrive at the subsection in Committee, and I think I shall then be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. But I must remind him that any Licensing Bill that may pass this House must also be considered by the House of Lords. Therefore, any change in the present system, which we all desire to see changed, must have the
  1662
  approval and concurrence, as I believe it will have, of the other House.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the sub-section under discussion may be disposed of; but I earnestly appeal to the leader of the House to postpone for one day the 2nd subsection, so as to allow Scotch Members opportunity to consider the hearing of the Government proposals.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot give any promise to postpone Sub-section 2. When it is reached, the Government will hear the arguments and consider what course they will take.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What objection have the Government to withdrawing the clause? Is the First Lord of the Treasury aware that the Irish law on this subject is quite distinct from that of England?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Attorney General for Ireland has placed on the Paper an Amendment which simply applies the English clause to Ireland, to which it is totally inapplicable.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot venture to offer any opinion as to the value of the objection raised by my hon. Friend opposite to the Amendments of the Government as affecting Ireland; but I believe that, whatever value the objections have, they will apply equally to the Bill of the hon. Member for North Longford. I think the hon. Member will probably see that it will be convenient to deal with Ireland, England, and Scotland in one Bill if it be possible, and I will consider the best method of attaining that object.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to give notice that, as the Irish Members feel that Ireland is vitally interested in the English clause, it will be their duty to put down all their Amendments on the English clause.

  THE ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MR. DILLON: I have to ask whether the attention of the leader of the House has been drawn to the condition of the Notice Paper for this day, there appearing upon it 75 Orders, 30 of which are Government Orders; and whether, in view of the late period of the Session, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the desirability of making

  1663
  a final and definite statement on the subject of the measures to be proceeded with by the Government this Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot answer a question of that kind without notice. The course taken by the Government to-night is evidence of their desire to afford every opportunity to the House of making progress with business.
  MR. DILLON: I shall repeat the question to-morrow, because, whatever course may be adopted with reference to the Local Taxation Bill, I think there is no hope of our transacting all this business appearing on the Order Paper.

  THE INCIDENCE OF IMPERIAL TAXATION.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a long time has elapsed since the Government undertook to nominate immediately a Select Committee to inquire into the financial relations of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and I will now ask him to say definitely on what, day the terms of the Reference will appear on the Paper?
  MR. GOSCHENI think I can undertake to bring the matter forward tomorrow. So that there may be agreement on the terms of Reference, I will consult hon. Members who are interested in the subject.

  THE PROCLAMATION OF A MEETING AT NORTHAMPTON.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Homo Secretary whether he is aware that a meeting intended to be held in opposition to the Local Taxation Bill in the Market Place, Northampton, on Sunday, was prohibited by the Borough Magistrates on Saturday; whether the Magistrates have any right to prohibit a meeting of law-abiding citizens; and whether there is any special penalty attaching to any one attending such a meeting after this prohibition?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid the question involves some difficult points of law, and I must have notice before giving a full answer. I assume that the Magistrates had reasonable ground for anticipating that there would be a breach of the peace or some disorder.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: With reference to the answer just given, I will ask whether the Queen's Bench Division
  1664
  has not positively decided that Magistrates have no authority whatever to prohibit a meeting which seems likely to endanger the public peace; and whether this is not laid down in every recent text-book?
  SIR W. LAWSON: I have to ask whether the disorder anticipated at Northampton was anticipated to come from the promoters of the meeting or from the supporters of the Government?

  MR. BRADLAUGH: To what day will the Indian Councils Bill be postponed?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Next Monday.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Municipal Elections (Scotland) Bill; Kew and Petersham Vicarage Bill, without amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Law in regard to the Education of Blind and Deaf-mute Children in Scotland." Education of Blind and Deaf-Mute Children (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

MOTIONS.

  POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to make provision respecting the pensions, allowances, and gratuities of Police Constables in Scotland, and their widows and children, and to make other provisions respecting the Police of Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 353.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE— ABRIDGED PROCEDURE ON PARTLY CONSIDERED BILLS.
MR. W. H. SMITH: In moving the appointment of the Select Committee on Procedure, I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, as the object in view was explained a few days ago. In submitting this Motion we have taken advantage of the experience and thought of right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, because it is one of those questions on which I should strongly deprecate any vital difference of opinion. Daring the last 50 years frequent attempts have been made to deal with

1665
this question in this and in the other House of Parliament. It has been felt that some method of procedure which would save the time of the House and enable it to be more usefully directed to the consideration of measures of great detail would be exceedingly valuable. The system suggested exists in many other Parliaments in Europe and in the Congress of the United States, and it is one which I think the Parliaments who have adopted it would be extremely loth to part with. I do not propose to enter into any long' statement with regard to the Standing Order which. I had intended to submit to the House. It seems to me that it would be more respectful to the Committee that they should be left perfectly free and they should be asked to consider the form of procedure. It will be the duty of the Government to submit to the Committee the Standing Order which they had drawn up, and which it had been intended to submit to the House. I will only remark that the view of the Government, as expressed in the Standing Order, was confined entirely to Bills originating in the House of Commons. It did not propose to deal with Bills which originated in the other House or which have come down to us from that House, but it was intended to provide for the House of Commons improved methods of dealing with their own Bills and Bills which require careful and exhaustive consideration. I trust T shall be excused if I refrain from doing anything more than expressing an earnest desire that the consideration of this important subject will result in an arrangement that will increase the usefulness and maintain the high character of this House. I move the Resolution.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether by means of an abridged form of Procedure, or otherwise, the consideration of Bills, which have been partly considered in this House could be facilitated in the next ensuing Session of the same Parliament."— (Mr. William Henry Smith.)
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I can only say that I hope the few words I intend to speak on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman will have the effect of promoting a speedy and summary decision. The right hon. Gentleman has exhibited a conciliatory spirit in adopting the idea that the important suggestion he desired
1666
to make to the House should go before a Select Committee—a course agreeable to precedents in similar cases and agreeable also to the reason of the case. The right hon. Gentleman has said one or two words on the subject of the Standing Order of which he had previously given notice, and into that I think it is better I should not attempt to follow him; it is better to leave the matter entirely free and open for the unprejudiced consideration of the Committee. It is obvious that under the terms of reference the Committee will be in a condition either to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's Standing Order or to recommend any other, or to suggest proceeding by Bill, or to make any report they think proper. I recognise that, in proposing a Committee of this kind, it is the duty of the Government to assume a leadership and responsibility, and to submit something to the House for its consideration. That being so, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend behind me, who gave notice of a Motion, will have something to say. But I earnestly hope that, pressed as we are with business, and having another matter immediately before us for consideration when this is disposed of, we may get to that subject as soon as possible. Therefore, I hope the House will allow the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman to be put from the Chair as speedily as possible.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: Surely, Mr. Speaker, we do not require a Select Committee to tell us whether by means of an abridged form of procedure we can facilitate the business of the House. We could answer that question at once, and in the affirmative. The question is, is it desirable to adopt such a means of facilitating the business. It seems to me that the terms of reference to the Select Committee, as they are now worded, will confine the inquiry to the most formal and bald point; and, in fact, the Report of the Committee can be at once foreseen.
MR. BRADLAUGH: The Resolution is intended to effect what ought to be effected by direct enactment. There is a precedent going very near to this to be found in the 1 Geo. IV., cap. 101, sec. 4, with reference to Indian Divorce Bills, and I believe the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman, which is not yet in print, proposes to do exactly

1667
what was declared could not be done in that case, i.e., to continue Bills from, one Session to another. He is proposing to do by evasion that which certainly, according to precedent, should be done by direct enactment. As this precedent does not appear in the Paper of precedents circulated this morning, I felt it my duty to call attention to it.
MR. WHITBREAD: I do not want to prolong the discussion, especially after the appeal so very generously made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, but I must say I think it is open to remark that the proposals of the Government have been made hastily and without that careful consideration which this House has always been accustomed to give when its Rules of Procedure are proposed to be altered. The timely intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian saved the Government from committing a tremendous blunder, and from taking a step as revolutionary as it is possible to imagine with regard to public business. I am glad to see that now the right hon. Gentleman harks back to sound precedent in dealing with this question. I think his Motion should have been more carefully worded. He tells us now it is not proposed that this new Rule or Standing Order shall apply to Bills coming from the House of Lords. But the Notice he gave the other night said nothing about that. It is most important that the proposed Standing Order should not apply to Bills coming- from the Lords, but the Order which the First Lord of the Treasury was intending to thrust upon the House said nothing about excluding such Bills. That Notice certainly excluded Money Bills and Bills coming back from the Lords with Amendments, and I should think the exclusion of those Bills meant the inclusion of all others. I, for one, should not tacitly assent to the appointment of the Committee but for the assurance of the First Lord that the Rule will not apply to Bills coming from the Lords. It would be a very grave matter to allow it to so apply. Let us take a hypothetical case. In one Session this House might be engaged on a very contentious Bill, and send it up to the Lords, who, under the Standing Order, send it over to the next Session. But, before the Session
1668
arrived, public opinion becomes so manifest against the Bill that the Government cannot rely even upon its own majority to carry the Bill. Yet, if the Lords chose, they could pass it without Amendment, and the House could not prevent them doing so. That would be a very grave thing. I protest against the modern practice of constantly rushing to a change in the Rules of Procedure to meet the temporary exigencies of the Government. The House has had nearly enough of such changes in late years, change s which have not been fortunate in their result. I doubt whether they are calculated to expedite public business. I am glad the First Lord has been prevented setting another precedent. A Parliament armed with the Closure, which was granted for the purpose of bringing protracted Debates to an end, but which has been used for the purpose of forcing through the House Bills vitally affecting the liberties of the subject—a Parliament which has been the first of all Parliaments to declare itself incompetent to deal with questions affecting the character and honour of its Members, has done enough in the way of setting bad precedents. I believe that the Parliamentary difficulty is merely a symptom on the surface. You must look much deeper for the real evil. There is some danger in these days of depending too much on violent solutions of temporary difficulties. The House must not lose its faith in the power of argument as an effective weapon; it must not depend too much on mere mechanical forces and rules. I would much rather try to work on under the old rules than fly to others the evils of which we know not of.
MR. J. LOWTHER: I do not wish to carry this conversation further, and my only object in rising is to enter a caveat in regard to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), who appeared to be under the impression that there would be before the Committee only two alternatives, namely, to recommend that the procedure for carrying this change into effect shall be either by Standing Order or by Bill. There was a third course.
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Or not to proceed at all.
MR. J. LOWTHER: That just covers the point I desire to make. I do not want the House to be under the impression that there is a universal concurrence in favour of doing anything at all. There are many Members who object altogether to the principle of the proposed system of piecemeal legislation. The Committee will have the power, and I hope will exercise it, of reporting against any change of rules.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was much too indulgent to Her Majesty's Government. The House, no doubt, is always willing, upon good cause shown, to re-consider the question of its procedure, but the fact ought not to be overlooked that this proposed change in procedure, and this demand for a Committee, is due to the reckless endeavour of Her Majesty's Government to drive three coaches abreast through Temple Bar. But for the condition in which the business of the Session now is, owing to the mismanagement of the Government, no such proposed change as this would have been dreamt of. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, for the appointment of a Committee, was only a counter-proposal to that of the Government, and as such was deserving of respectful consideration. But the condition is quite different when the Government bring forward this proposal, and ask us to accept the Committee without discussion and without protest. How is this Committee to be constituted? Are the Government going to put on only their sworn supporters and leave out Members who hold independent views on this subject, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther)? I sat on a Committee on public business in 1886. It was a very strong Committee. It was presided over by the present chief of the Liberal Unionist Party (Lord Hartington), and among its members was the present President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks Beach). We considered the question of procedure for over a month, and the Conservative Government, in the following Session, came down to the House with Resolutions, in which they ignored every recommendation we made. You are now going to constitute a fresh
1670
Committee. You do not ask that the Committee of Selection, which is a most impartial body, whose authority we are all ready to recognise, should appoint the members of the Committee. I object entirely to the terms in which this Resolution has been placed on the Paper. We listened with great respect to the very weighty words of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). It is easy to say that if you have written a letter over night, you can tear it up in the morning, but there is an important point to consider with regard to the House of Lords. Conservative Members know very well that no Tory Bill sent up to the House of Lords will ever be rejected or suspended by that body. But, supposing a Liberal Government gets in, and passes a Home Rule Bill, is it to be tolerated that the House of Lords should, by Resolution, hang that Bill up for Session after Session I As an Irishman I look back with reverence to the period at which this House was able to consider questions of procedure without reference to this eternal Irish question. You are now beginning to consider every question of procedure with reference to the way in which the Irish difficulty is likely to affect you. It is a most unfortunate state of things, but we are bound, as Irishmen, to look at the way in which procedure proposals are put forward. I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that this is a matter that can be dealt with at all by a Committee. I have come to the conclusion that if this House is to be protected from the House of Lords, the procedure must be by Bill. We do not need a Committee. This is not a domestic proposal, but a proposal affecting Bills in the other House. Then, Sir, there is a snake in the grass. The Committee are to consider the case of Bills that have been partly dealt with in this House. Why should they not also consider Bills which have been wholly dealt with by this House, and rejected by the House of Lords? Why should not such Bills be revived by a single Resolution, and sent back to the House of Lords once more? If the House were candid in this business they would deal with the question as a whole. It is a most unfortunate thing that the proposal should be made to change the entire forms of Parliamentary procedure because

