Commons Sitting of 21 March 1890

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of moving, in connection with the Midland Railway Bill—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Midland Railway Bill has been referred to consider the propriety of requiring the Midland Railway Company to provide, by means of a viaduct, a public thorough fare across their Railway and works in North St. Pancras, from Leighton Road to Queen's Crescent; and if the Committee should be of opinion that it would be reasonable and proper to require the said Railway Company to provide such thoroughfare, to insert the necessary provisions in the said Bill."
  In North St. Pancras the Midland Railway Company have a considerable area of ground which lies between Kentish Town Road, near a street known as the Leighton Road and Queen's Crescent. This area is occupied by the Midland Company as a cattle station, and by railway sheds and general buildings of a similar character. But a great portion of it is vacant. The land comes up to the main street of Kentish Town, opposite to the Leighton Road. I wish to connect Leighton Road with Queen's Crescent. If there be any engineering difficulties of a serious character, or of insurmountable nature, which I think there are not, it will, of course, be within the competence of the Committee upstairs to consider them, and if they are found to be of sufficient importance, the Committee can decline to sanction this proposal. At this moment the Midland Company have in Parliament a Bill to confer upon them additional powers, and in that Bill the Company propose to acquire compulsorily certain lands and houses in the parish; to make a new street in connection with the alteration of another street; and further to widen by about 33 feet, or as shown in deposited plan, 80 feet—the bridge at St. Pancras which carries the St. Pancras Junction line over the St. Pancras Road. The Midland

  1499
  Railway Company, therefore, are asking to widen an already wide bridge by 80 ft., which practically means converting the road below into a tunnel. They also seek to appropriate for the purposes of their railway, Middlesex Street, Harpenden Street, Brill Street, Stanmore Street, Aldenham Street, and Goldington Street, together with certain other places extending to some 5,833 superficial square yards. The Midland Company are asking Parliament to sanction a very considerable interference with the parish of St. Pancras, and as they are coming here for these advantages, at the expense of St. Pancras, it is not unreasonable that the people of St. Pancras should ask at the hands of the company for some conveniences in other parts of the parish as a quid pro quo for the advantages which the company are seeking to acquire. The Vestry of St. Pancras have petitioned against the preamble of the Midland Company's Bill, urging, among other objections, that they do not know what the company propose to do with the land which they seek to acquire under the Bill; that there is no necessity for taking a good deal of it; and that if they are permitted to have this land they ought to submit to certain requirements in the interests of the parish. I admit that the petition of the Vestry does not distinctly raise the particular question which I am now bringing before the House. Had that been the case it would not have been necessary for me to have troubled the House at all with this matter. I may mention that I have been obliged to postpone this Motion in consequence of the serious illness of the chief executive officer of St. Pancras, which has prevented me from obtaining all the material I wanted. I would venture to submit to the House, as Member of Parliament for this part of St. Pancras, that I ought not to be precluded owing to any oversight or negligence on the part of the Vestry from raising now the interests of the public in the district which I represent. Perhaps I may be allowed to remind the House that the Midland Railway Company have taken a very considerable portion of public land in the parish of St. Pancras, and a considerable portion also of private property for the convenience of their line. Part of that land has been vacant for many years to the disadvantage of the
  1500
  general public. The least, then, that the Midland Railway Company can do is to meet the requirements of the inhabitants of the parish, who ask for a return for the advantages which the Company propose to secure for themselves under the provisions of the present Bill. I need scarcely say that the works of the Midland Railway Company have not added to the attractive character of St. Pancras, as any hon. Member will find who goes up the St. Pancras Road, or comes in contact with the works of the company elsewhere in St. Pancras, except, of course, in the case of the large terminal station, which is undoubtedly a very fine building. In moving this Instruction, I only ask that the question of making this road—a road which will be of great convenience to the public—shall be referred to the Committee upstairs. A viaduct from Leighton Road to Queen's Crescent will be of great convenience to the persons who live on both sides of the line. There is a large industrious artisan population in Kentish Town, but in consequence of not having a continuation of Queen's Crescent to Leighton Road, they are obliged to go round by Mansfield Road and Gordon House Road for near a mile, or round by the Prince of Wales' Road, or to walk through some very narrow and awkward streets intervening. I am not asking the House to make an Order at once, or to deal with the Midland Railway Company in any arbitrary way, but only to refer the matter to the Committee upstairs. In that case, if what I ask is reasonable and practicable, it will receive the sanction of the Committee, and if unreasonable or impracticable, it will be rejected. I may add that I have brought this matter forward without any ill-feeling towards the Midland Railway Company, but solely in the interests of the public, and, at the same time, with a full desire to give the company all reasonable facilities for the development of their line. I beg to move the Instruction which I have already read.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Midland Railway Bill has been referred to consider the propriety of requiring the Midland Railway Company to provide, by means of a viaduct, a public thoroughfare across

  1501
  their railway and works in North St. Pancras, from Leighton Road to Queen's Crescent; and, if the Committee should be of opinion that it would be reasonable and proper to require the said Railway Company to provide such thoroughfare, to insert the necessary provisions in the said Bill."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY,): I do not rise for the purpose of denying the public convenience which would result from the proposition of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Bolton) if it were carried out. I have no doubt the bridge which he proposes would by extremely serviceable to those who live on both sides of the railway, but the question is, by whom is the bridge to be made, and at whose cost? The hon. Member for North St. Pancras comes before us with an Instruction to the Committee to consider the propriety of requiring the Midland Railway Company to provide, by means of a viaduct, a public thoroughfare across their railway from Leighton Road to Queen's Crescent; but, as he himself has said, he comes before the House rather late. The Committee upstairs have already been engaged in considering the Bill. The hon. Member comes here without taking any of the usual Parliamentary steps, and without being backed up by the Road Authority of the District. The Midland Railway Company are proposing1 to make some changes in one part of St. Pancras quite apart from the particular area which the hon. Member wishes to protect. If the Vestry of St. Pancras, when presenting their petition against the proposed works, had raised this objection, they might possibly have entered into negotiations with the company and secured some beneficial results. But the petition does not refer to this matter at all. It relates exclusively to works in South St. Pancras, where the Midland Railway Company wish to make some alteration in regard to the streets of the neighbourhood. The Vestry of St. Pancras have not asked to be heard upon the question which the hon. Member has brought before the House, and we are placed in this position—that the Midland Railway Company propose to do something in one part of the parish, whereas the local representatives object to something which has reference entirely to another part, and he is not backed up
  1502
  by the Local Authority. Nevertheless, he asks the House to adopt this Instruction, and to compel the Midland Railway Company really to make a bridge in another part of the parish. The Midland Company have not been consulted in the matter, nor did they see the plans until this afternoon. The Committee upstairs have already been engaged in the consideration of the Bill, and it would be an innovation of a startling character for the House, under such circumstances, to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member. As I said at starting, the bridge would undoubtedly be a great public convenience, and possibly at some future time it will be made, and the Midland Company may be got to contribute towards the cost of making it. The Midland Railway Company is a company of great activity; its works are not likely to finish this year, and probably they may have something to do in connection with St. Pancras in future years. If this Instruction were sanctioned and were to become the general rule it would probably have serious consequences.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Before the House goes to a Division I hope I may, as one of the Members for St. Pancras, be permitted to make one or two remarks. I quite agree with the hon. Member for North St. Pancras that a bridge from Leighton Road to Queen's Crescent would be of great advantage to a large number of the inhabitants of that part of the borough; more especially because I think the proposals now made by the Midland Railway Company will, to some extent, isolate one portion of the borough of St. Pancras from the other, and will be of great inconvenience to the public generally. I therefore think the Instruction ought to go before the Committee upon the Bill to see whether the existing evil can be remedied. At the same time, I quite agree with the Chairman of Ways and Means that it is somewhat unprecedented to ask for power to enable a Committee to consider a question which the Local Authorities in their Petition against the Bill have not raised. I venture to hope, however, that the House will allow the question to go before the Committee upstairs.
  The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 59.—(Div. List, No. 34.)

QUESTIONS.

  PRICES OF CATTLE.
  MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the Minister for Agriculture whether he will take steps to collect statistics of prices realised by actual sales of cattle by live weight in the chief cattle markets of Great Britain and Ireland, and to furnish the same to Members of Parliament as a quarterly Return?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The proposal to obtain statistics of the prices of cattle as ascertained by sales effected on the basis of live weight is one which I am not indisposed co view with favour. But the Board of Agriculture has at present no machinery which could be made immediately available for the collection of such information in Great Britain, and it has not been entrusted with any powers for the collection of statistics in Ireland. We are, however, considering if it may not be possible to devise a scheme for the purpose, in concert with other Departments, or otherwise. I understand that the Commission now sitting on market rights and tolls has taken evidence on the subject, and has procured Reports from foreign countries as to their practice in this matter, and it would be well perhaps to await their recommendations before giving a more definite answer to the question.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the evidence before the Markets Commission it was shown that weigh bridges have seldom been used either in England, Ireland, or Wales?
  MR. CHAPLIN: No; I was not aware of that; and that is one of the reasons why I am desirous of waiting for the Report.

  THE LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that up to September, 1889, a sum of £665,150 has been issued as a loan under the Labourers' (Ireland) Act, and that since that date further large sums have been sanctioned as loans under the same Act;
  1504
  whether there has been considerable delay in the issue of instalments caused by the insufficient number of Inspecting Engineers employed by the Local Government Board; whether this deficiency has in many cases led to a very incomplete and unsatisfactory inspection; whether in many cases the Inspectors have found it impossible properly to control the works in progress, and that, consequently, many of the houses have been badly built, in some cases mud mortar only having been used; and whether he will take steps to secure that public money shall not be used for the erection of inferior buildings?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph. The Local Government Board are not responsible for any delay which may have occurred in the issue of instalments. The principal cause of any such delay has been remissness on the part of the architects of the Sanitary Authority in not getting defects remedied when pointed out by the Local Government Inspectors. There is no information to show that in any case an incomplete and unsatisfactory inspection has been made. On the contrary, it is believed that all the inspections have been made in a thorough manner, and that full time has been given to each case. The control or supervision of the works in progress is not in the hands of the Local Government Inspectors, but of the architect or clerk of works of the Sanitary Authority. It is the case that in one union it was found that improper mortar had been used, but the Local Government Board forthwith required the work to be pulled down and rebuilt. The Local Government Inspectors exercise due diligence in their inspections, but the responsibility of closely watching the work while it is being carried on rests with the officers of the Sanitary Authority.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not the fact that many of the houses have been found to be practically uninhabitable owing to the way in which they have been handed over to the labourers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will put the question on the Paper, I will ask for a Report.

  OUT-DOOR RELIEF IN IRELAND.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the blind man, named James Madden, who was recently deprived of out-door relief, was, when formerly in the workhouse, granted a pass every second day to visit Dr. Sandford, an ophthalmic specialist in Cork; whether the treatment was successful, and whether Madden is now granted the same opportunity; and whether the Vice Guardians had received any medical expression of opinion on Madden's case prior to depriving him, his wife, and six children of their allowance of six shillings a week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Vice Guardians have no information as to the extern medical aid Madden may have sought when a former inmate of the workhouse. Any inmate can obtain a pass for the purpose of visiting a medical specialist. Madden has not re-entered the workhouse. The Vice Guardians' action in ordering that Madden should be admitted into the workhouse, with a view to his receiving treatment in the hospital, was supported by a medical certificate to the effect that he would be better there than at home.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not the fact that this man was sent to a specialist by the order of the Guardians, and was advised to enter the workhouse so that he might receive medical treatment there?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no information as to what medical advice this man received.
  DR. TANNER: Was he not sent to Dr. Sandford by the order of the Board of Guardians on the recommendation of the medical staff?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a matter upon which I have no information.
  DR. TANNER: Then I will put down the Question for another day.

  CRIME TN WATERFORD.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact, as reported, that Lord Chief Justice O'Brien was, at Waterford, on Tuesday, presented
  1506
  with a pair of white gloves, there being no criminal business for the whole County of Waterford to go before him; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government propose cancelling any application they have made to the county of the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that it is the case that at the opening of the Waterford Assizes the Lord Chief Justice was presented with a pair of white gloves in consequence of there being no cases for trial. This, however, does not represent the true condition of that county, and the learned Judge, in his address to the Grand Jury, had to refer to a recent deliberate murder committed in the county and to the prevalence of the crimes of boycotting and intimidation. The authorities responsible for the peace of the county report that they are unable at the present time to recommend the withdrawal of the application of the provisions of the Crimes Act in force therein.
  MR. WEBB: Did not the learned Judge speak of boycotting as a crime well-known to the Common Law; and, if so, is not the Common Law sufficient to meet cases of boycotting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Every crime is capable of being dealt with by the Common Law.

  EVICTION AT FERMOY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is a fact, in connection with the recent eviction of Mr. P. Shinnick, P.L.G., near Fermoy, County Cork, that a sub-tenant named Leahy was also evicted, no notice of eviction having been served either on Leahy or the relieving officer; and if it is true, ass stated, that Mrs. Shinnick and her five young children were turned out upon the roadside, where they remained all night, without shelter; and whether an investigation will be made into the circumstances of the case; and, if so, by whom will it be conducted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It appears to be the fact that on the occasion of the eviction referred to in the question Leahy, who was a labourer occupying a house on the farm, was evicted. I am informed that the statements in the first paragraph are not accurate in relation to

  1507
  Mrs. Shinnick and her children, but are true with reference to Mrs. Leahy. Leahy and his family appear to have been allowed, on the following day, to re-enter the house from which they had been evicted, as caretakers.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman the head of the Local Government Board in Ireland?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; but the Local Government Board have nothing to do with cases of this kind.

  SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST AN IRISH MAGISTRATE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of certain proceedings at the Kerry Assizes on the appeal of Mary Quinlan against Mr. George Sandes from the decision of a County Court, for the maintenance of his illegitimate child, in which it was admitted by Mr. Sandes that, in 1882, he was a land agent for Several estates, and that some disputes having arisen which led to litigation, in a place where he frequently acted as presiding Justice, he sent for Mary Quinlan, one of the parties to the litigation, and seduced her; and that, although frequently applied to for the maintenance of the child that was the result of this intercourse, he had refused to make such maintenance; and that he further would not deny that, when acting as land agent, he had had intercourse with many tenants' widows; and whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor will be called to the conduct of Mr. Sandes in this case?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The only sources open to me on the subject of this question are the reports which have appeared in the public Press. The matters of fact referred to in the question (which appear to have occurred some eight years ago) came out in evidence on the hearing of an appeal recently tried before Mr. Justice Andrews. If the matter, in the opinion of the Judge who heard the appeal, was one calling for the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, he would, I have no doubt, have communicated with him in reference to it.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: May I ask whether there were not in Court affidavits of Mr. Sandes's sister alleging misconduct, and whether the Listowel Workhouse, of which Mr. Sandes was Chairman, was not used as the nursery for his illegitimate children? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that all the newspapers which report the case state that the learned Judge in giving his decision was not audible to the reporters? And, further, that this man seduced a servant girl in his own house. At any rate, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the propriety of asking that Mr. Sandes should not be allowed to sit upon the Bench of Magistrates?
  MR. MADDEN: The hon. Member must see that these are matters which do not arise out of the question upon the Paper. He must be aware that I have no power to exercise a general censorship over the moral conduct of Magistrates. If the hon. Gentleman wishes for further information I will make inquiry.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Is it not the fact, admitted by Sandes himself, that the seduction of this girl took place in his own house, upon an occasion of her going to him, upon receiving an intimation from him that he was to preside on the Bench when a case concerning her was to be brought on?
  MR. MADDEN: No doubt there were certain discreditable matters brought to light in the course of a civil trial; but it is no part of the functions or duty of the Attorney General to interpose in such cases.
  MR. SEXTON: I venture to think that the House will expect some further reply. This person, who is still a Magistrate, has made grave admissions of systematic seduction. Will the Government continue to ignore these facts, or will they call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to them? The fact that this man is still a Magistrate is a scandal.
  MR. WEBB: Did not Sandes swear that he had not seduced 20 girls, but that he would not swear that he had not seduced 12?
  MR. MADDEN: I have no doubt that if the Judge thinks it necessary the facts will be laid before the Lord Chancellor, if they have not already reached him.
  MR. J. MORLEY: This is clearly a matter not unconnected with law and order in Ireland. I ask the Chief Secretary whether he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question was not put to me, and I never heard of this matter before. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the jurisdiction does not rest with me, but with my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. I shall, however, be glad to call his attention to the matter, if that has not already been done.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Is not this one of the three persons who are alleged to have been boycotted in Kerry?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That has nothing to do with the question.

  WEIGHBRIDGES FOR CATTLE.
  MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the weighbridge in the Glasgow Cattle Market is so situated that cattle, in order to be weighed, have to be driven through that portion of the market allocated to horses exposed for sale; and in view of the fact that the inconvenience, and danger consequent is so great that many persons desirous of having their cattle weighed are unable to do so, would he consider what means there are of enforcing the law which requires that suitable weighing machines should be provided?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): I am informed that the situation of the weighbridge in Glasgow Cattle Market is as described in the question. No complaints have ever been made to the officer in attendance at the Market. If representations are made to the Market Authority by any persons who are inconvenienced by the present situation I have no doubt they will receive consideration.

  EFFECTS OF IMPRISONMENT.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case mentioned in the last Report of the Prison Commissioners (Part 1, page 45), viz., the case of T. D., who was sentenced to "two years and one year hard labour," and after serving over 25 months of his
  1510
  sentence was released upon a medical certificate of "general debility," originating after his reception into prison; by whom, at what Court, under what circumstances, and for what offence was this sentence imposed; and has he taken, or will he take, any steps in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): It is the practice of the Home Office, after a prisoner has been two years in prison, to call for a full Medical Report as to his condition, and the probable effect of the imprisonment upon him. In the present case the Home Office called for a second Medical Report, and upon that Report released the prisoner.

  SCOTTISH PAROCHIAL BOARDS.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask whether, with reference to Section 78, Sub-section (1), of "The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889," it is necessary for the representative of a Parochial Board on a District Committee to be a member of that Parochial Board?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: In reply to this question, I have to inform the hon. Member that, according to the Lord Advocate's construction of the clause referred to, the representative need not necessarily be a member of the Parochial Board.

  HONG KONG.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to some Ordinances recently promulgated by the Government of Hong Kong for the regulation of prostitutes, especially to Sections 30 and 31, which make it the duty of the Registrar General of the colony to keep a permanent record of immoral houses and of their female inmates, in the same manner as marriages are registered, and that his office must be furnished with a photograph of each; whether he is aware that anyone daring to open an unlicensed house is liable to severe penalties, and whether Section 56 of this Ordinance actually empowers the "Governor in Council" to take steps to provide for the safety and escape of inmates in immoral houses "in case of fire;" whether women are given to understand that they are

  1511
  expected by the officers of the law to go up as usual for periodical inspection, and that they do so; and, whether the officers under the new Ordinance are the same as those under its predecessor?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): An Ordinance has been passed by the Government of Hong Kong, containing the provisions referred to in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the hon. Member's question, but the Secretary of State has directed that it should be amended in respect of several of its provisions. The Secretary of State has decided that the system of registration and supervision of brothels should be maintained in Hong Kong (as in the Straits Settlements), because it is regarded as a valuable means of checking the too general practice of kidnapping girls, and brothel slavery. The Ordinance repeals the law relating to the compulsory medical examination of women, and it has been clearly explained to the women that they need not attend for examination unless they wish to do so. Some women do voluntarily so attend from time to time, but not at fixed intervals, or on any specified days. Some of the officers under this Ordinance are the same as under the repealed Contagious Diseases Ordinance, but their duties are differently defined.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the intense heat of Hong Kong, and the mode in which the houses are constructed, fires often spread with terrible rapidity, and result in considerable loss of life; and if it is not desirable that steps should be taken in the shape of issuing an Ordinance, or otherwise, to prevent the inhabitants from being roasted alive?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The latter part of the question of the hon. Member is self-evident, and in regard to the former part I have no information. I will inquire if the hon. Member will put the question on the Paper.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that part of the question which relates to photographs. Is it true, as suggested in the question, that photographs of all unfortunates are required compulsorily to be sent to the officials?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I have no information on that point.

  THE SHOPKEEPERS' HALF-HOLIDAY BILL.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to his reply to the deputation which waited on him last week, whether Her Majesty's Government could give an opportunity for the discussion of the Shopkeepers' Half-Holiday Bill, and whether he will support the Second Reading?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The only assistance that the Government are able to give to the right hon. Baronet is to suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell that he would do well to allow the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill to take place on any evening when the right hon. Baronet can bring it on, and to continue without objection after 12 o'clock. The question raised by the Bill is one which the Government think should be left to Members on all sides of the House to decide for themselves without any interference of Party influences.
  MR. J. KELLY: The right hon. Gentleman means the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Blundell Maple) and not the Member for Camberwell.

  THE DEER AT HAMPTON COURT.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if it is a fact that the 500 deer which have for years past been maintained in the Home Park, Hampton Court, are being Removed; whether the allegation is correct "that the authorities are actuated in this step by economical reasons, and that cattle are for the future to be reared in these beautiful pastures," and what other reasons have occasioned the change?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The deer which have been heretofore maintained in Hampton Court Park are being removed, some of them to Bushy Park and some to Richmond Park. The grazings will continue to be let to the Master of the Horse, as at present, but at an increased rent. There will be a net gain to the Exchequer of about £600 a year.
  DR. TANNER: Is that in the interests of economy?

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an arrangement has been concluded between the French and British Governments relative to the Newfoundland lobster fishery disputes; if so, will he be good enough to state the nature of the modus vivendi, and whether permanent or temporary?
  THE UNDER SECRETABY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FER-GUSSON,): I stated yesterday that an arrangement in the nature of a modus vivendi had been arrived at; also that it was for this season only. It provides that such lobster factories as were in existence last year may be continued for the present, the Naval Commanders being arbiters in case of disputes: in other words, it maintains the status quo, questions of principle and of respective rights being entirely reserved. New lobster fisheries can only be established by joint consent of the British and French Naval Commanders, and for each new fishery so permitted to one nation, permission is to be granted for a new fishery to the other.

  REV. J. DOBIE'S IMPRISONMENT.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the following passage in the Scotsman of 18th March:—
  "We are informed by an Aden correspondent that the Reverend J. Dobie, Army Chaplain of the Church of Scotland in India, on returning to the coast from a recent tour of philological research in the interior of Arabia, was, without cause or explanation, thrown into prison in Hodeidah, on the Red Sea, and detained there by order of the Turkish Authorities until released by the British Consul. We understand that to redress the wrong done to the reverend gentleman the General commanding at Aden instantly dispatched the gunboat Reindeer to support the Consul at Hodeidah in demanding the immediate dismissal of the Governor who had ordered Mr. Dobie's imprisonment."
  Whether he can state the reasons Mr. Dobie was thrown into prison; how long he was shut up, and what his treatment was while so incarcerated; whether he is
  1514
  entitled to compensation for the said imprisonment; and whether he can state where Mr. Dobie now is?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have not yet received information of the occurrences mentioned. My hon. Friend will see by the dates that no letters could have reached us, and as the British Authorities on the spot appear to have done what was necessary there was no occasion to refer homo by telegraph.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to give notice that I will put another question on the subject on this day week.

