Commons Sitting of 16 May 1890

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—CLERKS OF WORKS.
  DR. TANNER (Cork Co, Mid): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if it is correct that clerks of works in Ireland are dismissed at the finishing of any contract upon the construction of which they have been employed, and whether their rate of payment is upon the same scale as the corresponding classes in the employment of the English Office of Works, and, if not, by how much, and in what manner is the difference made; and whether it is the intention of the Board to make the same rate of payment to the Irish and English clerks?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I am informed that the practices both in England and Ireland is uniform, and that the engagement of a clerk of the works is a matter of contract. The rate of pay varies according to the importance of the work.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not the fact that clerks of works are much better paid in England than Ireland?
  *MR. JACKSON: I can only say that it depends upon the importance of the work. There are varying rates both in England and Ireland.
  DR. TANNER: What is the standard?
  *MR. JACKSON: I cannot say that there is any standard. It depends on the class of work, unless a contract has been entered into.
  DR. TANNER: The salaries of English clerks of works as set forth in the Estimates are higher than in Ireland, and Irish men come over here to improve their position.
  *MR. JACKSON: The emigration from Ireland to England in such cases is, I believe, an usual process.
  DR. TANNER: Yes; in consequence of the coercion which exists in Ireland.

  CORK TOWN COUNCIL.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Cork Town Council have declined to pay the amount applied for by the Board of Governors of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum, on the ground that their body and the citizens have no direct representation on the Asylum Board; whether he can state what representation on that Board is the Cork Corporation entitled to; and why such representation is denied to the Municipal Authorities in Cork?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. Under the recent scheme adopted by the Irish Government, with a view to giving direct representation on District Lunatic Asylum Boards to the several presenting bodies, four representatives were to be chosen by the Lord Lieutenant from nominees of the Cork Corporation. The Corporation, however, nominated for the four places four of their members only, which would remove from the Lord Lieutenant the power of exercising his statutory responsibility for the selection of Governors. This was pointed out to the Corporation, but they declined to send forward any additional names. The Lord Lieutenant then felt obliged to select from the general body of the Corporation four of its members to serve as its representative on the Asylum Board.
  MR. SEXTON: In a precisely analogous case in Dublin were not the Corporation allowed to nominate 10 members? Why should there be one rule for Dublin and another for Cork?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is not one rule for Dublin and another for Cork. No additional names have been submitted.

THE SKINNERS' COMPANY.
MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Skinners' Company have sold three-fourths of their property in County London derry to their tenants, and have now limited the time when their offer to sell will be withdrawn, owing to the fact that a Syndicate, composed of mem-

1107
bers of the Skinners' Company and others, have offered to purchase the remainder of the estate as a speculation, and that the Company have agreed to accept 15 years' purchase, while the price they demanded from their tenants was 19 years; if many of the tenants, who have not yet purchased, are precluded from doing so owing to arrears; and if he would consider the advisability of inserting a clause in the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill, giving the tenants the right of pre-emption.
MR. A. J.BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that applications for purchase in respect of 671 tenants on the Skinners' Company's Estate have been lodged with the Commission. In 58 of these cases the advances applied for have been refused, and 48 are still pending. The records of the Commission do not afford any information as to the extent or value of the residue of the estate, nor have they any information as to the Syndicate referred to.

DOCKYARD LABOURERS.
COLONEL HUGHESI beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of labourers employed at 15s. a week, 16s., 17s., 18s., 19s., 20s., and above 20s., respectively, in each of Her Majesty's Dockyards in England?
*THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,)*THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The total number of labourers employed in Her Majesty's Dockyards in England at the rates of pay mentioned in the question is 6,454. Of this number 1,037 receive 15s. a week; 517, 16s.; 1,527, 17s.; 881, 18s.; 335, 19s.; 956, 20s.; and 1,201 above 20s. In addition to the men employed at these particular rates, 101 labourers are paid 16s. 6d., and 144, 19s. 6d. a week. When any of these men are employed on task work they get extra money, from 10 to 40 per cent., in addition.

FOREIGN WORKMEN.
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, having regard to the Report of the Sweating Committee, that
"Certain trades are affected by the presence of poor Foreigners, for the most part Russian and Polish Jews,"
1108
he has taken steps for the enforcement of the Alien Act on the routes of their arrival, as recommended by the Select Committee on the Immigration of Foreigners?
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I would remind my hon. Friend that the Report of the House of Lords' Sweating Committee only says that certain trades are to some extent affected by foreign immigration, while it speaks well of the immigrants in some respects, and does not make any suggestion to prevent immigration. I may say, however, that some time ago, before the issue of this Report, the necessary steps were taken, under powers given by the Alien Act and in other ways, to procure statistical information with regard to the immigration of foreigners as regards vessels arriving from European ports at the principal ports of the United Kingdom. This was done in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee on the Immigration of Foreigners. The information is now coming in regularly, and the results will be published in the future Annual Reports of the Department, or more frequently if occasion should require.
MR. BRADLAUGH: Do I understand that the provisions of the Alien Act are carried out wholly or partially under his direction, and if only partially to what extent?
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Only to the extent necessary for obtaining information.

SMALL ARMS FOR VOLUNTEERS.
MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended at the close of the present year to call in the Snider carbine and issue the Martini-Henry carbine in its place to Artillery Volunteers?
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): No, Sir. Martini-Henry carbines are not available for this purpose in sufficient numbers at the present time.

SOUTH AFRICA.
MR. ERNEST BECKETT (York, N.R., Whitby): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the declara

1109
tion made by him on 9th November, 1888, that
"The sphere of British influence south of the Zambesi is declared to extend over the territories north of the South African Republic and the Bechuanaland Protectorate, south of the Zambesi, east of the 20th degree of east longitude, and west of the Portuguese province of Sofala,'"
it is the case that an English Corporation has since acquired from Moremi, the King of the Bamaugwatos, all the mineral rights, together with timber and grazing rights within his country, which country is included in the area thus defined as lying within the sphere of British influence; whether, in the negotiations now pending in Berlin, Sir Percy Anderson has been informed of the existence of this concession; and whether the Government adhere to the above-quoted definition of the sphere of British influence in South Africa?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): The description referred to was accurate so far as it went, but the boundaries are necessarily to a great extent still undefined, as the Zambesi and the 20th meridian do not intersect each other. The question of further delimitation is now the subject of negotiation. Her Majesty's Government have been informed that such a concession has been acquired by an English Limited Company, and it is believed that these rights have been acquired subsequently to my statement of November, 1888. This information has been communicated to Her Majesty's Embassy at Berlin.
*MR. E. BECKETT: Are we to understand that there has been no surrender of British territory such as it was defined to be in the answer of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in November, 1888?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Perhaps I may answer that question. It is quite evident that the description in 1888 was not strictly defined to the North or North-West; but what I am in a position to say is this, that should there be any fresh delimitation of territory, any rights acquired by British subjects in such districts would be borne in mind.

THE PROCURATOR FISCAL OF TOBERMORY.
DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is true that the firm of which the Procurator Fiscal of Tobermory is a member are law agents for several landed pro-prietors in the district, and are at present acting for two or more of these in civil processes against crofters on their estates; and whether, taking into consideration his answer to the Member for Inverness-shire on the 16th of July last, and his declaration that he approved of the action of the Sheriff of that county in instructing a firm of solicitors, of which the local Procurator Fiscal was a member, that it was undesirable that they should act in such cases, he will take steps to have the same rule adopted in Argyleshire?
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: I find that the Procurator Fiscal's firm have for many years acted as agents for some proprietors in Mull, and recently appeared for them in. applications before the Crofter Commission; but I have no information to show that they are acting in processes against crofters, as is stated in the question, and as was the ground of complaint in the case last year to which the hon. Member refers. I have, however, thought it right to communicate with the Sheriff on. the subject.

GRIEVANCES OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYÉS.
MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any Order or Regulation which prohibits, regulates, or controls the holding of meetings by those employed in Her Majesty's Dockyards, for the purpose of discussing their position and making known their grievances; and, if so, whether he will state the terms of any such Order or Regulation?
LORD G. HAMILTON: The Regulations affecting the meeting of employÉs in the Public Service are issued Depart-mentally, and must depend upon the conditions and nature of the employment given. In the dockyards only a proportion of those employed are in the permanent service of the country, the remainder are periodically hired. The

1111
Admiralty have not hitherto found it necessary to issue any Regulations on the subject.
MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any Order or Regulation which prohibits, regulates, or controls the holding of meetings by those employed in any branch of the Department for the purpose of discussing their position and making known their grievances; and, if so, whether he will state the terms of any such Order or Regulation?
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It has never been found necessary to make any Regulations of the kind referred to by the hon. Member. The staff of the Board of Trade, though numerous, is scattered over the whole of the United Kingdom.

POLLUTION OF THE RIVER COLNE.
MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will inquire into the cause of the poisoning and pollution of the River Colne and its tributaries by the Croxley Paper Mills, near Watford, on Wednesday the 7th May, whereby private property to the value of many hundreds of pounds was destroyed; and whether he has any power to insist upon the provision of necessary apparatus whereby poisonous, noxious, or polluting liquid or matter can be dealt with so as to prevent any such injury or damage for the future; and, if so, whether he will exercise such powers, in the interest of the owners, tenants, and ratepayers of the river and fisheries in the neighbourhood?
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): Since the notice of this question was given by the hon. Member, I have communicated with the Sanitary Authority of the Watford Union, and I learn from their clerk that no complaint has been made to the Authority as to the occurrence on the 7th May at the Croxley Paper Mills. I am informed, however, by the communications which I have reeeived, that a tank at the mills which was charged with chloride of lime burst, the result being to poison great quantities of fish, and to affect the water for a long distance below the mills. I have no
1112
authority to insist upon the provision of necessary apparatus whereby poisonous, noxious, or polluting liquid or matter can be dealt with so as to prevent any such injury or damage for the future. If, as I infer is the case, it is considered that the provisions of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act are contravened, the Sanitary Authority are empowered, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to institute proceedings for the enforcement of that Act. If any such consent is applied for, the matter will receive my prompt consideration. In the meantime, I will bring the matter specially under the attention of the Sanitary Authority, and request them to investigate the facts and report the result to the Board.
MR. ISAACSON: May I ask whether a tenant is compelled to give two months' notice before a nuisance can be abated?
*MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board have no authority in the matter, unless the Local Authority propose to institute proceedings under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, and apply to the Board for their consent to the institution of the proceedings. The notice for the abatement of a nuisance rests with the Sanitary Authority of the district.

RECEIPTS FROM STAMPS.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he definitely declines to distinguish the Metropolis from the other parts of the United Kingdom in regard to the receipts from stamps (including Probate Duty) and Income Tax?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Yes, Sir; definitely.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC IN THE UNITED STATES.
SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have acquired any recent information as to the results of the control of the drink traffic in the United States; and whether there are any authoritative Reports of recent date which can be presented to Parliament?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: My hon. Friend has not observed a very complete Report on this subject by Mr. Edwards, Her Majesty's Secretary of Legation at Washington, which has been laid before Parliament as No. 154 of the Miscellaneous Foreign Office Reports. This Paper, which has been extensively noticed, both in this country and in the United States, brings down all the information available upon the subject to a recent date.