1671
of an abandoned and shipwrecked Licensing Bill. You have dropped your Licensing Clauses, but the virus of them is to remain. I would have voted for a Committee as a condition precedent; as a palliative; but I am not prepared to accede to the appointment of a Committee to initiate a proposal to which I object in toto. To proceed by way of a Bill is our only safeguard, and I think the Conservative Party ought to hesitate before allowing a proposal to be passed which has simply been provoked by the mismanagement and the misconduct of the Government themselves.
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I do not quite agree with the letter, although I sympathise with the spirit, of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Longford (Mr. T. Healy). The First Lord of the Treasury admits that the principle of the Motion, is, that when the House of Commons has once expressed its opinion on a definite legislative proposal, and that proposal has not been carried into law, it is a sheer waste of time to go over the proposal again in the succeeding Session. But the Motion does not entirely carry out the principle, and our objection is that the Motion does not go far enough. The First Lord of the Treasury says he does not wish to tie the hands of the Committee, but he does tie the hands of the Committee. The blot upon the Motion is the introduction of the word "partly," and I suggest that that word should be omitted, so that the Motion would read, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether the means of an abridged form of procedure, or otherwise, the consideration of Bills which have been considered in this House, could be facilitated in the next ensuing Session of the same Parliament." The object of my suggestion is perfectly obvious. I wish that when we have completely passed a legislative proposal, and when that legislative proposal has failed, solely because the House of Lords has not accepted it, we should not be compelled to go through the labour of sanding it up again to the House of Lords. I have a perfectly good precedent for what I propose. Substantially, this proposal has been made by the House of Lords itself. On page 4 of the Paper on Parliament Proceedings, which has
1672
been put into our hands to-day, it is stated that a Select Committee of the House of Lords, which sat in 1861, resolved:—
"That it is expedient in certain crises to adopt an abridged form of proceeding with reference to Bills which shall be again brought before this House after having been passed by it in the immediately proceeding Session of the same Parliament."
That is substantially what I am urging on the Government. Then, the same Committee resolved:—
"That, on a Resolution being moved that it is expedient again to pass and to send to the other House for its concurrence, any such Bill, the question shall be put whether the House will agree to the same, and, on such Resolution being agreed to, the Bill to which it relates, shall be forthwith sent to the other House for its concurrence, without any further question being put or any debate allowed."
These Resolutions absolutely carry out the purpose I have in view. There is only one condition in the House of Lords' programme to which I take exception, and that is that the arrangement should only apply to Bills which have not been passed in the House of Lords because there was not time. I propose it should apply to all Bills which have failed to pass either House, whatever the reason. If this Motion is to be carried into effect by a Standing Order of the House, I appeal to my Colleagues on these Benches to insist upon the adoption of my proposal. The Tory Party have a reserve in the House of Lords, but we have not. A Conservative Bill, when once through this House, is perfectly certain of passing through the House of Lords; but, as things stand at present, the House of Lords can compel this House, when Liberals are in a majority, either to dissolve or to waste time in going through its legislative proposals-once again. The leader of the Opposition has most magnanimously appealed to his followers not to interpose any factious opposition to the Government's proposal. I shall respect that appeal, but I most respectfully place on record my protest against the limited reference which is being made to this Committee. I am not prepared to move an Amendment at this stage, because I understand that the Report of the Committee must, to be-effective, be embodied in a Standing Order or Bill. When the Standing Order or Bill is before us, we shall, if necessary,

1673
exercise our right to propose to widen its scope.
CAPTAIN VERXEY: I wish to emphasise what has fallen from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway as to the extremely bald nature of the words of this Resolution. Hon. Members have pointed out that the words of the Resolution admit of only one reply, namely, "Yes." Hon. Gentlemen have lost sight of the fact that previous Select Committees replied to these words in the negative. One Committee sat in 1848. In 1861 a strong Committee was appointed to consider the proposal, and reported that the objections were grave and numerous, and that the adoption of the proposal would give increased facilities for retarding legislation. That, I think, is an answer in the negative to the question which the Resolution, on the face of it, seems to carry. Perhaps one of the most important questions which is touched by this Resolution is that of the prerogative of the Crown. If the House of Commons is able to carry a Bill on to the next Session, and the prorogation of Parliament does not put an end of the Bill, that is a restriction or limiting of the prerogative of the Crown. If, on the other hand, the sanction of the Crown must first be obtained, there is an enlargement of the prerogative of the Crown, because it will enable the Crown to interfere with legislation before it has passed both Houses of Parliament. It seems to me that that by itself is fatal to this proposal. Perhaps I may call attention to a speech made upon this subject by Sir George Lewis in 1861. He said—
"I trust the House will not think my noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) has made his Motion for the Select Committee upon this question upon a light ground or for any object of the Government."
We have this Motion made to-day for a special and specific object of the Government.
"The House will probably bear in mind the it last Session there were several Motions presented to it on the subject of its Forms of Proceeding, and certainly we do not submit it with any selfish view of our own."
We have this proposal made without notice and without any demand for it, made solely to serve the selfish ends of the Government. In the same Debate, Mr. Newdegate said—
1674
"He was greatly indebted to the noble Lord the head of the Government for repeating the pledge he gave last Session, that he would recommend the appointment of a Committee to consider the best method of expediting the progress of business."
The difference between the Resolution then proposed and that proposed to-day was that there was a deliberate wish expressed that the business should be expedited, whereas to-day no such wish had been expressed. Then Sir John Pakington, speaking in the same Debate, said—
"The great cause of the legislative fractures of last Session is to be attributed to the Government rather than to the House. They were very largely due to the programme of the Ministry, for when they called upon us to consider a French Treaty most complicated, a Reform Bill, and a Bankruptcy Bill, with 500 clauses, all m one Session, their experience must have taught them that such a thing was simply impossible."
These words are applicable to to-day. The Government have attempted to drive three first-class Bills through the House, and that is why we find ourselves in the present position, and not from any inadequacy in the Procedure of the House. This question came before a Select Committee in 1838, and the Committee reported—
"Your Committee venture to express the opinion that the satisfactory conduct and successful progress of the business of the House must mainly depend on Her Majesty's Government, holding, as they do, the chief control over its management. They believe that by a careful preparation of measures, their early introduction, a judicious distribution of business, and the order and method in which business is conducted, the Government might contribute, in an essential degree, to the easy and convenient conduct of business."
The present Government have got into a muddle. They have tried to force through the House this Session more than is possible; they have shown a want of tact and judgment in the conduct of the business they have brought before the House, and then, as a last resort, instead of endeavouring to conduct the business in an orderly way, they have come to the House and asked for an alteration of the Rules of Procedure. If a Committee is appointed upon the Rules of Procedure in strict accordance with the terms of the Resolution, I do not think the House will be any further advanced. This bald Resolution will not meet the requirements of the case. The right hon. Gentleman

1675
has given us no reason why the Committee should be appointed; but though he was careful to avoid it, we all know the reason. If the Committee is appointed and confined within the narrow limits of the Resolution, I do not think its Report can suggest anything that will advance the progress of public business.
MR. DILLON: We have not had stated the reason why this Committee is to be appointed, but, as I understand, the reason alleged some time ago for a proposal to alter procedure was to afford the House some relief from the condition in which public business is in the present Session. But can this Committee afford us relief in the present Session? By the nature of things it cannot. The Report of the Committee and any suggestions made in that Report for the conduct of business cannot affect the present Session; therefore, all the reason for its appointment vanishes, and there is no urgency for it. This being admitted—and I do not see how it can be gainsaid—the Government having put forward no plea of urgency, is it not in the highest degree desirable that any Committee appointed to consider procedure should be a Committee to deal with other equally or mom important questions which might be brought before it? No one can have failed to have been impressed by what fell from the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), a Member of unparalleled knowledge and experience of procedure. That hon. Member pointed out the extreme undesirability and inconvenience of continually having recurrence to alterations of procedure in this House, and we have had a long experience now, even many of us whose service here has been very much shorter than that of the hon. Member, of the result of the Government having recourse to an alteration of Rules to meet a specific purpose. Lat us judge by the result of experience. What has been the result of all the alterations since 1877? The result is that in this Session public business is in an unparalleled condition, worse than ever it was in any Session before the passing of the four successive alterations in procedure. After all these alternations the Government have landed us in this condition, and now, instead of looking at the question from a broad and statesmanlike point of view; instead of
1676
dealing with the whole subject with a view to the future; instead of instituting inquiry by a Committee which would take into consideration not only the general question of procedure, the length of the Session, and so forth, but which also should be empowered to consider how it has arisen that, in spite of repeated alterations, we have business in this state of confusion and arrear, we have this bald and timid proposal. Now, I propose to move an Amendment; and my idea is that if it should be found necessary to proceed once more to the alteration of our Rules, then the Committee should be empowered to take into consideration other things; for instance, that most valuable proposal in relation to the time of prorogation made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Sir G. Trevelyan), a proposal which seemed to recommend itself generally to the House. I think this proposal carries far greater hope of solid improvement in the business of the House than anything contained in the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith). The Committee ought to inquire into the general management of business during the Session, and also into that question which seems to be one of growing importance—the practice of postponing the Estimates to the very end of the Session. There are many other questions that ought to be taken into consideration when a Committee sits upon procedure; and I want to know what considerations prevent the reference of these to the Committee, for we have had no grounds of urgency put forward, no reason why the Committee should be confined to the narrow terms of reference read out to the House? If the question of procedure is to be opened at all, the Committee should be left free to consider the whole conduct of business; the period of; assembling, the period of prorogation, and all other matters touching the business of the House. The extreme inconvenience of the proposal that has been made has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Bedford, and I can add; nothing to the weight of his statement; but I think Conservative Members should I hesitate before they assent to the proposal. We know that in America, and in Democratic forms of Government, the most extreme Radical section favour

1677
the most violent alterations in Parliamentary procedure. If you set us the example of continual alteration of Rules for a specific purpose without allowing the Committee to consider the subject in all its bearings—if you set us this example of recurring to an alteration of procedure when the Government get into difficulties, you will find the Radical Party very apt to follow the precedent you set; and the time may come when you will find yourselves, as an Opposition, tightly fettered, and we shall refer to this example you are now setting us. This Motion was originally announced on the plea that the business of the country could not be done in the present Session; but what relief will this Motion bring to business in the present Session, and what relief in the approaching Session? Absolutely no relief at all, except that, possibly, if the Committee report favourably, you may spare the House two or three days' discussion on the Second Reading of the Land Purchase Bill. Now, are Conservative and Independent Members of the House prepared to set this precedent, that they are ready to alter the procedure of the House of Commons for no purpose under the sun except to save three days' discussion on the Irish Land Purchase Bill? What other result can follow the consideration of the Committee with this reference? True, we may be spared the re-discussion of this Bill on Second Reading, but in order to secure that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to sacrifice at least two nights of the present Session when the Government are driven to the greatest extremity for time. We are placed in an unparalleled position, and the only proposal the Government make for relief is that we shall waste one or two more nights in discussing a change of procedure which can give us no relief this Session, and can give us but trifling relief next Session. In the whole history of Parliament never was a more inane set of proposals submitted for the relief of public business. I shall say no more on this aspect of the question. I propose to move an addition to the Resolution in the following terms:—
"And by what means it can be secured that the consideration of Supply shall be taken before some fixed date."
I do not see what good purpose the Committee is to serve as regards this
1678
Session; but if the Committee is to be appointed, the time has come when this serious growing grievance should be brought under notice and carefully considered; that this portion of the business of the country, the first mentioned in the Queen's Speech to the House, which is the primary and essential duty of the House of Commons to the exclusion of all legislation if it becomes a question of choice, that this business should be postponed to suit the convenience of Ministers to such a period of the Session as to turn discussion into a mockery and a farce. It is useless to set about the discussion of Votes in Supply in the month of August. It would be just as well and more honest to the people to announce that discussions on Supply are abandoned. On Supply questions arise in which the people are more keenly interested than they are in the Land Purchase Bill or the Licensing Bill, and I know of no question connected with procedure that more deserves attention than means to secure that the Government of the day—Liberal or Conservative—shall not be permitted to postpone Votes in Supply to a late period of the Session. It is perfectly within the competence of the House to frame some Standing Order by which it shall be the duty of the Government to introduce all Votes in Supply by a certain fixed date. Or, on the other hand, the subject might be approached in this way: We heard the First Lord mention the other day a suggestion, of which he now appears to have lost sight, which I am sorry for, because it seemed to me an excellent idea, not to proceed with Bills of a contentious character after 15th July.
MR.W. H. SMITH: This is not lost sight of; that is a point to consider; but it is obvious that we do not wish to tie the Committee to consider a specific proposal. As a means of bringing the Session to an early end, this may be one of the proposals we may have to submit to the House.
MR. DILLON: I thought that was excluded?
MR. W. H. SMITH: No.
MR. DILLON: I intended to move that such proceedings should close on the 1st of June. That would secure in another way that Supply should be brought on at a time when it could be reasonably discussed. There are two proposals: a