  NONCONFORMIST FUNERALS.
  MR. BOLITHO: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Vicar of Madron to permit a funeral to be conducted by a Nonconformist minister in the churchyard on a Sunday, and to the language (depreciatory of Nonconformists) alleged to have been employed; and whether such refusal was legal?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to this matter. The Vicar denies that he refused to permit the burial on Sunday. The son of the deceased proposed first an hour which was not within the statutory limit of time, and next an hour which interfered with the afternoon service, and the Vicar objected in writing for that reason, as he was entitled to do under the 3rd section of the Burials Act. Judging from the facts, as I have ascertained them, the Vicar does not appear to have acted illegally.

  THE EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education when the Education Code, which was laid upon the Table in dummy on 10th March, will be in the hands of Members; and whether the days which have already run will form part of the statutory period during which it must lie upon the Table before it acquires the force of law?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The Code will, I hope, be ready for distribution before the House rises for Easter. It is not proposed to take any

  1515
  action thereon until Parliament and the country have had sufficient time to study and discuss its provisions.

  LOWER DIVISION CLERKS.
  MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he would state in which Government offices the Lower Division Clerks still remain on the six-hour system; and whether those Departments have already submitted, or will be at once invited to submit, schemes for placing those Lower Division Clerks on the seven-hours system, so that all such clerks may, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, stand on the same basis?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): It is the intention of the Government to apply the seven-hours system to all Departments as opportunity offers.

  THE LIVERPOOL STRIKE.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action of the Liverpool magistrates in calling troops into the town, and thereby running the risk of provoking a collision with the strikers; and, whether there have been any disturbances in connection with the strike to render such a step necessary?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir. I was informed by the Mayor of Liverpool on the 17th inst. that the Chief Constable had reported to him that it was possible that acts of violence might occur which could not be met by the force under his command; and that the Mayor, after a personal investigation of the matter, having arrived at the same conclusion, had summoned a meeting of the City Justices, who passed a resolution to the effect that it would be desirable to have a force of infantry near at hand, and a force was accordingly requisitioned by the Mayor. According to the last information which I have received, everything is quiet at Liverpool.
  MR. COBB: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is true, as reported in the newspapers, that before calling out the military, the Mayor consulted Her Majesty's Judges who happened to be on circuit at Liverpool, and if it is part of
  1516
  their duty to advise magistrates on such an occasion?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I only know the fact from what I have seen in the newspapers. I have received no information upon it.

  THE CASE OF JOHN DALY.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet any information to communicate with respect to the inquiry into the case of the treatment of the prisoner John Daly?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I received a letter from the visitors on the 17th inst., in which they informed me that they had already held three sittings for the purpose of inquiring into the medical and general treatment of John Daly and other prisoners in Chatham Prison. The visitors find it necessary to examine a large number of the prison officials, and they will probably have to hold three or four more sittings in order to complete their inquiry and prepare their report, and as their other duties render it impossible for them to sit de die in diem, some little time must necessarily elapse before the inquiry is concluded, but they trust that their report, and the evidence on which it is based, will be in the possession of the Home Office before the House re-assembles after the Easter Recess.
  MR. SEXTON: Who are the visitors?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The County Court Judge of the district, Sir John Lennard, and two other gentlemen whose names I do not remember.

  THE BARRACOUTA.
  MR. HERBERT KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is a fact that the sufferers in the recent accident to the Barracouta were first landed at Sheerness, and from thence sent to Chatham, although there are plenty of doctors and ample hospital accommodation at Sheerness; and whether this is the common practice in case of accidents at Sheerness; and, if so, whether he will at once take steps to prevent such unnecessary suffering?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): One man, in too critical a condition to bear removal to Chatham, was

  1517
  admitted into the Infirmary of the Naval Barracks at Sheerness. The other nine men were not landed at Sheerness; but, after being fully attended to and their injuries properly dressed, were conveyed to Chatham Hospital by special steamer under the immediate care of two medical officers. It is not customary to send Naval patients to the Military Hospital at Sheerness, as it only contains 36 beds, and there were only 11 vacant on the day of the accident to meet the Army requirements. In the case of accidents occurring in the Dockyard at Sheerness, it is usual in the first instance to send patients to the Naval Barracks Infirmary; but in the case of accidents on board ship the patients are sent to Chatham Hospital when their condition permits removal.

  THE TITHES BILL.
  MR. CORNWALLIS WEST: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the desirability, in view of the extreme complexity of the question, of proceeding only with those portions of the Tithe Bill which relate to the substitution of County Court process for the existing remedy by distraint, and will consent to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the necessity for the revaluation of the tithe in any, and what, districts in England and Wales?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): Her Majesty's Government have given careful consideration to the many suggestions made to them on this vexed question, and they have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to proceed with the Bill as it has been submitted to the House.
  MR. J. MORLEY: When will the Second Reading of the Tithe Bill be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope that it will be taken on Thursday next.

  THE ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Will the First Lord of the Treasury give two or three days' notice before the Second Reading of the Allotments Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope, Sir, with the assistance of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, we shall be able to read this Bill a second time. It is obvious that Amendments on the Bill must be proposed in Committee. I hope it will be possible to read the Bill a second time before Easter; but, having regard to the introduction of the Irish Land Bill on Monday, and the Second Reading of the Tithes Bill on Thursday, I am not able to say precisely when it will be possible to take the Allotments Bill. I hope the hon. Member will not object to its being taken as the Second Order on any day on which it may occupy that place.
  MR. COBB: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that it will not be taken on Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir; I do not mean that. If there is no prolonged debate on the Land Bill I trust it may be taken on Monday as the second Order
  MR. COBB: I think it would be satisfactory to hon. Members if the right hon. Gentleman will say that it will not be taken after 10 o'clock on Monday.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It would be a great convenience if the hon. Member could assure me that the debate on the introduction of the Land Bill will be concluded before 10 o'clock on Monday. In that case I could give him the assurance he desires.

  THE EASTER HOLIDAYS.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: On the part of hon. Members who come from a distance, I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can state when the Easter holidays will begin and end?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It must depend on the duration of the debate on the Tithe Bill. We cannot adjourn until that Bill has been read a second time.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Then if the Bill has not passed that stage before, are we to sit on Good Friday and over Easter Monday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I know the importance which the hon. Gentleman attaches to Good Friday, and I should be sorry to keep him at the HOUSE on that occasion. I cannot believe that the debate will be so protracted as to require the House to sit on Good Friday.

  EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Statistical Tables relating to Emigration and Immigration from and into the United Kingdom in the year 1889, and Report to the Board of Trade thereon."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 103.]

  INDIAN COUNCILS BILL [LORDS.]
  Bill read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 197.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  HEREDITARY LEGISLATORS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE,on rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is contrary to the true principles of representative Government, and injurious to their efficiency, that any person should sit and vote in Parliament by right of birth; it is therefore desirable to put an end to any such existing rights,"
  said: I may remind the House that I have brought this question before the House on four occasions. On the first occasion I was counted out. In 1885, I brought it forward again, and on that occasion the Motion was adopted by a considerable number of Members on my side of the House, but the leaders of the Liberal Party held aloof from it, and, if I remember rightly, voted against it. I again brought it forward in 1888, when I was more fortunate, for not only was the Motion adopted by the entire Liberal Party, but it was voted for by our official leaders in this House. In 1889 I again brought it forward, and the Resolution was ratified by the adherence of the Liberal Party and its leaders. Of course, I can hardly think that the leaders would vote for a Resolution in Opposition which they would not support when they hold the responsibility of office. I therefore take it that this incubus will disappear with the disappearance of the Tory majority which now restrains all
  1520
  legitimate and proper Liberal action in this House. I have been told that my Resolution is not within the area of practical politics, and that the discussions to which it gives rise are academic. Considering the progress the Motion has made, I do not think it can be called academic, nor can it be said that the question is beyond the area of practical politics. In reply to the question why, being so sure, do I continue year after year to slay the slain, and that it might be as well to wait until we have a majority, knowing that the majority would then know how to deal with the question, I say first that, although I have the greatest confidence in my leaders, I think in a matter like this it is just as well to keep their memory green, and in the second place, I wish to convey to the constituencies the tidings of great joy that in voting for a Liberal Party they are voting against the House of Lords. This, I think, will stimulate their zeal and increase the majority at the next General Election. I have always thought that our programme has not been sufficiently thorough, and I have endeavoured as far as I could to accentuate the differences politically between ourselves and the Party opposite. I have been greatly struck with the poverty of the arguments against my Resolution. Some Gentlemen have held that hereditary legislators make so perfect a second branch of the Legislature that it is impossible to conceive anything better in this fallible world. The arguments are of that fetish kind only worthy of an African savage defending his false gods. I found on the last occasion Members of the Government taking this view of the matter. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said that he objected to the Motion not merely on its merits—he objected altogether to the abolition of the hereditary principle. Why? Because, he said, the English people had received this inestimable treasure from their ancestors, and they would not be guilty of the midsummer madness of destroying it. Petitiones principii. The right hon. Gentleman is not only an eminent politician, he is an eminent philosopher. He has got only one follower as a philosopher, and I am that follower. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Cranborne), the son of an eminent Prime Minister, and the descendant of

  1521
  one of the most eminent of Elizabethan statesmen, went even further in his fetish-like admiration of the House of Lords than the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He said that society is constituted on the elementary principle of a man being the son of his father. The noble Lord declared this in consequence of the doctrine that political society ought to be constituted on the principle of a legislator being the son of a legislator—a principle which he much preferred to the elective system. The noble Lord did not like the elective system, under which he said that candidates give pledges which they do not understand, and vote for measures in which they do not believe. Nobody has a better right than the noble Lord to speak for the Conservative Party, and it is interesting to learn the Conservative view of the elective theory. This accounts for a good deal of what is said and voted on the other side. Another proposal is to qualify the hereditary principle by restricting the number of Peers sitting in virtue of that principle to those who are elected by their own order. A hereditary right to legislate is absurd, but a hereditary right to choose legislators is still more absurd. The property qualification has been done away with in the House of Commons, and I do not believe the country will have a hereditary qualification for the other House. It is argued that if Peers are deprived of the power of legislation they ought to have a quid pro quo. That suggestion reminds me of the proposal to compensate the owners of rotten boroughs in a former generation on their abolition. To these hereditary Peers it is proposed to add a number of nominated Peers. My view is that a system of nomination would be as pernicious as the hereditary principle itself. It is as absurd as it would be for a plaintiff or defendant to nominate his own jury. It would also lead to the undesirable result referred to by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Curzon) of having two classes in one Chamber, especially if, as has been suggested, the nominated members were to be dissenters and labourers. Then it is proposed that representatives of the colonies should be added. Well, I have never discovered that any colony wants to be represented in the Upper Chamber; they prefer their own autonomy, to which such representation
  1522
  would be inimical. I cannot see what good would come of a Marquis of the Cape of Good Hope or an Earl of New Zealand. The most notable suggestion comes from Lord Dunraven, who has proposed a sort of moral censorship, excluding the black sheep. This idea will be familiar to Scotch Members in connection with the kirk. For myself, I have never attached much force to the black sheep argument, though it is rather ridiculous that a man who has been warned off a racecourse and expelled from the Jockey Club, should come down here to legislate for the people of England by hereditary descent. I have always thought, however, that the private moral character of the Peers is a matter that concerns themselves, and that we are only concerned with the political functions they exercise. There are black sheep in every assembly, and the consideration of a man's private character is irrelevant. It may seem to be a paradox, but it is, nevertheless, true that a most dissipated disreputable hereditary scamp who votes right does less mischief than a model of domestic virtue and moral excellence who votes wrong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), the author of that excellent phrase, "We must end or mend the House of Lords," has come forward as a reformer of the House of Lords, and advocates the giving to a man the option to appear in which House he should sit. My right hon. Friend clearly thinks that all the capable Peers would choose the Lower House, and he aims, no doubt, at making the House of Lords the House of Fools, so ridiculous that it would fall to pieces of itself. This plan is too much of the "Dilly, dilly, come and be killed" character, and the Peers would never assent to it. I should oppose any such scheme on the ground that it would give too great an advantage to Peers. My right hon. Friend will remember that Mirabeau, who was a Peer of France, gained his immense influence in the early period of the French Revolution by electing to represent the Third Estate. He gained an immense reputation from the mere fact that, having been a nobleman, he preferred and was ready to come forward as the representative of the Third Estate. No, Sir, I maintain that the right to sit

  1523
  here must involve the absence of a right to sit in the House of Lords. The non possumus argument is frequently urged against my proposal. It is urged that the House of Lords would not consent to the mutilation of its own privileges, and to sign its own death warrant. The course threatened at the time of the first Reform Bill, namely, that of creating fresh Peers, would, however, he quite sufficient to overcome this difficulty; and the threat, without its performance, would probably, as then, be quite adequate to its purpose. It is absurd to suppose that the House of Lords would be able to hold its own against the clearly-declared will of the people. Hereditary legislators are an absurdity. It is, of course, said that the system works well. In my opinion it works exceedingly ill. Is there a single reform, and I speak of those reforms which have been passed and which are now admitted to be useful, is there a single one of them which the House of Lords has not opposed? The House of Lords has opposed every single measure which is considered useful to the country at the present moment. The House of Lords always acts unfairly in its functions as regards the two Parties in the State. I think it will be admitted that the main function of the Upper House is to bring about an appeal to the people if the Lower House exceeds its mandate, violates its pledges, or loses the confidence of the nation. If the Upper House were to fulfil that function fairly and impartially, there would be certain advantages in its existence. But I believe it would be beyond the wit of man to find a number of men who would perfectly fulfil such a duty, and I am certain they have not been found in the House of Lords. Suppose a Tory Government loses the confidence of the nation. As far as the Lords are concerned it can do so with absolute impunity. When the Tories are in Power that peculiar function of the Lords is absolutely in abeyance, and it is necessarily in abeyance because the permanent majority there is of the same colour as the temporary majority here. Then let us suppose a General Election, with the Tories anxious to get in, and a proposal being made on the part of the Liberal Government for a Land Purchase Scheme with an Imperial guarantee. The Tories,
  1524
  let us say, have pledged themselves absolutely against such a scheme, but the election having gone in their favour, they at once propose a Land Purchase Bill with an Imperial guarantee. Will hon. Gentlemen say that the House of Lords would throw out such a Bill? Not at all. Again, let us suppose a Liberal Government anxious to abandon coercion and to pass a Home Rule Bill, and the Tories equally opposed to coercion and saying that they would not grant Home Rule. If the Tories succeeded to power, and brought in a Home Rule Bill in this House, would the House of Lords throw it out? Hon. Members know the Lords would do no such thing. I will put on a third supposition. Let us suppose a Tory Ministry has been in power three years, that they have associated themselves with disreputable persons in circulating forgeries, and when these documents have been proved to be forgeries have refused to denounce their associates; let us suppose that all the bye-elections have gone against them and that the people of England are anxious to get rid of the Government; under such circumstances would the House of Lords say they would do their best to promote an appeal to the people? We know perfectly well that the House of Lords would do no such thing. Any hon. Gentleman who doubts it has only to go into the House of Lords at the present moment, and there he will find a Prime Minister engaged in bringing forward a Resolution which his Colleagues in this House have already passed against the protests of the Liberal Party. Let us suppose again a great Liberal measure has been put before the people, that it has been discussed ad nauseam in the Press for seven long years, that an election has taken place, that the Liberals have got a majority, and then brought in a Bill to give effect to their promises. Would the Lords pass the Bill if carried in this House? So far as one can see they would at once throw it out in order to force a second election, in the despairing hope that they would weary out the feeling of the entire country in favour of the measure. A Government requires freedom of action, and ought to have it so long as the country is with it, but the Peers will not allow it. The Government said that compensation for disturbance was necessary to maintain law and order,

  1525
  but the House of Lords would not have it, and the Government was obliged to fall back on coercion. The Liberal leaders are twitted with having had recourse to coercion, but that is the case only when the measures they project are interfered with by the House of Lords. That interference is not confined to throwing out Bills; it is perpetual and persistent. In fact, the policy of a Liberal Government has to be a species of compromise. When a Bill goes before a Liberal Cabinet, and it is suggested that it should be made stronger, the Lord Chancellor will at once say, "Oh, no; for if you do we cannot get it through the House of Lords." Whenever an Amendment is suggested in the House of Commons the answer of the Government is—"Oh, pray do not urge it; no doubt the Bill would be the better for it, but if you carry it we shall not be able to get it through the House of Lords." Then there is a double watering down. The Bill goes up to the House of Lords, which inserts some clauses and omits others. A sort of bargain is therefore made. Some of the Amendments are accepted by the Commons, and the Bill is passed in such a shape that it can hardly be called a Liberal Bill at all. If the Lords were actuated by patriotic motives one could not complain, but they are actuated by personal and class motives. I know it is frequently said that an Upper House should be Conservative in the true sense of the word. That I fully admit, but I complain that the House of Lords is a Conservative House, thoroughly and essentially, in the Party sense of the word. The leaders in the House of Lords are partisans, and when they find their opponents in power, they seek to put them out—for the good of the nation they say, and they probably think so, but they also desire to put themselves in their opponent's places. They are personally interested, as also are the rank and file. There are many political salaries divided among Members of the House of Lords, and there are also social salaries. One noble Lord gets a salary for galloping after Her Majesty's dogs, another receives £2,000 a year for walking about with a stick. There are six or seven noble Lords paid for these things, and they fight for the places in a wonderful manner. Some of them have places connected with the Bed Chamber.
  1526
  I think there are a number of these offices which are given far Party fidelity. If you examine into the matter you will find that these Gentlemen. have done nothing exceptional for their Party; they have voted straight, and probably given considerable sums for Party organisation, and yet they have spread themselves over the Civil List—and I have always thought that Ministers should not encourage the idea that the Monarch expends all the money granted for the Civil List, but should give the public to understand that a large amount of it goes to noble Lords in this way. Last year it was proposed to give a large sum for the maintenance of the children of the Prince of Wales, and it was then suggested that that should be done by abolishing some of these places—by taking away salaries given to noble Lords for doing nothing, and devoting them to the purposes for which they were then intended. The Government opposed it. They knew the value of their hereditary proposition, and they knew they would hardly be able to carry on the business of the country unless they were able to pay these Gentlemen for doing perfunctory duties. Then there are a great many incidental advantages, accruing to Members of the House of Lords. There are three Orders of Knighthood—the Garter, St. Patrick, and the Thistle; these are distributed largely among noble Lords, not for any merit, but for Party support. Beyond this, there are Lord Lieutenancies, and all sorts of jobs for the benefit of friends and relations of noble Lords. Look at that [the Ministerial] Bench. I do not wish to make any invidious observations as to this Gentleman or that Gentleman, but Members below the Gangway on the other side will agree with me that there are Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench who are there solely because they are relatives of great Magnates in the other House—Gentlemen receiving, perhaps, £5,000 per annum, who, in any other walk of life, would find it difficult to earn £500. But this is not all. Concessions are granted to noble Lords. A concession in South Africa was recently granted, the market value of which is about £3,000,000, and it is a remarkable fact that the two most prominent persons among those on whom it was conferred, were a Liberal Unionist Duke

  1527
  and a Tory Duke. Does anyone suppose that if the Liberal Party had been in power, these Gentlemen would have got this concession? It would have been given—but they would not have got it. When the Tories are in power, if a member of a Peer's family is suspected of crime, the Lord Chancellor, the Prime Minister, and the Attorney General put their heads together to get him out of the country in order that he may not be punished. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes, hon. Gentlemen opposite meet charges in that way. They meet them with a direct denial. And when a Member of the Upper House makes a denial on the subject, we in this House are not permitted to question that denial. The fact is the House of Lords play with loaded dice against the Liberal Party. When the Liberal Party are in office they practically have to share power with a Committee of the Carlton Club, and it is to those gentlemen that we have to submit our measures. What would hon. Gentlemen opposite think if, when the Conservative Party is in office, it should have to submit its measures to the approval of a Committee of the National Liberal Club? Yet one thing is not more outrageous than the other. The Chief Secretary for Ireland recently described the House of Lords as "a most inestimable treasure." No doubt it is a most inestimable Tory treasure. That is why I am opposed to it. We are very foolish if we accept this tutelage on the part of the Carlton Club. Why have we done so for so long? It has always been a matter of wonderment to me, but I suppose the reason is that the democracy has only of recent years made real progress, and that formerly both Parties in the House to a great extent consisted of rival bands of aristocrats fighting for power. Both sought profit and power from the House of Lords. In those times there were Gentlemen in this House who called themselves Liberals who were actually anxious to become Members of the House of Lords. Of course that will never occur again. No hon. Gentleman now sitting on the Front Opposititon Bench will ever dream of making one of that body. All hon. Members on this side have assented to the principle embodied in this Resolution, and are agreed that the hereditary principle is injurious in its effects. At the present moment democracy has become a
  1528
  power. The people claim to rule, having acquired the right to do so, and they have no idea of allowing 600 persons to interfere with their will, still less 600 hereditary Gentlemen belonging to one class, actuated by strong personal interests, and many of them receiving large salaries. The House of Lords in its essence is antagonistic to the principles of democracy. Its existence is incompatible with the democracy, because the corner stone of the democracy is the principle that the laws should be made by the representatives of the people who have to obey them. In order to see how nuch the House of Lords is out of touch with the country, let us consider what would take place if the Liberal Party was returned in a majority to this House and proceeded to deal with the question of Home Rule? How many Members of the House of Lords are in favour of Home Rule? ["Hear, hear "from the Ministerialists.] "Hear, hear," say hon. Gentlemen opposite. Some 10 or 20, and I am afraid they would require to have the prospect of large salaries to be in favour of it, so that the result would be that practically one entire branch of the Legislature would be intriguing against and refusing to legislate in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the House of Commons and of the country. Take another plank of the Radical platform. How many Peers are in favour of Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England? Very few I should think. Take, again, the question of an Amendment of the Land Laws. How many Peers are in favour of that? Uncommonly few; and as years pass the antagonism between the House of Lords and the House of Commons is becoming more and more accentuated, for the one remains unchanged and the other progresses. Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen, even on the Liberal side of the House, do not appreciate the strength of the movement against hereditary legislators. There is not a Liberal Association throughout the country that is not ready to pass a resolution in favour of such a Motion as this. There is not a public meeting of the Liberal Party at which a suggestion to sweep away the hereditary principle is not received with acclamation, and there is not a constituency in which a man would be accepted as a