BEHRINGS SEA FISHERIES.
SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any further statement as to the progress of the negotiations for the settlement of the Behrings Sea fishery dispute?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government are not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.
MR. STAVELEY HILL: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give information as to the settlement of the Behrings Sea fisheries difficulty?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is impossible for me to say when a settlement will be attained, because the negotiations are not closed. I shall be happy to give the information as soon as possible.
MR. S. HILL: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that to-day's papers announce that Sir John MacDonald is going to make a statement in the Canadian Parliament to-day?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not think that the Premier will be in a position to make any statement as to the final arrangements.

THE LONDON WATER COMPANIES.
MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the quinquennial re-assessment of property in London, which will come into force in 1891, and will give the Water Companies power to exact an increased charge for their supplies, he can give the House any assurance that he will introduce a Bill during the present Session for the purpose of suspending the powers of the Water Companies to increase their charges for water consequent upon such increase in the assessment, and so prevent such Companies
1114
from being in a position to force up the prices at which their undertakings will have to be purchased eventually by the London County Council?
*MR. RITCHIE: I cannot hold out any expectation that the Government will introduce a Bill on the subject.

EXTINCTION OF LICENCES.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the permission proposed to be given to County Councils to borrow three years' contributions to the fund promised out of the additional Spirit Duty towards the extinction of licences involves the continuance of that duty for a definite term of years; and whether there is any precedent for such an imposition of an Excise Duty for years in advance?
MR. GOSCHEN: There are precedents in olden times, and there is nothing contrary to Constitutional practice in the proposals of the Government.

EQUIPMENT OF THE VOLUNTEERS.
MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the additional sum now promised to the Volunteer Force for equipment will be given unconditionally, or whether he is considering the expediency of making, at the same time, new regulations to improve the discipline and Military efficiency of the Force?
*MR. E. STANHOPE: There is no present intention by any legislative enactment to insist on increased efficiency in return for the grant now to be made; but I feel certain that the House will support any changes which may, from time to time, be found possible, without pressing too hardly on the Volunteers, in the direction of increased efficiency and of readiness for immediate action whenever required.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true, as stated in a Reuter's telegram from St. John's of the 14th instant, that a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Newfoundland Legislature has passed an Address to Her Majesty, protesting against the action of the Imperial Government on

1115
the fisheries question; whether Her Majesty's Government have yet been made aware of the terms of the Address referred to; and whether it will be laid upon the Table of this House?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have not as yet received information on the subject. There will probably be no objection to laying before the House any such Address when received.

NON-RENEWAL OF LICENCES.
MR. CALEB WRIGHT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he would add a new Clause to the Local Taxation Duties Bill, declaring that nothing shall be taken to imply that compensation ought to be given upon the non-renewal of a licence?
*MR. RITCHIE: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until the Amendments are put upon the Paper in order to see what the Government propose.

MAGAZINE RIFLES.
MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what number of magazine rifles have already been manufactured, and how many it is expected will be completed before the end of this year by private manufacturers, and in the Government Factory respectively; what number of sets of the Slade-Wallace equipment have already been manufactured for the Army and Volunteers respectively, and how many will, it is expected, be so completed before the end of the year; whether he will be able to arrive at a decison as to the alleged patents in connection with a new rifle and a new equipment, which have already been so largely manufactured, before the vote for them is taken; and how many of the patents taken out in connection with the magazine rifle stand in the names of persons in Government employment?
*MR. E. STANHOPE: I am not able, consistently with the public interests, to state the numbers made and expected of the magazine rifle; but if my hon. Friend wishes it, I shall be happy to communicate them to him privately. As regards the Slade-Wallace equipment, 19,314 sets have been received, and 60,400 more are expected before the end of the year. These are for the Regular
1116
Forces. The Volunteers buy their own. A decision as to the patents affecting the Slade-Wallace equipment will, I hope, be arrived at very shortly. The case of the magazine rifle will take longer, and must be considered by the Ordnance Council. Four patents in connection with the magazine rifle stand in the names of persons in Government employment, but their validity has not at present been recognised.

THE LONDON CORPORATION DESTRUCTOR.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the nuisance (to which his attention was drawn in June last) arising from noisome smoke issuing from the chimney of the "destructor" belonging to the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London, situated at Lett's Wharf, still continues; that it was particularly offensive on the 15th instant; and that complaint has been made to the Lambeth Vestry by Mr. Shield, Police Magistrate; and whether he will take further, and effectual, steps to abate the nuisance?
*MR. RITCHIE: In June of last year a question was asked in the House with reference to an alleged nuisance from noisome smoke issuing from the chimney of the destructor at Lett's Wharf. I communicated at that time with the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London and the Vestry of the Parish of Lambeth on the subject, but the replies which were received did not confirm the allegation that there was any such nuisance. Since then I have received no communication alleging that such a nuisance exists, but I will make further-inquiries as to the facts.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I will repeat the question on Thursday.

INHABITED HOUSE DUTY.
MR. SHIRESS WILL (Montrose, &c.): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the hardship of the smaller class of shopkeepers who reside over their shops, caused by the fact that unless the shop is a separate tenement and separately let the annual value of the shop is reckoned in the amount on which the house is assessed to the

1117
Inhabited House Duties; whether this is the rule even if the shop does not communicate directly with the rest of the house, and whether he is willing to consider the propriety of enacting, either in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill or otherwise, that where a part of any house being one property is occupied solely for the purpose of any trade or business or of any profession or calling by which the occupier seeks a livelihood or profit, whether the part so occupied communicates directly or not with the rest of the house, such part of the house shall not be taken into account in assessing the amount on which the house shall be chargeable with the Inhabited House Duties?
MR. GOSCHEN: I am sorry that I can only give to the hon. Member the same answer I have given to other hon. Members, that I am not prepared to open up any further question as to the House Duty this year.

BENARES.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to his answer of the 12th July, 1889, whether the Secretary of State is now aware that, with respect to the seizure and confiscation of certain property and Trusts Funds belonging to the Temples of Gunnesh, Shiva, and Anpurua, and the Chattra at Benares, on the 19th January, 1858, an official inquiry was ordered by the Government of India on the 10th September, 1888; and that a Report, in reply, was forwarded to the Government of India, on the 14th February, 1889, by the Commissioners of Benares; whether that Report was favourable to the claims of the Trustee of the Temples, for the restitution of part of the property seized, the Commissioner suggesting that the property should be restored to the proper parties, and to the necessity for further investigation as to the other parts of the property; and whether such restoration has taken place, and such further investigation made; and, if not, if he can state the reasons?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): An official inquiry was ordered, and two Reports dated the 14th February and the 13th April, 1889, were made. These Reports were unfavourable to the claim
1118
of the Trustees of the Temples, nor did the Commissioner suggest, as alleged, that property should be restored. No restoration has taken place, because the Government of India, after full consideration of the case, have come to the conclusion that the claim now preferred is not only unsupported by any evidence, but is also improbable and inconsistent with the claimants' own conduct.
MR. BRADLAUGH: There appears to have been some misconception in regard to the matter. Will the Secretary of State lay upon the Table the two Reports of February and April, 1889?
*SIR J. GORST: Yes; their will be no objection to lay them on the Table if the hon. Member will move for them.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I will move for them.

DISMISSAL OF SURGEONS ON THE BENGAL ESTABLISHMENT.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State's attention has been drawn to the circumstances under which Kali Krishna BaÉgchi and two other surgeons on the Bengal Establishment have been dismissed from the Service; whether it is the fact that, in accordance with the rule governing the promotion of assistant surgeons, Kali Krishna BaÉgchi, after 14 years most satisfactory service, applied for examination at the septennial examination in Calcutta, in May last, and two other assistant surgeons, after a lesser term of service, applied for like examination; such examination took place, and all were declared to have satisfied the examiners; that the Inspector General of Hospitals addressed questions to the principal of the Medical College, and received assurances that every safeguard against foul play had been taken, and the examination conducted under adequate supervision; that, nevertheless, the Inspector General called upon Kali Krishna BaÉgchi and two others to undergo a supplementary examination prepared by himself; whether this course was in direct contradiction to the Regulations affecting medical examinations in India, the Examining Board alone having power to examine medical officers; whether Kali Krishna BaÉgchi and two others, having, on the ground that the proceedings were an imputation on their honour, and contrary to the Regulations, refused to

1119
submit themselves to the supplementary examination, were summarily dismissed for wilful disobedience of orders; whether the Head of a Department can thus summarily dismiss officers against whom no charges of misconduct are made or in-inquired into, in view of the fact that the Rules of the Government Service in India state that Indian
"Subordinates are not to be dismissed merely in consequence of unfavourable opinions entertained towards them by their superiors, or for slight reasons, but on proof only of tangible delinquency in such matters as fraud and dishonesty, continued and wilful negligence, and all offences involving worse disgrace;"
and whether he will give instructions that the order for the dismissal of these officers shall be cancelled, and will direct an inquiry to be instituted into the whole circumstances, in which full opportunity will be given to the officers concerned to answer any charges which may have been brought against them?
*SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State has no official information as to the allegations contained in the question. If the hon. Member will furnish the Secretary of State with any ground for them, the matter will be referred for inquiry to the Government of India.

HALL-MARKING FOR INDIAN WARES.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any communications have been received from India with reference to the Government proposals to institute a special system of hall-marking for Indian wares; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of such communications?
*SIR J. GORST: The Secretary of State has referred the proposal of the Government to the Viceroy, but there has not yet been time for a reply.

GOVERNMENT STAMPS FOR INDIA.
MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the amount annually paid to the Inland Revenue Department by the India Office for the control of the stamps required by the Government of India; how much of this amount is paid in salaries, and wages, and to whom; and whether any portion of this amount so received for a definite purpose, but unappropriated for that purpose, is treated as a miscellaneous receipt by the Board of Inland Revenue, and paid to
1120
the Exchequer as such, or refunded to the India Office?
*MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the amount paid for the year ending March, 1889, by the Revenue Department for services in India was £3,479 4s. 7d. Of this sum £2,489 4s. 7d. was paid for the wages of the men employed by the Indian Government. The balance of £990 was paid over to the Exchequer as miscellaneous revenue, under a general arrangement, signed by the Treasury in 1886. Of that sum £690 was paid in the shape of salaries to certain officers for the control and inspection of stamps, and the balance was held over for incidental expenditure.
MR. HANBURY: What was the incidental expenditure?
*MR. JACKSON: I cannot say, but I take it that in every Department there is a certain amount of incidental expenditure.
MR. HANBURY: On the Inland Revenue Vote I will call attention to the matter.

EAST AND CENTRAL AFRICA.
SIR J. KENNAWAY: As a matter of urgency, I beg to ask whether there is any truth in the statement, made in the Morning Post of to-day, that the Germans are aiming at the exclusion of British Missions and British commerce from the Kingdom of Uganda; that Cardinal Lavigerie has entered into an agreement with the Gorman East African Company to procure these ends and to cause Uganda to be withdrawn from the scope of the contemplated deliminations of territory in Central Africa; and whether, in view of the expenditure of life, labour, and money there in the cause of civilisation and Christianity, the Foreign Office will do its utmost to protect the interests of Missions and travellers in those parts?
MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith, &c.): Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask him to inform the House whether the line of demarcation in 1886 still remains the line between the sphere of British influence and the sphere of German influence in that portion of East Africa? The point I refer to was laid down in a letter of Lord Salisbury's dated July 2, 1887.
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: As the newspaper statements in question are calculated to cause apprehension, and as the House does not sit again till Monday, I shall be justified in replying that Her Majesty's Government have no information tending to confirm them. In reply to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. M. Ferguson), I may say that we know of no action on the part of the German Government or of German Agents calculated to prejudice the rights of British subjects under existing agreements, and that matters hitherto unsettled are being discussed at Berlin in a friendly spirit, so that the important interests involved will not be prejudiced by abstention from discussion at present.