1679
Standing Order might be passed binding the Government to bring on Supply by a certain date, or a Standing Order might stop legislative proceedings on June 1, leaving an interval in which we should be free to deal with Supply. Either of these proposals would meet the difficulty. Meantime, on the grounds I have urged that there are no claims of urgency to tie the Committee to this narrow reference that the Committee should be free to deal with the duration of the Session and conduct of business, and particularly this question of Supply, I move my Amendment.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
"And by what means it can be secured that the consideration of Supply shall be taken before some fixed date."—(Mr. Dillon.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I will only interpose for a few minutes between the right hon. Gentleman and the House, because I want him to have the opportunity of saying a word or two upon the present condition of business in the House. The object of this Motion is to facilitate the earlier rising of the House for the Session, and as I think we are aware from unofficial sources to avoid having an Autumn Session. Well, I am afraid if the Resolution is passed we shall not rise earlier, and that we shall have an Autumn Session. I will ask the House to look at a figure or two and then see if this is a sufficient remedy for the impasse in which we find ourselves. We have now arrived at the 23rd of June, and assuming that we rise on August 17, which is not, I think, a very early date, at all events it is an average date; and assuming that the Government take, as I presume the Government will, all the Wednesdays, we shall have 38 available days to wind up the business of the Session. Now, there are on the Order Book 33 Government Bills, including the Local Taxation Bill and the Land Purchase Bill, which, I presume, we may now say are gone, and there is the Tithes Bill in a state of suspended animation. Apart from these three, there are 30 Bills to be dealt with in some manner, while my hon. Friend has called attention to the state of Supply, and Supply is the key of
1680
the position at this moment. We can only judge from analogy and the average time occupied by Supply. In 1887, excluding Supplementary Estimates, 38 days were devoted to Supply. In 1888,I think, 37 days were thus occupied; and in 1889 we got through Supply in something like 38 days. I take it within the mark when I say that 36 or 37 days have been required for Supply in the last few years. Now, we have already this year been 13 days in Supply, and therefore 24 days more are required, and when I remind the House that not an Irish Vote has been touched—and I think there are more contentious elements in the Irish Votes this year than there have been for many years—when I mention that grave questions of policy arise on the Foreign Office and Colonial Votes, and important considerations in relation to law and justice on the Votes for law and justice in the three Kingdoms, and that the Votes for the Revenue and Post Office Departments bristle with questions of difficulty, I am not predicting too much when I say they will probably occupy as much time as in previous years. Now, look at the figures: 24 days for Supply, and 14 days left for the remaining business of the Session. Well, the Government have not yet 'withdrawn the Bills I have mentioned. I use the word "yet," but no doubt this will happen before many days are over. Nevertheless, the stages of the journey will occupy some time. We have not heard a word of the Tithes Bill; whether it is to be gone on with or dropped; the last we heard of it was that it was to be proceeded with. Then we have the Indian Councils Bill, upon which we know there is to be an important Second Reading Debate, and there will be, probably, considerable discussion in Committee. We have on the Table a Bill of primary importance that must be dealt with—the Police Bill, which, in the interest of discipline and peace in the Metropolitan Force, cannot be postponed for another year, and I may be thought too sanguine when I say it will not get through Second Reading in less than two days. There is the Western Australia Bill must be passed; and the Bill to sanction the cession of Heligoland must provoke a good deal of discussion. You are going to have a discussion on procedure on which many questions must arise, and you have the residuum

1681
of these 30 Bills, together with the inevitable four days for the Appropriation Bill. Here is a programme to get through in 14 days. I say it is an absolute impossibility. If the First Lord would rise and say that without wasting any more time the Licensing Bill and the Tithes Bill are dead, it would still be impossible for the House to rise before the end of August; and if we are to go on with those Bills, we shall have an Autumn Session without the advantage of a summer vacation. All the evils which you endeavoured to avoid by the meeting at the Carlton Club will be developed and accentuated by the present proposal. The time has arrived when we should know what the 'Government mean to do in the 38 or 40 remaining days of an average Session.
MR. SEXTON: The reference to this Committee is very oddly drawn, whether by inadvertence or design I do not know. The Government propose to ask the Committee a question, the answer to which is obvious. Without reference to a Committee it is obvious that the progress of a Bill will be facilitated by carrying over its stages to an ensuing Session, and the Report of the Committee can add nothing' to our information on that point. What we want to know is, if it is desirable or expedient to carry forward Bills in this manner? If the Government had dealt with it by Standing Order, we should have known how to treat it; and had the Standing Order been adopted, the right hon. 'Gentleman would have known how to apply it during the present Session. But hove stands the matter? We have almost reached the end of Juno; the Committee has yet to be nominated and appointed, and then has to meet and consider not only the precedents, but the evidence that will be laid before it, after which it must report. It may determine that it is not desirable to give the facilities asked for, or that if those facilities are desirable, they should be given by Statute. In that case, would the right hon. Gentleman proceed to pass a Statute this Session, or, should they recommend that we should proceed by Standing Order, would the right hon. Gentleman propose to tackle that Standing Order now? We all know the object of the proposal. It is to enable the Government to get through the Land Purchase Bill. If the right hon.
1682
Gentleman thinks he can hang up that Bill over the present year, we certainly shall take a strong view of the question; but if he says he no longer intends to hang it up, we shall take another and a more favourable view; but it is reasonable considering the date we have now reached, and the length of time that will be taken by the Bill in Committee and in the Report stage, to take this step for the purpose of remitting the further stages of the Land Bid to another Session of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Fast Mayo has added to the Motion a matter which, in my judgment, is more important than anything the Motion itself contains. The present proposition has reference only to one Bill, and that Bill a measure which is opposed by the great majority of the Irish Representatives. My Friend's Amendment deals with the question of Supply, and that is a matter in which we have infinitely more interest than in the proposed legislation. In fact, we have no interest in any legislation proposed by the Government, except the interest of an ardent Opposition. It has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther), who seems to be the only man on the Ministerial side of the House who has the intelligence to perceive the point that the Government have to face, that they can have no possible legislation this Session. It is a lamentable thing- that the House should be reduced to this state of things because there are two Ministers of the Crown who cannot reconcile the situation. The facilitating of business in this House rests with the Government them selves; and if they would only take ordinary care at the beginning of the Session, and bring forward no more Bills than they can pass in six months, there would be no occasion for this reference to a Committee. Of course, if they introduce enough Bills to last them two or three years, they cannot expect to pass them in a single Session. With regard to Supply, I think we have a right to complain of the action of the Government. Before the Whitsuntide Recess, I called attention to this subject, and reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish Representatives never had the opportunity of calling attention to the grievances they desire to discuss. The business of Supply is the fundamental

1683
business of the House, and in that respect our functions have practically ceased. Our financial business is discharged in the most slovenly and unconstitutional manner by taking Votes on Account. The Irish Members have an ardent interest in the business of Supply, because it is only when in Supply that they have the opportunity of calling attention to the gross and scandalous misgovernment of Ireland, of which from day to day they have most bitterly to complain. We have this very evening had complaint made of the length of time occupied by the questions put upon the Paper from day to day. Why is it there are so many questions? It is mainly because we have no other means of bringing forward our grievances except when in Supply, The right hon. Gentleman promised to exert himself to secure the transaction of the business of Supply; but for the last three years he has made similar promises, and although I was at one time somewhat deceived by the imposing manner of the First Lord of the Treasury when that promise was made, I shall no longer regard his promises as worthy of attention. Unless some special steps are taken in regard to Supply, the Constitutional rights of Members of this House will not only be impaired but practically destroyed, and it is for this reason that I feel it my duty to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I think hon. Members opposite will feel that the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian deserves some consideration at the hands of his supporters. The right hon Gentleman stated that there is a strong desire that the House should come to a speedy conclusion on the question before it. The hon. Member for West Belfast has referred to the question of Supply, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Mayo. It has been said that it is perfectly impossible for the Committee to make any provision with regard to the period up to which Bills should be considered in this House. The Standing Order which I intended to move on the present occasion provided that—
"In future, after the 15th of July and in the present Session after a date to be hereafter appointed, no public Bills, except Money Bills, Continuance Bills, and Bills returned from the Lords with amendments shall be further proceeded with, provided that, with respect to any
1684
public Bill which is in progress in Committee of the whole House, or in a Standing Committee, or which has been reported there from, a Motion can be made, after notice given, that further proceedings on such Bills be suspended until the next Session."
The Committee is free to make any recommendation with regard to the date, or to name an earlier date than the 15th of July. I believe that there exists a strong desire that the House should rise earlier in the summer, and this is my principal reason for suggesting to the House the appointment of a Committee to examine into this point, so as to provide facilities for allowing the House to do what I believe is practical and reasonable, namely, to rise at an earlier period of the summer, and at the same time to get through their business. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has spoken of an impasse. No Government, however, could have contemplated that the Debates would have been carried to the length to which they have been carried; and if the argument is to be used that the Government must always look forward to continued discussion on opposed business, whatever Government may be in power, after the same fashion and manner as has characterised our proceedings this Session, then it is obvious that very small progress must be the consequence. Whether that course would be taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite if we should hereafter be in another position, remains to be seen; but I am justified in saying that discussion cannot be carried on as far as it has been without practically delaying and obstructing the business of the House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has referred to the fact that there are 33 Government Bills on the Paper; but I think that if the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the years from 1881 to 1885 he would find that there has not been less than that number of Government Bills on the Paper on the 23rd of June. Reference has also been made to the large amount of Supply yet to be got through. I am sorry that there is so much. I agree that one of our first duties is to consider-Supply; but, again, I would say that we have had no reason to suppose that: discussion would have been protracted in the manner in which it has been. It must not be assumed that the House is bound to rise at a given date, however much that may be desired. The first

1685
duty of the House is to transact and conclude the business which is brought before it. I trust the hon. Member for East Mayo will not press his Amendment, as it is one which the Government cannot accept, because they desire to enable the House to deal with the Report of the Committee during the present Session. The Government do not desire to withdraw from the House the consideration of the Irish Land Purchase Bill, although, no doubt, the recommendation of the Committee will admit of that Bill, with others, being dealt with under the proposed Standing Order on the ground that it is a Bill of very great importance, and one which the House ought to approach with full time for its consideration.
MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of the Committee reporting in favour of procedure by Bill instead of by Standing Order, he intends to proceed with that Bill during the present Session?
MR. W. H. SMITH: That would be a matter for consideration when the Report of the Committee is presented. If the Committee decides in favour of the principle involved in the reference to it I do not exclude the hope that the House may be able to give effect to that recommendation as rapidly as possible. Measures must be taken in the present Session to secure the object in view, if the House is to have the advantage of a better arrangement than is now in existence for an early adjournment next Session. I trust the House will understand that the Government desire to leave the Committee free to consider the whole question referred to them.
MR. J. MORLEY: I do not rise for the purpose of prolonging this discussion more than a moment or two; but I would remind the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has undoubtedly introduced controversial matter. Among the reasons he gave for making this proposal the right hon. Gentleman referred to the great length to which the discussions in this House had been protracted.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I said the first ground for the proposal was the general desire of the House for an earlier adjournment.
MR. J. MORLEY: That is so; but the right hon. Gentleman also referred to and made a point of what he termed practical obstruction. I do not intend to go into this; but I would point out, as a matter of fact, that the great and protracted opposition the right hon. Gentleman complained of has been offered to a particular set of proposals that were not announced in the Queen's Speech, and have not received a very enthusiastic support even from the right hon. Gentleman's own friends. Has the opposition to those proposals been without effect? On the contrary, the announcement that has been made this evening as to a change of front on the part of the Government, although it is an unsatisfactory and inadequate change which the Government will yet have further to amend, affords the most perfect justification for the attitude taken by the Opposition in resisting the Compensation Clauses of the Government Bill. I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the Select Committee is to be empowered to examine into the whole subject in all its length and breadth, and that the House is to be at liberty when the Committee reports to determine what course it would be best to adopt. The Irish Land Purchase Bill is one which, above all, ought not to be subjected to the process of suspension, because in the time that would elapse before next Session considerable alteration would have to be made in it. I agree with the hon. Member for West Belfast that Irish Supply, and especially the Irish Constabulary Vote, should be taken at an early day. Until those Estimates are discussed there will necessarily be a large number of questions put from day to day in reference to the administration of Irish affairs. The complaint made by the Irish Members as to the period at which the most important items of Irish Supply are taken is a most reasonable one; and although the right hon. Gentleman professed not to understand how it was, when a question was put as to the enormous number of questions asked in the House, and could' not see the connection between that fact and the delay in taking the Irish Votes, I think, upon reflection, he is bound to see the connection. The number of Irish questions which have been overwhelming us for some days past are entirely due to the inability of the Irish

1687
Members to discuss fully and fairly the administration of Irish affairs. These questions are, doubtless, a most inconvenient interruption of the business of the House. Although they are, under the circumstances, a necessary and inevitable interruption, we can hardly expect it will be greatly modified when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary uses his opportunity of answering questions, as he did the other night in connection with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevelyan), by putting into his answers matters of a very controversial character. With regard to the Amendment of the Member for East Mayo, I hope my hon. Friend will not press it; because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian said at the commencement of this discussion, we shall be at liberty, when the Committee reports, to make whatever alterations in their recommendations may seem expedient. I therefore beg to ask him to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. DILLON: With the leave of the House I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view that this Motion has been fully discussed. To my mind, no more important Resolution has ever been submitted to the House. I do not, however, wish to continue the Debate, but merely to ask the First Lord of the Treasury to answer one point that has been raised from these Benches. He says this Motion is proposed with a special view to an early adjournment, and it is exceedingly important that the Irish Members should know what representation they are to have on the Committee. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to state how many Members are to compose the Committee, and how many of those Members will be Irish representatives?
MR. LABOUCHERE: I am rather in favour of the Motion of the First Lord of the Treasury. I am in favour of the carrying over system, and, therefore, think that this matter ought to be referred to a Committee. I also think that when it comes back from the Committee their recommendation ought to be carried out
1688
by Bill instead of by Resolution. I hope, however, the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. The right hon. Gentleman has complained that we obstruct the business of the House, and he said it was the duty of the Government to keep the House together as long as there was business to be done. I appeal to those who have been in former Governments, whether this has not always been said, and whether it has not sometimes happened that the House has been kept together until opposition has come from the Government's own supporters, rather than from their ordinary opponents, with the result that the House can no longer be kept together? The reason why there has been an exhaustive discussion of the Government measures was because there was no popular leverage behind those measures. If these Bills were really desired by the country, the country would raise such an outcry against exhaustive discussion, that exhaustive discussion would be swept away, and the Bills passed. The right hon. Gentleman probably knows that the Publicans' Compensation Bill, which he is pressing forward, is detested more on his own side of the House than on this. The other day, when the Bill was only saved by four votes, the right hon. Gentleman was in despair. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton made a very moderate estimate when, putting aside this Compensation Bill, he held it would be absolutely impossible for the House to rise before the 17th August. If this resolution is passed to carry Bills over, there will be a good deal of discussion as to what Bills are to be carried over. My hon. Friends from Ireland might not think it desirable that the Land Purchase Bill should be carried over. So that you must add to the little reckoning of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton the time which would be occupied in such discussions. Now, in the kindest spirit, I will give the right hon. Gentleman a little advice. It appears to me that there is no man at the head of the Government who understands the business of this House. Every Member seems to have his own way in the Cabinet. Each one is anxious to bring forward his own Bill, and none can be induced to withdraw it except in piece-