  1529
  Liberal candidate if he refused to pledge himself to the abolition of that principle. ["No, no" from Captain VERNEY.] The hon. Member did not pledge himself. If I have my eyes off one of my hon. Friends, see what follows. I am Chairman of the Liberal Association at Olney. Everyone in that Association is in favour of this Resolution, and yet because I trusted the hon. Member and regarded him as a good Liberal, and did not look after him at the election in North Buckingham, he has deluded the Association of which I am Chairman. I hope the hon. Member will amend at the next election, and express himself in accordance with the views of his own constituents, of whose Association I have the honour to be Chairman. Hon. Members opposite will no doubt enjoy their "inestimable treasure" so long as they remain in office, but they cannot hope always to bask in the sun of power, and that we shall always be in the shade of Opposition. The Liberal Party is pledged against this hereditary power of legislation, and upon their return to office will certainly proceed to deal with the question. I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is contrary to the true principles of Representative Government, and injurious to their efficiency, that any person should sit and vote in Parliament by right of birth; it is therefore desirable to put an end to any such existing rights,"—(Mr. Labouchere,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has left very little for me to add in support of his Motion. I would remind hon. Members opposite that the Motion does not aim at the abolition of the House of Lords, but at its modification by amplifying the system of life peerages which, with the cousent of both parties, was an innovation introduced some years ago. Up to 1832 the two Houses were, no doubt, in harmony, owing to the composition of the House of Commons being more or less aristocratic, like the Upper
  1530
  House, but all that has been changed. Since the Reform Act of 1832 the democratic elements have entered more and more into its composition and have become the preponderating elements on both sides of the House of Commons. I cannot do better to show the change which has come over the relations between this House and the House of Lords than to quote the words of a very distinguished writer on Constitutional history, who says:—
  "Since the Reform Bill of 1832 the House of Peers has ceased to be the House of latent directors of our policy, and has become one of typical objectors and palpable alterers."
  It might be argued by those who view this question from an opposite point of view to myself—by the hon. Member for Southport, for instance, from whom I trust we shall have the advantage of hearing an address of equal value to that we had from him on a previous occasion—that the House of Commons possesses full and complete power over the House of Lords. That has become an established Constitutional usage, and if this House chooses to insist upon the passage of a measure, that measure, although it may be delayed, will be ultimately passed. But that is not all, as my hon. Friend pointed out, for if the House of Lords should determine to resist—as they very nearly did on the occasion of the Reform Bill of 1832—if they determine to resist to the bitter end the passage of a particular measure, then there is power in the Crown to appoint a sufficient number of Peers to secure the passage of the measure. But I submit that the mere act of the House of Lords eventually giving way in such cases is not a sufficient answer, because that House often delays measures of importance, and has delayed them to an extent which is fraught with serious consequences. I know the House is not fond of quotations, but I have here a few lines written by a great Constitutional lawyer, pointing out that, in the discharge of its onerous and important duties (to wit, the resistance of useful legislation), the House of Lords had maintained its independence and vindicated its responsible position as a branch of the Legislature by successful defence of the revenues of the Irish church, and its Amendment of the Municipal Corporations Bill, and its protected and

  1531
  spirited opposition to the repeal of the Paper Duty. A more conclusive indictment against the House of Lords for delaying measures of the first importance could not be quoted, and these words might well have been written in a spirit of irony instead of in a spirit of praise. Moreover, the House of Lords not only delays, but frequently mutilates measures, and has so mutilated many Bills passed by the House of Commons as to destroy their aim and most valuable characteristics. I may mention as instances of this the Municipal Reform Bill and the Merchant Shipping Bill, the Lords insisting on the retention in the latter measure of provisions which are a source of great danger to the seafaring population. But my case does not rest here; we have further to complain that they reject valuable measures, which, however, are not of such importance as to cause an outcry in the country. A valuable measure which has been sometime before the country would, I believe, have been long since passed into law but for the Bishops in the House of Lords—the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill. This is one of the most notable instances of a small measure being destroyed by the House of Lords' action. What are the arguments urged in favour of the House of Lords? It is said that that House is a revising body—that they are able to give that care and attention to detail which the House of Commons, with the great legislative pressure upon it, cannot devote to a measure, and that they thus prevent hasty and immaturely considered legislation. But I would, point out that, admirably as this function is performed by many able men in the House of Lords, this duty may be done with equal facility and with equally good results by a small Committee of specialists appointed by the House of Commons. It is urged that the Peers stop hasty legislation. I challenge hon. Members to mention one case in which a measure, hastily passed by this House, has been rejected by the House of Lords, and in which rejection they have been ultimately sustained by the House of Commons. There is no such case; there is not an instance in which they have prevented ill-considered measures being passed into law. Then, how do the House of Lords at present discharge their duties? I
  1532
  believe only three Peers are required to form a quorum, while the average attendance is from 10 to 15 only, and very often they will dispose of questions of vital importance, such as the Queen's Speech, in a great epoch of Constitutional history, by a debate of a few hours. The only subjects to which they appear to give much attention are those in which their own class and personal interests are involved. Undoubtedly the standard of most of the Members of the House of Lords, individually, is as high as that of Members of the House of Commons; yet it is a disgrace that men are permitted to remain in the House of Lords who would be drummed out from any other Legislative Assembly. I also ask hon. Members to consider the Motion from the point of view that in no other civilised country is there a purely Hereditary Upper Chamber. I admit that there is an hereditary element in the Upper Chambers of other countries, but in all of them there is an official and elective element as well. This Resolution does not go further than to propose that there should be some attempt to place the House of Lords in conformity with the Upper Houses of other countries. It is not a Motion which aims, at the abolition of the House of Lords; it merely aims at a modification of the present conditions under which that House exists. The noble Lord the Member for Rossendale, whose absence we must all deplore, said, in a speech which he made in 1884, that those who supported this Motion had not come forward with any proposals of a practical character as to the body that should take the place of the House of Lords if it were abolished. My answer to that is that it is quite reasonable for us to condemn the present condition of that Legislative Chamber, and that it will be time enough, when we have obtained a vote of this House declaring that the Hereditary Assembly does not fulfil the conditions required of it, to address ourselves to the consideration of what body should be substituted for it. It is not necessary for us to make any suggestion of that kind. It is true there are means which have been availed of in other countries, and notably in the constitution of the American Senate, which, if applied to the House of Lords, would better enable it to perform its

  1533
  functions to the satisfaction of the country. Undoubtedly this question has been treated from an academical point of view. It has not been treated with the seriousness that it ought to have been by the Liberal Front Bench, and I deplore the way in which it has been shelved. But I would remind hon. Members opposite that the most serious point they have to consider in the matter is that there is a great cleavage between the two Houses. The personnel of the House of Commons is no longer of the same character as it was before the Reform Bill of 1832; the House is no longer composed for the most part of Members of the aristocracy. This observation applies to both sides of the House, and not alone to the Back Benches, but also to the Front Benches. Whig landed proprietors and representatives of Peers, who used to govern the destinies of the country, no longer sit on the Liberal Front Bench, and a similar change has been in progress on the Conservative side of the House. Before long this House will have to deal with some very important questions, including the reform of the land laws, and, in all probability, measures of a very drastic and democratic character will be passed, and it is more than likely that such measures will be treated in a spirit of hostility and opposition by the House of Lords. It is, then, with the view of avoiding a great shock and of evading very serious difficulties that may arise in the future that the moderate proposal of my hon. Friend has been placed before the House; and in the hope that, by accepting and endeavouring to apply the principle of the Motion, we may be saved from results of a serious character—results that might lead to something which, as a noble Lord suggested the other day, would involve the sending of a Cromwell into the House of Lords to carry out the behests of this House—a Cromwell in the form of a body of newly created Peers—that I trust that both sides of the House will extend a favourable consideration to the Resolution of my hon. Friend.
  MR. C. W. R. COOKE: I think it would have been better if the hon. and learned Member who seconded the Motion had consulted with his leader before ho spoke, as he has supported it on different grounds from those advanced by the hon. Member for
  1534
  Northampton, who said nothing about mending, but a great deal about ending, the House of Lords. The hon. and learned Member, on the other hand, has commended the Motion to the House on the ground that it is a moderate one, and does not commit the House to the abolition of the House of Lords. If the two hon. Members could manage to persuade their leaders on that point I am sure they would be glad of the instruction. The hon. Member for Northampton delivered an admirable speech on this subject on the last occasion he brought it before the House, and to-day he has expressed satisfaction at the result of the debate which then took place. But while he was speaking on this important subject to-day I noticed only 15 Members behind him and 30 opposite him, while during the speech of the hon. and learned Member who followed him the attendance of Members was still smaller. If the hon. Member for Northampton is satisfied with that condition of the House, I must say that he is thankful for very small mercies indeed. The object of the hon. Member in continually bringing this Motion before the House cannot be to strengthen his cause; and I think that if he will consult his own political friends they will tell him that while they are desirous of effecting reforms in the House of Lords his conduct weakens the object which he professes to have in view. What is that object? The hon. Member is a very much misunderstood man: he certainly disappointed the House to-night. He was absent from the House yesterday, when he might have rendered Ids Party valuable service by carrying out his views on the question of obstruction; and we might have expected that he would have devoted himself in his absence to a study of Joe Miller, in order to furbish up one or two jokes for the benefit of the House. But he does not seem to have taken that trouble. What, then, is his object? My opinion is that there is no stronger supporter of the House of Lords than the hon. Member, who, as we all know, is the proprietor of a publication which is chiefly concerned with the doings of the aristocracy, and if the House of Lords is ended the income from that paper would probably be considerably reduced. Why, then, has he come down to make such an extremely

  1535
  dull speech to 15 of his friends? I think it was a remarkable piece of self-denial on his part, and that his real object was to make out the Motion to be so ridiculous and absurd as to have the effect of strengthening the Chamber which he professes to condemn. Last year young Members of the aristocracy took up the time of this House in order to say that they preferred to stop in this Chamber; but if it is desired to strengthen the Upper Chamber I would willingly allow those young Members to go to that House. If there is anybody about to speak on this subject, I hope, considering the circumstances in which this grave question has been brought before the House, that no one will take the question seriously; up to the present time it has hardly been taken seriously even by the hon. Member for Northampton himself.
  MR. B. COLERIDGE: I had expected to hear from the hon. Member opposite some argumentative defence of his opposition to this proposal; but all we have heard is that some hon. Gentleman in the Lobby told him that the bringing of a subject annually before the House has a tendency to weaken it. But it seems to me that all subjects which interest the House are brought forward annually, and that the Division Lists have shown that the interest taken by the House in this question is increasing, and will increase. The hon. Member has appealed to us to treat this question seriously. I propose to do so as far as I can. With regard to the position of the House of Lords, it used to be a council of advice to the Sovereign, a very important function, which has long been usurped by the Privy Council, and which the House of Lords no longer enjoys. Secondly, in theory it is the supreme Court of Appeal, a most important function for it to perform. But whatever may be the theory, in practice we know that the House of Lords has abandoned that position; and I believe that it was the opinion of the late Lord Cairns and other lawyers of repute that, the House of Lords now having allowed its rights to fall into desuetude as a Court of final legal appeal, it would not be permitted now for Lords who are not Law Lords to take part in any Division upon an appeal which had come before that Body. Therefore we may say, so far as the
  1536
  House of Lords is concerned, that the Privy Council and the Court of Appeal will go on perfectly well without the existence of that House. Thirdly, there is its existence as a branch of the Legislature. Before the Reform Bill of 1832 the House of Lords was practically the dispensing power in this country; not only was it a branch of the Legislature in itself, but it practically returned, directly or indirectly, a majority of the Representatives in this House. Now, I ask the House what the House of Lords has done since 1832? It has been said that the House of Commons is blocked with business, and has actually lost its originating power. But has the House of Lords taken advantage since 1832 of the block of business in this House to become in any sense an originating power? The only thing they originated was an Act to make void marriages with; a deceased wife's sister, and ever since that was passed the House of Commons has by consistent and repeated majorities, desired that it should no longer be the law of the land. Therefore, that was no great legislative feat. The other thing which the House of Lords had originated was the instituting into our municipal life a sort of poor imitation of their own body in the Aldermen of Municipal Corporations. I think we are all on this side of the House desirous, as we showed in the debates on the County Councils, to do away with that foolish anachronism, namely, the segregation of superior persons aloof the Representatives of the people. Of course, it may be said that it is useful to have a Body like the House of Lords to check hasty legislation; but I ask what legislation that is hasty has the House of Lords checked? Looking over the last 40 years I see one piece of legislation which indubitably bears the mark of haste. I allude, of course, to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which was passed at a time of religious bigotry, when people were greatly excited, and which was passed rapidly and hastily. And when the one occasion rose in which there might have been some sense in a controlling Second Chamber to prevent the passing of hasty legislation, what did the House of Lords do? Why it passed the Act almost without discussion. That being so, what is the object of the House of Lords? Everybody, I suppose, believes in the theory that political institu-

  1537
  tions in this country have for their object the carrying into effect of the will, matured if you like, of the people Surely the best way to effect that object is to make this House as representative as possible, and, in order to obtain the latest information as to the views of the people, to make the elections frequent. If we made this House thoroughly representative, and repeatedly appealed to the people for confirmation of its powers, what botter representation could we have of the mature reflections of the people at large? I ask myself on what basis we would reform our place, the Second Chamber? It has been suggested that the Peers themselves should elect certain of their own Body by the process of weeding out the less acceptable Members. Well, all I can say of that suggestion is, that the Liberal Peers in the House of Lords are few enough already, and by that process they would be weeded out altogether, and they will be in the position now occupied by the Scotch Liberal Peers, who have not the good luck to be elected by their own order to serve in the House of Peers. They will be out of it entirely. It is also said we could make a Second Chamber, based upon the same suffrage as the House of Commons; but they might have a more prolonged tenure, and, therefore, this might be in some sense a controlling Chamber on the action of the House of Commons. If we do that it seems to me we create two Chambers of co-ordinate powers, based upon the same suffrage, and we pit the two Chambers one against the other. I cannot conceive why, if we had one Chamber elected by the people at large, the same people should elect a Second Chamber to revise the decisions of the Chamber they had so elected. But it has also been suggested that we should place the suffrage of the Second Chamber on a higher basis, and allow the suffrage to be in the hands of a higher and more wealthy and prosperous class. Well, as a Liberal, I protest against this, for it seems to me it would emphasise still more strongly the distinctions between property and numbers, which it is the earnest desire of every Liberal to destroy. In that case we might have a very attractive Chamber. We might have a Chamber which would attract men of good social standing, men of position, men of intellect; but I protest, as
  1538
  a Member of this House, against taking the best men from it and placing them in another Chamber. If we are to conduct the business of this great Empire in the way in which it ought to be conducted we want all the best men which our race can produce in this House. We do not want mere political adventurers; we want energy as well as caution, and we want enthusiasm as well as disciplined experience. But assuming for a moment that we have got our Second Chamber, what is it to do? If it is nerveless, if it takes no action, if it is a mere registering Chamber of the decrees of this House, a mere lit de justice, there is no object in its creation and no reason for its existence. If we want, as has been said, a Second Chamber to revise and correct, apart from all political prejudices, the decisions and the proceedings of this House, then I ask how we are going to construct such a Chamber. It has been said of one great man that he was aloof from all the sordid occurrences of this life and unsullied by their intercourse; and if we are to have a Second Chamber entirely apart from political prejudices, of completely and absolutely wise men, then first of all I ask where are the men to be found? No process known to me can ever produce such men. We cannot trust Parties to nominate them. Of course, Parties will nominate them according to Party views and Party prejudices, and no system of election ever can be framed that can possibly produce them. I daresay we could get by a process of filtrated election, or by a suffrage confined to wealthy people, a Second Chamber of which I may call superior persons. We could no doubt have a Second Chamber of persons of the style, shall I say, of Professor Tyndall. We might have persons of that kind, but I say for either lack of political instinct and utter blindness of political vision and for undiluted political rancour commend me to the superior person. Surely it will be admitted at once that we live in a democratic country. Then is it not right and proper that we should manfully and fearlessly recognise the result of what we have done in giving the people at large the conduct of their own affairs? Surely it is better we should act up to the professions we make, and that we should brush aside all these fantastic Second Chambers

  1539
  which are the creation of ingenious brains, and that we should recognise at once that all these Second Chambers which have been suggested are, in reality, but creations for the purpose of thwarting and hindering the carrying into effect of the expression of the will of the people at large of this country.
  MR. CURZON: Mr. Speaker, there is an air of unreality about this annual debate on the House of Lords. There has been a hollowness of declamation in the speeches to which the House has so far listened, and there has been a listless-ness of tone in the House itself, which do not betray very great interest in the question. If the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) meant his Motion seriously, I think he would give us a little more wisdom and a little less wit in his speeches; and if hon. Members opposite took this Motion seriously, I doubt whether they would have selected the hon. Member for Northampton as the leader of their crusade. Then we have had one speech from this side of the House, and I am bound to say that speech did not convince me that the Motion was taken any more seriously by the hon. Member (MR. Radcliffe Cooke) who made it. The hon. Member seemed most anxious to disassociate himself from all aristocratic connections, and he has no doubt himself been contributed to this House by the untitled democracy of Newington. Well, no one knows better than the hon. Member for Northampton that this Motion is a mere brutum fulmen. It is not by Resolution of this House, but by revolution that the House of Lords, if it falls at all, will fall. [Opposition cheers.] That point of view, I am glad to see, is endorsed by the cheers of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I conceive that were the Motion of the hon. Member to be carried to-night by as large a majority as that by which it is certain to be rejected, the House of Lords would not necessarily be one day nearer its destruction. I confess, Sir, that there is to me something of impertinence in the spectacle of this House, which is so sensitive of its own prerogatives, presuming to sit in annual judgment upon another Chamber which in most of the attributes of a deliberative and legislative Chamber is incompar
  1540
  ably its superior. And I think, too—and I make this reference only because the hon. Member for Northampton has anticipated me in doing so—that there is something comic, if not worse than comic, in the spectacle of an hon. Member who has lately been suspended from the service of one House of Parliament coolly getting up and proposing by a stroke of the pen, and for no offence, to suspend four-fifths of the Members of another. The hon. Member for Northampton has invited us this evening to condemn the hereditary principle. It is easy enough to make fun of the hereditary principle. That is a cheap rhetorical triumph which the pettiest provincial Cleon can attain. It is easy enough, too, to extol the representative principle, more particularly in an Assembly in which we owe our seats to the operation of that principle. We are naturally disposed to think that we are the best House of Commons in the world, and that the principle upon which we are returned is the best principle. As regards the hereditary principle, no one on these Benches, so far as I know, has ever attempted to defend that principle on the ground of abstract theory. I do not do so for one moment. No one has ever attempted to argue that the doctrine of hereditarily transmitted ability is a scientific induction sufficiently sound to supply us with a basis if we were constructing a new Legislative Chamber. I say that no one has ever said that, and no one presumes to say so now. But Houses of Parliament are not made by theories any more than they are destroyed by Resolutions. We have to face this fact—that the hereditary principle, however unsound it may be in theory, has gradually but surely established itself in this country as an automatic mode of selection, not only for the; Members of the Upper House of Parliament, but also for regulating the succession to the Throne—under the sanction, I admit, of the House of Commons—and also for the determination of the laws and customs of inheritance in every-day life. And, Sir, we have further to face the fact which the hon. Member for Northampton conveniently ignores, that this hereditary principle which it is so easy to deride is not only a popular principle with the country, but one which becomes in-

  1541
  creasingly popular from year to year, and that it is one to which democratic peoples, democratic Governments, and democratic constituencies, lose no opportunity of evincing their attachment. Sir, I see on the Front Opposition Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. H. Gladstone). I am sure he will not think it due to any impoliteness on my part if I say that he originally owed to the operation of the very principle which the hon. Member for Northampton derides that seat in this House which he has since justified by his own ability. There sits next to him upon that Bench another right hon. Gentleman. I can remember the day when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), who will presumably follow his leader the Member for Northampton into the Lobby to-night—I can remember when the right hon. Gentleman brought to a pitch, of intense enthusiasm a popular audience by assuring them that he, too, was a scion of the Royal stock. I am sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman deny by shaking his head that which I have always regarded as one of the few redeeming features of his career. Then, Sir, in a neighbouring country, professedly the most democratic in Europe, we have the spectacle of a statesman elected to the Presidency of the French Republic on the ground—which must be most abhorrent to the hon. Member for Northampton—not that he was the son of his father, but the grandson of his grandfather. Finally, Sir, I have always heard that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton himself supplies an illustration of the operation of the same principle pushed to a yet more remote degree, and that he first secured a seat in Parliament and an entry into that public life which he has since adorned, because he was not merely the son of his father but the nephew of his uncle, and that unclea Member of the House of Lords. Sir, I merely make these observations to show that the hereditary principle in legislation, however vulnerable and assailable in theory, is a some what different thing in practice. The hon. Member talked to-night in his speech about slaying the slain. I venture to think that when in a position of less freedom and greater responsibility upon that Bench he sets himself to the task of destroying the
  1542
  hereditary element in the House of Lords he will find it a more difficult undertaking than he has yet any idea of. The Motion of the hon. Gentleman can only have one of two legitimate corollaries. Either those who vote for it are prepared to dispense with a Second Chamber altogether or they must be ready to construct a House of Lords in which the hereditary principle plays no part. As regards the first alternative, I believe the feeling in favour of Single Chamber Government is one that has few supporters in this House. [Cries of "Oh!"] It has very few, if any, supporters in this House. It is not recommended to us by the fact that the only country in Europe to practise it is Greece, and the example of Greece is not rendered more respectable by the fact that the only country in the world to follow Greece is Costa Rica. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen (MR. Bryce), who knows more about other countries' Constitutions than any other man does about his own, made a speech from that Bench presumably on behalf of the Official Members of his Party; and in clear and unequivocal terms he threw over Single Chamber Government, and declared that it was incompatible with the equilibrium of Government in this country; and, if I remember aright, the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Cuninghame Graham) was the only man on that occasion who raised a despairing cry in favour of the Single Chamber heresy. If we may regard the hon. Member for Aberdeen as a more typical and a fairer representative of the Party opposite than the Member for Lanarkshire, we may conclude that the feeling in favour of Government by a Single Chamber is one that has no support in this House, and which we may dismiss from consideration. Well, Sir, I come to the second alternative. Hon. Members opposite, if they are not prepared to dispense with a Second Chamber altogether, must clearly contemplate a House of Lords from which the hereditary element has been excluded. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones) said that you might pass this Motion, and that you would not, therefore, as a consequence, abolish the existing House of Lords. I think, Sir, he is strangely unaware of the composition of the