THE DIVISION ON THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I wish to draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that in the Division on the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill, which appears in the Votes and Proceedings of the House this morning, the Ayes are stated to be 339 and the Noes 266, thus giving a majority of 73 for the Second Reading. As the votes were given it appears that the Members voting for the Second Reading were 338 and those against 268, thus giving a majority of only 70? I wish to ask whether the mistake will be set right?
*MR. SPEAKER: I have no doubt that any mistake will be put right.
*MR. AKERS DOUGLAS (Kent, St. Augustine's): It very often happens that the figures are not quite correct at first, but the mistake is set right the next day. I believe that there has been a mistake made in the numbers, the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir C. Forster) not having gone through the Lobby, and another Member not being counted. The correction will appear in the usual course.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION—SIR WILFRID LAWSON.
SIR W. LAWSON: I wish, Sir, with the permission of the House, to make a personal explanation. The leader of the House in his speech last night gave the impression that on a certain occasion in this House I had been a supporter
1122
of compensation. I have referred to Hansard, and I would like to read to the House the words I used on March 13, 1877 (the occasion referred to by the right hon. Gentleman), with reference to the Gothenburg Resolution of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). I spoke as follows:—
"My hon. Friend talks about compensation. His Resolution is very well drawn, and he says he would give fair compensation.' So would I. I do not want to do anything unfair. Let anybody show that he is entitled to compensation, and there is no one in the House who would be more ready to vote for it than I am. But I tell you what I think—this is merely my opinion. I think that where a man has made a bargain with the public, and has paid money for the power of selling drink up to the 10th of October, on which day his licence ends, it is quite fair that if you want him to give up before that date you should pay him something. But after that I would not give him one penny of compensation. people talk about compensation, but I should like to see any first-class lawyer stand up in this House and pledge his reputation to the statement that a publican has any right to compensation after his licence has run out. He would never be listened to again and his authority would be gone if he dared to say anything of the kind."
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I should like to ask the hon. Baronet one question. Did he not vote for the Resolution I read to the House last night?
SIR W. LAWSON: I am not charging the right hon. Gentleman with doing anything unfair. I certainly voted for the Resolution, but at the same time I made the statement I have read to the House.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
Captain Selwyn, for four weeks, on account of ill-health.—(Mr. Akers Douglas.)
MOTIONS.

  LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Sexton, Bill to amend the Law relating to Local Courts of Bankruptcy in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sexton, Sir James Corry, Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. M'Cartan, and Mr. Clancy.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 280.]

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL
On Motion of Mr. Chance, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Registration of Parliamentary voters in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chance, Mr. T. M. Healy, and Mr. Maurice Healy.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 281]

TRUST INVESTMENT ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Oldroyd, Bill to amend "The Trust Investment Act, 1889," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Oldroyd, Mr. George Curzon, Mr. Gully, Sir Matthew White Ridley, and Mr. Rowntree.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 282.]

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.—(No. 231.)
Postponed Clause 4.
*(2.50.) MR. H. H. FOWLER: I beg to move, in postponed Clause No. 4, page 2, line 9, after "ninety," to insert "until the first day of April, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one." The object of the Amendment is to provide that the new tax to be placed upon spirits should only be imposed for a period of 12 months. By Clause 2 of the Bill the Tea Duty is only imposed for a period of 12 months, and by Clause 22 the Income Tax also is only imposed for one year. I presume the Committee are aware of the reasons why the taxation of the year is made annual and not permanent. It involves a Constitutional principle. The present mode of dealing with our Customs and Inland Revenue is by an annual Bill, that practice having been settled in consequence of the dispute between the two Houses when the Paper Duty was repealed. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put the new duty on the same footing as the Tea Duty and the Income Tax, on the ground that by so doing he will not interfere with the annual control of the House of Commons over the taxation of the year. I am aware that a considerable portion of the Revenue is of a permanent character. There are a large number of taxes which form part of our regular fiscal system which are not voted annually, but this House has always reserved to itself the control over a certain portion of the annual supply in order to secure its control over the annual expenditure. That this is the Constitutional practice is shown by what was said by Mr.
1124
Disraeli in I860, who, referring to Lord Palmerston's acknowledgment of the importance and absolute necessity of the House of Commons exercising a due and effective control over the annual taxation of the country, said that there was not only Constitutional Liberals, but commercial Liberals—the Constitutional Liberals were desirous of retaining the control over the annual Revenue of the country, whereas the commercial Liberals wished to exercise such a pressure upon the Minister of the day, that for commercial purposes the control of the House over its annual taxation was lost. Now, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, if anything, is a Constitutional Liberal. I think he will not repudiate that title, and I appeal to him to maintain the control of this House over the taxation of the country. The question underlying this point is the exclusive jurisdiction of the House over the annual taxation of the country. The result of this Bill will be to give to the House of Lords a co-ordinate jurisdiction with the House of Commons over taxation, and against that I wish to protest. Lord J. Russell, in the same Debate, said that if the House of Lords was to be admitted to partnership with the House of Commons the finances of the country might be thrown into utter confusion, and he added that the effect of making a proposed tax a permanent addition to the taxation of the country was that without the concurrence of the House of Lords you could neither deal with the tax which was to be imposed nor with the application of it. In this way the House of Commons would altogether lose its control over the taxation of the country, because no alteration could be effected without legislation, to which the House of Lords must be a party. The other night the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), in speaking upon this subject, alluded to the old custom of one of the Money Bills not being passed until a late period of the Session, in order that the House of Commons might keep its control. Now we have the whole taxation put into one Bill, and at present we have only two great annual taxes, namely, the Tea Duty and the Income Tax, and this year we are going materially to reduce the Tea Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the tipplers are to relieve

1125
the consumers of tea, but we are going to sacrifice £1,500,000 of the Tea Duty. What the Amendment proposes is that the sum of £1,300,000, which is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer called the tipplers' relief to the consumers of tea, should be put in the same position, in no better and no worse position than the duty on tea. It ought to be an annual tax voted by the House; it ought to be subject to the control of the House, and in that way the House would maintain its exclusive jurisdiction over taxation. That is the Constitutional aspect, but there is also a practical, financial aspect of the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer invites us to make a great financial experiment, and he assumes that an increase of the Spirit Duties is certain to be followed by a corresponding increase of revenue; but he has adduced no facts in support of that assumption; and all the evidence goes to show that there is a certain high-water mark beyond which increase of duties produces illicit distillation, and the revenue suffers. I do not say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is wrong; but, at any rate, it is only an experimental view, and he has no authority for the position he has taken. All the authorities go the other way. In 1819 the duties on spirits reached 11s. 8¼d., which was the highest point they ever reached. And what followed? The revenue, instead of increasing, diminished. In 1823 Mr. Huskisson took the matter in hand. He reduced the Scotch Duty from 6s. 2d. to 2s. 5d., the Irish Duty from 5s. 7d. to 2s. 5d., and the English Duty from 11s. 8¼d. to 7s. The revenue immediately increased. In 1860 the Spirit Duties reached 10s., at which point they have practically remained ever since. But in the interval between 1825, when Mr. Huskisson dealt with the matter, and 1860, when the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian placed the taxation on its present level, the result of the increase of the Spirit Duty, as shown in the valuable work on Finance by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. S. Buxton), was a falling off of the revenue. In 1858, instead of the £500,000 expected, only £70,000 was received; and in 1860, instead of an additional £600,000 from British spirits, there was an actual diminution of revenue to the extent of £550,000. It
1126
was not until four years later that the Chancellor of the Exchequer succeeded in raising the additional amount of revenue he had calculated upon in I860. I do not say that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is not right in anticipating the large sum he has mentioned; but on Constitutional, as well as on financial, grounds I maintain that the tax should be limited to one year. A third peculiarity of the present proposal is that it is a tax for a new purpose, and not for the National Expenditure of the year. There has been no estimate laid before the House showing that the Imperial taxation requires it. There is reason to complain of the delay in furnishing the House with information bearing upon; this point; and the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian was obliged to speak the other night without having seen a Return which had been distributed that morning. How much money in aid up to the present time has been paid to the Local Authorities? What has been the result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals of 1888 and 1889?
*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I stated it in the. Budget speech.
*MR. H. H. FOWLER: Only the sum then paid. Before the House is asked to increase the subventions which were given two years back we are entitled to know what amount these subventions; have reached and how they have been apportioned between the counties and the boroughs. I raise for the moment no question of the goodness or badness of the tax or of the justice or injustice of the appropriation; but the whole scheme; is a huge experiment, and, therefore, I move my Amendment limiting the tax to 12 months.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, after the word "ninety," to insert the words "until the first day of April one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one,"—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
Question proposed, "That those words: be there inserted."
MR. T. M. HEALY: I think the Committee are extremely indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). I greatly regret that the. Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to

1127
accept the offer made to him last night to take these postponed clauses out of the Bill and put them in the Bill which is to follow. The House is asked to enter upon an entirely novel course, and nothing is known of how the taxes proposed will be administered, or, so far as Ireland is concerned, whether Local Government will ever be established there at all. It is monstrous to ask Irish Members to vote an additional tax on spirits—one of the principal commodities of Ireland—when it is impossible to say whether any of it will ever be devoted to the extinction of public houses. The House is asked to vote the tax for good or bad, once and for all, and without any possibility of annual revision. The Government may be driven out of Office before they pass the Local Government Bill for Ireland, or they may change their minds about the introduction of such a measure at all. Nevertheless, this tax will have been voted beyond review or recall. The well-known liberal views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the extension of Local Government to Ireland may be smothered by his own Cabinet; yet he asks us to vote this Bill on the faith of getting Local Government for Ireland. He asks us to give a blank cheque to Lord Salisbury in the shape of an additional sixpence on Irish whisky. Good and generous and democratic as the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman may be, it must be remembered that he has a Cabinet acting with him who may out-vole him, and there may be no extinction of public houses in Ireland at all. As a matter of fact, we are discussing this measure handcuffed and with our tongues tied. English Members have less ground for complaint. They have already got their Local Government, whereas the Irish people may have neither the one nor the other. They may never get Local Government, but, at the same time, they will have to pay this tax. Is it unreasonable, then, to ask that next year we should have an opportunity of again criticising the proposals of the Government? I certainly cannot see what object the Government propose to gain by refusing to have a review of the matter next year. I object in the strongest way not only to the proposals of the Government, but to the mode in which they are carrying
1128
them out. I dispute their good intentions, and challenge their bona fides. With regard to the question of taxation, which is one of the fundamental questions with which Members of Parliament have to deal, we ought to have an opportunity of re-considering our position and the circumstances of the country in the same way as in the case of other matters, for which we annually pass Continuance Bills. I do not know what argument the Government can allege on this one point unless it be the old argument that we must have confidence in the Government, which simply amounts to this: "Open your mouth and shut your eyes and see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give you." I am glad to notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone has at last taken his proper place in this House [the hon. Member (Mr. T. W. Russell) was at this moment sitting on one of the Ministerial Benches], but I think that even he will agree with me in asking that the Government should afford us next year some means of reviewing their fiscal policy with regard to Ireland. It has already been stated that shortly after the great war the English people had to pay the enormous duty of 11s. 8d. per gallon on spirits. That is the highest fiscal tax ever imposed on this country, and I am glad to say we never had it to pay in Ireland; but now the Government are seeking to impose upon us, not for Imperial, but for local purposes, the heaviest tax ever placed upon what is the chief article of Irish manufacture. If the Government had imported this proposal into a Local Government Bill there might have been some reason in it; but as it is, we have no guarantee as to what will be done with the money, and next year, in all probability, we shall be in exactly the same position as we are now. The money will be gone, our whisky will still be heavily taxed, we shall still be without a Local Government Board, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer will still be Chancellor of the Exchequer, which practically will be the one point the Government will have attained.
SIR J. M'KENNA: My objection to the proposal of the Government is that they put upon an article, which is one of the chief products of Irish manufacture, a tax which