1689
meal fashion, and after looking to see whether his neighbour in the Cabinet is first going to withdraw his Bill. I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are exceedingly ignorant of opinion on this side of the House. When the right hon. Gentleman made his proposal to expedite business, I presume he was under the impression that the Compensation Bill would go through in a day or two. He has awakened to the fact that that is not likely to be the case. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better not to make half-a-dozen bites at a cherry, but frankly say, "I am human; I do not pretend to be anything more than human. I have made a mistake, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer very possibly has made a mistake, and we were in error when we brought forward this Compensation Bill after Whitsuntide." The right hon. Gentleman may throw the blame upon us, but if he will withdraw the Bill, we will give him a free hand to say what he likes with respect to us. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might allow the Committee to sit and report, but that he should not carry over any Bill to next year. Let him withdraw for the present Session his Land Purchase Bill and the Tithe Bill. I can assure him that he will not lose much by doing it. Next Session let him bring in his Bills again if he likes, and carry the Second Reading. He will have only lost four days on the Second Reading of the one and two days on the Second Reading of the other. Then next Session we could consider his very excellent plan of carrying Bills over. I implore the right hon. Gentleman to really seriously look into the question of time. Even if he withdraws this Compensation Bill at once he will have the greatest difficulty in bringing the Session to a close before the end of August, and if he continues this Compensation Bill I do really believe every single day that is spent on that Compensation Bill means a day we shall have to sit in the month of September.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether by means of an abridged form of Procedure, or otherwise, the consideration of Bills, which have been partly considered in this House, could be facilitated in the next ensuing Session of the same Parliament.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.—(No. 244)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, to leave out sub-section (i.).—(Mr. Hunter.)
    Question again proposed, "That subsection (i.) stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HUNTER: Sir, when the discussion of this Bill was postponed on Friday night, there was an expression of regret that the Scotch Superannuation Bill had not been produced. The First Lord of the Treasury stated that it would be circulated on Saturday morning or this morning. Unfortunately, the First Lord did not know that the Bill had to be read a first time, and the result is that we only got it an hour and a half ago, and until then we had not the smallest inkling of the proposal of the Government. What makes this conduct very much worse is, that when I look into the Scotch Bill, it seems to be an exact imitation of the English Bill. There was no reason in the world why this miserable copy of a miserable system of superannuation should not have been in our hands, at all events, 10 days ago. It seems to me that the action of the Government in this matter has been illiberal, and that their object has been to obtain the sanction of the Committee to a proposal without giving us the slightest notion of what that proposal is. A worse scheme of superannuation for Scotland, under the circumstances, could not have been brought forward. The English scheme is bad enough, and it has given rise to the greatest possible discontent. But in Scotland such a Bill is absurd. It divides the country among 81 Police Authorities, under some of which there are only four or five constables. It would be out of order in a discussion on a clause of the Bill before the House to enter into a criticism of the measure just introduced. But what is the position in which we are placed? We are asked to vote a sum of money

    1691
    towards a scheme of superannuation, which is a bad scheme. What I suggest to the Government is, that they should not press this Bill during the present Session, but should refer the question to a Select Committee. If the Government press the Bill they may lay their account that it will not pass in a short space of time. I believe it will not be satisfactory to the police or to the public of Scotland. To save time, the Government should state now and at once that they will not press this Bill, which is wrong in principle, and would be most exasperating and objectionable in practice. If the Government would refer the matter to a Select Committee, then, so far as I am concerned, I would agree to this sub-section of the Local Taxation Bill. I do not believe that by postponing the Bill the police will suffer any injury. Superannuation is a very serious matter. You have not, unfortunately, got a free hand with regard to it in England. You are bound by vested interests. We have no vested interests in Scotland; and in that country, in considering a scheme of superannuation, I think we ought to take advantage of the experience and mistakes which have been made in England, and consider the example set in that country as a precedent to be avoided. If the Government are anxious to facilitate their business, I think the best course they can pursue is to hang this Bill up and refer the matter to a Select Committee. But if they insist on proceeding with the Bill now before the Committee, without giving us an opportunity of considering the Scotch Superannuation Bill, I shall be compelled to move that you report Progress.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: On the last occasion when this Bill was before the House, the Debate was postponed in order that we might have the Superannuation Bill before us, and the Lord Advocate here. We have not had time to study the Bill, and I must say that I was very much astonished to find the Lord Advocate introduce it without vouchsafing so much as a word of explanation. But, on reflection, I am really not surprised that he did not say anything, because the Bill is nothing but a slavish copy of the English Bill, word for word. But the circumstances are not the same. In England you have got superannuation already in existence. In Scotland, we pay an officer a lump
    1692
    sum on his retiring. Under the circumstances, I do hope that we shall have some explanation from the Lord Advocate of the system which the Government propose to introduce. It does seem to me most regrettable that a Bill should be forced upon this House with a view to giving effect to a sub-section of the Local Taxation Bill without hon. Members having the smallest opportunity of discussing it. It is said we should not look a gift horse in the mouth, and that £40,000 is given to us. How far will that amount go, and how heavy a demand will be involved upon the rates? A very much larger sum than £40,000 may have to be taken out of the rates. Scotland is only to have £40,000, with its larger area, while London is to have £150,000 a year. The representatives of the Scotch constituencies are bound to watch this matter very closely. I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I do wish to see a scheme of superannuation.
    MR. HUNTER: So do I.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am very glad to hear it. At the same time I repeat what I said the other day, that while a system of superannuation of public servants is necessary you may carry it too far by laying down regulations which would permit of your best men retiring with pensions in the prime of life, and ready to take up other pursuits, while you would be left with only the scum and the dregs to carry on the Public Service. I am very much alarmed by the extent to which the Home Secretary yields to agitation in this matter with regard to the Metropolitan Police. I was very much astonished to hear him say that he was not going to put any check on the age at which a policeman might take his pension and retire. I think that a very dangerous thing. I want to know whether that may be done with regard to Scotland or not, with the effect that choice men, at the age of 45 or 46, may, to the injury of the Public Service, retire on their pensions, and take up other pursuits. I hope the Lord Advocate will give us a complete and satisfactory explanation of the scheme, and of the method of working the scheme.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING,): It is not easy to satisfy the

    1693

    hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. The other night he objected that the Bill to be introduced might not be similar to the English Bill. And now he objects, after he has seen it, that it is very similar. I do not know that that is a ground of objection, unless it is shown that the English Bill is not satisfactory. I hope, in a few words, to show that this Bill proceeds on reasonable and just grounds. The hon. Member for Aberdeen said that the Bill was open to a number of objections, but he did not show what they were.
    MR. HUNTER: It would have been out of order to do so.
    MR. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING: Therefore, I must be excused if I confine myself to a very general outline of the proposals of the Bill. The hon. Member for Aberdeen specified one objection. He said the Bill creates 81 Police Authorities. That is not so. We are creating no Police Authorities. We are taking the Police Authorities in counties and boroughs just as we find them. Obviously it would be exceedingly inconvenient that a scheme of this kind should be administered by any but Police Authorities, who are masters of the police, and have the right to appoint and dismiss them. Therefore, I think the answer is complete, that the Police Authorities should have this subvention.
    MR. HUNTER: The objection I make is this, that you are creating separate funds in counties where there are only five constables altogether, instead of having one Superannuation Fund for the whole of Scotland. To have 81 separate Superannuation Funds would involve innumerable difficulties.
    MR. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING: Would you have the whole of the police of Scotland managed by one authority?
    MR HUNTER: No; one Superannuation Fund.
    MR M. T. STORMONTH DARLING: The proposals are these: Every constable in Scotland will, after he has completed 25 years' service, if he is of the age specified in the pension scale, be entitled to retire on his pension. If he has not completed 25 years, but 15 years, he will be entitled to his pension, provided he is permanently incapacitated. If he has not completed the full period of 15 years, and it can be shown that he is permanently incapacitated, he will be entitled, not to a pen-
    1694
    sion, but to a gratuity. In the case of a man who is killed or injured, there is special provision for compensation to his family. For these purposes there is to be a Pension Fund, which will be made up, in the first place, by a stoppage out of the men's wages, the appropriation of certain fines, and the money to be voted under the Local Taxation Bill. If there is still a deficiency it must be made up from local sources. The money will be distributed in the first year according to the number of efficient members of the Police Force in each locality. In future years a system will be adopted very nearly corresponding to the actual requirements of the Force, and the distribution will be according to the amount of contribution, that is to say, every 6d. obtained from the men's pay will be met by a proportionate amount from the £40,000, and the residue will be in accordance with the actual necessities of each Police Authority, that is to say, in proportion to the actual demands made upon them. That, I should say, is a perfectly equitable system of distribution. Of course the Government have not made these proposals without inquiring as to the probable demands on the funds, and the result of this inquiry has been to show that the sum here proposed will be more than sufficient for the first few years; and the Committee must remember that, year by year, the funds will be largely increased from the other sources I have mentioned, and in particular from the contributions from the men themselves. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy seemed to draw a contrast between the sum to be allocated to Scotland and the sum to be allocated to the Metropolis, and the hon. Member urged that, as the populations are about the same, the sums to be allocated to the two places ought to be about the same. But the hon. Member forgets that there are 15,000 police in the Metropolis, and only a little over 4,000 in Scotland, and that if the amounts paid were in proportion to the number of police, whilst Scotland received £40,000 the Metropolis would receive £150,000. While it is impossible for the Government to foresee whether or not there will ultimately be a demand on local resources, we have taken every means to provide such a sum as will, in the first instance, entirely meet the charge, and as it will constitute

    1695
    a growing fund that will very largely meet any possible claim in the future. I trust the Committee will adopt the view I ventured to urge on the last occasion when the subject was under discussion, that all we are doing is laying down the principle that Superannuation Funds are to be established, and that £40,000 is a proper sum to devote to them. These are the only two propositions to which the Committee will be committed by adopting the subsection. I have not heard from the other side any rooted objection in principle to the creation of a Superannuation Fund. All the Committee have to do now is to say whether they are, or are not, in favour of such a plan, and whether they are, or are not, in favour of the allocation of this money to this particular purpose. There were expressions of opinion on the Front Opposition Bench, on Thursday night, very strongly in favour of the creation of a pension; therefore, I apprehend that all we have to say now is whether or not we favour such a fund. I hope the answer to the whole of this question will be in the affirmative.
    MR. HUNTER: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered any of the questions which I put to him, and on the answer he gives will depend whether I move to report Progress or not.
    MR. CHILDERS: This is not a question which ought to be disposed of lightly. Police superannuation is quite a different matter from superannuation in most Departments of the Public Service. For instance, there are large bodies of men connected with the dockyards and arsenals, and connected with the Revenue Department and the Customs in England, in whose benefit a system of superannuation has been established, whereby the men, when falling ill or reaching the age of 60, receive a proportion of their salary, calculated on the number of years of service. Here we have a very simple system, which has gained ground ever since it has been established, and which now applies to the mass of the public servants of this country. But the police are avowedly a very different body to those I have enumerated. You cannot apply the same rules to the superannuation of the police that you can apply to ordinary public servants. The conditions of their service are far more exhausting, and you cannot post-
    1696
    pone their superannuation until they reach the age of 60 years. You cannot superannuate the police on the same terms as you superannuate the soldiers and sailors, who have a comparatively short service. The whole question of the superannuation of the police is, therefore, extremely difficult, and I must say I entirely disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he asks the Committee in a light and airy way, to vote the money first and to decide how it is to be applied afterwards. The Committee ought first to know on what principle we are going to carry out the system, and then it will be time to decide how much shall be contributed from public funds, and how much from other funds—that is to say, from the contribution of the men themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman is beginning at the wrong end. He ought to have laid down a system before saying in an airy way that £40,000 or £50,000, or any other sum, should be allocated for this purpose. This question is of great importance. I am not one of those who think it a light matter, and I differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I think it is desirable to lay down something like a common system for the superannuation of the police of the whole of Scotland before deciding as to the amount to be allocated to the purpose. In England we have already systems of superannuation in above 100 counties and boroughs. Excepting in Greenock, there are no Superannuation Funds existing in Scotland other than of the most imperfect character; therefore, in dealing with Scotland, an opportunity arises for laying down a sound system ab initio. It is also, I think, very questionable whether every Local Authority should have its own independent Superannuation Fund; it would be best to follow the system of superannuation in the Civil Service, whore the fund is administered by one Central Authority for the Service in all its Departments. If the Scotch Police Fund were administered by some representative police authority it would, I think, be found not only more economical, but more advantageous to the men themselves. The men would feel that they were all treated alike, and not according to the arbitrary view of a petty Local Authority having control over 10 or a dozen men, and con-