  1543
  House of Lords. The only elements in the House of Lords other than its hereditary Members are the Bishops, the Law Lords, the Irish and Scotch Peers, who are, to some extent, representative, and the Peers who have been ennobled themselves. But I do not imagine for one moment that the hon. Member for Northampton would tolerate a House of Lords composed of this residuum; and it is therefore clear that this Motion, by extinguishing the hereditary element in the House of Lords, would extinguish the House of Lords along with it, and I have no doubt this is what the hon. Member for Northampton has in view. [Cries of "Yes."] I am glad I have the hon. Member's approval, because it brings me to my point, which is this—that if you propose by this Motion to abolish the House of Lords, it is quite clear that you contemplate in the near future an entire re-construction of that Chamber; and the first thing you ought to do is to present to us the alternative House of Lords which you propose to set up in its place. Have we had the slightest indication of this now House of Lords which will be required? Are there two men on that side of the House who are in agreement either as to the elements of which it should be composed or as to the principles which should regulate its construction? Last year the Member for Northampton was so conscious of the ridiculous position in which he was placed that he came to this House with the details of a scheme.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have always been in favour of one Chamber. Last year I did submit a plan for a sort of Chamber for weaker brethren. They did not accept my proposal.
  MR. CURZON: I am sorry to hear his admission that his proposal of last year was not more serious in its character. I had given the hon. Gentleman credit for being something more than a Nihilist, and had thought that occasional flashes of constructive ingenuity dawned upon his mind. Now, it appears that his imaginary House of Lords which, if I remember aright, was to be elected by the County Councils, to be, in fact, a sort of glorified Bumbledom—it now appears that this House of Lords was but a mere momentary creation—a jeu d'esprit tossed off by the hon. Member, not for the purpose of giving information to the House of Commons,
  1544
  but to afford some sustenance to a few recreant spirits on his own side of the House. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman has since disowned his own offspring, for it will show the House of Commons this evening that they are invited to pass a Resolution for abolishing the House of Lords without the glimmering of an idea as to anything by which it is to be replaced. I feel tempted to ask a further question. Have we not got quite enough Constitution-mongering on our hands already? There is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, who has a scheme, or is supposed to have a scheme,—no one seems to know much about it—a scheme for the construction of two new Legislative Chambers for Ireland. Then we have had faint prophetic adumbrations of two other new Legislative Chambers for Scotland and for Wales. That means four ships already on the stocks, and now the hon. Member for Northampton comes here and proposes a Motion which, if carried, would involve, as a logical corollary, the setting up of the timbers of a fifth. It is preposterous that at this period of the nineteenth century, in this House, where there is more work pressing upon us than the House can possibly get through, when great social problems, whose dimensions we scarcely at present realise, are appearing above the horizon, that at such a time the hon. Member should come down and propose to toss the whole Constitution into the melting pot, simply because it does not conform to some abstract idea of uniformity which he has formed in his own mind? I am one of those who think it would be wiser to take things somewhat as they are, to admit imperfections, and do our best to remedy them. We must remember that we are not starting, and that we cannot start, with a clean slate. We cannot wipe our sponge over the history of the past. We have a House of Lords which, in my humble judgment, has played a great and distinguished part in the history of this country, which has certain merits which it would be difficult to find elsewhere, and, perhaps, still more difficult to create. But that House is disfigured by imperfections and drawbacks which impair its efficacy for good. I have on previous occasions trespassed upon the indulgence of the House by stating what I believe those objections

  1545
  to be, and I will not on the present occasion do more than recapitulate them in a few sentences. The existing House of Lords is too exclusively hereditary in its character. There are large groups of interests and sections of opinion which are entirely unrepresented in that House. The working bees in the House of Lords are too few and the drones are too many. As long as a Peer, after accepting his patent of creation, can only become a hereditary Peer, you restrict entry into that House, and you render it impossible for there to be that stream of constant re-invigoration from the people which is necessary to keep the House of Lords, or any Chamber, in harmonious touch with the country at large. These are obvious and conspicuous defects in the existing House of Lords. But there are others which are less commonly noticed, and which are submitted to with a patience that, to my mind, is perfectly amazing. Hon. Members opposite are in the habit of speaking of the House of Lords as if it were a nest of privileges and exemptions. To my mind membership of the House of Lords entails disabilities more cruel and severe than those which are imposed on any other body of public men. You compel a man who is the son of a Peer, and who succeeds to the Peerage, to enter the House of Lords, whether he will or not. You compel him to remain there; you debar him from resigning. You give him no facilities for quitting that House. It is as impossible to get out of the House of Lords when once you are in as it is to jump out of your own skin. Members of the House of Lords are debarred from playing the part of active citizens in this House. They are not even allowed the privilege of voting at the polls—and yet, while you consent to impose these disabilities upon this body of men, you have hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Northampton, coolly coming down here and protesting that these legislators, who cannot help being' legislators, are incompetent, and unworthy men, and do not suit the theory of Government he has in his own mind. It would be a much more reasonable thing if, instead of proposing this Motion, the hon. Member had devised some machinery by which the individuals of whom he speaks might in this House
  1546
  become legislators, worthy and competent legislators, which they have not always the chance of becoming in the House of Lords. I know that my views upon the subject of the House of Lords are not acceptable to all sections of my own Party. I know there are some who are disposed to argue that to touch the House of Lords is to shatter it. To them I reply that if the House of Lords is not strong enough to stand handling of any description, it is not strong enough to form an integral part of our Constitution. There are others—perhaps they are the bulk—on this side of the House who are disposed to say "Why not leave well alone." I deny altogether that it is well. It may be well enough while we have a Conservative Government, and while the House of Lords has simply to register decrees that are sent up by the Conservative majority in the House of Commons. But I invite hon. Members on my side to look a little ahead. I think the time may come, I think it is coming, when it is quite possible that the House of Lords may be brought into more acute and violent conflict with the House of Commons than it ever yet has been. When that time comes I do not want the conflict to be represented, or, if you like, misrepresented, as a conflict between the representatives of land on the one side, and the representatives of the people on the other, between the hereditary principle and the representative principle, or even between the two social orders of the Peers and the people. I am not suggesting for a moment that the House of Lords should embark upon a career of petty and perpetual friction with the House of Commons. Nothing could be more disastrous, nothing more foreign to the purposes of our Constitution; but when the House of Lords is forced into position of direct antagonism to the House of Commons, I want it to be convinced not only that it has right on its side but that it has behind it the support and the affection of the democracy at large. The Motion which the hon. Member for Northampton has submitted to the House this evening docs not carry us one inch nearer the attainment of that ideal. I would gladly, if I could, vote for a Motion that had in view a reform of the House of Lords such as I have sketched, or I would gladly vote for any Motion I that had in view a temperate and reason-

  1547
  able reform of the House of Lords, whatever it might be. But no such Motion is before us. It is useless putting it upon the Paper of this House, because according to the rules of our discussion I am prohibited from moving it. In my inability to move any Motion for reform of that description or to vote for it, I have no hesitation whatever in recording my vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton, which I conceive to be animated by no other motive than heedless vandalism without the faintest hope or hint of re-construction beyond.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  (6.10.) The House divided:—Ayes 201; Noes 139.—(Div. List, No. 34.)
  Main Question again proposed.

  TUBERCULOSIS IN CATTLE.
  MR. LEES KNOWLLS: I desire, Sir, to call the attention of the House to the subject of tuberculosis in cattle, and to recommend that this disease should be scheduled under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts. Perhaps I owe an apology to the House for occupying time with such a subject, but I hope to show that the importance of it justifies me, and that it is more within the range of practical polities and administration than the subject with which we have just been dealing. My excuse is that in my constituency is one of the largest cattle markets in the kingdom, and a large number of my constituents are connected with that market; while there are a large number of persons in the surrounding districts interested in the meat trades. There are, no doubt, hon. Members in the House who wonder what tuberculosis is, and, in fact, several have asked me the question. To put my reply as concisely as possible, I may say that it is a disease in animals which corresponds closely to the disease of pthisis or consumption in human beings, which is one of the most fatal of diseases. Tuberculosis is a new subject, but it has lately attracted much attention and has become better understood in the last 10 years, during which period the disease has considerably increased. So new is the subject that tuberculosis is
  1548
  not referred to in any Act of Parliament relating to cattle or the lower animals; it is not alluded to even in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878. The disease is chronic; it may last for years. Cattle-plague, pleuro-pneumonia, and swine fever are acute. Tuberculosis, from a sanitary point of view, is much more dangerous than these diseases. Professor Cameron, when he gave his evidence before the Departmental Committee, said that whereas he would eat the flesh of a beast which had suffered from pleuro-pneumonia, he would not touch the flesh of a tuberculous animal. The disease is almost unknown among animals in a wild state. In the Zoological Garden it kills more animals than does any other disease. American and Canadian cattle are comparatively free from it, and in Australia it is only now beginning to spread, and its course can be traced from one part of the colony to another. The disease is found mostly among dairy stock, but it is found also among bullocks. In-and-in breeding is a primary cause of it. In-and-in breeding weakens the stamina, and if there is the slightest taint of the disease in a herd, in-and-in breeding aggravates it. Where there is in-and-in breeding the disease is most common. Another cause is inhalation, and another, ingestion, that is to say, animals may get it from mouthing the food, or the trough mouthed by other animals. Another cause is inoculation. The winter milk-trade aggravates the disease, and in towns, cows are more frequently affected with it than in the country. In our town cow-houses there is frequently a want of proper ventilation, and the beasts kept there are unable to get proper physical exercise, and proper natural food. The food given them is of an artificial and stimulating nature, not intended to inprove flesh and blood, but intended to increase the quantity of milk, and it acts therefore as a strain upon the animal. One peculiarity of the disease is that it does not affect the amount of secretion of milk, although the udder is frequently attacked. The disease is communicable, and I could quote a number of cases from the Departmental Blue Book to exemplify this. There are cases of a bull spoiling a herd, of a cow communicating the disease to a herd,

  1549
  and of a bull taking tuberculosis from a cow, and of human beings, calves, and even pigs, dying after taking tuberculous milk. In one remarkable Scotch case, which will be found in the evidence, at Question 8,800, it will be seen that the workers on a particular farm were found to be suffering from consumption to a large extent, and upon this farm many animals had tuberculosis. Some particular cattle sheds were pulled down and consumption apparently ceased. Then, I can give an instance of a mother communicating consumption to her child, and of a girl taking by inoculation infection from a human patient. Moreover, there are cases of inoculation where men have milked animals while having sores upon their hands, and have got what are called "butchers' tubercles." If tuberculous beef is dangerous, tuberculosis milk is still more so, because milk is more frequently taken in an uncooked state. It is very dangerous to particular individuals, and especially so to children. It is said that poor people suffer more from this disease than do the rich, because they are unable to get such good milk or flesh as can their richer brethren. Milk may be rendered less harmful if cooked, for it has been discovered that the "baccili" or microbes can be destroyed at a heat of 100 degrees Centigrade, or 212 Fahrenheit, in a few minutes. The strongest brine has no effect, and the ova, or spore, require a higher temperature. Boiled meat is better than roast, because the latter is often eaten underdone, while boiled meat is generally disliked if not thoroughly cooked. The disease is more prevalent among aged milch cows, and particularly prevalent among Ayrshire cattle, because they have small and narrow chests, and it is frequently found among shorthorn herds and pedigree stock. The disease has an influence on the powers of breeding, and non-breeding is often due to a tuberculous taint. I can give three instances of tuberculous cows having stopped breeding in consequence of the disease. Now, are there any tests by which the disease can be recognised? I can name three, all of which are alluded to in the Blue Book, and possibly there may be others. There are the tests of temperature and ausculation while the animal is alive, and
  1550
  when the beast is dead there is the test of the microscope. It may be said that our Inspectors are not sufficiently skilled to apply these different tests; then all I can say is, we ought to have men who are sufficiently competent; we ought to have specially trained Inspectors, and pay them, if necessary, higher salaries. It is a question of sanitation, a question of health, and I do not think that the consideration of cost should stand in the way. It is possible that experiments are still necessary to show whether tuberculous meat is or is not injurious to human health when the disease is in its initial stages, and especially after the meat is cooked. In France, Belgium, Saxony, and Bavaria the flesh of animals only locally affected is passed for human food. At the present time—it is rather a disagreeable part of the subject—persons trade in tuberculous animals, slaughter them in places where there is little or no inspection, remove the diseased parts, and sell the rest for food. Emaciated cows are sent from one town, where there is good inspection, to another, where the inspection may not be so good, under the names of "piners" or "mincers"—names suggestive of unpleasant associations—and are sold at prices from 30s. to £3 or £4 per beast. In Edinburgh, if an animal is in good condition, if the tubercles are limited, the glands not affected, and if the flesh on section appears sound, the animal is passed in the slaughter-houses. If the glands are at all affected the animal is always condemned; but I see from the Meat Trades' Journal for last Saturday that still more stringent regulations have been made in Edinburgh. Again, something ought to be done in reference to milk. At Paisley the Local Authority tried, in one case, to stop the sale of tuberculous milk, and for so doing were held to have overstepped their duty. Now, there are many proposals as to how tuberculosis should be treated. For instance, Professor Cameron proposes that the sale of cattle should be recorded, and that when an animal is sold at a fair, the person selling it should give to the purchaser a certificate showing the place of origin of the animal, and the name and address of the owner. That seems to me a very reasonable proposal indeed. MR. Stephenson, F. R. C. V. S., goes further, and pro-

  1551
  poses that all cattle intended for human food should be slaughtered in public abattoirs. I believe that at the present time meat inspection, and especially in London, is very imperfect, and it would, I believe, be greatly improved if public abattoirs were created. Of course, at the same time I would not interfere with private abattoirs under certain conditions, properly licensed and inspected. MR. Stephenson further proposes that all cattle intended for food should be examined by a properly-qualified Inspector, both before and after slaughter, and that a careful record should be kept of all examinations in the abattoirs, and of the diseases found there. Other proposals have been made, and I think some of the following are good. It ought to be made penal for anybody knowingly to breed from a tuberculous beast. Compulsory notice should be given to Local Authorities in case of discovery of the disease by every owner, and then inspection should be made by a skilled Veterinary Inspector, so as to provide against unnecessary slaughter, and also against the continuance of the sale of tuberculous milk. In some towns, notably in Liverpool, Birmingham, Bradford, and Leeds, a Butchers' Jury decide doubtful questions. I think that when beasts are slaughtered, especially when they are taken away and compulsorily slaughtered in the interest of the community, compensation should be paid in certain cases. I think Local Authorities should enforce more strictly than they do the "Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milk-Shops Order, 1885," and that they should supervise all byres and cow-houses having regard to structure, drainage, and ventilation, and they should also examine the water supply. Medical Officers of Health should look for bacilli in milk, and if unable to detect them themselves they might send samples to a Bacteriological Laboratory. Local Authorities might also be empowered to inspect tuberculous herds, say every three months, slaughter out the animals that are ill, and stop the sale of milk from others. There is, at the present time, a Dairy Company in Copenhagen which has an examination of all its animals made every week. Possibly, this would not be sufficient; possibly, nothing would be sufficient but to go to the root of the matter and order a whole-
  1552
  sale slaughter of tuberculous animals. "The Liverpool and District Butchers' Association" sent a memorial to the Agricultural Department last autumn on the subject of tuberculosis, and more recently a similar memorial was sent from Sheffield; but, unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture does not see his way at the present time to deal with the prayer of the memorialists, and these memorials have been sent by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) to the Local Government Board. Now, I think I ought to state the position of the Local Government Board in regard to this matter. As the law now stands, the question of the fitness of any animal for human food is, in the first instance, one for the Medical Officer of Health or the Inspector of Nuisances who has examined it under Section 116 of the Public Health Act, 1875. The question of its condemnation is one for the Justice who deals, with the case under Section 117, and the Local Government Board are not empowered to interfere in any action that may be taken under the above-mentioned enactments. But not only have the Associations I have mentioned, and kindred Associations, memorialised the Board of Agriculture on this subject: the County Council of my own county, Lancashire, recently passed the following resolution:—
  "That this Council is of opinion that the Board of Agriculture should institute a further inquiry with respect to tuberculosis, and to the losses incurred by farmers and cattle dealer on account of cattle being condemned as unfit for food."
  Now, it seems to me that it would certainly be possible to deal with the disease in the cases of particular herds. I think the disease might easily be slaughtered out of them. I know of one instance where, had the owner of a particular herd slaughtered the whole herd 10 years ago and started with a new herd, he would be better off than he is at the present time. I know my right hon. Friend will say, if you are going to reduce herds by wholesale slaughter, what are you going to do with the pedigree stock. It is known that some shorthorn herds are riddled with the disease. A shorthorn bull may be worth 2,000 guineas—he might impregnate a herd with tuberculosis, and spread the disease over the

  1553
  whole country—and my right hon. Friend may say it would be difficult to order the slaughter of such a beast as that. But I say such an animal ought not to be allowed to exist, and if it had pleuro-pneumonia it would be slaughtered, and compensation would be given; and tuberculosis is more dangerous than pleuro-pneumonia. I think when the health of the community is concerned, the question of the value of a shorthorn bull ought certainly not to be considered. Many of my constituents are butchers, and their position is particularly hard. Our cattle market is under the best veterinary inspection, and every care is taken that only animals in a healthy condition shall be exposed for sale; but a Cattle Inspector has no power to seize a beast sold in public market on account of tuberculosis. Now, a butcher buys a beast that has passed inspection as to fitness for food, and he takes it home and prepares it for sale: there is no guilty knowledge on his part. Then there is a further official inspection, and the beast is condemned if traces of tuberculosis are found. In one case the traces were 12 or 15 little specks, about the size of apple pippins.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): Before or after death?
  MR. KNOWLES: After death. The case is particularly hard. The butcher is tried and fined, and may be treated as a criminal. He loses his beast and gets no compensation or redress, Imperial or Local. I could quote many cases at Bolton, Dublin, Glasgow, Hawick, Hyde, Irvine, Leeds, Manchester, Selkirk, and elsewhere; in fact, the Meat Trades' Journal is full of such cases. It may be said that the principle of caveat emptor should apply to the butcher who goes to market and buys a beast; it may be thought that there is an implied warranty that the beast is fit for food when a dealer sells to a butcher. However, in a case recently tried at Liverpool, "Hydes v. Cullen," it was held that when a defect or disease exists, of which the seller can have no knowledge, there is no implied warranty, and the purchaser has no claim. The doctrine of caveat emptor was held to apply; but in this Liverpool case, I suppose, the beast had been passed by the Veterinary Inspector. In dis-
  1554
  cussing this matter with a friend, he suggested that the ordinary conditions of trade should apply, and he said suppose a cargo of jute ordered, and that on arrival the jute was found to be unfit for use in trade, I should have to stand the loss. Yes, but in such a case there was no official inspection of the jute: but, in the case of the butcher there was an official inspection of the beast before buying, and another official inspection after it was bought, and not till then was it condemned: and the butcher suffered the whole of the loss. Now, I think such a loss, if compensation is not paid from Local or Imperial funds, ought rather to be borne by the breeder or dealer whose acquaintance with the beast would be much longer than that of the butcher, who bought it, perhaps, at an hour's notice. The whole subject is one that has been brought into prominence in recent years. In 1883, at a meeting of the National Veterinary Association held in London, a resolution was passed in favour of scheduling tuberculosis under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts. In 1884 the Butchers' Associations of Yorkshire petitioned the Government to the same effect. The Society of Associated Medical Officers of Health were in favour of scheduling. The result was that the Departmental Committee was appointed, and reported upon the subject; the Report being considered by the people connected with the meat trades to be highly favourable to their views; and upon this, an Order was prepared that the disease might be scheduled under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, as will be seen on page 12 of the annual Report of the Agricultural Department for 1888. But I regret to say that, although this Order was drawn up it has never been acted upon. The effect of that Order would have been highly satisfactory to the meat trades throughout the country, for it provided for the slaughter of diseased animals found on the owner's premises, for compensation for such slaughter, for seizure and slaughter of diseased animals exposed in fairs, markets, &c, or in transit, and for seizure and slaughter of diseased foreign animals on importation; that is to say, if the Order had been carried out the disease would have been effectively dealt with under

  1555
  the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts. In France tuberculosis is classified among contagious diseases, governed by sanitary police laws, as it ought to be treated here. How to deal with the disease is an Imperial question, and ought to be treated as such. Our meat trades are in a particularly unhappy position on this subject in regard to foreign competition. Tuberculous meat is condemned according to individual magisterial notions in this country, but there is no examination of Foreign meat imported, and it is not known whether it is taken from tuberculous beasts or not. If my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to adopt the suggestion to schedule the disease under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, I hope he will devise some means by which the subject may be dealt with in a practical way. I would ask him, with this object in view, to receive a deputation from those interested in the meat trade—breeders, farmers, dealers, and butchers—and perhaps from those he might accept some suggestions and find a solution of existing difficulties. I think the subject one of considerable importance, and that we ought to do our best to reduce, if not to stamp out, the amount of disease that now exists in the country. I am sorry to have detained the House so long, but I felt conscientiously obliged to bring the subject to the notice of the House, and I thank hon. Members for the attention which they have paid me.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I think I must first congratulate my hon. Friend on the complete manner in which he has put this subject before us in a very interesting statement. I have myself directed some attention to the subject in its details, and I can assure the House that it could not have been put forward in a more clear manner, in a more lucid and thoroughly dependable way. I must also congratulate my hon. Friend upon an acquaintance with that most wonderful and mysterious creature, the bacillus, very creditable to a layman. It is a subject of very grave, pressing, and I might almost say national importance, and I think we do well when we step aside from the clash and turmoil of ordinary political life to consider these questions of a sanitary nature seriously affecting the health of the community.
  1556
  When we remember that 150,000 persons annually die in this country from consumption, and that the disease is increasing, I think it is high time for us to look into the causes and endeavour to check them if we can. I am very glad my hon. Friend has brought this matter forward, for nobody can now say it is merely a doctor's "fad." It might have been thought that this is a mere scientific and pathological speculation which has not reached a point where legislation is necessary, but when my hon. Friend, in the, interest of many in his large constituency, brings it forward, we may consider that there is that amount of interest taken in it outside the medical profession which is required before we can press our views into legislation. How does the matter actually stand? First we must prove that consumption is a communicable disease. For many years Italian doctors hold that, and we scouted the idea, until by experiment and investigation of the mysterious bacillus it was proved that the creature had the power of being transferred from one person to another, carrying the germs of the disease. The next point that has puzzled our doctors is, are the microbes in man and in cows the same creatures? In other words, is it actually proved that tuberculosis can be communicated directly? Well, I think delicate experiments have undoubtedly proved that the bacillus is the same in both, and that the communication of the disease from the lower animals to man is only too well made out. My hon. Friend has told us how men and animals have suffered from the disease at the same time—how the disease prevails among high-bred pedigree stock, and he has told us clearly the ways in which animals may transmit the bacilli to man. Take the first way, by consumption of the flesh. I do not believe this is a very frequent case. It is an open question whether the muscular fibre is contaminated with bacilli, but I think it is perfectly evident that cooking takes away some of the infected property. But, as my hon. Friend has told us, merely roasting a joint may not entirely kill all the bacilli in it, for a joint, if large, is often under-cooked, and the heat reaching the interior part is not sufficient. It must be over 100 degrees. Even if the creatures are killed, there are the spores or eggs left, which will develop