1129
is perfectly monstrous. This is a subject about which I know something—I have felt much interest in it for many years, and I have more than once shown that during the last 37 years the tax on proof spirits has been advanced in Ireland from 2s. 8d. to 10s. a gallon, while the Englishman pays on his own national beverage the very disproportionate tax of 1s. 10d. on its alcoholic equivalent in the vehicle of beer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment before the Committee is a proposal to limit the tax to the year, whereas the hon. Gentleman is arguing that it should be done away with altogether.
*SIR J. M'KENNA: I bow, Sir, with all due respect to your ruling; but I think that in supporting an Amendment which proposes to limit the tax to one year it is not going beyond the question to urge facts which favour the limitation, although they may show that it ought not to be imposed at all. I think that that point is capable of appreciation even by the meanest intellect. I do not think that anyone will be deceived by the proposal of the Government, which simply means that Ireland shall pay, in addition to the present exorbitant duty, another 6d. for the so-called benevolent objects the Government have put forward.
MR. FLYNN: I quite agree with the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Long-ford (Mr. T. M. Healy), who has objected to the imposition of this tax for an indefinite period. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has raised a question of great Constitutional importance, and it is one on which we are all anxious to hear the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend the Member for Longford has truly said we have no guarantee that the money to be raised by the Bill will be applied to any of the local purposes to which we are told it will be devoted. On the contrary, I think we have every guarantee that it will not be devoted to those local objects. Therefore, I say, we are right in resisting the imposition of this tax for a longer period of 12 months. In 12 months the Government will surely be enabled to see what will be the effect of the new taxation on beer and spirits.
1130
As my hon. Friend has put it we are asked to impose this increased taxation with our eyes blindfolded. Perhaps I may be allowed to amend the old saw he has just quoted by putting it in this form—"Shut your eyes, open your purse, and see how we will spend it. "As it is, we are in a condition of absolute uncertainty as to how this proposal will operate; and, under these circumstances, I think we are entitled to a clear explanation from the Government of the reasons why this new taxation is to be imposed. Why cannot the Government accept the Amendment limiting the tax to a period of 12 months, when, if it be found to work well, it might, as my hon. and learned Friend suggests, be carried on by means of Continuance Bills. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be wise in accepting the proposed limitation.
MR. GOSCHEN: In reply to the observations of the hon. Member who has just spoken I would point out that he and other hon. Members are in error in thinking that in voting a tax like that now proposed they will thereby be precluded from re-opening the question at any future time. There is scarcely a tax, whatever its nature may be, that escapes attack, and with regard to which Motions are not brought forward for its repeal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, in bringing forward his Amendment, argued the question on Constitutional grounds, financial grounds, and experimental grounds. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that it was un-Constitutional to vote taxes for a longer period than one year, and that we are departing from Constitutional practice in the proposal now before the House. The right hon. Gentleman went back to the Debates of 1860 in order to justify his Constitutional objection; but he did not quote anything that has occurred since that date in support of his contention. The right hon. Gentleman will find in all these cases that the taxes have been voted in precisely the same manner as this is proposed. I am very much mistaken if my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, when he imposed a Spirit Duty, limited it to one year. That has never been the practice since the year 1860; and, so far as I have known, with the exception of the Estate Duty last year

1131
they have always been proposed precisely in the manner in which we propose to vote it this year. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fowler) wishes the old portion of the tax (10s.) to be in the ordinary form, but the 6d. over that 10s. is to be in the new form. It must be obvious that the right hon. Gentleman is forcing the doctrine of 1860 to a remarkable extent in considering in dealing with this particular tax we should be retaining the power and influence of the House of Commons over the general taxation of the country. The right hon. Gentleman did not argue it from the point of view of a particular application. He laid it down as a Constitutional duty that, having parted with a million and a half of Tea Duty, the House of Commons was to put its hand on a similar amount in order to be master of the fiscal position of the country. I think he will see that though a Constitutional it was an entirely fallacious argument. With regard to the financial effect of my proposals, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if there is one means more than another which would frustrate the expectations of the Government as to the amount to be realised from the tax it would be to treat it as an avowedly experimental tax. Surely the right hon. Gentleman has been long enough at the Treasury to know that if you want a tax to yield a smaller amount in a given year than it otherwise would yield you have only to hold out to the trade that it is highly likely to be reviewed again next year. We do not wish, even if we could, to deprive the House of Commons of any kind of control over this tax at all. It will be in the power of the House to vote against this tax next year. We cannot treat it as an experimental tax. Hon. Members, if they read the history of Parliament, will know that it is in the power of the House either to repeal or to diminish the tax. The whole point is that if you leave it to be supposed that a particular tax will be reviewed next year, you leave the whole trade in a state of anxiety and perturbation. Under these circumstances, I regret to say that the Government cannot accept the Amendment put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. We cannot admit his Constitutional arguments, and, as regards his financial arguments, we should be bringing about the very
1132
results which, from one point of view, he has deprecated, namely, that we should lessen the yield of the tax.
SIR W. HARCOURT: Sir, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should object to the proposal of my right hon. Friend. Why does he propose to make this tax for a year only? That need not disturb the equanimity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his friends. He will always get the Solicitor General and the Law Officers of the Crown to advise him that a tax for the year is only a tax for the year. Or, again, that if you grant a licence for a year, and a year only, that is a licence for ever, and it cannot be allowed to drop without full compensation. Moreover,, Sir Algernon West will go on collecting the tax as if it was a perpetual tax, because the doctrine of the Government is that to grant a licence for a single year—and why not a tax for a single year?—is a grant for ever. What Parliament says on the subject is immaterial. That is the view of the persons who administer the tax. The House of Commons may say the tax is. for one year, but the Inland Revenue will go on, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say, I am entitled to compensation, and that compensation will be the continuance of the tax for ever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will have the tax, no matter what limitation is placed on the tax by Parliament. If it is agreeable to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer need trouble himself about the Statutory limitations. With regard to this tax, we are not allowed to state the reason why we vote it. That is a great difficulty. It is a difficulty which was felt in the ancient Roman processions, where certain busts were more conspicuous in consequence of their absence. And the objections to the way in which this tax is to be appropriated are more conspicuous in consequence of the ruling by which we are not permitted even to. allude to them. But we cannot forget this duty is proposed for a particular purpose—a purpose of which I entirely disapprove, and which I shall oppose by every means in my power. The object for which this tax is imposed might be in itself an experiment. I will make the fictitious suggestion that a tax of this

1133
kind might be appropriated to some Local Body, who must use it for a particular purpose. For that reason I should think it would be highly desirable that the House should have an opportunity of considering whether it would perpetuate that tax. And when we talk of limiting the taxes, remember what has been done with reference to other questions, both by this House and the other House of Parliament. Remember that the House of Lords passed the Ballot Act only for a limited time in order to retain the right of review of the question at some future period. If it is conceivable that this tax is to be appropriated under any circumstances to some experimental purposes, it is highly proper that the tax should be made for a limited period and not for ever. The right hon. Gentleman has rejected the Constitutional argument. I do not see that it ought to be lightly rejected, because, after all, what is the theory of having an annual tax as well as taxes which are passed for ever? It is that the House shall compel the Government to give a certain amount of money every year over which the House of Commons keeps control. Why should you diminish that fund? If you are depleting it in one direction you should fill it up in another. The taxes which up to this time have been kept in our hands, for the purpose of maintaining the control of the House of Commons, are diminishing in proportion to the whole Revenue of the country. I cannot see on what possible ground this objection can be sustained to limiting this tax. Sir, I shall certainly vote for this Amendment on that ground, and upon the ground also that I entirely disapprove of the objects to which this tax is to be applied. Of course, we shall have an opportunity of voting on the amount of the tax. Those who approve of portions of the tax must vote for its diminution by an amount which would cover the part to which they object. Though we are precluded from discussing the objects to which the tax is to be applied, I, for one, shall take advantage of every opportunity of resisting a tax which I believe is to be devoted to purposes of which I disapprove.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out how hampered
1134
we are because the Government in this Bill have mixed up two things which ought to be separate, and I must say the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton is one which merits somewhat better and fuller treatment than it received at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To some extent I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So far as the Constitutional question is concerned, involving the power of the House of Lords, I think we need not trouble ourselves about it, because, although the House of Lords are obstructive in many matters they are hardly likely in the future to tax the country, or prevent a tax being taken off; but I think there is great force in the remark of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton that this House ought to have every year the opportunity of voting a very considerable amount of the public taxation, in order, if necessary, to curtail the expenditure for which the taxation is voted. Unless there is this annual opportunity the House will have very little means of discussing the taxation of the country, except on occasions when a considerable number of alterations are made, as is the case this year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this is an absurd Amendment, as it only proposes to make annual a small proportion of the whole taxation; but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he himself has made this small proportion a special tax. It is because he has put it on a special ground, and applied it to a certain special purpose, to which many of us on this side of the House strongly object, that we think it right and fair that that small proportion of the taxation of the country should be put on a special basis and made an annual tax. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the whole of the great trade affected and the Revenue derived from it would be disturbed by this small proportion of the taxation being voted annually has much foundation in fact. I doubt if this taxation will be permanent whatever it is applied to, although when the Chancellor of the Exchequer says there is nothing to prevent the subject being raised every year, and a decision being taken as to whether the tax should continue, I