    1697
    sequently influenced often too much by the circumstances of every man. It would be agreeable to the men themselves to know that they had a thoroughly impartial authority to administer the superannuation. To my mind, it would be well not to carry the Debate on these words further, but to let the whole matter be considered by a Select Committee. Such an inquiry would not occupy more than 10 days or a fortnight, and after it we should be able to approach the question much more satisfactorily.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman expects that the Government could put the cart before the horse in the manner he suggests. What the Government now propose to do with regard to Scotland is what we have already done with regard to England. We have voted the money for England, and the Bill proposes to put Scotland in the same position as England. I should not care for the reproaches that would be levelled at the Government by the Scotch people if, the money having been voted for England, we refused to vote the money for Scotland. I presume there is some object in wishing to put off the Bill. Presumably, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that if the superannuation we propose is not satisfactory, it would be well to drop it and not use the money for that purpose at all.
    MR. CHILDERS: My view is exactly the reverse. I think it is most important that this superannuation question should be dealt with this Session, and it is for that reason that I make the proposal.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Then I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to secure the money. But I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should wish to postpone voting the money for the present, unless it is that he considers it possible that the money may not be wanted at all. For my own part, I scout the suggestion of such a possibility. Scotland must need the money, whatever differences there may be amongst Scotch Members as to the form of superannuation to be adopted. One word with regard to the extraordinary plan propounded by my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend proposes a superannuation scheme for the whole of Scotland—a superan-
    1698
    nuation scheme subsidised by this money which we are proposing to give, but which must, ultimately, depend upon the rates. He suggests that in Scotland we should have a Superannuation Fund managed by the State, and that the localities should have no control over it, and that any deficiencies there might be should be made up out of the local rates. Well, I think when my right hon. Friend considers the tendency of Local Bodies in Scotland, like Local Bodies elsewhere, to have a very decisive voice as regards local finance, he will see that to propose such a scheme for Scotland would be to insure its rejection at once. Any scheme for Scotland placing the fund for the superannuation of the police in the hands of the State, while the local rates are to make good deficiencies, will not be acceptable to the Local Authorities in Scotland. Such a scheme, moreover, would, necessarily, be of a cast-iron nature, whereas it is obvious that a different scale of pensions ought to apply to the rural districts than to the large towns, where the police are worked very much harder, and where, therefore, they are entitled to higher pensions. Are the Local Authorities to determine the rates, of pensions, or are they to be left to the decision of an Imperial Authority? That, is the question I put in the best spirit before hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I am quite certain that whatever scheme of superannuation may be adopted, that which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed would not be just, and would not commend itself to the people of Scotland. You could not impose a new burden on the rates without giving the localities control over the scale of pensions. I would urge that against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, but the main point is whether this money should be given to Scotland. I would advise the Scotch Members to take the money, and, then, whatever form of superannuation is established, they will find it an advantage to have this endowment from the State.
    DR. CAMERON: I would point out that much time would have been saved if Scotch Members had had the information on Thursday night which is vouchsafed now. It is said that the principle of the proposal is to base superannuation in Scotland on precisely the same principle as that in England, and when last the subject was under discus-

    1699
    sion I rose to point out that it was quite impossible for the scheme proposed in England to be workable in the case of Scotland. On referring to the English Bill I find it is proposed to give a grant from the Imperial Exchequer, proportionate to the amount of the deductions made from the pay of the police, for superannuation allowances. I now find that it is proposed to distribute the grant in Scotland in proportion to the number of men maintained. I should like to know whether the wish of the Scotch police has ever been ascertained on the subject? Do they know it is proposed to impose upon them a fine of 2½ per cent., to be deducted from their pay, for the purpose of superannuation? I do not think they do. Do the Government intend, after having started a system of superannuation in Scotland on the principle of distribution according to the number of men maintained, to adopt subsequently the English proposal——
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is out of order to enter into a discussion of the proposals of the Police Bill. The simple question is whether £40,000 shall be allocated.
    DR. CAMERON: Exactly, Sir; and I think it will be most germane to that question to inquire how far the £40,000 will go. As far as the principle of police superannuation is concerned, I am in favour of it, but we should know the feeling of the Police Authorities, and the ratepayers who are to be called upon to make good deficiencies should know what amount of deficiency they are likely to be called upon to make good. We have no information on these two most important points. It is proposed that we should have a Committee on the subject. I do not think that is asking too much. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the amount proposed to be allocated is more than sufficient to carry out the scheme. I do not think it will be at all adequate. The heaviest demands will be made at the commencement. Every constable of 25 years' service when the Bill becomes law, will be entitled to his pension. I doubt very much whether the police throughout Scotland know it is proposed to take their pay in order to provide them with superannuation allowances, and I doubt whether they are prepared to submit to the deductions without at once demanding an equiva-
    1700
    lent increase of pay. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said we had better take the money when we can get it. I quite agree with him on that point, and I agree with him all the more when I remember that the right hon. Gentleman got the money for the English superannuation scheme, to a large extent, by a perfectly unjust and unprecedented taxation of the national drink in Scotland. The Government might logically hang up this £40,000 by adding words to the effect that the money should be applied
    "For such purposes of police superannuation in Scotland as shall be provided for in any Act that may be subsequently passed by Parliament."
    This proposal would enable the question to be considered without unduly rushing a Bill of this magnitude through the House. I trust, at any rate, the Government will be able to give us some assurance as to the adequacy of the sum proposed to be given to Scotland, and that they will further assure us they have explained to the rank and file of the police that they will have to provide the most substantial contribution to the fund.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The argument used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that money ought to be voted for England, and therefore ought to be voted for Scotland, and that we had better take the money now that we have the chance, ought not to be passed by without notice. This is a question which has been frequently under consideration during the last seven or eight years. I earnestly press on the Government to give an answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow, namely, whether any steps have been taken to ascertain whether their proposals will be acceptable to the great body of the police, and also to the large Municipalities in Scotland. Personally, I do not think their proposals can be very widely known, and that is certainly a reason why we should not come to a hasty decision. It is important we should know how the Local Authorities, particularly the County Councils, will look at this scheme. During the last seven or eight years there has been a considerable alteration in the view entertained by

    1701
    Local Bodies as to police superannuation, and therefore the Government must not consider, that because they are practically re-introducing an old Bill, they have the full support of the majority of the inhabitants of Scotland. The Local Authorities will not be in possession of the Government's proposals until Wednesday morning, and it is hardly likely they will be able to come to a decision with regard to them forthwith. I trust that ample time will be allowed for the consideration of this matter by those chiefly interested.
    MR. MARK STEWART: I can hardly think hon. Gentlemen opposite are serious in their opposition to this section, nor can I understand that the people of Scotland will not be thoroughly satisfied with this Bill. If the hon. Gentlemen who are raising obstacles to the passing of this measure feel that they require more time, no doubt they will have ample opportunity of considering the question in all its bearings when the Police Bill is before the House. But to suppose that the Scotch Police are not as anxious to be put in the same favourable position as the police in England is a great mistake. I am satisfied the Local Authorities will think this measure a very good one, and, therefore, I hope hon. Gentlemen will not any longer resist the passing of the clause.
    MR. DUFF: I approve of superannuation, but I certainly think that the sum proposed, which is to go on accumulating, is very large, especially when there are various other objects in Scotland to which the money could be applied. At the same time, while desiring further information, I am far from being opposed or antagonistic in any way to a proper and well-considered scheme of police superannuation.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: It seems to me that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us we had better take this money when we could get it, he forgot we have got it already. We have got it under the Inland Revenue Bill, and now we are considering how it is to be distributed. I think the superannuation of the police is a desirable object; but the question is, whether £40,000 which is proposed to be given, is a right sum to give for that object. In regard to that question, I have not heard a word
    1702
    from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Lord Advocate seems determined by his silence to justify the suggestion that he was not wanted here and that we have brought him up from Scotland for nothing. I have no doubt that the Solicitor General for Scotland gave us the best answer he could under the instruction he had, but he did not say why the Government fixed upon this particular sum. I did think we should have had some actuarial calculation, but we have had nothing of the kind. The Solicitor General believes that for some years there will be a great deal more money than is required. Is it desirable to bottle up this money for purposes which, perhaps, may never arise, when there are extremely pressing necessities in Scotland for more money? We are just short of getting free education; we want something added to what we have not got to complete the matter. Indeed, there are many subjects to which this money could be applied, and, therefore, I think we ought to be told what are the reasons under which they ask the House to give this particular sum for this particular purpose.
    MR. LYELL: As representing Orkney and Shetland, I object entirely to this proposal. My constituency will not receive a single penny of this money, and I am not aware that the Government are going to refuse the increased duty from spirits and beer which my constituents will have to pay. The superannuation grant is only to be given on the certificate of the Secretary for Scotland, and only when the Secretary for Scotland obtains a certificate from an Inspector of police as to the efficiency of the local force. The Police Force of Orkney and Shetland have remained entirely independent of the Central Authority, and receive no portion of the grant for the pay and clothing of the police. They have maintained their independence, and I think it very unfair that the people of Orkney and Shetland should be forced to contribute towards this large sum of money, and obtain nothing in return for it, in the way of grant for police superannuation, that I can see.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The question as to how much money will be required is one which, owing to the nature of the condition, requires to be answered guardedly, because, if we take the question of how

    1703
    much money will be required at once, it is obvious that that is a partial and one-sided view. We have to deal with a case where the number of pensioners will continue to increase for a number of years to come.
    MR. HUNTER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to put the matter a little clearer. I asked whether the Bill is intended to apply to those now in the Force and eligible, but who have contributed nothing, or only to those who may come into the Force.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: It is proposed to let the men who are now superannuated receive benefit at once. It has been asked whether the assent of the police has been obtained for this scheme. If that means whether a plébiscite has been taken, certainly not. Bat there is one reason why there can be no objection to the passing of the scheme so far as individual interests are concerned, and that is that there is a clause expressly providing that if anyone dislikes the terms, he may remain outside the scheme, and that without prejudice to his position. As to whether £40,000 will be required at once, I will point out that, assuming 300 men were to retire at once, and that each was allowed £50, the amount required at once would be £15,000. We have looked into this matter very carefully, and we have found that as we go on the amount demanded will rise up to so large a sum that it will exceed immensely the sum of £40,000; and, therefore, it will be fallacious to treat this question as one which can be answered absolutely. We must deal with it in a sensible way, and there is every reason to believe that a grant of £40,000 will not entail an inordinate claim on the ratepayers, because we shall have the 2½ per cent., which will amount to £7,500 a year, and other contributions will amount to a considerable sum. The residue necessary to be found will, of course, fall upon the ratepayers. This scheme is, as every superannuation scheme must be, one in which it is desirable that the Imperial contribution shall be but a contribution, and not a sum which will carry the whole burden. Further, it is desirable that there shall be some stimulus to the savings of the men, and that they shall have an interest in the fund to which they are contributories. I have frankly stated the financial aspect of the question, and all I
    1704
    can say is that this is a reasonable and adequate contribution in order to put the scheme upon a fair footing. I do not wish to throw at hon. Gentlemen the taunt or suggestion that they are opposed to the superannuation of the police, but they c an best get rid of any doubt on that point by proceeding to accept this clause, which does not go into any of the details. The Government do not propose a Select Committee to deal with this matter, but it may be sent to a Grand Committee, where it can have a businesslike discussion. (8.30.)
    (9.2.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present.
    MR. HUNTER: There was one statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on which I should like to say a word. The right hon. Gentleman objected that if this scheme is rejected the ultimate liability will be cast on the ratepayers. It is true that the Bill provides for an ultimate liability, but I doubt very much whether that proposal can be sustained. It certainly will receive a most vigorous opposition from this side of the House in the absence of the exact calculations with which the Government ought to furnish the Committee. I would compare the use of that argument with the assertion sometimes made in support of the solvency of a Friendly Society in the words, "If we cannot pay our way, we can make a levy." I regret very much that the Lord Advocate indicated the opinion on the part of the Government that the Superannuation Bill should be referred to the Grand Committee on Law. The question of superannuation ought not to be referred to the Grand Committee, because that Committee cannot hear witnesses. The matter should go to a Select Committee, because the Committee will require the evidence of actuarial experts, for it is evident that at the present moment the Government are entirely in the dark as to the financial position of their scheme. How utterly erroneous their view is, the Government have shown in one part of their Bill. One clause says the contribution from the £40,000 should be equal to the weekly payments of the men, but as the deductions from the men are to be at the rate of 2½ per cent., which would yield only £7,300, the £40,000 would be 5½ times the contribution from the Force,