  1557
  into full grown bacilli and propagate disease. The destruction of these requires a much greater heat; and it is quite possible, and, indeed, only too probable, that an ordinary amount of heat is not sufficient to destroy these spores. Then apart from the flesh—as to which, as I have s*id, there is some doubt—we have the milk. We have evidence that communication from the lower animals to man by milk is made out in the most conclusive way by experiment. It is generally supposed that in cows tainted with tuberculosis, symptoms of the disease appear in the udders, but there is evidence of a scientific nature to prove that the disease may be present in the udder and yet be unrecognisable by the human eye during life, bat the post-mortem examination discloses it, and this makes the matter more serious, for the milk may be affected although no signs appear in the udder, and thus the disease may be propagated. Under sanitary improvements and sanitary regulations we have stamped out some diseases, and others are less prevalent, but consumption is increasing considerably, and more especially among children; and, putting things together, it is not extravagant to suppose that the cause of the increase of this tubercular disease is due to the fact that it is communicated in the milk from tuberculous animals. We know that every disease of this kind must have some kind of proper soil in which to spring up, and that it is not everybody who is exposed to the infection that catches it; but, unfortunately, the conditions under which many of our poor people have to live render them only too much disposed to catch tubercular disease. We know that amongst the most prominent of pre-disposing causes is starvation, while bad ventilation, and the wretched housing of the working classes, also make them liable to disease; indeed the causes may fairly be grouped under the broad term of deficient hygienic conditions. We have here, then, a disease amongst cattle which is to be communicable from cattle to man, and is held by competent authorities to be caused in man by drinking infected milk from cattle suffering from tuberculosis. The case which has been brought forward by the hon. Member is a very grave one, and I think that it is
  1558
  the duty of the Agricultural Department to try and find some remedy. Lust year I brought the matter before the House, but at that time there was no particular Department to which I could address myself, so that my efforts received but very scant notice. Now, however, we have an Agricultural Department, presided over by a Minister who takes a sincere interest in everything which affects the agricultural community, and I think we may not unnaturally appeal to him to try and find some remedy for a condition of things which is very threatening to the health of the general community. My hon. Friend has suggested that this disease should be scheduled, and I agree with him that if that were done, cattle breeders, realising the loss which they would incur from keeping tubercular stock, would pay greater attention to hygienic conditions, and that thus in time this terrible and catching disease would be stamped out among the lower animals. But, if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take this step, I think he might accede to the very reasonable request of my hon. Friend, and receive a deputation of those who are well acquainted with this subject. I hope he will give us some assurance that he will try and find a remedy for this growing mischief.
  MR. C. W. GRAY: I think we are very much indebted to the hon. Member for having brought this subject forward, for undoubtedly it is one of great interest to agriculturists and to consumers of meat generally, as well as to consumers of milk, especially in the present unfortunate condition of agriculture, which compels farmers to give up growing corn, and to turn their attention to the breeding and fattening of stock. At the same time I think it would be almost impossible to schedule this disease in the manner in which pleuro-pneumonia and foot and mouth disease are scheduled. The very characteristics of the disease show that it would be impossible for any Department to deal with it in that way, and we could not go in for legislation to stamp it out by wholesale slaughter, without calling upon the taxpayers for a large sum of money in order to compensate the owners of the slaughtered cattle.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I did not suggest that the disease could be so stamped out, but I urged that it might be greatly reduced.
  MR. GRAY: My point is, that it is of no use asking the taxpayers for money merely to reduce the disease by killing a hundred or so animals, when tens of thousands are suffering from its ravages. This is a question on which the Agricultural Department might be asked to get further information. The Department is presided over by a Minister who certainly knows the importance of this subject, and I trust that Professor Brown will devote his attention and scientific knowledge to the subject. Then, if it is found it would be reasonable to ask the taxpayers for money in order to stamp it out, we may expect the Minister for Agriculture to take that step.
  MR. MARK J. STEWART: Everybody who has had anything to do with cattle-breeding must realise the importance of this subject, and must be aware that the disease is of so insidious a nature that even the most skilful veterinarians are often unable to detect its existence. But the suggestion that inspectors should be appointed to go round to farm-houses, in order to see if cattle are suffering from it, is not one likely to meet with favour, because it would be an act of intrusion which would not be tolerated by any class. The persons best able to ascertain the state of health of milking cattle are those who attend to them; they can generally see when the disease develops itself in the animal's system. As to scheduling the disease, I very much question if any Government could induce the country to pay compensation for the slaughter of animals suffering from it. I do hope, however, that the Board of Agriculture will do all in its power to get further information as to the disease, and to ascertain the proper remedy to apply to it. In the district in which I live, we have about 12,000 milking cows, many of which are suffering from the disease. I believe that animals bred for milking purposes are more subject to tuberculosis than any other breeds, except, perhaps, the highest pedigree shorthorns, and the amount of compensation which would be required if you slaughtered all animals affected would be enormous. I
  1560
  think the proper plan of trying to repress the disease would be to adopt more stringent measures and methods of watching at the abattoirs where cattle are slaughtered, and preventing the sale of such cattle in public market. Much good might thus be done, for the farmers would cease to exhibit for sale infected cattle. The Board of Agriculture ought from an Imperial point of view, to take up this question; but they would not I think be justified in attempting to deal with it on the scientific information which we at present possess. Many farmers do not know the signs of the diseases, and it is only quite recently that the public knew anything about its existence.
  MR. CHAPLIN: There can be no doubt in the minds of those who have listened to this debate as to the importance of the question raised by my hon. Friend, and, so far as I am concerned, I can assure him that upon this, as upon other questions, I shall be only too glad to lend him and the House whatever assistance may be in my power, as President of the Board of Agriculture, in order to arrive at some solution of this problem. But I am bound to say that I find myself confronted with a great difficulty in connection with this subject. I understand perfectly well that my hon. Friend desires—as indeed we all wish—to get rid of this disease altogether, once and for all, but I do not understand so clearly what are the means which in his opinion we ought to adopt in order to accomplish this purpose. The second difficulty in which I find myself placed is this: that even if I did understand the means which he thinks we should adopt in order to get rid of the disease, I doubt the power of the Board of Agriculture to carry them out. The hon. Gentleman himself pointed out—and the House will do well to bear this in mind—that this disease is not by any means limited to cattle alone. He referred to the Report of the Departmental Committee which sat upon this question last year, and it will of course be my duty to consider that Report. The first thing I find in that Report is that tuberculosis does not attack domesticated animals equally, and those liable to it are given in order of proportion in the Report. The first animal, and the one most liable to the disease, is man. Then come milch cows, goats,

  1561
  sheep, and horses, &c. The House will consequently see that the matter is not one the supervision of which should be limited to the Board of Agriculture alone. If I may trouble the House with details, I would ask them to follow me in reading Section 56 of the Report before referred to—the section which deals with the frequency and proportionate occurrence of the diseases among men and animals. The section points out that 14 per cent of the deaths among human beings are attributed to the disease, and that in some places the rate is as high as 17 5 per cent. The Report goes on to point out that cows are much more liable to the disease than any other animals, and I find that in Dublin, where there is an enormous number of dairy cows among which the disease is specially prevalent, the percentage of infected animals slaughtered was 4·9, as compared with a rate of 14 or 15 per cent, of fatal cases among human beings. In Great Britain the percentage varies considerably, for it ranges from 3·5 per cent, to 37·5 per cent.; and in Germany it ranges from 1·5 per cent, to 20 per cent, according to the districts in which it prevails. I am therefore bound to say, with every desire to arrive at a solution of the question, and fully recognising as I do its importance, that, in view of the greater mortality among men than among animals, and in view of the great difference of opinion which to my knowledge prevails among scientists and experts, I regard the question as one rather for further consideration on the part of scientists than for immediate action on the part of the President of the Board of Agriculture. The hon. Member gave us an account—and, as far as I know, an accurate account—of the causes which lead up to this disease, and of the manner in which it is communicated from animal to animal; and he said that experiments, which had been made had driven him to the conclusion that the meat of animals which had suffered from tuberculosis is dangerous for human consumption.
  MR. LESS KNOWLES: I said that, unless it was thoroughly well cooked, it would be dangerous.
  MR. CHAPLIN: And that is precisely one of the points on which I do not feel bound to pass an opinion, as it does not come within the special province of the
  1562
  Minister for Agriculture to undertake researches of that kind. No doubt, when that point has been authoritatively settled, it will be proper for me to take the matter into my consideration. Then the hon. Member went on to describe the remedies which he desired us to adopt. I understood him to say we might hope to secure the ultimate disappearance of this disease if the Board of Agriculture would only fulfil what he regards as a duty incumbent on it, and schedule it among the contagious diseases under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. But I should hesitate to put such an Order in force. In the first place, I am afraid I should be raising hopes which would be doomed to disappointment; and, in the second place, I do not believe it would improve the position of those in whose interests we are speaking—the constituencies which are largely interested in the cattle trade. I am exceedingly doubtful as to what would be the effect of such an Order, and I feel confident it is absolutely hopeless to attempt to get rid of the disease altogether. In the case of pleuro-pneumonia, and foot and mouth disease, we have passed certain Orders having that object m view, and in the course of the next few days I hope to ask the House to sanction legislation with regard to pleuro-pneumonia, by which I hope we may eventually extirpate the disease in this country. But it is not possible to do that in the case of this disease, which differs from others in that it can be communicated from men to animals. Under these circumstances, how can we possibly hope to extirpate tnburculosis by adopting measures of universal slaughter such as the hon. Gentleman describes, unless we are animated by such blood-thirsty intentions as I rather gather must have been in the minds of the Departmental Committee when they made their recommendation. I, for one, could not dream for a moment of attempting to undertake the extirpation of the disease, which could only be accomplished by a universal slaughter of human beings as well as of animals. The hon. Member has pressed upon me reasons why I should receive a deputation on this question. I have already had various Communications upon this subject, and not very long ago a letter was forwarded to me by the hon. Member for Sheffield,

  1563
  to the effect that the Sheffield Butchers' Association were exceedingly anxious that I should receive a deputation from their body, in order that they might submit to me the main objects they have in view. First, they wanted a definition as to whether tuberculous meat was wholly or partially unfit for food; and, if partially so, at what stage of the disease did it become unfit. But that is a question of public health, and does not come within the province of my Department. Then they wanted to have such meat condemned by being scheduled under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act; and thirdly, they wanted a uniform system of inspection of meat. I replied, pointing out that the first and final points were not matters upon which it was the province of my Department to pronounce an opinion; and I further added that when these points had been decided nothing would give me greater pleasure than to receive a deputation, and to do everything in my power, and in the power of my Department, to arrive at a solution of the difficulty. Of course, it would be possible for me to pass an Order such as is desired by the hon. Member, but I am afraid it would do very little to assist the people in whose interest the hon. Gentleman has brought this matter forward. I am very sorry to be unable to reply to the hon. Member in a more hopeful manner, and that I have not been able to meet his views more fully, but I hope I have said enough to explain to the House that the question is at the present time full of difficulty, and that it has not arrived at a stage at which it is possible for me, as President of the Board of Agriculture, to take action. We want fuller scientific knowledge in regard to it, and I can assure the House that I will not lose any opportunity of endeavouring to obtain that further information. No effort shall be wanting on my part, or on the part of my Department, to arrive at a satisfactory and, I hope, permanent solution of the question.
  SIR LYON PLAY FAIR: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the time has scarcely arrived when animals afflicted with tuberculosis should be scheduled in the same way as other diseased animals are, but I am not satisfied with the manner in which the President of the Agricultural Department has spoken on the
  1564
  question, because he will recollect that, when the proposal was made last year to create a Minister having charge of agricultural affairs, I pointed out that the appointment of an ordinary administrative Department would have little or no effect on the country. I showed that in other countries, and especially in America, scientific men and experts were working in the agricultural Department, and I did hope that my right hon. Friend would have to-day promised to ask the Government to grant a scientific inquiry which would go thoroughly into this question. My right hon. Friend asked how he could cope with the disease when it was possible for a man to communicate it to the lower animals? That is perfectly true, so far as experiments show that the injection of tuberculous poison from a man into animals gives them the disease, but he must forgive me if I remind him that herbivora do not feed on man, whereas man does live upon herbivora. Milk from animals, suffering from tuberculosis may be supplied to children, and it is a startling; fact that, when tuberculosis prevails, largely among animals, consumption is prevalent among children to an increasing extent. While this question is exceedingly important in regard to cattle, it is infinitely more important in regard to mankind. The matter is one which ought to receive the attention of the Government, and the newly-appointed Agricultural Department should investigate all the details. I think there can be no doubt that the disease is, through meat, and milk, communicable to the human race, and I think there is every reason to believe that tuberculosis milk is largely responsible for the spread of consumption among children. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will represent to the Government the importance of having a thorough inquiry with regard to the spread of tuberculosis, and as to the desirability of preventing the consumption of milk obtained from animals suffering from the disease.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I should like to impress upon the House that this evil affects the public at large and not merely one class, and I do appeal to the Government not to neglect this subject simply because there may be a dispute between two Departments as to whose duty it is

  1565
  to take it in hand. I think one of the best means of checking the spread of the disease would be the prevention of the exhibition for sale of pining or wasting animals, for you would thus put a stop to the sale of tuberculosis meat, and thus charge the loss on the right persons and not on the butchers, who in a seaport see foreign meat imported, which is liable to no criticism at the hands of an Inspector; and by some change of system you might also prevent the distribution of affected animals, when useless for milking, over the country for breeding purposes. It seems to me to be a matter of public policy for us to take steps to repress the disease in its early stages; and although we may not be able to find an entire panacea or efficacious remedy for the disease, yet it is possible to take a step in the right direction, and by consenting to receive a deputation from the great trade interests involved Ministers might place themselves in a position to gain useful information.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In addition to the general public two classes are interested in this question—the breeders and the butchers. My right hon. Friend has already dealt with the case of the breeders, and I agree with him that when live cattle are converted into dead meat the matter passes into the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board. I believe the Minister of Agriculture has already expressed his readiness to receive a deputation on this subject; and I will, therefore, make an appeal to my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to receive a deputation from the butchers, who are not less interested in the matter than the breeders. Is there any reason why the two right hon. Gentlemen should not jointly receive the deputation?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): That suggestion will, I am sure, be carefully considered by my rig-lit hon. Friend and myself, and if it is possible to enable those who are interested in the matter to lay their views before the Government it may be desirable that we should jointly receive the deputations. I do not like here to discuss the question whether the duty of dealing with this subject
  1566
  belongs to one Department or to another; but on a question of such public importance I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree with me that it is the duty of every Department of the State to render all the assistance it possibly can in arriving at a solution of the difficulty. Hon. Members maybe assured that the matter shall receive our full consideration.

  INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.
  LORD HENRY BRUCE: When I last had the honour of addressing the House on the subject of the Inhabited House Duty I regret to say that the Chancellor of the. Exchequer was not in his place to hear the arguments which were used on both sides; but in winding up the discussion the Financial Secretary to the Treasury-said he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able, if not now, at any rate on some future occasion to at least rectify some of the anomalies which exist. There was a ray of hope in those words—a speck of blue sky. The history of this tax—which does not exist in Ireland—has been one of blundering and plundering. Its origin dates from the time of William and Mary, and its vagaries are a matter of history. It has been re-cast several times; first by Lord North in 1778, during the war of American Independence; again in 1798 Pitt combined the Window Tax and this tax into one; then again in 1802, on the repeal of the Income Tax after the Peace of Amiens, the rates were doubled by Addington, and the duties re-enacted in a Consolidating Act (42 Geo. III., chap. 34); in 1806, after the death of Pitt, 10 per cent was added to the tax by Lord Henry Petty, when he was compelled to abandon his proposal for a tax on pig-iron; in 1808, another consolidation was effected by Spencer Percival; in 1817, the question was again brought forward and redresses granted; in 1825, some further important alterations were made-by Robinson, and in the Reform Parliament of 1832 Lord Althorp tried his hand at it, and in 1834 finally repealed it. But, unfortunately, 17 years later—in 1851—the policy of 1834 was reversed by Sir Charles Wood; the old rates were I discontinued (which from 1808 to 1834 were on a graduated scale), and they were replaced by an assessment of houses of the annual value of £20 and upwards.

  1567
  "In this shape," said Sir Charles," it is a tax which is the fairest and best that can be levied." How everyone loves his own bantling. Well, Sir; only two years later attention was again directed to the tax, and in 1853, 1867, 1869, and 1878, redresses were granted, and I may say that the tax has been condemned by all the leading statesmen of our age. There is an old saying that "political memories are short." Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the year 1871, brought in a Bill named the Hating and House Tax Bill, Clause 11 of which ran thus—
  "From and, after a certain date to be fixed by an Order in Council, the House Tax shall cease to be payable to the Crown, but shall be levied by and be payable to the Parochial Board in each parish to be applied by them in the reduction of the Consolidated Kate. This enactment shall apply to the Metropolis as well as to the rest of England, and the term Consolidated Bate shall mean the Poor Rate."
  A year or two ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in his proposal for a Van and Wheel Tax, the proceedings of which were to be devoted to local purposes; and I maintain that he has now an opportunity of showing his consistent by making up the loss which was sustained locally by his failure to carry that tax. I should like to point out a few of the anomalies which exist in connection with this t ix. It is complained, in the case of caretakers in banks, warehouses, and professional houses, that where the caretaker acts in any capacity besides taking care of the premises the Inhabited House Duty is charged. In regard to this, in page 87 of the Report of the Commissioners it is observed—
  "There is another class of exemptions concerning which many difficulties arise. Houses which are occupied for trade purposes only, and which consequently do not fall within the limits of the tax, are now very usually placed in the charge of caretakers who reside on the premises. Does the fact of such residence-convert the house into a dwelling-house? The present rule is that if the caretaker is a bonâ fide menial servant, and resides on the premises solely for the purpose of taking charge of them, his residence does not render them liable to duty. It is not difficult to see how easily this exemption may be abused. The caretaker is often accompanied by a wife and family, and there have been eases where attempts have been made to introduce more distant relatives or strangers. In fact, caretakers have oven tried to bring in servants of their own. We do our best to check such practices, but the points
  1568
  involved in them are sometimes very fine, and we are not sure that the revenue always receives its due. Similar questions as to caretakers have to be considered when they are placed in charge of otherwise unoccupied houses"
  Of course, we are quite willing to render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsars; but our contention is that Cæsar should make his taxes intelligible. Now, banks are called upon to pay 9d. in the £1, and the reason given is that they are not places of business in the strict sense of being traders. Again, although a house may not in itself be liable to House Duty, the fact that it has any communication with one that is liable renders that house also liable to the duty. In 1878 the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in a Bill on this subject, and it was incorporated in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, which received the Royal Assent on the 27th May. But though the Bill passed into law it was two years afterwards tripped up by the action of the Inland Revenue Department. Now, why should lodging-house-keepers have to pay 9d. in the £1? Why should they not be treated like shopkeepers, and pay only 6d.inthe £1? There is another question I should like to ask, and it is a very important one. We want to abolish structural severance in tenement buildings, which are intended for the working and poorer classes. It is admittedly an unhealthy way of living to be compelled to live in rooms communicating, and when it is possible to have the advantage of separate rooms it should be secured, but the imposition of this tax prevents that advantage being secured. I contend, further, that collectors of Queen's taxes should be paid by salary and not by poundage, for we know full well that the present system leads to increasing assessments. I know there is an appeal to the Local Commissioners against the assessment; but the appellant is compelled to attend in person instead of being allowed to send a solicitor; and if the local appeal is unsuccessful, and ho desires to carry the matter further, he is compelled to attend personally at Somerset House, thus involving a considerable loss of time. The game, therefore, is hardly worth the candle. I will take another objection to this impost. It is a tax upon an outgoing instead of on an incoming, and I

  1569
  think that the House may naturally ask why it was ever re-imposed. The answer is that it was renewed in order to meet financial emergencies arising in connection with the Crimean War. No such emergency can now be pleaded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the revenue is not falling, and there is no difficulty in making both ends meet. I think I have shown the House the injustice of the tax: I condemn it on the ground that it is arbitrary, capricious, and unjust, and it seems to me to be levied on the principle that
  "They should take who have the power,
  And they should keep who can."
  Faulty in principle and injurious in conception it is opposed to all the rudiments of political economy and detrimental to the best interests of this country. I hope to see the day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will pluck up his courage and put an end to the tax.
  MR. W.SIDEBTTOM: I do not often trouble the House, and I do not wish now to occupy much of its time or to prevent it going into Committee of Supply, but I have an excellent excuse for rising on this occasion, which is that the subject of the Inhabited House Duty is one in which a part of the constituency which I have the honour to represent takes a very deep interest, and as I so seldom trespass upon the time of the House I hope I may claim a little indulgence when I think it my duty, in the interests of my constituents, to say a few words on behalf of some of them. I do not wish to enter upon a discussion of the whole of the subject which has been opened by the noble Lord who has just sat down, but simply to draw the attention of the House to the case of one class of persons mentioned in the Motion who consider—and, I think, justly so consider—that they are grievously injured by the Inhabited House Duty as at present enforced. I mean the persons who are lodging-house keepers, and are called upon to pay duty at the rate of 9d. in the £1. No one, I think, will dispute that lodging-houses are used as business premises, and, in fact, that they are as much business premises as shops and warehouses in very many cases, and the keepers of these houses cannot understand why they should pay duty at the
  1570
  rate of 9d., while shopkeepers only pay at the rate of 6d. in the £1. I may be told that an alteration of this tax would cause a heavy loss to the revenue of the country, but we are all expecting that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have this year a large surplus to dispose of, and I think he cannot better employ a small portion of that surplus than by relieving these people from the injustice of which they complain. Again, I may be told that if lodging-house keepers were put on the same footing as shopkeepers in regard to this tax that there would be considerable difficulty in ascertaining which were bonâ fide lodging-house. But I do not think that this is in any way a sufficient answer to the case, and I submit that it is not right to subject these people—many of whom have to struggle for a bare existence—to this injustice, simply because the remedying of that injustice would load to the creation of this small difficulty. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who last year received a large deputation on this subject, will be able to devise some means of determining who are bonâ fide lodging-house keepers; and I should like to remind him that, speaking generally, lodging-house keepers are an industrious hard-working class, who are very often in poor circumstances, and who consider that they are very unfairly treated with respect to this tax. I will conclude my remarks by thanking the House for the patience with which it has listened to me, and by expressing a hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see his way to remove the injustice of which I venture to complain.
  COLONEL LAURIE: Mr. Speaker, I support the view which has just been expressed to the House by the hon. Member. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly familiar with the grievance of lodging-house keepers, and he knows very well that in the constituency which I represent a great portion of the inhabitants earn their livelihood by letting lodgings. They find that large hotels and lodging-houses on a larger scale only pay 6d. in the £1, while they are compelled to pay at the rate of 9d. I know there are some practical difficulties with reference to this question, but it has been suggested that by some system of