1135
would reply that, as everybody knows, it is idle for a private Member to attempt to interfere with the taxation of the nation, except on the Budget Bill. Only once or twice in the whole history of this House has such an attempt been successful. Should a private Member raise a discussion on the subject of taxation before the Budget he would be told that it was premature to go into such matters, and the Government would decline debate, and should he wait until after the Budget he would be told: "Oh! you are too late, as the Government have decided upon their financial policy for the year." We object to the proposal to make this particular taxation permanent. I, for one, do not object to increased duties on spirits and beer, but I do object to the way in which the tax has been mixed up with a lot of other subjects. We object to the allocation of the tax, and we say that as it is thoroughly an experimental matter we are entitled to ask that, instead of its being made a permanent part of our fiscal system, and of our local finance, it should be voted annually, so as to give the House an opportunity of revising it, and—if it feels that this very wrong system of mixing up local and Imperial taxation should be put an end to—of abolishing it without having to introduce a special Bill.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Considering that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is probably the ablest Gentlemen who sits on the Conservative side, I am surprissd at the reply he has given. He said, "I admit your whole case." ["No, no."] Well, I am putting it in my own way. He said, "I admit your whole case; but you have a remedy, for next year you can bring in a Bill to repeal the section." This is his argument. "I admit you have this grievance; I admit we never intend to give Ireland Local Government, and that you will never have a chance of extinguishing public house licences in Ireland; but you will be able to revise this tax by bringing in a repeal clause." Is that the policy pursued by the Tory Party themselves? Why, when the Lease holders Clauses were going through Parliament they limited them to two years. They did not say:" We will give the leaseholders this right for ever, but if we find there is reason for it
1136
we will bring in a repeal clause next year." And when the Labourers' Act was going through the House of Lords why did they limit it to three years? Why did they put 10 years in the Ballot Bill? Why did they not rely upon repeal clauses? Because they wished to have a more effectual instrument, and yet the Government ask us to relinquish that instrument—the principal instrument of the Tory Party. That is. the way in which the House of Lords endeavours to bring reactionary pressure to bear upon the House of Commons. It arranges to bring these matters under discussion mechanically, by the procession of the equinoxes and annual meetings of Parliament. That is the Tory plan. It was you who invented it. You are the patentee of it—the right hon. Gentleman opposite is the successor in title to the patent rights of it, and yet, what does he offer us? Not the benefit of his own patent, but he says "You must take the initiative." We may do that—we may propose a repealing clause, and in will walk the First Lord of the Treasury to move the Closure—by the way, I am glad the right hon. Gentlemen is absent for a moment, for we can feel safe and know that we can speak a sentence without the Closure. To tell us that we can bring in a repealing clause next year is unworthy of the genius of the right hon. Gentleman, and the fact of his using such an argument shows that he has no argument whatever to bring forward. Let us have an answer to our case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us none. The way to deal with our case is not to say "I admit all you say, but you have your repealing clause." Will the Government give us some guarantee that this money will be expended in Ireland in the same way that it is to be expended in England and Scotland? We know how-it is to be spent in England and Scotland and can talk about it, but so far as Ireland is concerned, a padlock is to be put on a considerable portion of it. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a statement on the subject? He is now by himself on the Treasury Bench, uncontrolled by any other Members of the Cabinet, and now, as a Liberal Unionist, he can express his mind on the question of Local Government for Ireland without Conservative discount. We would accept

1137
a statement from him conveying the ordinary information that Englishmen and Scotchmen expect to get when a proposal as important as this is before the House.
MR. DILLON: It would be difficult to exaggerate the inconvenience of the proposal the Government are making in asking the Committee to pass this tax. In 1888, when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was making his proposal to relieve the county rates at the cost of the Imperial Exchequer, he said—
"I ought to add that I propose to introduce the horse tax and the wheel tax in a separate Bill, because they do not really affect the Imperial Budget at all."
That is the course which commended itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1888, and I venture to submit to the Committee that it is the course he ought to adopt on the present occasion. We are asked to grant an increase of 6d. in the Customs Duty on spirits, and, personally, as an Irish Member I should have no objection to the tax if the money were required for a good purpose. I should not care if the duty on foreign spirits were increased 6s. or 7s., but I object to the clause which would increase the tax on home spirits, and I think it a most extraordinary thing to make the Committee vote a tax in an Imperial Budget which is not to be used for Imperial purposes.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment before the Committee is an Amendment limiting the tax for one year, and the observations of the hon. Member are hardly germane to that or to the subject of the clause.
MR. DILLON: I will postpone my observations until the other clause is before the Committee.
MR. CONYBEARE: It is immaterial to me, as representing a constituency in this House, whether the tax on spirits is (id., 6s., or £6, but I do strongly object to the proposal of the Government, on certain grounds, and, therefore, I heartily support the Amendment. In my opinion all taxation ought to be limited to one year—that is to say, we should not be put to the necessity of bringing in repeal clauses, but power should always be reserved to the representatives of the people to continue the taxes, which is a more simple and
1138
easy process. The Income Tax was originally a temporary expedient, but it has been continued for so many years that now it has come to be regarded altogether as a permanent form of taxation. It has been impossible to get rid of the tax, despite this power of moving repeal clauses, and this shows how ridiculous it is to suppose that if this extra 6d. on spirits is once granted it will ever be got rid of. But on broad Constitutional grounds we have a right to oppose this proposal on account of the way in which it is put before us. Our tongues are tied as to the object to which it is intended to devote the tax, although everybody knows what that object is. The manner in which the question is submitted to the House is as specimen of political dodgery which I hope we may never be doomed to witness in this House again. There was nothing said in the Bill we passed last night as to the form of this taxation. There is nothing whatever said in this Bill as to the licences, and it is very well understood that a portion, at any rate, of the taxation with which we are now dealing is intended to be applied in extinction of licences. This crooked method of dealing with the taxation of the country is, I may say, characteristic of the crooked behaviour of the Government in everything they have undertaken. The Government insist on making this a permanent tax. They seem to consider that they have a permanent tenure of that Bench. I think that the result of the elections which will shortly take place, will disabuse them of that idea, and that their successors in Office will rapidly put. an end to whatever element of permanence there may be in taxation of this kind. We have heard of consumptive patients being endowed with a longing for, and a belief in, the extension of life, and the consumptive occupants of the Treasury Bench seem to be possessed of a similar insane hope that their lives may be indefinitely prolonged. I support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, because it seems to me to be the best expedient we can adopt for staving off what we regard as a grave evil. I object to the proposal of the Government on another ground. As they are going to impose this taxation on the people of Ireland without granting

1139
them that redress in the form of local institutions which they have every right to demand, and which we hope ere long to be able to grant them, it is all humbug for us to talk about "freely and voluntarily" resolving to give these supplies. If they are given at all, they are wrung from us. I see, Mr. Courtney, you are shaking your head, and, as I do not wish to put you to the trouble of rising, I will postpone the further observations I have to make on this portion of the subject until we come to discuss the Preamble. As there will be other opportunities of expressing ourselves on this political scheme of ducks and drakes, which is so characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will only say, in the words of the Anti-Jacobin's Friend of Humanity to the needy knife grinder: "I give thee sixpence? No, I'll see thee damned first."
MR. LABOCOHERE: My right hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) asks that this tax should only be imposed for one year. If his proposition be rejected, and the tax be imposed by Act of Parliament, we, as the guardians of the public purse, entirely part with our right to say when it is to cease. An Act of Parliament must receive the assent of the House of Lords. At the next General Election, every man in England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, may be opposed to this tax, with the exception of 600 hereditary legislators; there may be a majority in this House against the tax, and yet it will continue unless the House of Lords agrees to its discontinuance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says there is already a tax of 10s. per gallon on whisky, and that he is only applying 'to the extra 6d. the system which is adopted in regard to the 10s. I am only sorry that that system has been applied to the 10s.; but, if we have not taken care of the pounds, there is no reason why we should not take care of the pence. The question is, "Are we to part with the control of this tax, or not?" I say our duty to our constituents obliges us to decline to part with it, and I hope we shall this evening establish a precedent for annual taxes being only imposed annually.
MR. T. M. HEALY: If the Government will not give us a reply—
*MR. GOSCHEN: I have no wish to be discourteous to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I could not enter into the hon. Member's arguments without transgressing the ruling of the Chair. The hon. and learned Member will have further opportunities of discussing the application of this measure to Ireland. MR. T. M. HEALY: When?
*MR. GOSCHEN: When we come to the other Bill.
MR. T. M. HEALY: It is not in the other Bill. There is no provision whatever in regard to Irish licences in the other Bill.
*MR. GOSCHEN: But Irish licences are not the only things in point. There are other provisions respecting Ireland in the other Bill. The Government will consider the suggestion, with every desire to accept it, that Corporations in Ireland should deal with licences in the same manner as Local Authorities deal with them in England.
MR. CHILDERS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not quite correctly stated what was proposed as to the increase of the duties in 1885. In the case of the Beer Duty, an appeal was made to me only to enact the increase for one year, and I complied with that request. I do hope that, after the strong appeal which has been made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and other Members, the Government will allow this provision to be only for one year. That will be very much more in accordance with precedent than the proposal of the Government.
MR. PARNELL: I think that the attitude of the Government, having regard to the history of this question, is a particularly mean one. I exempt the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) personally from this censure, but I do not exempt several of his leading Colleagues, and especially not the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour). In 1885 the leading Ministers canvassed us personally for our votes in the Lobbies of this House on a question precisely similar to this. It was a proposal by the then Liberal Government to increase the Spirit Duties, and we were canvassed for our votes against that Government on the ground that this was an unjust proposal to Ireland. Now that the present Government have got into Office, as a