    1705
    equivalent to an increase in wages of 2s. 9d. in the £1, which would be an enormous increase in the amount available for the Police Force. I mention that, not because I object to the increase, large as it would be, but because I think that, if the Government were really to go into the question, they would find that sum would enable them to give far larger benefits to the police than they have under the Superannuation Bill. Take, for example, the total amount required to superannuate the existing officers. The proposal to give two thirds of the actual pay a constable is enjoying would require a certain sum of money. The Lord Advocate did not tell us how much the superannuation of the police would cost, but I have made a calculation based on the minimum figure in regard to age. Patting down pensions for officers at £60 and men at £50, I estimate that the sum required is £18,840. The other proposals in the Bill are quite insufficient to bring the sum up to £30,000. Yet it is obvious that the grant supplemented by the contribution of the men and by money derived from other sources must be considerably in excess of £50,000. The total cost of the police in Scotland is only £292,000, and a sixth part of that sum would make a very heavy Pension List. These are points on which I think we should have some information. I do not bring this forward for the purpose of pressing the Lord Advocate for an answer, but I do it for the purpose of impressing on him the importance of referring the matter to a Select Committee in order to obtain some actuarial evidence. According to the Rules of Debate, I may not discuss the provisions of the Bill, but I believe I shall be in order in saying what would be the kind of superannuation for which I would gladly vote. I should desire that a superannuation should be based on the idea of an Insurance and Provident Fund, and on which the contributions of the men themselves should form a most material circumstance, both in determining the time at which they should receive the pensions and the amount they should be paid. I would say, not only that a certain age should entitle a man to a pension, but that he ought to be entitled to a pension if he is permanently disabled from any cause, whether previous to that age or not, and provision should be made
    1706
    for the children of any man who is killed until the youngest is 15 years of age. Provisions of that kind may be found in the Bill, but I would make the measure more extensive. If we take this Bill before an ordinary Select Committee, it may be that we shall hear enough to satisfy us that a larger object would be obtained by this sum of money. The Lord Advocate may take a different view, and, therefore, it is most important that we should have this Committee before which evidence can be given decisively one way or the other. I believe that with this £40,000 a great deal more than is proposed by the Government ought to be accomplished in the way of police superannuation. And before I sit down I should like to say that whatever pension is paid ought to be paid as a right and not as a favour. Is it to be paid as a favour? ["No, no!"] I infer from the right hon. Gentleman's denial that he will be willing to strike out that portion of the Bill, and I will put down Amendments for that purpose. Then, the pension should be absolutely irrevocable. To say that a certain amount of money is due to a man as a legal debt, and then to say that if he does something or other it will be taken away, is inconsistent with the theory of insurance and thoroughly objectionable. I think a considerable part of the fund should be found from the contributions of the men. As matters now stand, the contributions of the men cannot be more than one-seventh of the whole—that is to say, six-sevenths are to be contributed by the State and one-seventh by the men. I am not sure that a larger sum should not be contributed by the men. It would be a most satisfactory way of dealing with the question for the Government to give us some information as to the persons they have consulted and the information they have received ns the basis of their calculation, or for them to put before us in the form of a Paper the practical scheme they intend to work out. When I rose at an earlier portion of the evening to ask the Lord Advocate to appoint a Select Committee, and said if his answer was not satisfactory I should move to report Progress, I was actuated entirely by a desire to enable the Government to get through with this question. We heard nothing about that question until the very last moment, when the

    1707
    Lord Advocate interposed. I am sure hon. Members will agree with me that the details of this question can be better discussed in a Select Committee than in Committee of the whole House. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this question. We have now an opportunity of starting a system financially sound from the beginning and bound to be sound all through. I am sure that the proceedings before a Select Committee will be at least as short as proceedings before this House would be, and I believe the results obtained would be much more satisfactory. Personally, I am favourable to a scheme of superannuation, and I am only anxious to render the Government every assistance in my power in obtaining as good a scheme as possible.
    MR. LENG: I wish to state a further reason why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee rather than to the Grand Committee on Law——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the Motion before the Committee refers to the allocation of £40,000 to the Superannuation Fund, and any question as to the desirability of referring the Bill to a Select Committee or a Grand Committee, except in strict connection with that, is quite irrelevant.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I anticipate with some degree of certainty that it may be imputed to my hon. Friends that they are spinning out the Debate for some ulterior reason, but I can assure the Government that they had no such idea. If they had such an idea it would be a very foolish one, because the next subsection provides ample opportunity for Debate. The question before the Committee is a serious one, and my hon. Friends have treated it with considerable forbearance. My hon. Friend would have been justified in moving to report Progress, because we have, until this afternoon, received no information as to the mode in which the money is to be expended, and the Bill introduced this evening reached the hands of hon. Members too late to be studied before discussing the sub-section before the Committee. The question of police superannuation is entirely new in Scotland. We have a blank sheet of paper on which to write, and it is, therefore, all the more necessary that Scottish opinion should be thoroughly informed on the subject. I am not sure
    1708
    that in every part of Scotland there is a burning desire to have any system of superannuation. Scotch Members, however, wish to know upon what data the Government arrive at the sum of £40,000. I will tell the Committee why I think they ask for £40,000. When, the Government made up their minds to impose the tax on spirits, they had an object to serve in England; but when they came to Scotland, they found themselves with the money in hand, and had to look about for some object to which they might apply it. That is the cart before the horse with a vengeance. My idea of finance is that you should, first of all, find the object for which you wish to expend the money, and then lay on the taxes to meet the expenditure. If my supposition is not correct, let us have from the President of the Local Government Board some little information as to the data on which this sum is based. The figures quoted to-night on this side of the House would seem to imply that this is a grossly exaggerated sum. I have already said that I do not look with much favour on the policy of Police Superannuation. That is my personal, academic, and pious opinion. But if this thing is to be done at all, we, at least, do not want to vote a larger sum of money than is necessary. We further want to know what reason there is to suppose that this money is needed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted a tone on this subject which I, as a Scotchman, do not much admire. He looked rather knowingly, and he said to us, "Surely Scotch Members won't refuse this money when it is offered to them; they will take it, and then, afterwards, they will see how it is to be applied under the Police Bill." That is the old Cockney view of the Scotchman—that he is a greedy fellow, anxious to take money from whatever source he can get it. I do not accept that character of my countrymen. They are a frugal people, who do not wish to see their own money mis-spent, and who do not wish to seethe money of other people mis-spent. We are entitled to ask for more information than we have yet received. We were told the other night 'that we had no reason to complain, because this was the way in which the English Bill was dealt with—that the sum of money was voted before the Bill was introduced. If that bad example was set and protested

    1709
    against at the time, there was all the more reason for avoiding it on this occasion. Then we were told that the Bill was a very simple matter, because it followed the English precedent. If that were so, it was the more easy to produce the Scotch Bill earlier. On every ground we have reason to complain that we have received so little accurate information on the subject from Her Majesty's Government. So far from making any unreasonable demand upon the Government, the Scotch Members have been most forbearing in not interposing a Motion for the Adjournment on the ground that we have not in our possession that which I feel perfectly certain—if there is a real foundation for this scheme—the Government will give us in a moment, namely, the positive data upon which this sum of £40,000 has been arrived at, and in what proportion the sum which is to superannuate the police is to be derived from its different sources.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I regret I was not here during the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, but I think I can give a general answer to his question. I believe the tendency of his remarks and those of other hon. Members from Scotland is that £40,000 is too much. I would point out that actuarial calculations are the most difficult and impossible to present with accuracy; but from the information have, I believe myself that the sum of £40,000 in a few years will not represent much more than one-third of the police superannuation.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: For Scotland?
    MR. MATTHEWS: Yes; I can only give the right hon. Gentleman general figures on the subject. And I take the Police Force of London, in which the police superannuation is less excessive and liberal than is provided for in this Bill. It was in 1862 that the extravagant and excessive scale of superannuation was brought under notice by Sir George Grey, and it was then reduced to the present scale. The present expenditure on the 15,000 members of the Metropolitan Police is £202,591 a year, and I am told by actuaries that we are likely to have that amount doubled, and that, ultimately, the charge will be more than £400,000. I agree that the analogy I have given
    1710
    is rather a rough one, but it is almost impossible to give a correct actuarial result. If the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to turn to the proceedings of the Committee in 1877, he will find that they waited for two years until Dr. Farr got out of the police books the data on which were based certain Resolutions laid before the Committee. I am sorry to say, after all the elaborate research, the greater part of Dr. Farr's conclusions were mistaken. The number of pensioners in the Metropolitan Force turned out to be double what he estimated.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why the actuarial calculations of the amount of pensions should be so much more difficult in the case of the Police Force than in the case of the Army and Navy and the Civil Service?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I will not enter upon the question of the Army and Navy. I have not considered these two Forces. I have told the right hon. Gentleman of the difficulty in the case of the Police Force. Observe that from 15 years to 25 years, if a man is disabled from duty, he is entitled to a pension. That disablement depends on a thousand and one contingencies. I daresay, if you took 300,000 policemen, you might be able to get an average which would afford a basis for probable calculations. But you cannot get anything like that number to enable you to estimate the number of pensioners. Dr. Farr calculated the number of pensioners at 14 to the 100; but the result has shown that 38, instead of 14, is the actual number taken out. We have consulted the best opinion we could get, and the Actuary (Mr. Finlaison), who was consulted also by my right hon. Friend (the Lord Advocate), informs me that the a mount of superannuation m ay be expected to go up from £202,591 to £550,000. Seeing that we are giving to Scotland with 4,000 police £40,000, the right hon. Gentleman will see that, approximately, the proportion is the same as £150,000 for the Metropolis. I really have not the information with regard to Scotland. We want to know, for instance, how many of the Scotch Police have taken service for 25 years, and would come out under the Bill at once.
    MR. CALDWELL: 370.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I have not been able to obtain that figure, and I have very grave doubts as to its accuracy. However, it really does not matter for the purpose of my argument. You have to ascertain the number who have served 15 years, and the number likely to be disabled by sickness or accident. Possibly, for the first three or four years the £40,000 will be too much, though I do not think that will be found to be the case. But should it turn out so, then Clause 22 of the Police Bill provides that part of the accumulations may be devoted to other local purposes. But I own, myself, that I do not think that £40,000 in Scotland will be too much, even if the funds are allowed to accumulate.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The speech just made by the right hon. Gentleman is the most important speech that has yet been made during the Debates on this Bill, because it alters the whole situation of the case both as regards England and Scotland, for the right hon. Gentleman has told us, but without producing the Papers on which his calculation rests—Papers which the House ought to have if they are in existence—that which must be appalling both to County and Borough Members, and which will necessitate a re-consideration of the whole position. The entire amount now paid in pensions is £371,000, and the Home Secretary has told us we must count upon that sum being at least doubled, so that it will amount to between £700,000 and £800,000. The result will be that, instead of the counties and boroughs deriving an expected advantage from the £150,000 a year, which is to be given under the Bill, they will have to pay an enormous amount in addition to what they already contribute. I think the Government will find that the boroughs and counties of England will have a good deal to say before they sanction a system of police superannuation which will involve such a vast increase of expenditure. We have some figures—not the right hon. Gentleman's actuarial calculations, which are hidden somewhere among the archives of the Home Office—on which we can go. I allude to the Returns furnished by the Under Secretary. From these the House can form some opinion as to how the Police Fund is working, and how this proposal will affect the Scotch people. There are

    1712
    4,100 policemen in Scotland. Now, let me take one or two typical cases in England, where I know in one case, and I believe in the other, the Superannuation Fund is administered efficiently, liberally, and well. In Liverpool the Police Force is as nearly as possible one-third that of Scotland, namely, Liverpool has 1,346 policemen, against 4,100 in Scotland: the entire amount paid in pensions in Liverpool is £1,700 a year, upon which basis the amount required for Scotland would be £23,000 a year. Then I take the County of Staffordshire. The Police Fund there is divided among three counties, rated by three separate rates, there being a town police, a patrol police, and a rural police. Staffordshire has a large accumulated fund, which is not only in a position of perfect solvency, but out of which the men are most liberally dealt with. There are nearly 600 policemen in Staffordshire, the number being 581, and the sum paid in pensions is £3,500 a year. On that basis, the amount required for Scotland would be £24,000 a year. If you go between those two figures, namely, £24,000 and £33,000, it would seem impossible to spend anything like £50,000 a year in police pensions in Scotland.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): £40,000 a year.
    MR.H.H.FOWLER: The contribution of the Government is to be £40,000 a year; but, taking the deductions from the men's pay at 2½ per cent. there will be an extra amount of £10,000, which will make the total £50,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has indignantly denounced the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) that he should make a common fund; in which case, I believe, there would be no burden on the Scotch rates at all; but whether this be so or not, it is evident that £40,000 a year would be enormously in excess of the requirements of Scotland. Such an expenditure is unknown either in the Civil Service or in the Army and Navy, and would be an intolerable burden upon the country. This proposal very strongly confirms my determination to resist this measure.
    MR. RITCHIE: The Home Secretary has pointed out that the actuarial calculations on this matter are not

    1713
    altogether reliable, while some of them have been shown to be incorrect. As I understand, however, there seems to be a general opinion in the House that the matter requires further investigation. [An hon. MEMBER: A Select Committee.] There can be no doubt, after the various statements that have been made, that there is considerable room for difference of opinion on the question, and I understand that the desire for a Select Committee is not accompanied by any wish to delay the application of the principle of superannuation or to throw any difficulty in the way of settling the question. Under those circumstances, the Government, anxious to meet the wishes of the House that the subject shall be fully investigated, and believing that this course will; be generally approved, will consent to the suggestion as to the appointment of a Committee.
    MR. STOREY: If this wore a purely Scotch quarrel I should not have entered into it; but as several English Members have taken part in the Debate, perhaps I, as representing a constituency near the Scottish border, may be allowed to offer a few remarks. Although what I am about to say may be regarded as a voice crying in the wilderness, I cannot but think that the whole system under which the Government propose to superannuate the police is utterly wrong. I cannot see why the police should be treated better in Scotland than the soldiers who fight for their country, and I entirely object to an arrangement under which the servants of one Department of the State are allowed the benefit of this superannuation process. I warn the Government to look to this matter. The Socialistic claim is that all men should be pensioned by the State at a certain age, and this will receive strong support from this attempt to superannuate the Scotch Police. At the present moment we are paying a sum amounting altogether to between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 for what I may call dead men; that is, men who are dead so far as the service of the State is concerned; and now it is proposed that this system shall be extended to the police throughout the country. I am astonished to find that the President of the Local Government Board should, of all men, be the Minister to propose a measure like this, because two years ago, when he brought forward his Local
    1714
    Government Bill, many on those Benches applauded his statement that the ancient rotten system of subvention by the Central Authority to the Local Authority was to be done away with; that the ancient system of centralisation was to be put an end to; and that in future not only the old Local Authorities, but the new Authorities, who are his own children, should have to deal only with their own burdens.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is travelling somewhat wide of the question.
    MR. STOREY: I am only arguing that it is wrong to spend this £40,000 for police superannuation in Scotland, and was illustrating my argument by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is re-introducing the very system he professed to destroy two years ago. Who is to arrange it? Are the Municipalities in Scotland to do as they please; are the County Authorities to make what arrangement they choose? Not so. The Home Secretary comes here and resuscitates that old-fashioned and condemned method of using the central power to control the local power. The Government propose the form in which the Local Authority should give this superannuation, but they go a step further in the very bad system. Under the old system we in Berwickshire could get rid of the control of the right hon. Gentleman at any time by refusing the half grant. But what is the case now? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board gives us the money, and, at the same time, introduces a Bill which will become an Act, which will be binding on all the Local Authorities in Scotland. Therefore, in this system of police superannuation, the right hon. Gentleman is re-introducing in a baser form the very vice of control by the Central Authority which he put an end to two years ago. I, in common with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, have been concerned to hear what cost all this is to involve the Municipalities in. In our own borough the County Council will, I believe, reject the Bill; but the police have already done so, and they have done so because they decline utterly to have this cast-iron rule laid down for them by the Central Authority in London—to have it arranged