  1571
  registration it would be very easy indeed to get rid of these difficulties; and to be able to assess those who earn their livelihood by letting lodgings on the lower scale on which are placed those who are really carrying on a very large scale. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will concur that the class to whom I refer suffer from a real grievance, and I hope it is a grievance he may be able to remedy.
  SIR W. GUYER HUNTER: Sir, last year I had the pleasure and honour of saying a few words on this subject, and it is unnecessary to detain the House for any lengthened period after what has fallen from my hon. Friend, to whose observations I have little or nothing to add. Last Session I referred to a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1889, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not depart from the promise which he then made. Since last year the objections to this tax have become far wider, and many Members on both sides of the House have taken up the question with exceeding warmth, and I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer may see his way to getting rid of this unjust piece of taxation. Although the right hon. Gentleman may not be able to do so before the Budget, yet afterwards I trust he may see some way of repealing a tax which is unjust in its incidence, and causes much hardship.
  MR. S. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I happen to represent a constituency in which there is a large number of lodging-house keepers. I am quite aware of the extreme difficulty of making exemptions to a tax of this kind, and of drawing a line between those who are properly lodging-house keepers and those who are not. But the lodging-house keepers are really a poor and struggling class, consisting mostly of widows, and if anything could be devised whereby the tax would bear more leniently upon them, I believe it would be very acceptable to a large section of the community.
  MR. CURZON: Mr. Speaker, I desire to appeal on behalf of the lodging-house keepers, who are engaged in a cognate line of business, though on a very much smaller scale, with shopkeepers and the tenants of hotels. The difference is one of degree, the hotel
  1572
  being a large lodging-house, and the lodging-house being a small hotel. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to the deputation, rather more than a year ago, raised certain objections to our proposal. He asked us if our appeal was made only for lodging-house keepers at watering places, or for lodging-house keepers in general. Of course I only speak for the lodging-house keepers of watering places, with whose case I am familiar. I do not ask, however, that they should beexceptionally treated, and hon. Members for other constituencies can state the case of the lodging-house keepers whom they respectively represent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also asked us whether the tax is not paid by those who rent, and not by those who let the lodgings. I believe that this is not the case. I believe that the tax in its present incidence presses hardly upon those who take in lodgers. Their margin of profit is very small, and the source of income is a precarious one, being largely dependent upon the character of the season and the number of tourists. I think the case is one deserving the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and as we know that the circumstances are such that he is perhaps more able to comply with our demand on this than he will be on future occasions, I think he may be asked to treat this appeal generously.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHER: I also represent a watering-place in the County of Sussex, where lodging-house keepers are very much, dependent for their subsistence upon visitors, and I do trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will listen to the arguments which have been adduced, because they are very material ones indeed.
  MR. JOHN KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on a different point. The exemption in this tax is in favour of houses of a less value than £20 per year. While that exemption is, no doubt, of very great benefit in the country, it is of no sort of benefit in the large towns, where separate houses under the value of £20 are almost unknown. But there is a class of house (for such they really are) which ought to be looked upon as of under the value of £20—the tenement dwellings. I do not refer to such as the Peabody

  1573
  buildings, which do not pay the Inhabited House Duty. I wish to say nothing against those who are providing the industrial blocks for our poor; but I am bound to point out that these dwellings have great drawbacks as compared with houses built in tenements, for the poor who use them have mostly cither to mount up great distances, or to live in rooms from which the sunlight is wholly shut out. I think the question of tenemented houses one of vast importance to the community. My appeal is strictly limited to tenemented houses built as such, which unfortunately cannot be said to have "structural severance." These words have led to much difficulty and injustice, and I should indeed be sorry to see any favour of any kind shown to the owners of converted houses, which are really nothing but "rookeries." What is asked for is no great slice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus. I believe if he freed these tenemented houses from the Inhabited House Duty, it would only be a question of some £200,000 in all. I should like to point out to him that those who take the same view as I do of this matter of tenemented houses feel deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the kind way in which ho received the deputation, and for the very great trouble which he allowed his Secretary to take in this matter. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with some considerable hope, for if the great question of the housing of the poor is to be solved, I believe this can and should be done, and by offering facilities for the construction of tenemented houses, and that, in this way, insanitary districts could be replaced by healthy dwellings for the poor without casting any fresh pecuniary burden whatever on the ratepayers. By freeing them of the charge of the Inhabited House Duty, and some reduction of the rates, I believe we should see a great part of the worst streets of London pulled down, and suitable tenemented houses erected.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Mr. Speaker, it is the general assumption that there is to be a very large surplus, but I wish to ask the House that if there are many large demands for its expenditure in every direction, where will the surplus be? It is rather anticipating events to say I have a surplus at my disposal, ready to
  1574
  meet all the demands made upon it. Hon. Members have put several points to me, but I must labour under the disadvantage in answering that if I were to argue with any of these hon. Gentlemen they would endeavour to extract from me whether or not I intended to deal with their points. On the other hand, if I abstain from replying, they may draw the opposite conclusion. Therefore I must, with the greatest respect, not attempt to reply with argument in any way. I notice that whenever a claim is made for remission of taxation in the case of any particular class, that class is always the most deserving in the whole community, and has the hardest struggle for existence. Lodging-house keepers are an industrious class, a hardworking class, and, as a hon. Member has said, a very struggling and very deserving lot." Hon. Members will see that I have taken to heart the character of the persons for whom they have pleaded. I have noted the great sympathy which they feel with a most deserving class. I am perfectly acquainted with the arguments of hon. Members, and I am afraid that that is all I can say with regard to the relief of the lodging-house keepers. My noble Friend who introduced the subject has spoken of the poundage assigned to assessors and collectors. Assessors are a very different class from collectors, because assessors assign the amount of the tax, but collectors only collect, and a little gentle stimulus in their case might be of advantage. But it is my intention in a few days to place on the Table a Bill of two or three clauses dealing with this question of poundage to assessors and their clerks. My hon. Friend who last spoke dealt with the question of tenement houses, and stated most fairly the difficulty with regard to structural severance. My hon. Friend will probably remember that the owners of some of the worst house property have made exactly the same claims. I feel very strongly that if the Government are to give way to the demands thus made upon them they will be giving an exemption to a certain class of owners not entitled to special privilege. The whole question of structural severance is one of great difficulty. My hon. Friend stated that the whole question meant £200,000 for London alone.
  MR. J. KELLY: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I meant £200,000 for the whole country.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I thought the hon. Gentleman meant London, and I do not say that the cost should affect the question of whether the House Tax should be put upon any particular class of houses adapted to the working classes. Thus far I am willing to go, that I think it would be a very undesirable thing to discourage the building of any particular class of houses for the working classes. Beyond that I am unable to go. I must apologise to my hon. friends that I am unable, just a fortnight before the Budget, to enter into the points they have raised, though I have listened to the contentions and arguments which have been brought forward.
  MR. O. V. MORGAN: Sir, in my constituency, during the last two or three years, a large number of small double houses have been built, in which families can live separately, and have separate entrances from the ground floor to the lower and upper floors. The tenements are completely severed, and each consists of four rooms. The two are generally let at a total rental of £25 a year, and it would be a great boon to these people if they could be relieved of the House Tax. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will kindly take into consideration this class of small double houses, of which whole streets have been put up.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR.PROVAND&c): The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very sympathetic address to his Friends on his own side, and undertook to consider their arguments, and look into the matter of the incidence of the House Tax. No doubt there are many anomalies connected with the tax, but if the right hon. Gentleman is going to consider those points brought under his notice by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, he should also take into view the incidence of the tax generally, and see if all other people are fairly rated. Over a large portion of this country the incidence of the tax is most anomalous and unfair.
  1576
  For example, country mansions are rated very unfairly. The tax is based upon the annual value, and that is perfectly reasonable, or would be if the correct value were ascertained. In the case of country mansions, however, they are very seldom rented. They are mostly owned by the occupier, and the question of annual value is settled by Local Overseers who are not inclined to fix the valuation of these mansions of the wealthy as high as it ought to be, and, as a result, we find such places as Chatsworth, Blenheim, and Hamilton Palace, and many other mansions of that kind, rated at a lower amount than are many ordinary dwelling houses in our cities. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is going to examine into the anomalies of the tax, he cannot legitimately confine his attention to the points brought before him by the Mover of the Motion. Besides the case of the mansions, and castles of the nobility he must also consider the anomaly in the case of tied-houses, where the rate is paid not by the occupier but by the brewer, who is the owner, and who, to have a low rate, frequently makes the rent much under a fair letting value. We are entitled to ask that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he comes to review the whole incidence of this tax, will see that rates are levied fairly and impartially on all houses throughout the country.

  MEDICAL PROVISION ON MERCHANT STEAMERS.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to call attention to a subject I ventilated in this House some years ago. In May, 1887, I framed an Amendment by which I called attention "To the entirely insufficient medical requirements and supervision on board Transatlantic liners for emigrants and steerage passengers;" and also invited "inquiry into the great risks incurred by master mariners and seamen on vessels making long voyages in consequence of the former being obliged to act as physician and surgeon to the crew in addition to his other duties." When I brought this matter under the notice of the House before, I got a very poor reply indeed from the right hon. Gentleman, at that time connected with the Board of Trade (Baron de Worms), although the question is a very important

  1577
  one. I speak on this question as a medical man, and as one who has had an opportunity of visiting the large ships by which thousands of poor people are conveyed from this country to America. The grievances of which I complain have been brought under my notice again and again. I have seen these wants and requirements with my own eyes, and I conceive that I should not be doing my duty unless I endeavoured to draw the attention of the Government to the matter. It is a, sad thing under any circumstances that so many poor people should be compelled to leave the shores of the country in which they have been born—and I allude in particular to the people who leave Ireland annually in large numbers. It is a great pity that in consequence of the want of attention and consideration shown to them by the authorities they are obliged to seek in another country that which is denied them in their own; and I think the least we can do when they are driven abroad is to endeavour, to the best of our ability, to see that the rules and regulations of the Board of Trade are carried out in their entirety, for their benefit, whilst they are on board ship. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies told me that if I would bring forward any definite case that required investigation it would receive the fullest inquiry. Surely the right hon. Gentleman knew as well as I did that if the medical man on board any one of these steamships brought forward any of the cases which I have produced before this House he would immediately be deprived of his employment, and would not get further employment On one of these liners for the rest of his life. It is, therefore, utterly absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Board of Trade is doing everything in its power. We all know that one of these large liners cannot clear the port of Liverpool or Queenstown without the sanction of the Board of Trade Inspector, and the President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks Beach) read me a very long lecture upon what the Inspectors did in connection with the inspection of the ship before it left the port. I never found fault with, the Inspectors of the Board of Trade. Many of those gentlemen are personal friends of mine, and from many of them I have acquired a portion of the information I have given
  1578
  to the House. What I say is, that when the ship clears the port all these grievances at once crop up. You have a hospital set apart on board each ship for the accommodation of such people who may be taken ill in transit. It frequently happens that no sooner has the ship cleared out of Queenstown than the brass plate is unscrewed from the door of the hospital and it is turned into accommodation for first and second class passengers. This, of course, is contrary to the rules of the Board of Trade, and were such a case to be brought under the attention of the Board of Trade the Board would be able to inflict proper punishment on the people who behave in this way. But who is to report it? If the doctor reports it he loses his position, and none of the officers on board dare report it. The medical man ought to be placed in such a position as to enable him to deal with questions of this sort, or at any rate, to bring them under the attention of the Board of Trade. I have shown that in many of the ships which convey emigrants to America there is no such thing as a permanent steerage, which means that there are no sanitary arrangements for steerage passengers. This was the case on one ship which had 1,500 people on board, no less than 800 of them being steerage passengers. The people were battened down for two days in consequence of a storm and at the end of that time the condition of the steerage accommodation was foul and loathsome beyond comprehension. The doctor who was on board told me he could stand a great deal, but when he went down into the steerage' the stench was so bad that it turned his stomach, and he became violently sick. I have also called the attention of the Government to the want of interpreters on board these ships. A friend of mine who has only recently left these services told mo that last year on one of the ships there were a great many people of different nationalities, including a number of Norwegians, and as there were no interpreters, these people were placed sometimes in a condition of dire extremity through not being able to get what they wanted. During the last eight or ten years I have been on board some twenty of these large steamers, and I have observed that the hospital is placed in them wherever it will suit the

  1579
  convenience of the company, and not in the best place as regards health, or as being easily got at. If a man meets with a serious accident or is taken ill on board a ship cruising in the Atlantic it may not be always very easy to convey him to the hospital, unless it is located in a convenient and proper situation. Within the last two years a doctor on board one of these very large steamers of modern construction was going along the deck to the hospital, which was situated near the stern, when he got two of his ribs broken. On another occasion a doctor who was going to a hospital situated on the deck got his arm broken. When these things have happened, to medical men who were going to attend patients, it must, as I have said, be sometimes very difficult for a patient who is ill, and especially a man with a broken leg, to get to the hospital when it is inconveniently placed. Then, again, a case of infectious disease might easily get on board one of these large ships, carrying as they do sometimes 1,500 passengers, and it has been proved that such cases have been taken on board. Will it be said that the ordinary hospital is the proper place in which to deal with such a case? I would suggest that a small hospital should be partitioned off for the use of anyone who gets on board and is afterwards found to be suffering from an infectious disease. The present Minister for the Colonies told me some time ago that there is always a special cabin fitted up for the surgeon. Since that statement was made I have visited at least 30 of the ships, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the case. There ought on every ship to be a small surgery where the medical man could keep drugs and make up medicines for any cases that came under his charge. There is another subject on which I desire to make a suggestion. There are some hundreds of thousands of men who go to sea in the ships of our Mercantile Marine. Of course, it would be nearly impossible to provide any proper medical attendance for the sailors on the smaller vessels, but I would suggest that in the case of ships containing a certain complement of men, and going to Australia and other distant parts, employment should be given to gentlemen who have not completed their course, but have taken their half course,
  1580
  and who are of ton employed in this country. I think also it might be easy and beneficial to establish some kind of entente cordiale between the Inspectors of the Board of Trade in this country, and the gentlemen who visit the American liners on their arrival in New York, so that the Reports of the latter might be transmitted to the Board of Trade Inspectors. I know very well that Governments are frequently trammelled by the great power of the Shipping Companies; but if the Government cannot see their way to carry out all the measures which are needful, they might at any rate take a step in the right direction and grant an inquiry into the subject-matter. In so doing they would be fulfilling their duty; they would be aiding the afflicted, and I believe they would also be doing credit to themselves.

  IRISH ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. SEXTON: As I see the Solicitor General in his place I would take this opportunity of drawing his notice to a case in winch, in my judgment, there has been a gross violation of the law by servants of the Crown. I refer to the case of John Daly, a convict now in Chatham Prison. Questions have been more than once addressed to the Home Secretary on the subject, and I am sorry for the sake of humanity and for the credit of this House that when those questions were asked the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) and the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnstone) interjected questions as to what crime Daly had been sent to prison for. I venture to say that, no matter what may be the offence for which a man. has been sent to prison, he is equally entitled to be treated according to the law; and I would lay down the general principle that, whilst other classes of Her Majesty's subjects are pretty well able to protect themselves, prisoners are peculiarly unable to do so. If they are subject to any ill-treatment, it is only at the hands of this House that they can receive a measure of protection. John Daly was convicted by the Treasury of having dynamite in his possession for an unlawful purpose. I have no intention of questioning the justice of the verdict; but in the City of Limerick

  1581
  where this man was born and spent his life, and in the County of Limerick where he is very well-known, the almost universal opinion of his character and disposition is such that the people do not believe it possible that the criminal intention which the jury found in his mind could exist. Whatever may be the explanation of the circumstances which led to his conviction, at any rate the people who know him best do not believe he could have entertained the intention of using the dynamite as a means of outrage upon property, still less upon life. That belief entertained in his native county has led to public action, and I freely confess the existence of that belief does exercise some influence upon myself in drawing attention to Daly's case. But I return to the principle, that no matter what may have been the offence of which he has been found guilty, it is not good law, and in regard to this particular class of offence. I go so far as to say it is not good policy to allow the prison officers to treat a man who is suffering the heavy sentence of penal servitude for 20 years with illegal cruelty. When a man is convicted of such an offence, there is a special danger that the prison officials may be actuated by a special animus against him, and may treat him with exceptional cruelty, and it is purely by an accident that I am able to draw the notice of this House to the case of this man. A meeting of the citizens of Limerick was held in November last, the High Sheriff in the chair, to consider a report upon the ill-treatment of Daly, and a gentleman named James Jones, who, in May last, visited Daly, gave an account of what he had heard from Daly, and of the impression left upon him by the visit. Mr. Jones said that when Daly ventured to enter into the details of his treatment, a warder threatened to send him back to his cell. My first point is that a man in this condition ought, in common justice, to be allowed to communicate to a visitor to the prison any complaint ho has to make. Mr. Jones went on to say that he was horror-stricken at Daly's appearance, for all his features bore traces of cruel suffering. Daly, Mr. Jones continued, was at death's door; his treatment was fearful; he was worked to such an extent that his arms were swollen until he thought the flesh would
  1582
  burst, and the agony he suffered was intense. From the bad and insufficient food supplied to him he had an attack of dysentery; but the doctor was not allowed to see him for a week, and when he was ordered to the hospital, he was put in a bath for half an hour, and compelled to wash his clothes whilst he was scarcely able to support himself in the bath. Now I come to what appears to be a perfectly wanton refinement of cruelty—
  "He was at that time entitled to receive a visit—"
  [An hon. MEMBER: "What are you quoting?"] I am quoting from the speech in which Mr. James Jones gave an account of his interview with Daly.
  "He was at that time entitled to receive a visit every six months, and his sister applied on four different occasions for permission to see him. He was refused a visit on the ground of what they were pleased to call misconduct. He was only counting the days in expectation of receiving a visit, and when he inquired if no one was coming to see him he was told 'No, there is no one coming to see you; your family must have entirely forgotten you.' This told on him severely, for it caused him great mental anguish to think he was forgotten by all, when at the same time he was most careful to do nothing which might cancel his right to a visit."
  It appears from the account of my friend that though at this period the prisoner was entitled to several visits, his sister was turned away. Mr. Jones went on to say—
  "The prisoner has never had an opportunity of making known the tortures of this hell which it is."
  At the meeting in Limerick, which was presided over by the Queen's principal Officer in the county, the High Sheriff, most indignant resolutions were unanimously passed in favour of a sworn inquiry into this and other cases. But since the date of this meeting the extraordinary and mysterious fact has transpired that a drug, which in any quantity is poisonous, but which in a certain quantity is deadly—belladonna—has been administered to this prisoner under such circumstances and in such quantity as to challenge the gravest question. I should like to know if the Queen's Government have taken a leaf out of the prison system of Russia. I am aware that in Russia is certain cases and especially in cases of political prisoners, belladonna is administered to

  1583
  prisoners for the purpose of breaking down their nervous system—to render them more helpless in the hands of the gaolers. I believe that in cases of capital punishment, it is administered to prisoners in order that, by a breaking down of the nerves, they may die a coward's death on the scaffold. I shall request the right hon. Gentleman to offer any explanation he can upon the fact of the administration of the drug to a prisoner. It would be strange, indeed, if a great Power like England had stooped to this mean and wanton cruelty even against a man convicted of a dynamite offence. There is another remarkable circumstance in connection with the case. Daly was visited in prison by Richard Pigott and also by an agent of the Times. The prisoner stated to Mr. Jones that Pigott visited him, and that shortly afterwards he received a visit from an agent of the Times, who offered liberty and a certificate of indemnity if he would give information before the Commission against Parnell. I admit that inquiries we have been able to make do not bring us beyond this point, that various convicts in various prisons, especially those prisoners convicted of some serious offences, have been approached by agents of the Times with offers of liberty and promises of fortune if only they would swear against my hon. Friend, not what is true or what is false, no inquiry was made as to that, but to swear what happened to be convenient to the confederates of the Government in the case proceeding before the Special Commission. Now, I say no prisoner should be subjected to this kind of treatment. I say, moreover, that while on the one hand I shall never be debarred by any innuendo or sarcasm from taking up the case of a dynamiter if he is treated with illegality and cruelty, so I am ready to bring forward the case of any prisoner convicted of any other offence, if his treatment requires it. I make no distinction. I say the infliction of this treatment on this man, the administration of belladonna, is particularly open to question, following as it did the visits of Pigott and the Times' agent. I am aware that the Home Secretary is pursuing or supervising an inquiry into the subject. He stated yesterday that a chemical analysis was being made; I presume in relation to the administration of the
  1584
  belladonna, and he said—and I make no complaint of his answer—that he would endeavour to expedite that inquiry, which, however, I may mention, has occupied an inordinate length of time. The greater part of the treatment of which I complain dates back to last May, and it is several months since the belladonna was administered. I think if this man had not been convicted of a dynamite offence, this time would not have been allowed to elapse. I do not feel that to-night I have a right to challenge the Home Secretary to make a conclusive declaration upon the facts; but I have a right to claim from him an assurance that in view of the grave and shameful character of the narrative, Members of the House are entitled to be placed in a position to satisfy themselves by a perusal of the evidence of the sufficiency of the inquiry and Report. I lay it down as a principle that where prisoners are helpless to defend themselves—and I say this without regard to the nature of the crimes they may have committed—from proceedings at the hands of officers of the law, and when categorical charges of inhuman treatment are made, the officials of the prison have a right that their vindication shall be made public as the friends of the prisoners have a right to demand the fullest inquiry into the facts. Neither the Home Secretary or any other Minister of the Crown has a right to place himself in opposition to the Representatives of the people and arrogate to himself the duty of screening the actions of servants of the State from the inquiry of Members of this House. I ask the Home Secretary for an assurance that the Report and evidence shall be laid before us, and unless that assurance is forthcoming I shall make the only protest in my power, and divide the. House against the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: During the remarks of my hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman opposite asked him from what he was quoting, and my hon. Friend said he was quoting from a speech of Mr. Jones, in addressing a meeting at Limerick last Saturday; and lest there should be any doubt on the mind of the Home Secretary, I wish to state that I can, from personal observation of Mr. Daly,