1141
consequence of our assistance, they propose to inflict precisely the same injustice. There is a well recognised custom that one Government is bound by the acts of its predecessors; but it seems to be true that no obligation of honour is incumbent upon an English Government in its dealings with Ireland and in its conversations with Irish Members. We are told that some day or other this money will be handed over to the Irish Local Boards, which are to be established, I suppose, when pigs begin to fly. I have been hearing of the imminence of the establishment of the Irish Local Government for the last 15 years, and it has not come any nearer. I do not believe—although it may seem like a bull—that it is as near to-day, as far as the action of the House goes, as it was 15 years ago. I do not believe an Imperial Government is ever destined to pass a Local Government Bill for Ireland. You came into Office in 1885 upon the leading cry of the establishment of Irish Local Government, and after more than three years of Office the subject is still relegated to the dim and distant future. What guarantee have we got that just as the pledged word of leading Cabinet Ministers, given to us in 1885, that the increase of the Spirit Duty in Ireland was an injustice, has been broken to-day, the word of the -right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the time comes for the redemption of his promise to the House, will not be broken by his successor? We have no guarantee, and it would be absurd for us to rely on the lasting character and binding force of any statements made by any English Minister with regard to Irish Members beyond the day after tomorrow.
*MR. GOSCHEN: To what promise does the hon. Member allude?
MR. PARNELL: I allude to the declaration which a Cabinet Minister—a gentleman who now sits beside the right hon. Gentleman—made to us in 1885, as a consideration for our votes, that the increase of the Spirit Duty was a gross injustice to Ireland. The same right hon. Gentleman is now going to support this injustice to Ireland. This money is going to be passed to what is called an account. There are many purposes in Ireland to which this money might be devoted, purposes of great
1142
utility, and for the benefit of the people, purposes which would not excite any controversy in the House. The amount paid per head by the Irish people vastly exceeds the amount paid per head by Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen; and we, the poor country, are not to be allowed to have the immediate benefit of the taxation. We are told it will be given to us some time or other, when Local Government Boards are established in Ireland. The imposition of extra taxation on whisky or spirits in Ireland is a fraud upon the tax-paying portion of the community. The plea that it is going to promote temperance is absurd. I am convinced that one of the great causes of drunkenness in Ireland, leading to crime and disaster in that country, is the excessive tax upon alcohol. The necessity arises, as a conssquence of its high price, to dilute it with foreign spirit of a most pernicious and maddening character.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order! I must point out to the hon. Member that the question now before the Committee is the limitation of the taxation to one year. The hon. Member's observations are directed against the clause as a whole.
MR. PARNELL: I understand perfectly that I have probably exceeded the limits of proper criticism upon this particular Amendment, and I will not continue that line of argument, though I am sure you will pardon me if I point out that, after all, the matter is a question of degree. I will only add that I think we have established a strong claim for the consideration of this Amendment, and that when the time comes to discuss Amendments following this one, more immediately applying to Ireland, I hope we shall have some more satisfactory declaration from Her Majesty's Government than we have had up to the present.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Gentleman has made certain observations that did not strike me as being particularly relevant, but directed personally against myself. He said a Cabinet Minister—
MR. PARNELL: I did not allude to the right hon. Gentleman as being that Cabinet Minister. I alluded to the right hon. Gentleman as being one of those who took part in the combination with us to throw out the Government.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order! It is very irregular to enter into this discussion.
MR. T. M. HBALY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I admit with considerable courtesy, answered one point I made as to the allocation of the money, but ho has not dealt with another. As I understand your ruling, Sir, we were debarred from discussing the allocation of this money on the last Amendment on the ground that the matter is dealt with in a separate Bill. I understand that ruling as regards England and Scotland; but, as regards Ireland, I submit the ruling cannot apply, because Ireland is not within the licensing scope of the Bill. The Government say that if we allow the Bill to pass they will not allocate the money as regards so much as can be spent by the 11 great Corporations—Dublin, Belfast, Limerick, Galway, Wexford, Cork, Waterford, Derry, and others. Are you going to divide the money into two chests, a chest for the towns and a chest for the country? We must press on the Government the reasonableness of the suggestion which I made to them yesterday in all good faith. This Budget Bill is non-contentious, except so far as the Whisky Duty is concerned; and I suggest that you should take out of this Bill the foreign and exotic clauses, and put them in the Probate Duty Bill, which we can discuss. I trust the Government will relieve us from the extraordinary embarrassment in which we now find ourselves. We are told that, as regards particular Corporations in Ireland, the money is not to be allocated. How soon is the money to be unlocked with regard to the country? When are our people to get the benefit of the money? I urge the Government, who are so anxious about Constitutional ways, about following the ways of our forefathers and our grandmothers, to relieve us of the embarrassment by cutting the four clauses in question out of this Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Let me remind the Committee that machinery does not exist in Ireland for administering the money in the same way as in England. There are only three possible alternatives open to us. We may say that the money is not to accumulate, and that Ireland is not to have it at all. We may say that it shall accumulate until County Councils are established in Ire-
1144
land. Or we may say that the money shall be spent by the existing authorities. Through the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Government have expressed their readiness, if hon. Members opposite press for it, to take advantage of the existing machinery in Ireland, so far as the Municipalities are concerned. Do hon. Gentlemen wish us to go further, and to hand over the money to the Grand Juries or to the Poor Law Authorities?
THE CHAIRMAN: I had better point out how the matter stands as a point of order. In this Bill there is a section for the imposition of a tax. There is a subsequent clause which divides the proceeds of the tax between England, Scotland, and Ireland in certain proportions. In another Bill provisions are made for the distribution and application of the money so divided. On this Bill it is competent to discuss the propriety of the imposition of the tax, and the equity of the division of the tax between England, Scotland, and Ireland. On the other Bill it is competent to discuss the particular purposes and objects to which the money so distributed is to be applied. And I would point out to hon. Members that if the clauses of this Bill were transferred to the other Bill, so as to make one Bill, it would be improper, on the clauses now under discussion, to anticipate what would be the result of the clauses subsequently to be discussed, namely, the clauses relating to special objects to which ultimately the money is to be applied.
MR. DILLON: After the Chairman's ruling, I ask the Government whether it would not be better to withdraw these clauses from the Budget Bill Is it not competent for the House, when called upon to vote a tax, to debate the propriety of voting the tax at all? How is it possible to discuss the advisability of raising an additional tax if hon. Members are debarred from considering how the tax is to be spent? The uncertainty of the proper administration of the tax is one of the main considerations connected with it. The Government will prevent a great waste of time by withdrawing the clauses from the Budget Bill, as the ruling of the Chairman has clearly recommended.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Chairman's ruling emphasises the posi-

1145
tion we have taken up. Our condition is being reduced to one of practical absurdity. The Government wish to pass their Budget Bill, and if they withdraw from it these clauses they can get the Bill passed into law before the Whitsuntide Recess. But if they persist in bringing into one Bill what belongs to another there will be found means, notwithstanding, by which the House will be able to ascertain the object of this imposition.
MR. GOSCHEN: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not notice that portion of the Chairman's ruling which stated that even if these clauses had been transferred to the other Bill it would have been impossible on these clauses to debate the purposes to which the money was to be devoted. Nothing is more plain, from the ruling which has been given, than that the same difficulty would have arisen even had the clauses been included in the other Bill. The prospect held out to us is conveyed in a threat that, unless we fall in with the suggestion which we have three or four times refused, we shall not get the Bill passed before Whitsuntide. We have expressed our opinion, but the right hon. Gentleman returns to the charge. We do not see our. way to change our proposals, and when the right hon. Gentleman reminds me of what happened two years ago, I would point out this further distinction, that this additional 6d. belongs to the tax upon spirits as a whole, it is essentially a Customs and Inland Revenue Tax, it naturally takes its place in this Bill, and falls within the Customs and Inland Revenue regulations for administrative purposes, it is altogether different from the Horse Tax.
MR. T. M. HEALY: What the right hon. Gentleman the. Member for Wolverhampton said had reference to the effect of your ruling, Sir. If these clauses were transferred to a separate Bill, then long before we reached them the whole question would be discussed, the principle decided, and the clauses would be readily disposed of. This is really a matter of public convenience upon which the First Lord is not usually unreasonable. If he takes the course we suggest, it is obvious that when the clauses are reached in another Bill, the whole financial question will, have been
1146
discussed, and to raise the discussion again would be flogging a dead horse. As it is now, we are naturally bubbling over with indignation which cannot find rent in discussion. We can only ramble round the subject, and such is the imperfect character of the human mind, we are tempted to hit a head wherever we see it. We object to have excluded from our consideration the object of this money, whereas if we could discuss and settle that the rest follows as mere matter of detail. Having conceded so-much we may well ask the Government to go a little farther. A week ago they agreed to the reasonable suggestion to postpone the clauses until after the Second Reading of the other Bill; what difficulty is there now in postponing them until the Committee stage is passed? It will not relax the grasp of the Government on the principle of the Bill; no one will regard this concession as a victory for the Temperance Party. We are anxious to treat the matter regularly. I trust the Government will see their way to accept the suggestion put forward in no desire to hinder or embarrass them, but simply because of the intolerable position in which we find ourselves, which is both novel and inconvenient. There is a branch of the embarrassment of our position in the remarks of the Chief Secretary. He puts to us alternatives, that we shall give this money to the existing Borough Authorities, and let the amount for the County Authorities be suspended, or that it should be handed to existing authorities, Poor Law Guardians and Grand Juries. Well, of course, he was not serious in suggesting that we should accept the Grand Juries. Take the Grand Jury for the County of Dublin, and contrast it with the Corporation in the City of Dublin, which a Committee sitting upstairs commends for its moderation and efficiency. Would it be tolerable that simply crossing the bridge we should pass from the jurisdiction of the Corporation to that of the Conservative gentlemen who represent the County Grand Jury? Before we can address ourselves to the suggestion as to Boards of Guardians, we roust have a little time for consideration. The Government are putting the cart before the horse; first, they are asking us to vote the money, and then they are going

1147
to say who it shall be voted to. It is a friendly and non-partisan suggestion that the Government should first decide upon the body to whom this fund should be entrusted, and then equip them with the financial means for discharging the duty imposed upon them. Unyoke this financial horse from its present unnatural position, and let your team proceed in proper Parliamentary fashion. We shall then get through this Committee this evening. Those who pay the piper should call the tune, but you call upon us to vote the money not having a voice in its disposal. Have the Government no plan in regard to Ireland? We do not know whether they look to Boards of Guardians or Grand Juries as the authorities.
*MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite mistaken; the plan of the Government is perfectly definite, and if it is to be modified, it is in deference to the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
MR. T. M. HEALY: But we have expressed no opinion, we have no opportunity to open our mouths. I have carefully guarded myself from expressing any opinion except as against Grand Juries. And yet, we have the right hon. Gentleman saying that, owing to an accident, he is unable to put before us the scheme of the Government Bill. Now, he says it is modified in deference to our opinion. You have had long experience, Sir, as Chairman; but I am sure you have never known such a "kettle of fish" as this. I appeal to the First Lord, who is always so anxious for the business of the House and the interest of the country, to get up and say he will accept this reasonable and business-like suggestion.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I answer the appeal by reminding the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that last week an appeal was made to the Government to postpone these clauses until the Second Reading of the other Bill. We thought that the appeal was a reasonable one, and we conceded it. At the time, however, I expressed the view that by conceding it there was an implied understanding that no obstruction should be placed in the way of the Bill. The right hon. Member
1148
for Mid Lothian said that so far as he was concerned he would be no party to what might properly be called obstruction. Well, I do not know how that phrase might be interpreted; but, for myself, I hold it to be an engagement on the part of hon. Members opposite when they asked for the postponement of these clauses that they should afterwards be considered as part of the financial proposals of the Government, when a particular period had been reached. We have reached the appointed period; the decision of the House has been given upon the other Bill. These clauses cannot now be treated in the way proposed without serious inconvenience. Taxes are being levied, and legislative sanction must be obtained. The principle of the proposals of the Government having been affirmed, we must now ask the House to pass the clauses as they stand.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I must distinctly disclaim the existence of any such implied understanding as the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to. The right hon. Member for Newcastle clearly stated that no such understanding would be given. After the Government had agreed to postpone the clauses he intimated that they would be resisted by all means in their power, and I urged the Government to transfer them to another Bill. I remember perfectly the phrase I used. I said, if you do not "the wheels of your Budget Bill will drag heavily." Not only was no such understanding accepted, but it was distinctly repudiated, and I gave distinct warning against keeping these clauses in the Budget Bill.
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I spoke of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian.
SIR W. HARCOURT: My right hon. Friend spoke before and not after the circumstances to which I have alluded, because it was in answer to what the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord said at the end of the evening, which was a distinct invitation to us to give a pledge. No such invitation was extended to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian, who said no more than he would not offer unreasonable opposition to these clauses. Well, the question is whether this opposition is reasonable or not. In my opinion the

1149
opposition offered is perfectly reasonable. What is the course the Government are taking? In his Budget speech the right hon. Gentleman spoke of this tax as a separate and distinct local Budget. He severed the one from the other, and the natural consequence is that there should be a separate Bill dealing with local as distinguished from Imperial taxation. The right hon. Gentleman has himself set an example by the manner in which, two years ago, he dealt with a local taxation proposal. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable that we should ask the observance of this principle. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord says the principle was decided last night. What principle? Questions are raised that had no decision last night. The Irish Members have raised, or wish to raise, questions which could not have been raised on the Second Reading, and which have not been settled by that Division. We are asked to vote something like £1,500,000, without being allowed to open our mouths as to the manner in which the money is to be applied. The House of Commons would be unworthy of all its predecessors if it allowed itself to be forced into such a position. The House of Commons has never allowed itself to be so fettered. You may talk of obstruction if you like, but depend upon it people inside and outside will thoroughly understand the grounds we take. We take our stand on this—that the Government are engineering their Bill so as to prevent the objects of the tax from being discussed—engineering it cleverly, ingeniously, and cunningly, and gagging those who wish to discuss the Bill. While they are trying to smuggle this Bill through, they put the muzzle on every man who desires to discuss the tax. We shall resist the Government to the best of our ability. That is a plain and distinct issue. You may denounce us for obstruction if you like; you are perfectly welcome, but if we can help it. the Government shall not get £1,500,000 while they are manœuvring to prevent the tax being discussed. You may use the Closure if you like. Yes, use it to take the taxpayers' money. If that does not condemn you and the Closure, I do not know what will. I invite you to put the Closure on this tax; it will be the first time it has been used for such a
1150
purpose, and I am perfectly willing to take the judgment of the country on the proceeding. Our course is perfectly clear. We shall either discuss this tax or oppose it. If we hear from the Chair that we cannot discuss it, then we must use every means to prevent it passing into law.
MR. GOSCHEN: Allusion has been made to what happened when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), who is not now in his place, unfortunately appealed to us to postpone these clauses until after the decision of the House on the Second Reading of the Local Taxation Bill. The spirit of the arrangement made with the Member for Mid Lothian was, that if we postponed these clauses till after the other Bill had been read a second time, then the clauses would be proceeded with. ["No, no."] I am not talking of Gentlemen below the Gangway, but of the Colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, who I should suppose would be bound by the spirit of that engagement. If it had been on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian that, after the passing of the Second Reading of the other Bill, he would oppose the discus-sion of these clauses, he would have told us so in advance. In the first place, having postponed the clauses until the decision or principle has been given by the House, now you ask us to transfer these clauses to another Bill.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I said so at the time.
*MR. GOSCHEN: Not then, but after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian had left the House. I remember perfectly well the remarks made by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Derby and Newcastle when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was no longer in his place. I admit that an uncomfortable feeling was awakened by the language used, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would have been more candid if he had intended, after we had made our concession, to prevent discussion upon these clauses.
SIR W. HARCOURT: All we ask is to discuss them.
*MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot see how that is, when we are asked to withdraw them. We are trying in this matter to