    1715
    by a Government which does not understand at all the circumstances of the various localities. I dare say the Home Secretary is quite right. He says he has done his best to understand the Police Superannuation Bill for London, but, to judge from his attitude to-night, I do not think he understands it. But even if he did understand the necessities of London, that would not justify the House in believing that he understands very much about the northern counties. Local circumstances differ, and local needs differ, and for the House of Commons to permit the Government to lay down a cast-iron rule without regard to special circumstances seems not only to return to an evil state of things, but is also a very bad thing in itself. Therefore, I shall oppose the proposal. I do not believe the Committee will be doing wisely in face of the important social questions that are being raised, and will be raised, throughout this and other countries, to carry this system of superannuation, not merely to military persons and servants serving in our public offices, but still further to persons serving under our Local Authorities. The view of the people of the North, at any rate, is that you should pay a man—whether he be a Cabinet Minister, or an officer of the Army, or a Civil servant, or a policeman—as all workmen are paid: give him good wages, so as to enable him to provide for old ago by contributing to some Benefit Society. That I claim to be the manly plan, and I object to the principle by which we apply this system of superannuation to one set of public servants after another. I object to it unless the Government will go the whole length of their principles, like the Emperor of Germany, and bring in a Bill to provide for the superannuation of all people in every rank and grade of society when they are no longer able to support themselves. I warn the Government that, even after the Bill has passed the ordeal of a Select Committee, there will still remain men in the House compelled to resist the measure because it restores the evil principle of centralisation, and because it applies a principle to policemen which ought not to be so applied unless the Government are prepared to extend its operations very much further.
    MR. ESSLEMONT*(10.8.) MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.) rose to continue the discussion.
    Mr. MARK STEWART(10.8.) Mr. MARK STEWART rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that question.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I think the prohibitory Motion which the hon. Member (Mr. Mark Stewart) has put, will not do much to further the interests of police superannuation in Scotland. As a Scotch Member who has believed for many years that a primâ facie case has been made out for superannuation, I think the proposal of the President of the Local Government Board, to refer the Police Superannuation (Scotland) Bill to a Select Committee, is, in many respects, satisfactory. We have only late this afternoon received the Bill, which contains a great many intricate clauses and startling proposals, and it is but reasonable that time should be given to fully consider the nature of these proposals. I can assure the Government that the proposal that a policeman earning 24s. a week should, at the age of 46, receive for the remainder of his life 16s. a week, is one which it will be very difficult to induce men who at no period of their lives can earn more than 16s. a week to agree to. Although I think there is a strong case made out on behalf of those who have been hurt in the execution of their duties as policemen, and the families of those who may be killed while discharging their duties as policemen, I think it is most desirable that the Police Bill should not be in any way rushed through Committee, but that ample time should be given to consider the measure, both in the interest of the police and the ratepayers.
    MR. HUNTER: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, the Government having so handsomely made the concession that I asked for at seven o'clock. I would merely point out that, if the Government had conceded the point when I raised the question, we should have been saved this three hours' discussion. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to be aware that £40,000 is 15·7 per cent. of the whole sum spent on the police in Scotland.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: As to the alarming statement of the Home Secretary, I think it would have been better if the Government had made arrangements to reconcile the statements of its several

    1717
    Members. The Solicitor General for Scotland tells us that this money is more than enough, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite says it is three times as much as will be wanted. I think the Home Secretary is entering on a mad career of excessive and extravagant superannuation which will do more harm than good.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: Am I correct in thinking that we have now done Sub section 1? ["No, no."]
    MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I have no objection to the superannuation of the police, but I should like to know who asks for this scheme of superannuation for Scotland. I have frequently in this House pressed the claims of a part of Scotland in which I am particularly interested, but the Government have persistently refused to do anything for it. Yet they introduce this huge scheme for the superannuation of the police without having, so far as I am aware, having ever been asked for it.
    DR. CLARK: Let us understand where we are before we divide. I understand the Bill is to come before a Select Committee, and that before the Select Committee reports we are to decide whether we are going to spend £40,000, or £20,000, or £5,000, or perhaps nothing for this purpose. We will not allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, as we are some of us altogether opposed to the clause. This is an attempt to thrust English ideas upon Scotland. Until now we have been able to prevent that. We have no system of pensions in Scotland, not even in our Poor Law, and those of us who are opposed to such a system intend to vote against it now.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn? [Cries of "No."]
    Question put, "That Sub-section (1) stand part of the Clause."
    (10.20.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 237; Noes 170.—(Div. List, No. 151.)
    MR. RITCHIE: Looking at the time we have now arrived at, I propose to move to report Progress, so that the Committee may see the Government Amendments on the Paper. I hope tomorrow we may commence the discussion of Sub-section 2, dealing with licences
    1718
    in Scotland, and that we may have some hopes of going on to a rapid conclusion of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government propose to take Wednesday?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Amendment of which notice has been given by the First Lord of the Treasury bears a little resemblance to an Amendment of mine moved a week ago and rejected.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to the Motion before the Committee. I have no doubt the Committee will allow the right hon. Gentleman to state the difference, but he must not argue the question.
    MR. SHAW LEEEVRE: My Amendment proposed that this Bill should be hung up, and that the money should accumulate until Parliament had dealt with two principles, namely, the power of the Magistrates to refuse to renew licences, and the increase of the Licence Duties in respect of the improvement in the value of public houses, caused by the extinction of other houses.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman's statement is not pertinent to the Motion to report Progress.
    SIR W.HARCOURT: I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has moved to report Progress until the House has had time to examine and consider the proposals of the Government. As far as we understand them on this side of the House, they do not seem to remove the fundamental objections we entertain. The right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that the Bill would have a rapid progress. Some weeks ago we stated the terms on which this Bill should have a rapid progress. I have only to re-state those terms. This Bill will have a rapid progress as soon as the principle of paying for annual licences is removed from it. As long as that principle remains in the Bill, whether in presento or in futoro, we shall feel it necessary to oppose it as being unsound and mischievous.
    MR. R. T. REID: Does the right hon. Gentleman

    1719
    propose to proceed with this Committee to-morrow? As the Government propose to omit some of the clauses, it may be necessary to make some of the Amendments on the paper applicable to other clauses.
    MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; we must adhere to the proposals we have made. It seems to me that the Amendments on the clauses to be withdrawn would hardly be applicable to the other proposals of the Bill.
    MR. R. T. REID: I referred to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), providing that no alteration should be made in the existing law.
    MR. RITCHIE: Of course the Government have assented to that, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby would be able to bring it forward.
    SIR L. PLAYFAIR: It might facilitate the consideration of the Amendment if the First Lord of the Treasury would tell us what the precedents are for taking an annual sum and accumulating it for this purpose.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to the question.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: We want to know exactly how we stand, and I venture to make a suggestion to the Government in the interest of the dispatch of business. They have moved to report Progress on the ground that it is desired that the House should see what is proposed. I think that we should see that for ourselves to-morrow. I cannot help thinking the Government must have some other little matter up their sleeve. They ask us, against the interest of their own Bill, to assent to this Motion to report Progress. I suggest that the proper course to adopt is to re-commit the Bill. This is a wholly different measure to that we assented to on the Second Reading. Three of the most important clauses are to be struck out. In the famous words of an Irish Judge, that is enough to capsize the intellect. The House in its corporate capacity assented to the Bill on the ground that it was a Bill to compensate the publican. ["Oh, oh!"] We now understand the three compensatory clauses are to be omitted. I said "we." Of course, if you are we, I am satisfied. Not only are the three clauses to be dropped out of
    1720
    the Bill, but in addition some cute Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) is to be adopted. It is well we should know what is the last mind of the Cabinet on this question. Of course, if Cabinet Councils are called so frequently as at present it is rather difficult for us to know how we stand, but I suggest that we should be told what the mind of the Cabinet was on Saturday.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order! The question is that I report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I am resisting the Motion to report Progress. I object to the Motion unless we get from the Government some distinct announcement as to the reason why Progress should be reported, as I understand Government intend to bring in a number of new Amendments. We have assented to the Second Reading of the Bill on one ground, and they are going to ask the Committee to pass it on another.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks why we have made the Motion to report Progress. We have done so in answer to an appeal, made at 5 o'clock, from the opposite Benches, that the Government should report Progress when the first sub-section was disposed of. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find it is not in accordance with the practice of the House to re-commit a Bill under such circumstances as exist in the present case.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Five o'clock and 11 o'clock are different things. The Government are responding at 11 o'clock to what they were asked at 5 o'clock.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite mistaken. We were asked to report Progress when the first sub-section was disposed of, and we have agreed to that suggestion.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The Government were asked at 5 o'clock to report Progress. [Cries of "No."] My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen appealed to the Government at 5 o'clock not to go on with the Bill at all to-day; but they insisted upon the Scotch Members considering the Bill. Now, at 11 o'clock, they consent to report Progress. I say that is not a fair way in which to treat the House. I will make another suggestion to the Government. They

    1721
    profess to be anxious to make progress with the Bill. I suppose that to-morrow we shall reach the Irish clauses of the Bill. If so, would it not be reasonable that the Government should accept the proposition made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), who in this matter is stronger than the licensed victualling party of the Government, that the Irish Members should be allowed to deal with this matter themselves.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: I was about to rise to move to report Progress when the right hon. Gentleman opposite did so, and on precisely the same grounds. New Amendments of great importance are to be proposed, and it will require time for hon. Gentlemen to see whether their Amendments to Clauses 5, 6, and 7, that are going to be struck out, could be attached to any of the clauses of the Bill, in order that if the Bill was forced through the House we shall not be committed to the principle of compensation without any of the safeguards which some of the Amendments on the Paper will provide.
    MR. WALLACE: I quite agree it was understood that Progress was to be reported to-night when it was convenient, but I did not understand Progress was to be reported for the express purpose of beginning afresh to-morrow. I understood Progress was to be reported to give the Scotch Members time to arrive at a comprehension of the various bearings of the changes which have been made and——
    Mr. RITCHIE Mr. RITCHIE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    (11.0.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 248; Noes 215.—(Div. List, No. 152.)
    Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, To-morrow, again resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    MR. WALLACE: I beg to move that the Bill be set down for Thursday. I do so on the general ground that some little time is required to ascertain exactly how we
    1722
    stand in this matter in the light of the new attitude which, I think in your presence, Sir, was described by the right hon. Gentleman. I think the Government are taking far too light a view of the difficulties that surround the process, of completely apprehending and understanding, in all its bearings, the new situation in which they have placed their business in this, as well as in other matters. It is not simply a comprehension of the proposition put before us, but the surveying of it in that historical light in which all their proceedings now require to be set. There are such a variety and number of complications that invite the attention of the contemplative mind in considering the proceedings of the Government in respect to any of their measures, large or small, that the cautious understanding is at once awakened to the necessity for a proper interval for research and consideration. I do not know, Sir, that I should be in order if I endeavoured to convey to your mind an understanding of what has been done, or was attempted to be done, in Committee, but, perhaps, you will allow me to say that while in connection with a matter purely relevant to the Scottish side of the question, I was promptly closured by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie), who, if he does not take care, will rapidly realise a description once given of him by a prominent and distinguished leader of the Party to which he belongs—I was closured while yet in the incipient stage of a very short speech, intended to be an endeavour to show special reasons why Scotch Members should be considered in this matter. It has come with entire novelty upon us, and, speaking for myself, and I think I may speak for some of my Colleagues, we do not at once grasp the full significance of the proposal before us. I have a certain dim sense of the ridiculous in the situation the right hon. Gentleman has put before us to-night, necessarily dim in view of the circumstances and the appreciation of Members from the country from which I hail. I feel faintly and indefinitely convinced that there is something approximating to the farcical in the position in which we are placed towards the Scottish nation, and I and my Colleagues may require to consult our doctors before we can get a proper sense of the situation into our heads, and as