  1585
  corroborate everything said by Mr. Jones. Mora than 12 months ago I applied for a special order for myself and my hon. Friend the Member for West Limerick, to visit Mr. Daly, and we were led to make that request because we had heard that the prisoner's relatives in Limerick had obstacles placed in the way of their visiting him, and we also heard that Mr. Daly was being unnaturally and brutally treated in prison. We did not hesitate to go and visit Daly, although, perhaps, it was a dangerous thing to do at the time when charges were being levelled at Members sitting in this part of the House, and it was a delicate thing for any one of us to visit a man convicted of a dynamite offence. Nevertheless, in the spirit that has been so well expressed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) we put aside these personal considerations, and, in accordance with feelings of common humanity, visited a man whom we had known in early life, and a man whom we knew from that acquaintance was incapable of committing the offence of which ho was found guilty. I share the feeling that exists among his fellow-citizens and his fellow-countrymen that Daly was unfairly treated at the time of his arrest and trial. The people of the city and county believe, and I share the belief, that he was entrapped into this offence, and that there are some men not far removed from Scotland Yard who know all about the offence much more than the man who has suffered these terrible hardships in prison. It was in that spirit my hon. Friend the Member for West Limerick and myself visited Daly towards the close of 1888. The appearance of the prisoner certainly shocked me. I knew John Daly some years ago; he was then physically a fine, strong man, and I thought that no ordinary prison regimen could have reduced him to the condition in which we saw him then. He seemed to have been suffering very much, and one thing I noticed, and it is a result, I believe, that attends long and severe imprisonment, he had lost nearly all his teeth. This is a result of continued bad food. He had lost his teeth, his eyes were weak, and during our conversation perspiration oozed from every pore. I concluded that he was in a low and excited
  1586
  state, and excited ho no doubt was at meeting two of his old acquaintances. He made several efforts to communicate to us something ho had upon his mind. Now, my hon. Friend and I impressed upon Daly the necessity of conforming to prison rules. We had had experience of prison discipline, and know that the most agreeable way of getting through a term of imprisonment is to submit to regulations with such patience as you can command, and get on the side of the Governor and officials. Daly assured us positively that he entered the prison with the intention of conforming to prison rules, and behaving as becomes a good prisoner; but, he added, having pursued that course for some time, he found it was of no use or benefit to him whatever. He said, or endeavoured to convey as well as we could gather, that some other prisoners had spoken to him, and then he was immediately stopped by the warder, who said, "Speak about yourself, sir, not of anybody else." Then he was endeavouring to say that what "they" wanted was an inquiry, but when he used the word "they" the warder would not allow him to proceed any further. Daly then said, "I want nothing for myself, but what I demand for others. What we want is inquiry." The warder then threatened to send him back to his cell. All efforts to communicate his grievances were rudely stopped by the warder, but before the term of our brief visit—20 minutes—was up, ho assured us that he had entered the prison determined to be a good prisoner, but that he had been driven from that by the treatment of the prison officials. That he had suffered severely was evident to me from his appearance. I feel it my duty to say this much in corroboration of the statement made just now. One other thing Daly said I might mention. He said he wasted an inquiry, but he had no hope of leaving his prison alive. He could not, he said, in his emaciated condition last much longer under the brutal treatment to which he was subjected. To his old friend and neighbour the hon. Member for West Limerick—and I shall never forget the meeting between the two men—he said—
  "I may never see you again; I cannot long exist; give my love to my mother and sisters. It will be too painful to see them here under the

  1587
  conditions we should be obliged to meet. If they come, I hope they will be able to bear it; but if I never should see them, tell them I died as I lived, loving them and my country."
  These were the last words we hive had from John Daly, and I do not think I need offer any apology for having mentioned this, which was a most affecting interview. I had not an opportunity of repeating the visit last year. I would do so no matter what might be the interpretation placed upon my action. I feel strongly for the man, and believe thoroughly in his innocence. I feel for him, because he has been subjected to harsh and brutal treatment under the impression that he is guilty of the heinous offence of conspiring to blow up public buildings with dynamite. We know that in English prisons dynamite and Fenian prisoners are treated with exceptional harshness, because the officials believe that popular feeling is strong against such offenders; but towards all our fellow-countrymen, no matter what may be the charges against them, we shall endeavour to do our duty.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The hon. Member who has just sat down, has suggested to the House that Irish prisoners such as John Daly are subjected in English prisons to treatment other than the treatment other felony prisoners receive, but that is absolutely without any foundation.
  An hon. MEMBBR: I do not believe it.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. MATTHEWS: There is not a syllable of truth in the allegation. From time to time I have carefully watched the treatment of Daly, my attention being called to his case by the frequent complaints that he, like other prisoners, has been in the habit of making to the doctor; and, upon the replies to my minute inquiries, I can assert most positively that Daly's treatment is in no way different to that of any other prisoner undergoing penal servitude. The hon. Member will understand that I naturally feel that I
  1588
  had better not say all I know of the case of Daly while inquiry is proceeding—an independent inquiry. The hon. Member for West Belfast said that charges had been categorically made, but I hardly know what these are he refers to. The charges brought to my notice—I have not got all the Papers here—are contained in a Green Pamphlet which gives a Report of the first public meeting when this subject was mentioned and when a great variety of charges was made, the most important being suggestions that inasmuch as Daly had refused to give evidence on behalf of the Times, he had been subjected since then to a different and harsher treatment. That is a most serious charge; and I can assure the hon. Member that when it was brought to my notice, I did not lose a day, but instituted a most full and elaborate inquiry, the result of which is in the Report I have before me. But this Report was made by the Director of Convict Prisons and officials responsible for the treatment of Daly and, therefore, would not, according to the usual habit of hon. Members opposite, of which I do not complain, be accepted as satisfactory by them. Anxious, therefore, that the charges should be fully met, and to set at rest all doubts in the minds of hon. Members and to satisfy them, if possible, I directed the Visitors of Chatham Prison to make an inquiry in their own way entirely independent of mine. I have scrupulously abstained from interfering with this inquiry, only giving these gentlemen any assistance they ask for, as, for instance, providing them with the services of a chemical expert. I have not hurried them. I have given them carte blanche as to the method they should follow. As the first step in their inquiry they began by hearing Daly, and they have perfect liberty to call for any prisoner and any prison official, from the lowest warder to the Director of Convict Prisons. I have not interfered with or attempted to control their freedom of inquiry in the east; and when the inquiry is complete I will most certainly, the matter being of such importance, communicate the result to the hon. Member and the House. I believe a correct record is being kept of the evidence taken. I do not know whether its value and importance may be such as

  1589
  to make it a special document to lay on the Table of the House; but it shall be communicated to the hon. Member, and all who are specially interested in the subject.
  DR. TANNER: And the nature of the analysis?
  MR. MATTHEWS: With that I am imperfectly acquainted. The hon. Member knows that, in the first instance, when this unhappy accident occurred, the prisoner was suffering from a very painful disorder, I will not call it a complaint, for which a prescription was made out, and approved by more than one doctor, for I always take care that unusual symptoms shall have outside treatment to confirm that of the prison doctor, and even grant the request of a prisoner for the attendance of a particular medical man in certain cases. In the mixture prescribed belladonna was one of the ingredients, and the compounder, by some blunder or mistake, put in an extra quantity beyond what was prescribed. From the mixture so compounded three doses were administered before the evil effects were observed. I have a Report from Dr. Gover, who was sent to make inquiry, and he says, after examining the patient, that heart and lungs are sound, and there are no symptoms that the overdose of belladonna has had any permanent effect, and that he is free from any organic disease.
  DR. TANNER: What about heart and brain?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Heart and lungs are said to be sound. The hon. Member has the advantage of me in medical knowledge. That is the way the accident arose, the belladonna being in excessive strength. I gather that a sample of the mixture was sent for analysis to Dr. Stevenson at Somerset House, and that the Visitors have thought proper to inquire whether the belladonna from which the quantity was taken for mixing had not itself become too strong through length of time it had been in
  1590
  stock. I believe the suggestion had been conveyed to the minds of the Visitors that the accident might be due to the store itself being of undue strength, and that would relieve the compounder from the charge of having made a mistake. That is one of the additional analyses the Visitors require to have made together with the remains of the mixture actually administered to Daly. Allusion has been made by the hon. Member for West Belfast to the visit of Pigott. Questions upon this I have answered more than once, and if there is any inconsistency in what I may say now with what I have said before it must be attributed to fault of memory, as I have not my memoranda here. Upon some points my memory is clear. It is absolutely untrue that Mr. Soames had an interview at all. Pigott proposed to visit Daly as a friend, having known Daly in Limerick in former days. Daly was asked if he preferred to see Pigott or—and here I am not quite clear—whether he would see Pigott or Mr. Jones, or at least some distant relative. The prisoner, having the alternative, elected to sec Pigott, and Pigott called as a personal friend, without any mission from any other human being, from Mr. Soames or any body else. No offer was made to Daly by Pigott as has been suggested. The conversation that took place was in the presence of the warder, the visit was that of an old acquaintance, and it was unconnected with Mr. Soames in any way whatever. Daly has complained of his treatment, it is true, and it is not to be wondered at that convicts should complain of the discipline to which they are necessarily subjected. It was never intended that it should be agreeable or other than punitive in character, and Daly is treated as other convicts are. I repeat that since I have been responsible I have seen that nothing was done in Daly's case that was not fully warranted by the Prison Rules and prison discipline; and with regard to his health, unusual and special precautions have been taken. He has had doctors selected by himself. No doubt two years ago he had rather a serious illness.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Have you ever received his written complaints from the Governor?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I received written complaints some two years ago. Daly had an illness. He got the idea into his head that he had got cancer in the stomach, and I sent down Dr. Clarke, in whom hon. Members have confidence, to see him, and it turned out that he was suffering from dyspepsia. On every occasion that Daly's complaints have been received I have taken the utmost care that they should be investigated. The administration of belladonna was a serious mistake, but he was at once sent to hospital, and he recovered within 36 hours and was as well as before.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not said anything about the visit of Thompson, the Times agent, to Daly.
  MR. MATTHEWS: Thompson did visit Daly as the representative of Mr. Soames. In answer to the questions of hon. Members on former occasions, I gave every detail that occurred. I cannot without the papers charge my memory with the details.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: Will Her Majesty's Government give any compensation to this man, who has been accidentally poisoned and seriously injured in health through the fault of the prison officers?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Every statement made by the hon. Member is incorrect. Daly was not poisoned; he was not injured in health; he rapidly and completely recovered in a few hours; and it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to offer any compensation.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Sir, from my own experience, I can vouch for this fact, that it is quite possible for prison treatment to be made more severe or more mild without infringing the Prison Rules. It is entirely at the will of the prison officials. I desire to express emphatically my entire distrust of any report of the prison officials with regard to any case of the kind. I have a very clear remembrance of the case of O'Donovan Rossa, and his prison treatment was over and over again denied in this House, until it had finally to be acknowledged on investiga-
  1592
  tion. I must say that, after the long-delay in getting a satisfactory explanation of this case, I am by no means reassured, and I am very much inclined to fear that Daly's refusal to swear for the Times is now being revenged upon him in prison.
  MR. BLANE: The right, hon. Gentleman, who firmly believes the officials as against the prisoners, seems to forget that this is not the first case. In 1887 I went to visit Donnelly in Chatham Prison, at the request of his father, who is one of my constituents, and who was too old and poor to travel the distance. I thought it a charitable act to comply with his request, and I saw Donnelly, who spoke to me under all the difficulty s described by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary. The officials continually interfered between the prisoners and the visitors. If a visit of twenty minutes is to be allowed, I think the convict should be allowed to use-them to the best advantage. And surely there should be some distinction made in the case of Members of this House who visit prisoners. When I visited Donnelly I was put in a sort of sentry box to speak to him, while two or three warders stood by. But what happened to this man Donnelly? As far as I can understand Donnelly was asked to swear against Mr. Parnell, and i have information that he was poisoned or done away with within a few months of my visit. That is a very serious state of affairs, if true. Donnelly was a strong, stout young man, and he was invited, as Daly was, to swear against Mr. Parnell. I think the invitation came to him in the month of August, 1887, and he was dead in October, 1887, under these suspicious circumstances. I think this interference of the warders between a prisoner and his visitors should not be tolerated by the authorities. Because a man has committed a crime or offence he ought not therefore to be outside human sympathy. Recent investigations show that persons in high places can stoop to crime the mention of which would be resented by these convicts to whom I refer. I think Members of Parliament, when visiting prisoners, should not be limited in time and opportunity to speak to them, nor should the warders be present, because if

  1593
  the prisoner makes a complaint, as soon as the visitor is away that prisoner is punished. There is constant flogging in Chatham and other prisons for slight offences. It is natural that a man should attempt to escape, and it is the duty of the warders to prevent him, yet if he make that attempt some sleek and well-shaven visitor orders him 50 or 100 lashes, and these are administered with such ferocity that sometimes the man's bones are left bare. Over and over again these floggings take place. There is another matter the Home Secretary should interfere with. Though flogging is done away with in the Army, a prisoner for some trifling offence may be sent to a military prison where he may be ordered, if I am not astray, 100 lashes. The severity of the flogging is such that very often a man's feet are surrounded in his own blood. You have done away with flogging in the Army, and yon ought to do away with flogging in prisons. Prison discipline is sufficiently stringent, without the addition of corporal punishment. It is a degrading punishment, and can only be countenanced by a class of men who do their best to bring us back to the bad evil times. I think the Home Secretary should give this matter careful consideration. When severe punishments were inflicted for trivial offences, those offences were much more numerous. The only effect of these severe punishments is to increase the number of offences. Since the punishment of hanging for sheep stealing and other offences has been abolished, the number of those crimes has greatly decreased, and this is a proof that the more just and humane punishment is made, the more reformatory are its effects.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask the Government for an answer to the few observations I delivered?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. W. L. JACKSON,): In the absence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I can only say that I believe he has under his consideration the subject brought forward by the hon. Member.
  DR. TANNER: When am I likely to get a definite answer?
  MR. JACKSON: That I cannot say.
  DR. TANNER: Then I will bring the matter forward on the Estimates.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask for information from the Irish Government in reference to two matters which I mentioned in my speech yesterday.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go into the matter on the present Motion, but will have another opportunity of doing so. The only question before the Committee is the Motion to report Progress.
  DR. TANNER: Is it the intention of the Committee not to proceed any further with business this evening, and were you only moved into the Chair in order that you might evacuate it? Do the Government only want to take this stage?
  MR. JACKSON: That is all.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.

  SUPPLY-REPORT.
  Resolutions ["20th March] reported—(See Page 1261).
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolution 2.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I have again to express my regret that I am obliged to renew my references to matters which I brought forward yesterday. Last night I asked the Chief Secretary why it was that the sub-inspector and constable against whom a verdict of wilful murder had been returned by a Coroner's jury in Tipperary had not been put upon their trial, and the right hon. Gentleman informed me that they were to be put upon their trial at the next Assizes. I want to know upon what authority that statement was made, because it has greatly astonished the people of Tipperary, for I hold in my hand a telegram from Father Humphries

  1595
  from Tipperary, who says, in reference to the verdict of the Coroner's jury and the proceedings before that body, that the inquiry was so impartial that the "Packer," then the Attorney General and now Chief Justice O'Brien, did not dare to take the case before even the accommodating Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, but that he got two Removables to hold a sham trial and to acquit the incriminated inspector and constable. It is evident that the Chief Secretary does not know exactly what has happened, and I therefore desire to get from some Member of the Irish Government further information on the point. There is another matter, and one of perhaps greater importance, in respect to which I desire some explanation. The Chief Secretary last night, in the course of his speech, referred in very strong terms to the alleged fact that stones had been thrown by a mob in Tipperary at a policeman who was attending the burial of his child, and he became very indignant and powerful in the course of his remarks on this point, hurling very heavy reproaches at the people of the town for such conduct. Now, I took the opportunity at the time of denying positively the statement made by the Chief Secretary, and challenged its truth. I asserted to the House that the story had no foundation whatever in fact, and demanded the authority of the Chief Secretary for the statement. This afternoon Father Humphries has telegraphed to me—
  "The statement that a constable was stoned by a mob while burying his child has startled the people here; can find no one who has heard of it."
  Now, this statement involves a serious charge against my constituents; and on their behalf, seeing the Attorney General for Ireland in his place, I demand an explanation and the authority on which the statement was made. In the course of our remarks, we alluded several times to the fact—which was not denied—that the police had on more than one occasion in Tipperary and at Cashel desecrated the graves of the people, invaded the burial grounds, insulted the mourners, and otherwise interfered with a ceremony so sacred to the feelings of Irishmen. Now, we have Father Humphries' denial of the right hon. Gentleman's accusation,
  1596
  and I say that it is important to the people of Tipperary and to the House that some satisfactory explanation should be given by the Irish Government on the matter.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I desire to support the appeal of the hon. Member for Tipperary for a reply from the Government. In my opinion, it was the hon. Member for South Hunts who supplied the Chief Secretary with the information. I was able last night, from my personal knowledge, to contradict the statement at the time it was made by the Chief Secretary. No doubt there is some ill-feeling between the people and the police, but it is not the fault of the people. We know that if the inhabitants of a village in England were police-ridden like those in Tipperary are, they would soon show their resentment, and we recently had experience in Wales where the people, in connection with the tithe agitation, vigorously protested against unfair use of the police. Now, the police in Tipperary have persecuted a Mr. O'Dwyer, Town Commissioner, a man who wielded considerably more influence in the town than is possessed by the Chief Secretary in the country, and when Mr. O'Dwyer's remains wore being conveyed for interment two months' ago, the police interrupted the funeral procession with rifles in their hands in order that they might get first to the grave; and on the flags of the foot-path was posted a placard, signed by Caddell and other minions of the Chief Secretary, warning the people against an illegal assembly, round which were posted four policemen armed with rifles standing in the way of the funeral procession. Nothing was further from the minds of the people than to make any attack, but it is evident that the desire of Mr. Caddell was to provoke a riot in order that he might make another Peterloo. A week after Mr. 0'Dwyer's funeral, when his poor widow, acting on my advice, opened the business premises a day or two later, within two hours three ruffians of police served her with a notice that her licence would be opposed, on the ground presumably that she was a bad character, and that her house was being improperly conducted. Anything more inhuman or mean has never

  1597
  been perpetrated in any country, and yet the Chief Secretary wonders that ill-feeling exists between the people and the police. I saw a very different funeral in that town a fortnight ago. Some men of the Manchester Regiment are quartered there, and a private recently died, and as his remains were being carried through the streets an evicting gang were engaged in turning the people out of their houses, and yet the enormous crowds which were assembled remained uncovered while the cortéassing, and treated the remains of this private soldier with the utmost respect. That is not all. After serving Mrs. O'Dwyer with the notice that her licence would be opposed, the police set about to get a licence for an emergency man—a gaol bird. Of course they were successful, and now the place where that man carries on business is filled with policemen all day guzzling and gorging themselves with drink. I now wish to refer to another matter. There was a certain warder employed at Tullamore in a subordinate position at the time a suit of clothes was, despite the efforts of the Government, supplied to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork. Of course, every one in the prison from the Governor downwards was suspected; several warders were removed to other gaols and finally the warder Golding, to whose case I particularly refer, was dismissed. I am in a position to say that the man had nothing whatever to do with conveying the clothes to my hon. Friend. When the inquest was held as to the cause of the death of my friend John Mandeville, Golding was called and gave evidence as to the treatment of the deceased in prison. He was at once charged by the Government with perjury, and was sent for trial, being let out on bail and ordered to appear at the next Assizes. He duly attended, but the trial was put off, and though he subsequently obtained employment in England he was compelled to attend at two subsequent Assizes, and even was not then placed before the jury, although he was perfectly willing to have the case investigated. Now, I maintain that the Government never intended to try him; but all that they wished was to discredit the evidence he gave at the Mandeville
  1598
  inquest, and that it was also desired to strike terror among other prison officials, who fancied that they had hearts, and did not wish to see political prisoners done to death. Now, I ask the Government why this charge of perjury was not proceeded with, and I intend to raise this question until I get a satisfactory reply. Next, I want to know something about the treatment of the late doctor of Tullamore Gaol. I knew Dr. Ridley personally; he and his family were well-known to my family, and he told me that he was being driven almost mad by Dr. Ban-, who was sent over from Liverpool to spy upon his actions. It was not in his nature to treat any one harshly, and certainly he would not have been a worthy son of his father had he done so. He was obliged, in consequence of the persecution to which he was subjected by Barr, to come over to England, and in his absence his work was done by his cousin, Dr. George Ridley, who had taken his place at other times with the consent of the Prison Authority. After Dr. Ridley's death Mr. George Ridley tilled his post for two months, and it was naturally expected that he would be appointed to the vacant post, but suddenly a Dublin Castle favourite was sent down to fill it. That is another instance of the petty meanness of the Government.
  DR. TANNER: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies I should like to get some assurance from him on the point I raised yesterday concerning the doctor of Clonmel Gaol. I do not like to speak adversely of any member of the medical profession, but I submit that the extraordinary fits of aberration which are characteristic of Dr. Hewitson show him to be entirely unfit for the position he holds, and I think he might reasonably be removed to another position in which he could do less harm. I must say that the Irish prison authorities have strange ideas as to how Irish Members of Parliament ought to be treated. After my release from Clonmel last autumn I had occasion to visit a Roman Catholic clergyman who was confined in the gaol at Cork. He was then an untried prisoner, but I was compelled to see him in what is known as the Cage, and a warder was placed between us, who took every

  1599
  opportunity of interrupting our conversation in the most insulting manner. When I asked the rev. gentleman if his sight was good, I was told "You must not speak about sight; that is a question for the gaol authorities," and again, when I asked if the walls of his cell were tinted—knowing, as I did, from personal experience the effect upon eyesight of the whitewashed walls—the warder again interrupted with a like observation. I went to that interview with the intention of not breaking the rules, but this is how I was treated by the warder, whose name has been refused to me, but who, I am told, is an Orangeman, who shows his dislike of Nationalist Members by thus aggravating and insulting them. Now, I ask the Chief Secretary to obtain for me the name of this man, in order that in Committee of Supply I may move the reduction of the Wages Vote by the amount of his salary. Hon. Gentlemen will recollect the disgraceful way in which our Board was superseded, and in which the paid minions of the Government were put in possession of it. The Board had been well managed by the elected Guardians. Everybody in the south of Ireland understands why it was done away with. It was done away with because we were not going to be rough ridden over by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour), or any of his creatures in the country. I speak as one of the ex-Guardians of the Union. The right hon. Gentleman, about two years since, turned round to his Conservative supporters in Ireland and asked them how it was they did nothing on Boards throughout the south of Ireland. It was only from that time that the ex officio Guardians began to try and prevent the free expression of opinion. I may be told that we were breaking the rules of the Board. We only did what our Tory predecessors did again and again, in pissing a political Resolution. There were no rules passed by the Cork Board of Guardians, which were binding on us. There were, it is true, a number of printed rules hung up at the end of the Board room, but inasmuch as the Local Government Board ordained that every freshly elected Board should draw up rules for their own guidance, and as that was never done, those rules were practically not binding
  1600
  on us as a body. It may be said that I spoke strongly to the hon. Member for South Hunts (Mr. Smith-Barry); I said no word that was untrue, I spoke the whole truth and nothing but the truth. At the same time we Nationalist Members of the Board had a wanton and aggressive minority in front of us—a minority who did everything they could to stir up strife in the Board room, knowing that they had the Government at their backs, and that the Government would try to make confusion worse confounded. What has happened since has borne out what we said at the time, namely, that it was the intention of the Government, not merely to dragoon the people, not merely to prevent us on our public Boards giving voice to the opinions of our constituents, but, through the Local Government Board in Ireland, to give a more vicious, a meaner, and a more underhand stab at people who should be cared for by everybody in the community. The Government have been treating in a cruel manner people who were suffering from poverty, which has been in great part created in consequence of the numbers of people who have been driven from our shores. They thought, "Well, we will try at any rate to inflict oar vengeance upon these people." Many of them have been most respectable people in days gone by, but, through being deprived of their sons and daughters, who have actually had to fly the country, to seek in other countries what is denied them at home, have been plunged in poverty. Having naturally a great dislike to go into the Union, they were granted small sums in the way of outdoor relief. It was in order, if possible, to degrade these poor people that this step was taken. However, the City of Cork has taken up the challenge. We find that—right, centre, and left—people are not paying their rates. I have not paid mine, and I do not intend to. Let them have my goods if they like. The Mayor of Cork, the High Sheriff, and all the persons returned to responsible positions by the body of the people have taken up the gage, of battle, and I think Her Majesty's Government will be rather sorry before the end is reached. The Government are determined that any suing for rates should be conducted in as high-handed and illegal a way as pos-