1151
carry out our engagements, into which we were led by the Member for Mid Lothian, who induced us to withdraw the clauses at the time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby says the House is for the first time asked to vote taxes without knowing to what purpose they are to be applied. But two years ago, in a Bill which handed over a portion of the Probate Duties, we had a precedent for what is now being done.
MR. T. M. HEALY: But you propose a new tax.
*MR. GOSCHRN: That does not touch the principle. The principle is the application of money raised by the Budget Bill to purposes which are not mentioned in the Budget Bill. That is the principle on which we are proceeding, and the precedent I have mentioned shows that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) is wrong in saying that there is any Constitutional innovation in our present proceeding. I hope, looking at what has occurred, the Committee will not take the extreme course to which the right hon. Gentleman invites hon. Members. I think we have carried out our part of the bargain. It is said a gag has been applied, but, at all events, it has not been very effective, for one way and another there has been a considerable amount of discussion. The object in view in the postponement of the clauses was that we might settle in the first instance whether the proposal is a reasonable one. The principle has been accepted, and now I hope it may proceed in the manner we were encouraged to do after the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. PARNELL: Whatever force there might have been in the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that hopes were held out from the Front Opposition Bench that these clauses would be proceeded with after the Second Reading of the other Bill, that force has been entirely destroyed by the declaration which the right hon. Gentleman and the Chief Secretary have made to-day with regard to the application of a part of this money to Irish purposes. What was our position with regard to these Resolutions? Up to the date of these declarations we have been forbidden to discuss these Resolutions with regard to their application to Ireland at all, either
1152
on the present Bill or on the previous Bill, the Second Reading of which was passed last night. As a matter of fact, no Irish Member spoke in the discussion of last night; we should have been most properly and justly ruled out of order if we had introduced Irish grievances in the discussion of last night, because the Bill did not relate to Ireland so far as this particular branch of the subject is concerned, namely, the granting of this money to the Local Authority to be hereafter established for the purpose of buying out certain publicans. To-day the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Colleague the Chief Secretary have said they will endeavour to devise some plan by which the money reserved hereafter for Ireland may be immediately spent. Now, again, we are in the same predicament; we cannot discuss the question of the application of this money for Irish purposes on these clauses; neither can we discuss it upon the other Bill, as there will be nothing in it when it comes on. Surely common sense should suggest to the Government the proper course to pursue in view of their own declaration's.
*MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry to interrupt the … hon. Member, but he is entirely mistaken. From the beginning the Government have said that the plan embodied [in the Bill, which does refer to Ireland, was that the money should accumulate until it could be handed over to Local Authorities.
MR. T. M. HEALY: When and where was that said?
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
*MR A. J. BALFOUR: An appeal was made to the Government to modify that plan in favour of existing Municipal Authorities, and, in order to meet what the Chancellor of the Exchequer believed was the wish of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the right hon. Gentleman said he would consider that appeal in a favourable spirit.
MR. PARNELL: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must see that, having made that proposal, not out of regard for our desires, but out of regard for the wishes and feelings of the Orange publicans of Belfast—
*MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Entirely in deference to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
MR. PARNELL: The right hon. Gentleman must surely see it is abso-

1153
lutely necessary that, before we go on with the discussion on the allocation of this money under the present clauses, we should know what is to be done with the money, and we should see the clauses of the Government.
*MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We do not need any new clauses. You show us your proposals.
MR. PARNELL: That is a fresh proposition altogether. If I were in the enjoyment of a salary of £4,500 a year as an Irish Minister there might be some reason for such an appeal as has been addressed to me; but it is rather too much for the right hon. Gentleman to put upon me, as a private Member of the House, the onus of preparing a plan for the Government, in order to extricate the Government from the difficulty they have brought upon themselves. We are in this position: The right hon. Gentleman tells us he desires to meet the feeling of the Committee that Ireland should be placed in the same position as England so far as he reasonably can; and then the right hon. Gentleman asks me to prepare a plan. It is the duty of the Government to submit a plan, to reduce it to clauses, and to place it upon the Notice Paper along with the other Amendments. When the House of Commons is in possession of this information we may reasonably be called upon to proceed with the discussion of the clauses now under consideration. Until this has been done I submit that common sense, expediency, economy of public time, and Constitutional practice demand the withdrawal of the clauses.
SIR W. HARCOURT: As a matter of personal explanation, I desire to meet the charge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in the absence of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, I have gone contrary to the speech of that right hon. Gentleman in the former Debate, and have broken the pledge that he gave. I should like to read what happened from the Official Report. I said in Committee on Thursday, the 8th instant, that I was glad to hear so conciliatory a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who—
"Would best facilitate the passing of the Bill if he withdrew from it the Compensation Clauses and put them in the other Bill, to which they properly belonged. The reason for putting all the taxes into one Bill only applied to taxation for Imperial needs."
1154
I added—
"In this instance you are raising a tax for local purposes, and surely the more logical and sensible course is to raise your tax in the Bill which appropriates it. If you do that you will get your Budget Bill through without delay, because it will not be tied up with the compensation controversy."
I was followed by the First Lord of the Treasury, who said he would be very glad to meet the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, but the Government must adhere to the plan they had adopted. He added, however, that they were prepared to postpone the consideration of the clauses until after the Second Reading of the Bill which appropriated the money, and he hoped that proposal would recommend itself, because after the question had been fully discussed on the Second Reading hon. Members could not wish to raise the same discussion immediately afterwards. Here is the answer of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian—
"I am totally at a loss to understand why these clauses should be included in the Tax Bill. I cannot understand why they should not be included in a separate Bill. Still, I thankfully accept the postponement of the clauses. I certainly shall be no party to any merely obstructive dealing in any stage of business. The separation of the clauses would, I think, be the best solution."
Then, at the end of the evening, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh quoted what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in 1888, when he proposed "to introduce the Horse Tax and Wheel Tax in a separate Bill, as they did not affect the Imperial Budget at all," and suggested the adoption of a similar course now. Thereupon the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that to follow the course suggested would necessitate the moving of a fresh Resolution, a First and Second Reading, and a Committee, and wishing to do business as shortly as possible, the Government thought they were pursuing the best course. Thereupon I said—
"If the Government take the course which my right hon. Friend suggests they may pass their Budget Bill to-morrow. On the other hand, if these matters of compensation, which are hotly contested, are introduced, the Government cannot complain if the wheels drag heavily. It is impossible, if they keep the postponed clauses in the Bill, to avoid delay, because the proposals are regarded with great anxiety in the country, and must necessarily lead to prolonged discussion."

1155
I venture to say that this is entirely in accordance with what the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian said earlier in the evening. That, at any rate, is my opinion. I cannot see any inconsistency between the course I have taken and that laid down by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. Is it fair to state, is there any foundation for stating, that the Government had no distinct notice that if these clauses remained in the Bill they would be discussed at full length, and that it would lead to delay, because these proposals are regarded with anxiety in the country. I should be extremely sorry to believe that I lay justly under the imputation of having misled either the Government or the country. I again urge the Government to remove these clauses in another Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must once more point out to the Committee that the Amendment before it is the limitation of the tax to one year.
Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Debate resumed.
*MR. W. JOHNSTON: I only wish to say I object to the manner in which the hon. Member for Cork has spoken of the"Orange publicans."Two-thirds of the publicans of Belfast are Roman Catholics. Rev. P.Convery swore, before the Sunday Closing Committee, that the trade of a publican was the only one in Belfast open to Roman Catholics.
MR. PARNELL: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I did use the words improperly; but I corrected myself, perhaps not audibly enough, by substituting the Orange Corporation of Belfast.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Would it be in order, if the Amendment were withdrawn, to move again the postponement of the clauses?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how they could be postponed again. They are the only clauses now remaining.
MR. T. M. HEALY: There is another clause to be proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE CHAIRMAN: No doubt in that case the clauses might be postponed until after the consideration of the new clause.
MR. STOREY: I should like to take the ruling of the Chair on a point of order. On Thursday last the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, referring to what I had said, remarked—
"the contention of my hon. Friend is that the House ought to be allowed to sift, and discuss, and consider the purposes of a tax before they voted."
What I want to know, on the point of order, is, whether we are now to understand, after the Second Reading of the other Bill, that we are in exactly the same position as on Thursday. Are we bound to vote this tax without being able, in the words of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, to sift, and discuss, and consider the purposes of the tax?
THE CHAIRMAN: In the meanwhile there has been a discussion on the Motion for Second Reading. I am not responsible for the limited form which that discussion took, but in that discussion these subjects could have been discussed. I am bound to point out what seems to be imperfectly appreciated, that if these clauses were transferred to the other Bill the discussion would be of the same character. There would be a discussion on one clause on the imposition of the tax, another on the clause for the distribution of the tax between England, Scotland, and Ireland, and a third on the manner in which the tax is to be allocated to the Local Authorities.
SIR W. HARCOURT: Would it not be in order to move the further postponement of these clauses until Committee on the other Bill. If the House were satisfied, in that Committee, with the arrangement for dealing with these taxes, they might be willing then to vote this tax. This would be the wiser course to take.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the clauses could be postponed; but, of course, it would be competent to move to report Progress, and for the House afterwards to decline to resume consideration of the clauses until a future time.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: If these clauses were transferred to the other Bill, would they not be in the nature of new clauses, and consequently have to be postponed until after the other clauses?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is so.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again, and I do so on these grounds: that for the first time we have to-day boon informed by the Government as to what their intentions are in regard to Ireland. Yesterday we were unable to discuss the case as it affected Ireland. I assert, without fear of contradiction, that if any Irishman had attempted to discuss the question of the extinction of licences by means of money to be raised under this Bill he would have been ruled out of order.
*MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; the only question which would not have been relevant was that of the non-granting of new licences.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I entirely dispute that proposition. Hon. Members opposite may interrupt me by—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order! order! The hon. Member will address himself to the Chair. He will be protected from improper interruption.
MR. T. M. HEALY: We now hear for the first time that the money is to be handed over to the Corporations. What Corporations? Those of Derry and Belfast, on which there is such a high franchise as to exclude all Catholics, and yet the trade is mainly in the hands of Catholics. If it is good to extinguish licences in Ireland we must know who is going to do it. The right hon. Gentleman said a moment or two ago that an appeal was made to him for this concession from these Benches. I reply that no appeal was made by us to the right hon. Gentleman. We asked a question. I know that a bargain has been struck with Sam Black, the Orange Town Clerk of Belfast—
*MR. W. JOHNSTON: He is not an Orangeman at all.
MR. T. M. HEALY: As the hon. Gentleman thinks that the word Orangeman conveys an offensive imputation I will withdraw it. We know that the bargain has been struck with Mr. Sam Black, and that he came over here from Belfast at the behest of the Corporation, and was introduced by the Member for Mid Armagh to the Government; and I challenge the Government to answer this, whether they, behind the backs of 86 Irish Members—they, the heroes of the Spirit Resolution of 1885, who ejected the Liberal Government because of the
1158
Whisky Tax—whether they have not made a compact to deal with this extra 6d. behind the backs of the Irish Members with Sam Black and the Member for Mid Armagh? The right hon. Gentleman says that an appeal was made to him. What fools we should be to appeal to him! What appeal of ours was ever heeded by the right hon. Gentleman? We should as soon think of appealing to the stones in Westminster Hall. The right hon. Gentleman says there has been an appeal made to him, and that he will give the Corporations these powers. I should like to know what Corporations these are, under what franchise they are elected, and by what means this franchise is to be exercised? The 86 Irish Representatives are asked to vote for a tax on the principal commodity produced in Belfast and Dublin without knowing in the least degree by what legerdemain the money is to be spent. We do not know whether Sam Black is to have it, or who is going to have it; and, under these circumstances, the only thing I am able to discuss is the Motion to report Progress. I certainly think no Motion to report Progress was ever made with more justification. Ireland has been treated with chicane in this business. The Irish Representatives have been deceived, and kept absolutely in a state of ignorance as to what is the intention of the Government, and now the Irish Secretary said, "Oh, if you want a Bill you must draw it up yourselves." I do not get £4,500 a year and coals. The other day I drafted a Bill to supplement the laches of the Government—a Bill to suspend the issue of new licences in Ireland, and last night the Chief Secretary told me I had done a needless thing; that I had done a work of supererogation. Yet now he complains that my hon. Friend the Member for Cork has not done a similar thing! I feel unable to address myself to this question, and respectfully move to report Progress
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has made the conduct of the Irish Government the excuse for his very extraordinary Motion, and as on this rather slender