    1723
    many of us have important engagements to-morrow, and require a certain time to recover from the operation our not sufficiently discerning compatriot has imposed on men of his own blood, it is necessary, in the serious and very important aspects of the case—though I may say the more serious aspect naturally impresses me more profoundly—it is necessary that we should have a longer interval than the right hon. Gentleman seems disposed to allow us. I quite suppose that when the Government proposed to report Progress they thought they had kept their word to the letter, but they proposed to report Progress with the object that the House, not to speak of the Scotch contingent of the House, should have time sufficient to understand the altered situation, and adapt their necessary Amendments to the new position of affairs. I venture to say this is quite impossible if we only see the exact nature of the Government Amendment, and have time to study its effect to-morrow morning. I must, therefore, seriously propose that the Committee shall not be resumed until Thursday.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "To-morrow," and insert the word "Thursday,"—(Mr. Wallace,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'To-morrow' stand part of the Question."
    MR. STOREY: In a sentence or two I must reinforce the suggestion of my hon. Friend. I do not intend to allude to the precise point raised that we shall not have time to put down our Amendments, but I venture to represent to you, Sir, as guardian of the business of the House, as well as to the Government which is supposed to direct us, that an Amendment is to be moved, of which you have no official cognisance; we have only heard it read out, we have not had it set down, and cannot measure its importance; but there is more in this matter than the mere question of putting down Amendments. The Amendment I may state in effect is this: the Government propose that the money shall be tied up in a purse and put away, not being appropriated during this Session of Parliament. Now, I venture to suggest to you, Sir, as Speaker of this House, that there is no precedent for such a proposal as the
    1724
    Government have now made; and so convinced am I on that point that I intend to raise the question before the Bill is taken in Committee again, and to ask you, Sir, whether, under the Standing Orders and practice of Parliament, such an Amendment is in order. The law of Parliament hitherto, and for 100 years, has been that the money granted and raised by taxation shall be appropriated during the year, either in the Bill providing the money or in future Bills passed in the same Session of Parliament, and I challenge right hon. Gentlemen, and I challenge the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the highest Government authority in the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury, to produce a single precedent in this or any Parliament where a proposal was made and successfully carried, granting a sum of money to the Government, ostensibly for the service of the year, and then the Government came down, saying, "After all, we do not need it for the service of the year, so we will tie it up for future use." I say that would be getting money under false pretences from the people of the country, and, inasmuch as there are important questions of precedent to be raised, I submit it is unreasonable and unfair that we should be asked to discuss the matter to-morrow. It is now nearly midnight. We shall have this Amendment before us in our Parliamentary Papers, sent to us in the morning, and unless Members are far less indolent than myself, we shall have but a short morning in which to consider the Amendment as one it may be desirable to modify, as well as to search the history of Parliamentary finance, so as to be able to establish my contention, which I am sure I can establish. This goes to the root of the whole question. I submit that Parliament ought to have time allowed it to consider these matters, and I strongly support the Amendment, so that, instead of being forced unfairly—I may venture to say indecently—to take the matter tomorrow, some reasonable time should be afforded to the Opposition and its leaders to consider all the bearings of the question with full information. We are asking the Government only for what is just and reasonable. I submit, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, considering the great change which has taken place, and the important Constitutional

    1725
    point that may be raised, that we ought to take this question on Thursday.
    MR. GOSCHEN: It is impossible for the Government to accept the suggestion. However plausible may be the suggestions which have come from the hon. Member who has just sat down, we have learned sufficient lessons to take them at their true worth. Let me remind the House of what has been the conduct of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We had assurances from the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian that we might hope to get the Committee on the proposed Standing Order without much discussion. It was shown at once, however, what command the right hon. Gentleman had over his own followers. ["Question."] It is all very well for Members opposite to allow their champions to call "Question" when we show reasons why we cannot assent. I am giving reasons why we consider the suggestion that we may get on with the business by accepting the Amendment as a mere sham. If we were to take other business to-morrow, it would be treated as the business to-night has been treated, with which we hope to make some progress. We were asked to report Progress, and when the hon. Member for Glasgow suggested what was entirely in accordance with the spirit of the agreement, he was thrown over by hon. Members below the Gangway, who endeavoured to speak one after the other. It is very astonishing how sensitive hon. Members are who attack the Government on every point. There is on the Paper the Bill dealing with the housing of the working classes. There is an hour and a half to get on with that Bill if hon. Members would give us the chance. The suggestion that we should postpone the question until Thursday would not advance business at all, for we know the manner in which hon. Members have acted. I am not dispossd to discuss the merits of the question. The merits of the question are to be argued, it seems, upon every Motion of adjournment, upon every Motion for Progress, upon every sub-section. The hon. Member who has just sat down, and the hon. Member who preceded him, say they have no time to consider their Amendments. If they devoted the time during which they have been speaking on this subject to considering their Amendments they might do something. Hon. Mem-
    1726
    bers know the bearing of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. Hon. Members have had ample opportunity since the announcement of my right hon. Friend to consider what Amendments should be put down. According to all the traditions of the House the Government would be absolutely justified in proceeding with the Bill to-morrow.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The genial and conciliatory tone in which the right hon. Gentleman has just addressed the House enables us to realise the horror with which Gentlemen behind him look forward to an Autumn Session, which might leave the right hon. Gentleman as Leader of the House. An Autumn Session, we have been told, would lead to the withdrawal of the First Lord of the Treasury. Bad as an Autumn Session might be, it would be still worse if for eight or nine weeks we were to have the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivering speeches couched in the tone of the speech he has just addressed to us. He has made-some remarks on our votes on the Closure Motion. Oar answer is very simple. I voted against the Closure because I considered the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board rose and interrupted the hon. Member for East Edinburgh was one of those performances which needed to be protested against. The right hon. Gentleman assures us that the Government have learnt their lesson. I do not think that they have even yet learnt it, if we are to judge by the idle concession that they have made with regard to the Local Taxation Bill. We have still some other lessons to teach right hon. Gentlemen on that Bench. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland made a reasonable point which the right hon. Gentleman could have shortly answered. He asked whether there was any precedent for this proposal to accumulate money for a stated object. That was a legitimate point, and ought to have been answered. If the right hon. Gentleman had answered it he would have shown some respect for his political opponents. With regard to the immediate Motion before the House, why should not the Western Australia Bill have been fixed for tomorrow, and this Bill resumed on Thursday? No reason whatever has

    1727
    been given for not adopting this apparently convenient course.
    MR. CONYBEARE: We have not yet heard a reply to the appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman. I think we have a right to some answer on the part of the Government. Surely they should re-consider their position. They are not treating their opponents fairly, and I think they are placing themselves in a false position.
    The House divided:—Ayes 241; Noes 198.)—Div. List, No. 153)
    Main Question put.
    MR. SEXTON: If this Motion, Sir, he adopted after 12 o'clock, will not the effect be that we will have to resume consideration in Committee on Wednesday?
    MR. SPEAKER: I must put the Main Question.
    MR. SEXTON: It is now past 12 o'clock, and the Motion says "to-morrow." I submit it is now Tuesday.
    MR. SPEAKER: The House will observe that the Motion was made on Monday.
    MR. SEXTON: And carried on Tuesday.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That this House will, Tomorrow, again resolve into the Committee.

  SUPPLY REPORT.
  Resolution [20th June] reported.
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS III.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £37,586, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Pay and Expenses of Officers of Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary."
    Resolution agreed to.

  CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 247.)
  Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Thursday.
  BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 369.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday.

  EAST INDIA (CIVIL SERVANTS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the alleged grievances of the Uncovenanted Civil Servants of India arising from the change in the relative value of gold and silver money and their leave and pension rules."
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of:—Mr, King, Mr. Howorth, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Bristowe, Viscount Baring, Sir William Plowden, Mr. Barbour, Mr. Alfred Pease, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. MacNeill, and Sir John Gorst.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir John Gorst.)
  DR. TANNER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Motion whether there is any hope of getting any Report from the Committee this Session with regard to the grievances of the Uncovenanted Indian Civil Servants?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): I am afraid that, owing to the long delay that has taken place in the appointment of the Committee, it may be difficult for them to report during the present Session.
  MR. CONYBEARE: May I suggest to the Government that they should ask for the appointment of a Royal Commission rather than of a Select Committee, because in that case the Commission will be enabled to carry on its inquiries during the Recess, which a Select Committee of this House cannot do. I should add that I propose to put down an Amendment to the Licensing Bill, that the £350,000 which the Government propose to give for the extinction of licences should be allocated so as to recoup these Indian Civil Servants for their losses instead of being used for the compensation of publicans.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I observe from the language of the Motion that the Committee is to inquire into the alleged grievances of the Uncovenanted Civil Servants of India. All I desire to do now is to express a hope that the inquiry will extend to the

  1729
  grievances of the natives as well as of the Europeans.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  BRITISH AND FOREIGN SPIRITS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether, on grounds of public health, it is desirable that certain classes of spirits, British and foreign, should be kept in bond for a definite period before they are allowed to pass into consumption, and to inquire into the system of blending British and foreign spirits, in or out of bond, and into the propriety of applying the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act to the sale of home spirits, and the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act and the Merchandise Marks Act to the case of foreign spirits and mixtures of British and foreign spirits."—[Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: While I am exceedingly obliged to the Government for moving the appointment of this Committee, I think the right hon. Gentleman, if he were in the House, would see the force of the objection I am about to make. I suggest that the principle of the Merchandise Marks Act should apply not merely to foreign spirits and mixtures of British and foreign spirits, but also to British spirits. I shall move to amend the Motion so that the last line will read—"Tothe case of foreign spirits, to mixtures of British and foreign spirits, and to British spirits." The subject is one of great importance to the Irish whisky manufacturers. The industry which is concerned in this proposal is one of great magnitude, because not only is Ireland affected but Scotland also. I welcome the appointment of the hon. Member for Leeds on the Committee, because, not only is he a Scotchman, but he is also one whose scientific attainments will be of great service. Perhaps a more useful Bill for the trade of the country than the Merchandise Marks Act has not been passed by the Government during their tenure of office, but, unfortunately, that Bill was not applicable to all classes of goods. On reading the Report of the Committee I see that in the article of rum alone there is an enormous consumption, and it is found that of pretty nearly every 100 gallons of rum imported from abroad 99 gallons are composed of potato spirit. With regard to whisky, the position of the Scotch and Irish manufacturers is this: for centuries whisky has been made by them of malt or a mixture of malt and
  1730
  barley. It was made by a process of slow distillation, but of late, science—which in this case is another name for fraud—has invented a patent still, which, by a short process of distillation, will produce what is termed "whisky" from ingredients of the most deleterious character. The result is, that instead of drinking malt, or malt and grain spirit, the public frequently swallow stuff which is made from wood fibre, treated with sulphuric acid, or a spirit made of rice or horrible brown sugar of molasses, or the dregs of molasses' casks, as well as from Indian corn. That is not whisky. I do not recommend anybody to drink whisky, but if they ask for whisky let them follow the advice of the celebrated advertisement, which says, "When you ask for Glenfield's starch see that you get it." When a man asks for whisky he ought not to get a deleterious substitute. I know it is contended that whisky of all kinds is deleterious. I am not concerned to deny that, but I say there are degrees of un wholesomeness, and those who want whisky ought not to get sulphuric acid and wood spirit, nor an article made from molasses, nor a kind of bastard rum, which is really a spirit of the coarsest and most abominable kind. I acknowledge the concessions that the Government have already made on this matter, but the Motion now made by the Government only covers foreign spirits and mixtures of foreign and British spirits, leaving the native pirate untouched in his native wilds. Why should the Merchandise Marks Act apply only in the two cases stated? I believe I shall have the support of the majority of the House in my proposal, and I should be sorry to divide the House upon it. Therefore, I hope the Government will accept my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "foreign spirits and mixtures of."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): My impression is that the hon. Member is not correct in his interpretation of what the reference to the Committee really covers. I understand he wants the Merchandise Marks Act to apply not

  1731
  only to foreign spirits but to British spirits mixed with foreign spirits.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: And to British spirits alone.
  MR. JACKSON: The Act referred to only applies to articles which are marked either fraudulently or in a manner calculated to mislead.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Surely if a draper advertises Balbriggan hosiery and sells the goods of Birmingham or Sheffield he is liable to punishment.
  MR. JACKSON: No doubt you may punish the draper under the Trades Marks Act, but that is not the same thing as the Merchandise Marks Act. I am sorry to say that, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. KNOX: I do not like to be absolutely certain, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct as to the Merchandise Marks Act. I think it includes the sale as well as the import of goods fraudulently marked; and, if that is so, the only objection the Secretary to the Treasury takes to this proposal would be removed. I do not know that we should all be ready to agree with my hon. and learned Friend, who would forestall the conclusion the Committee are likely to arrive at. But the questions he has raised are of great importance to the whisky distillers of Ireland, and it is well that they should be considered by an impartial tribunal.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I remember the question raised by the hon. and learned Member being brought up in reference to Balbriggan hosiery, when the Merchandise Marks Act was before the House.
  MR. TOMLINSON: The Balbriggan hose question properly comes under the Merchandise Marks Act. Imitations of these productions were manufactured first at Nottingham and then at Chemnitz in Saxony. The question now raised is rather that of adulteration than of false marking.
  MR. FLYNN: The reference to the Committee is not sufficient, and requires to be amended. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer consented to appoint a Committee it was left on our mind that the Committee would inquire into the question of the adultera-
  1732
  tion of Irish and Scotch spirits; and I venture to submit that the reference will be defective unless this proviso is agreed to. I cannot consent to the construction the Secretary to the Treasury puts on the words of the Motion. It must be clear that they do not apply to a mixture of different kinds of home spirits, or deleterious home spirits, or to such an admixture of spirits as goes on very largely in Scotland and Ireland, where a fairly good spirit is mixed with a vile compound produced at home. It might be possible to apply the Trades Marks Act to such a case, or the combined wisdom of the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench might be able to frame an Amendment to meet the point.
  MR. JACKSON: I cannot make any proposal in regard to this matter in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I have no objection to postpone the Motion until to-morrow.
  SIR L. PLAYFAIR: Great care will be required in framing the reference. I have no objection to the remarks of the hon. Member for Longford, but he must remember that out of the 36,500,000 gallons of spirits consumed in this country per annum, only 16,000,000 are whisky. The interests of the producers of spirits other than whisky must not be lost sight of.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I accept the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, and I would just point out that the Merchandise Marks-Act is not a Customs Act. It is a home Act. I would also say that, though it is true that the amount of whisky consumed is only 16,000,000 gallons, there is no reason why stuff should be sold as whisky which is, in reality, nothing but fusil oil.
  MR. SEXTON: What view does the Solicitor General take of the operation of the Act?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE,): As the matter is to stand over for consideration it is hardly necessary that I should say anything upon it.
  Debate adjourned till to-morrow.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before One o'clock.