  1601
  sible. The other day, in the Cork Police Court, a number of these cases should have been dismissed on their merits, but the magistrates, instead of dismissing them, granted an adjournment in order that the Vice Guardians might mend their hand. Mr. Sarsfield, the collector, is a mere gambler in the City of Cork, and might with much greater propriety have been appointed to a position as billiard-marker. This creature would do anything his masters bade him, and when he made a mistake he was backed up by Mr. Gardiner, R.M., at the Police Court, and everything was done to secure that the Vice Guardians should be maintained in their position. I really think the right hon. and learned Attorney General (Mr. Madden) ought to give us an assurance that he will look into the state of things existing in the City of Cork, and notably into these proceedings at the Police Court. In any event, we hope that before long the present Government will be superseded, and that peace and goodwill will prevail in Ireland under the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone).
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I wish to call attention again to the case of the convict Daly. I do not know of what he was convicted, but he was visited whilst in the convict prison by Mr. Thompson, the agent of the Times. He was urged by Mr. Thompson to give evidence in favour of the Times, and against, the Irish Members. He resisted the inducement, although I am informed he was offered a certificate of indemnity, and was told that every force would be brought to bear in favour of his getting a free pardon if he would give the desired evidence. He declined to do that, and we find that shortly afterwards he was partially poisoned. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has accused me of inaccuracy in saying the man was poisoned, and I, therefore, qualify that by using the word partially. But he received three separate doses of belladonna from the prison attendants, he being hopelessly and helplessly in their hands, and I am afraid we cannot acquit the medical officer of having had a hand in the affair. One dose might have been given accidentally, but here we have three separate doses administered. If such a thing
  1602
  had occurred in Bulgaria, Siberia, or in Naples—and I remember the Neapolitan prisons when I was a boy, as there were great cruelties practised in them, though poison was never administered—one might have understood it, but not so occurring in England. Three doses of poison were administered, and the Home Secretary would have us believe that the man's health is none the worse, nay, he would persuade us that he is all the better for it. Surely the Government should consider the desirability and justice of ameliorating the treatment of Daly, if not, indeed, of shortening his term of imprisonment. I do not think anything stronger can be alleged against the Government as to their treatment of prisoners, whose political views are in direct opposition to their own, than their action m this case. I do not think a case ever happened where a convict was wholly or partially poisoned without some compensation or consideration being extended to him. I do not know, Sir, whether it would be competent for me to move an Amendment in reference to this case, at this stage; but if it would be, and I could get a seconder, I would move one.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I hope we shall not be allowed to pass on to the next Order without some answer being given to the statements which have come from this side of the House reflecting on the Irish Administration. It seems that a verdict of wilful murder has been returned by a coroner's jury against certain policemen in Ireland. The Chief Secretary stated last night that the men against whom the verdict was returned would be tried at the Spring Assizes; but this evening a telegram has been read declaring that the men have been tried before the Magistrates in an underhand and secret way, and have been discharged. An incident of that kind must cause a very painful impression in this country. The Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite surely cannot desire that a verdict of wilful murder against the police should be lightly regarded. It cannot be pretended that it would be for the benefit of this country, or of Ireland, that that should be so, and yet no answer has been made. I waited until you were just about to vacate the Chair, Sir, before venturing to trouble

  1603
  the House, because I hoped some Member of the Government would get up and offer an explanation, or at least assure the House that the matter should receive the serious attention of the Government. This is not a Party question, and I implore hon. Gentlemen opposite not to treat it as such; it is due to the House and to the country that in a case in which a verdict of wilful murder has been returned against the Irish police we should have every explanation. If the verdict was undeserved let us know it, but do not let us treat the matter lightly.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): If I do not reply in detail on the various points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite I assure the House It is through no want of respect to those hon. Members who have addressed the House. But the House will agree with me that it is not satisfactory to attempt to answer questions unless I have had an opportunity of actually examining the Papers. If hon. Members really desire information and give me notice I shall be happy to answer their questions; but I cannot enter into these matters and reply without previous reference to the Papers, especially as most of the questions raised are not questions which come under my Department. As regards the case referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he puts a question down on the Paper I will tell him exactly how the matter stands.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the answer given earlier in the evening with regard to the alleged confessed immorality of an Irish Magistrate, as appearing from that Magistrate's own admissions in the course of a trial before the County Court Judge of Kerry. Reference was made to the conduct of this gentleman in a County Court; but the remarks were not heard by the reporters or the Bar, though in some way or other the reference was heard in the quarter for which it was intended. I would ask whether as it has been announced that the Lord Chancellor should be influenced by the opinion of a Judge, the Attorney General for Ireland does not conceive it to be his duty to direct the attention of the
  1604
  Lord Chancellor to the opinion expressed by the County Court Judge who heard the case to which I have referred in its incipient stage. The custom has gradually grown up in Ireland of treating these County Court Judges like the highest Judges in the land; and the Judge in this case is one who I understand is in every way in sympathy with the Government. He has expressed a strong opinion in the case of this Magistrate; and I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to indicate to me, if only by a nod, that he will seek the opinion of the Judge in regard to this George Sandes.
  MR. MADDEN: I would point out that it is no part of my duty to call the Lord Chancellor's attention to the conduct of Magistrates. But no doubt the Lord Chancellor's attention will be called to the case by means of the question put in the House this evening, as the Chief Secretary has said, and he will make inquiries.
  MR. SEXTON: I must express my surprise that all these formalities should be necessary in order to draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to such an outrageous scandal as the continued presence on the Magisterial Bench of a man of this character. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland does not live in the clouds. He lives in Ireland, and is supposed to take interest in everything that goes on there. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman contend that the official who is responsible for the Magistracy is entitled under any circumstances to ignore such a fact as a Magistrate admitting on oath in a Court of Law that he had seduced a woman who had come to his office—he being a land agent at the time—in reference to litigation in which she was engaged, and that he had made such a practice of seducing the wives and widows of tenants who came to his office that he could not swear the number was less than 12, though he could swear it was under 40? Why, the thing sounds much more like an Oriental story than an occurrence possible in our own country. When we find a Nationalist Magistrate removed from the Bench for an offence against the unwritten law, such as acting officially in another Petty Sessional District, though not out of his own county—when we see a Lord

  1605
  Lieutenant doing that without a question being addressed to him—it is strange that we should have so much formality in a case where a Magistrate has been guilty of such a gross offence as that of Mr. Sandes, and where we have animadversions on his conduct on the part of a County Court Judge. I trust that not many days will elapse before the Lord Lieutenant does his duty in this case.
  Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Resolutions [20th March] reported.
1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the years ending on the 31st day of March 1889 and 1890, the sum of £548,181 6s. 3d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891, the sum of £10,395,203 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Bill ordered to he brought in by Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Jackson.
Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL.
  "Bill to apply certain Sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the Service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine, one thousand eight hundred and ninety, and one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next.

SOUTH INDIAN RAILWAY PURCHASE BILL. (No. 195.)
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. A. O'CONNOR: This, Sir, is a Bill which relates to a portion of the Empire, the inhabitants of which have no effective control over the administration of affairs in their own country. It is only in this House that there is the best chance of
1606
justice being done to them in any respect. With reference to this particular measure—which is a large measure of a financial character—a Resolution was submitted in Committee, and was passed in Committee late at night without a single word of explanation. That Resolution was reported with only a show of explanation when it was challenged, and the right hon. Gentleman who made that explanation will, I feel sure, not be offended if I say he did not appear to possess any more information than he was bound officially to possess, which was absolutely nothing. He did not inform the House of the character of the Bill, of the reason why it was introduced, or of the conditions attached to it. And now we are asked, after half-past 11 o'clock, to read the Bill a second time without a word of explanation as to its scope or the justification there may be for it. The measure proposes to enable the Secretary of State for India to deal with a sum of no less, than five and a quarter millions sterling. The Preamble sets forth that
"Whereas the Secretary of State in Council, by virtue of the power vested in him, under a contract between him and the Company, give notice on the third day of March, 1890, to the South Indian Railway Company, of his intention to purchase the undertaking of the Company. Be it enacted," &c.
We have had no explanation how it is that the Secretary of State is vested with authority to go to a Company in India and say, "I will buy your Company for £10,000,000 or £15,000,000," or whatever he agrees to give, and how is it that then, without the people of India having an opportunity to express their views, an arrangement can be made to saddle them with an annual charge for an undertaking that may be perfectly worthless? I think it is clue to this House that some sort of explanation should be offered, not only with regard to the contract under which the Secretary of State

1607
has the power to offer to buy this South Indian Railway Company, but also as to the condition of the railway itself, and the reasonableness of the sum of money offered for its purchase. The contract exists. We are not told what its terms are. I am aware that in one case, at any rate, of a guaranteed railway, the Secretary of State undertook to contribute so much a year, or at any rate to pay a certain amount of interest for 25 years on condition that, at the end of the term, he should be at liberty to give notice of the purchase of the hue at a sum not exceeding 25 times the average annual profit of the last five years. But are these the conditions upon which this line is to be purchased? We are not told what they are. If they are the conditions, the Indian Government ought to get the line for nothing. We are to be asked to vote an amount of between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 for the line. Before we are asked to consent to saddle the people of India, who are already exceedingly heavily burdened in respect of railways, with this further sum, we ought to be told what are the further liabilities which the Government will incur in respect of the line, over and above this large sum. For instance, what are the liabilities in respect of allowances which appear to figure so heavily in every Department of the Indian Service? Then I should to ask what is the condition of this line? Is it a line of some 654 miles in length, running from Madras to Trichinopoly and another place in the Presidency of Madras? I do not know what its condition is, and I defy any one who takes the trouble to wade through the Annual Reports of "the moral and material progress," as it is called, of the people of India, through the different Reports of railways furnished to this House, or the Annual Statistical Statements of the Indian Empire, to find any indication of the condition of this line. But what we do know from the Report of the Committee of this House in the year 1871, is that one of the railways started in India not so very many years before, and purchased at the ex-
1608
pense of the people of India, was in so bad a condition that within a very few years no less than 2,000 bridges and other important structures had to be rebuilt at the expense of the public. It may be that this line is in no better a plight. So much with regard to the condition of the line and the relations of the company to the Government. The Secretary of State is to be allowed to raise this money in bonds and debentures and stock at such interest as may appear to him to be necessary, or fit and proper. But we are not offered a single word of explanation as to what interest these bonds, or debentures, or stock are to bear, or at what prices or on what terms they are likely to be issued. Then what is the history of the line? Its history is, no doubt, in point of passenger traffic and goods traffic, in one respect satisfactory, because the number of passengers has gone up within a comparatively small number of years from 5,000,000 a year to about 7,000,000, and the amount of goods carried from some 827,000 tons to over 1,000,000 tons. These figures will be found in the Statistical Abstract for India, issued last Session, pages 161 to 169. But that is not everything. It is necessary to compare the receipts and expenditure for the corresponding periods. If we do that, what do we find? We find that of all the guaranteed railways in India this is far and away the most unsatisfactory. The Madras Guaranteed Railway is worked at a percentage of working expenses to gross receipts of 58. The Oude and Rohilkund Railway is worked at an average of 57·38, the Great Indian Peninsula at 46·2, and the Bombay and Baroda at 44 per cent. This line has been worked at a total of no less than 68·98. This is a highly unsatisfactory line, which you propose to buy at the expense of the people of England. The capital expended on the South Indian line to the 31st of December, 1888, was £4,695,000. The net revenue was £160,000 for the year, but the amount of guaranteed interest was no less than £213,600, so you have an annual loss of £53,000. And this is the Government you are going to perpetuate, and this is the kind of Bill which is submitted to the House of Commons, late at night, without a single word of explanation from any

1609
responsible Minister. I think there is good ground for objection against legislation of this kind, especially when it is in regard to a community which has no effective opportunity of expressing its grievances, or protecting itself from injustice. I believe you are buying a thing which, as regards real market value, is practically worthless. I should like to know all the conditions of the contract entered into by the Secretary of State with the Company. The House ought to be put in possession of the terms of that contract before it is invited to consent to the appropriation of this money. As a matter of fact, I think this railway ought to be left on the hands of those who own it, and if it can be worked at a profit, well and good. The State does not come down in England and buy rotten concerns in the shape of railways. It may be contended that this line is important from a, strategic point of view, but I hope, before any hon. member accepts that argument, he will carefully consider where this line runs—it runs down to near the southern extremity of the Peninsular from Madras. It is nowhere near the Russian Frontier; nowhere near Afghanistan, or any place where there may be frontier disturbances. These are considerations which strike one on looking at the Bill. Now, I have employed half the time allowed for the discussion. I leave the other half of the time for a satisfactory explanation, if it be possible, at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Bill.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Nothing could be more legitimate than for the hon. Member, who is interested in the subject, to ask for an explanation of the measure, but he does less than justice when he says I have offered no explanation hitherto of the provisions of the Bill. When I moved the formal Motion in Committee, on Friday last, I stated to the House that it was intended by the purchase of this line to save the revenue of India £37,000 a year—1 think I said
1610
about £40,000. I could do no more at the time, but on the next occasion I gave fuller explanation, though, unhappily, it was at such a late hour it could not be listened to. I shall be happy to give such other explanation as is in my power, though I admit I am at a disadvantage owing to the absence of my right lion. Friend (Sir J. Gorst) who is attending the Labour Conference at Berlin. I think, however, I can satisfy the House there is no job in this matter, and that it is a profitable transaction to the revenue of India. I need not go into the political question. Those responsible for the government of India have well considered this matter, and I think they are entering into a transaction which is for the benefit of India. I ask the House to consider, in the first place, that, unless the line be purchased, the Government of India is committed to pay a guaranteed interest of 5 per cent. for 999 years upon the capital expended in the construction of this railway. It was one of the early railways of India, formed upon a comprehensive plan, and calculated to develop the resources of India, providing, as it did, the main trunk routes. At the time the guarantee was made, 5 per cent, was the normal rate of interest in India. In 1873 there was an amalgamation of two separate lines, and the opportunity was afforded to the Secretary of State to take power to purchase the undertaking in 1890, by giving notice after the 1st of March upon a valuation on an average of the price of the stock during the last three years. On the 3rd of March, accordingly, the Secretary of State gave the requisite notice, and valuations were made on his part and on the part of the Railway Company, which did not greatly differ. The difference was readily adjusted, so that the value of the 5 and 4¾ per cent, stocks, calculated on the average price of the last three years, was reckoned at an amount of £4,197,557. That is the price of the 5 per cent, stock., together with a small quantity of 4¾ stock —only, I think, £142,000; and there are debentures which mature at periods dating from 1891 to 1896. The annual saving by this transaction will be £36,813. The hon. Member asks

1611
what security is there to the public that this line will not involve a heavy additional capital expenditure? Will the House take it from me that that security is afforded under the provisions under which guaranteed lines are inspected by officers of the Government of India, and the necessary amount expended annually? I state this from ray own knowledge, having administered for five years railways over a large part of India, which is under the Bombay Government for railway purposes. I assure the House that every care is taken that the railways are maintained in a thoroughly regular manner, so that no further capital charge can fall on the State. The hon. Member has referred to the fact that the working expenses of this line are 68 per cent, of the gross receipts. That is true, and there is an annual loss of Rx 64,000 on the guaranteed interest of the railway. That loss will be diminished by the sum I have mentioned. It is an exceedingly useful line for the general purposes of India, and its receipts are increasing. It is really too late now to debate the question of a general railway policy. The railways have been made, and are, broadly speaking, remunerative. No doubt there are some railways which do not earn the interest guaranteed on their capital, besides the military lines. But they are protective in another sense, not less important. They indirectly repay their cost, and some are in themselves guarantees against famines. The railways are very closely scrutinised and administered by highly honourable men, and it is an unworthy thing to say that the accounts are not correct. There is no question that this expenditure on railways has been highly profitable to India, and I submit that the House would do well to sanction this purchase.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: I should like, with the indulgence of the House, to explain that I have examined all the Blue Books sent here from India, and I find it is perfectly impossible to reconcile any two of them, that the annual statement of revenue does not agree with the Railways Returns, that the figures are given differently, sometimes in rupees and sometimes in pounds ster-
1612
ling, and that it is quite impossible to make the thing out.
SIR J. LUBBOCK: I am sorry we have not longer time to discuss this question. Nevertheless, I think we are indebted to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this question forward. I regret this purchase, not on the ground the hon. Member has stated, but on a different ground. I believe it is not to the interest of any country that its railways should be in the hands of the Government. Railways are much more likely to develop under a system of open competition, and if the hon. Gentleman goes to a Division I shall certainly follow him into the Lobby. At the same time, I wish just to explain that I am satisfied there is no job whatever in this matter, and that the Indian Government have exercised every care in the provision they have made with reference to this purchase.
SIR U.KAY-SHUTTLE WORTH; I should like to point out that this is a case in which there is a guarantee from the Government, and that consequently there is a loss every year which the Government has to meet. This contract will result in a saving of £36,000 a year, and therefore in the interest of the Indian people we should do well to consent to this Bill.
DR. CLARK: We have never yet received any satisfactory reason from the Government as to why they pick and choose between the railways. Why not buy the Great Peninsula Railway?
It being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.—(No. 194.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  DR. TANNER: Last night my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal remarked, as a reason for not passing the Second Reading of the Bill without being acquainted with its contents, that it might contain important alterations. The Bill was only issued this morning, and though I confess I am not well acquainted with these matters, there seem to me distinct changes in the Bill in Section 5; and upon these I think we may well ask from the right hon. Gentleman a little enlightenment.
  MR. SEXTON: I also wish to refer to the circumstances under which Army pensioners may forfeit their right to the receipt of pensions—
  MR. SPEAKER: This Bill only deals with the discipline of the Army.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOFE,): I shall be glad to offer any explanation or information that may be desired, though it seems to me the points raised could be better dealt with in a Committee discussion. Still, if desired now, I will shortly state the reasons for the changes. Three clauses have been amended in connection with administration in India. There is a provision that the Commander in Chief in Madras and Bombay may limit sentences passed on soldiers. That I think, speaks for itself. The Indian Government farther desire that the Act should be amended to enable persons holding commissions in the India Reserve to be subjected to military law whenever they are called out. Another change is made at the request of the Admiralty in reference to the service of Royal Marines. These are matters of detail, and offer no reason why the Bill should now be read a second time
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: One of the questions has relation to a reserve of officers in India, but, if I am not mistaken, as yet no such reserve exists. There may be in
  1614
  the mind of the Secretary for War a design to establish such; but are we not asked to legislate in advance on that point?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: That is so.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: What is the nature of the Reserve; how will it be formed? I think we ought to be in possession of the legislative proposals.
  MR. SEXTON: I will reserve the points I wish to raise for Committee.
  MR. BLANE: One point there is that has relation to discipline in the Army—the punishment by flogging. This is not abolished in military prisons. I would ask the Secretary for War what number of men were flogged in these prisons last year, or, perhaps, he will give me the information at a later stage.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

TREES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 70.)
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2.
Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 9> after the word "shall," to insert the words "subject as hereinafter mentioned.—(Mr. Macartney.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
DR. TANNER: I should like some explanation of this before assenting to it.
MR. MACARTNEY: It is purely consequential, and refers to the Proviso I propose to introduce at the end of the clause, and which I consider vital to the Bill.
DR. TANNER: Was it introduced into the Bill last year?
MR. MACARTNEY: It refers to the Act upon which the Bill is founded. Of course, if the hon. Member objects there is an end to progress now.
DR. TANNER: But the hon. Member can answer me. Was it introduced in

1615
the House of Lords, and was not the Bill in consequence given up by my hon. Friends?
MR. MACARTNEY: Really I have not the slightest idea what are the views of the hon. Member's friends.
DR. TANNER: I cannot accept the Amendment.
MR. MACARTNEY: Then, Sir, I move that you now report Progress.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION EXPENSES BILL.—(No. 152.)
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith:—
Lords Amendments considered. Several agreed to.
Several disagreed to, and Consequential Amendments made to the Bill.
Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to the said Amendments:"
Mr. Ritchie, Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttle-worth, Mr. Long, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Fisher nominated Members of the Committee:—To withdraw immediately:—Three to be the quorum.
Reason for disagreeing to Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to The Lords.

RAILWAYS (TIMES OF TRAINS).
Return ordered—
"For alternate months during the year 1890, commencing with January, from the Great Northern, Great Eastern, London and North Western, Great Western, Midland, South Eastern, London Chatham and Dover, London Brighton and South Coast, and London and South Western Railway Companies, showing the arrival at London stations of all Passenger Trains, as shown in the published time tables of the Company, in the form set out below:"
"The Returns to be compiled from the guards' reports or journals; and London
1616
stations to mean, for the Great Northern King's Cross; for the Great Eastern, Liverpool Street; for the London and North Western, Euston; for the Great Western, Paddington; for the Midland, St. Pancras; for the Chatham and Dover, Victoria, St. Paul's, and Holborn viaduct; for the South Eastern, cannon Street and Charing Cross; for the London Brighton and South Coast, London Bridge and Victoria; and for the South Western, Waterloo.

Percentage to time and 3 minutes late.

Percentage between 3 and 5 minutes late.

Percentage between 5 and 10 minutes late.

Percentage between 10 and 15 minutes late.

Percentage between 15 and 20 minutes late.

Percentage between 20 and 25 minutes late.

Percentage between 25 and 30 minutes late.

Percentage between 30 minutes late.

Total number of Trains.

—(Mr. Baumann.)

MOTION

  WOMEN'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL
  On Motion of Mr. Haldane, Bill to remove the disabilities of Women, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Haldane and Sir Edward Grey.
  Bill presented, and first time. [Bill 198]
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.