1159
foundation he has raised a vast superstructure of accusation, it would perhaps be as well for me to make the position of the Government clear. The hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in every particular statement of fact which he has made to the House.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Even in the statement that I introduced a Bill?
*MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There was that one exception, truly. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated; in the first place, that Ireland was not included in the Bill read a second time yesterday. For every purpose connected with the Bill under discussion Ireland was included. The sub-section reads—
"That the sum of £40,000 shall he assigned to Ireland for the extinction of licences as may be hereafter provided by any Act relating to Local Government in Ireland."
MR. PARNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the corresponding-English section?
*MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is sufficient to say that my assertion directly traverses the assertion of the hon. Member. The second contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman was even more extraordinary. He imagined that in consequence of some mysterious compact with the hon. Member for Mid Armagh and a certain Mr. Samuel Black who, I understand from his speech, is the Town Clerk of Belfast, the Government base the concession which has been made to the appeals from the Irish Benches. Twice the hon. and learned Member for Longford has asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will not give the management of the money to Municipal Authorities where they already exist. The Government, though they prefer their Bill as it is, have declared that, for the sake of peace and quietness, they will not object to such a proposal if it were pressed. Now, it seems that this proposal, which was accepted for the sake of peace, is to be turned into an instrument of obstruction by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The statement that this concession has anything to do with a compact, direct or indirect, implied or expressed, with the hon. Member for Armagh or the Town Clerk of Belfast is entirely and totally without a shadow of foundation.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it too.
*MR. GOSCHEN: I never heard before of the existence of such a person as Mr. Samuel Black.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Did Sir James Corry see him?
DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid): Under the Black flag.
*MR. A J. BALFOUR: There has been no compact whatever. The position of the Government is perfectly clear. The Government are now asked to draft new clauses, but we think the Bill best as it stands. If hon. Members choose to put down clauses embodying their views, the Government will, as they always do, give them their best consideration. I have shown that there is no foundation for the accusations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I trust, therefore, that the Motion will be withdrawn.
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I feel it my duty to support the Motion that Progress be reported, because that is the only method known to the House and is certainly the most convenient method by which the clauses might be transferred from the present Bill. The matter is one of very great importance, and though I frankly own I do not understand all the ins and outs of the Irish matter, I think I do thoroughly understand the Scotch part of the question. There has not been a single argument advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or by any one who has yet spoken, to show that it is convenient or necessary to enforce the clauses of this Bill, instead of putting them into a Bill containing the services for which these subsidies are asked. The right hon. Gentleman gave no single reason; all he alleged was precedent, and I deny that the precedent he cited is applicable here. I candidly admit that I have forgotten the argument he used, because I could not understand it. The precedent, however, was important. It was the case of the English and Scotch Local Government Bill, and the allocation for local purposes made thereby; but that precedent does not hold in the least, because on that occasion the allotments made for local purposes were to carry out certain well-known and old established and universally agreed on services, such as the administration of the police, as well as of medical and pauper matters; whereas in this case we are going to

1161
have certain perfectly new forms of expenditure to which many of us are strongly opposed. In order not to take up the time of the House, I will confine myself to the Scotch question, and on that I will say that to at least three-fourths of the proposals we, the Scotch Members, are greatly opposed. The small amount given for licences, for education fees, and for police superannuation we were able to some extent to discuss the other night, but the other matters we were unable to discuss at all. The Scotch Members endeavoured to get a word of assurance from the leader of the House before the Bill passed its Second Reading, but that word they were not able to obtain. Therefore, we Scotch Members are in this position, that we are asked to pass a new tax for the purpose of its being applied to objects which are likewise new, and to many of which we strongly object. We say we ought to have these objects settled before the tax is voted. For my part, I object on Constitutional grounds to our voting a new tax for purposes which are dubious and not universally agreed upon beforehand; but it is much worse when that tax is to be voted in one Bill, and the purposes for which it is to be imposed are to be described and arranged in another. It is for the purpose of enabling the Government to meet what is evidently the unanimous wish on this side of the House, and what I feel to be a perfectly honest and sincere wish not to treat it as a Party Question, that we support the Motion for Progress.
Mr. SYDNEY GEDGErose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but The CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Debate resumed.
MR. PARNELL: The right hon. Gentleman the Irish Secretary was entirely inaccurate in the representations he made as to our views in regard to this question. We did not state, and certainly I did not state, as he has represented, that Ireland was not included in the Bill. What I said was that it was impossible to discuss last night or on any other night, on the Second Reading stage of the Bill, the application of the money to Ireland for the extinction of licences, and the reading of the two
1162
sections of the Bill shows this clearly,. The section affecting England provides that the sum of £350,000 is to be applied to such extinctions; but with regard to Ireland we could not discuss the manner in which the licences are to be extinguished, because no method is proposed in the Bill with regard to Ireland. Neither did I assert that there had been any compact between the Government and the Mayor of Belfast. My assertion was distinct and clear. After the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had taken credit for having yielded to the views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. T. Healy) in the proposals he had made as to Irish Corporations, I stated that the right hon. Gentleman had held an interview with the Mayor of Belfast.
*MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is quite untrue; I consulted no one.
MR. PARNELL: I am glad to bear it; but all I can say is that the organ of the right hon. Gentleman, the Belfast News Letter, must be a liar, because it definitely stated that Mr. Black had an interview with the right hon. Gentleman, and that he came over from Belfast to London for that purpose. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman does not shake his head at that statement.
*MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never read the Letter in my life.
MR. PARNELL: This is not a question of the right hon. Gentleman having read the Belfast News Letter.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must point out that this discussion is not regular.
MR. PARNELL: Then, Sir, I shall leave that part of the question, and I will say that our position is this—that this proposal having been made by the Government to deal with the mode of applying money for the extinction of licences we ought to have before us en, bloc the method under which the Government propose to carry out that extinction. It is not reasonable to try and put us off with the vague statements of the right hon. Gentleman. He says he will consider how the Poor Law Boards may expend this money; but such a proposal requires clauses in an Act of Parliament.
*MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have told the House most distinctly that we mean to

1163
submit the Bill in its present shape, and that if hon. Members from Ireland bring forward Amendments we will consider them.
MR. PARNELL: Bat the Bill has already been brought in and read a first and second time; and now, when we approach the Committee stage, it is not reasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to put us off and say that if we choose to put down Amendments he will consider them. It is not reasonable that he should ask us to depart from the Constitutional practice, that the application of money voted by the House should first be settled by Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman proposes not only to ask the House to vote the money, but also to pass the Budget Bill in its third and last stage, taking everything else on trust. We are to leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to consider what Amendments we may draw up, without the slightest shadow of a notion as to whether they will be accepted. That, I say, is not the proper way of dealing with this question, and can hardly be the way in which the right hon. Gentleman can hope to facilitate the passing of the Bill. I submit that we, the Irish Members, have a serious grievance as to the conduct of the Government in this matter. The only reasonable course to take is the Constitutional practice which has been suggested by the Chairman of Committees, namely, that these clauses should be postponed to enable the Government to bring them forward in the form desired by hon. Members on this side of the House.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman impugned my accuracy a short time ago. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Mid Armagh (Sir J. Corry) is in his place, but I will challenge him to deny that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer arranged this matter within the last few days; or, if the contrary is stated, the hon. Member should explain how the extraordinary circumstances happened that in the Government organ in the North of Ireland, the Belfast News Letter, these statements were made, and the matter explained. Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an interview with Sir James Corry?
*MR. GOSCHEN: No.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I see the Attorney General for Ireland in his place; did the interview take place with him?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): No.
THE CHAIRMAN: This has very little relevance to the Motion before the House.
*CAPTAIN VERNEY: I think the Committee has a right to ask that a Bill affecting Ireland should be treated with the same common-sense as is applied to English and Scotch measures.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question is, that I report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: I am sorry to intervene; but rafter what has been stated by the Government this evening, it is imperative that we should be enabled to consider the important proposal that has been made. It has been suggested by the Government that the administration of the money shall be placed in the hands of the Municipal Bodies. A few days ago I met a man from Belfast who is connected with the liquor trade, and he suggested that the Local Bodies now in existence might be interested in the application of the fund. I had the Bill in my hand, and I told him that we had already been considering that matter, and, for my own part, I rejected that proposition, because I thought it would be wrong to place such powers in the hands of the restricted Corporations of Belfast or of Dublin, which are largely composed of friends of the publicans. Well, Sir, I met that man a day or two afterwards, and he told me he had been speaking to a gentleman—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I cannot see how that is relevant to the question before the Committee.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: What I have to say in justification of my speaking on this occasion is, that I think we ought to have time to consider these proposals, and that is the reason why we urge that you, Sir, should report Progress.
*CAPTAIN VERNEY: The reason for reporting Progress is that the whole tone and tenour of the Bill has been altered by what the Chief Secretary has stated. The Bill says that until such Act as is referred to has been passed the money shall be invested and accumulated, and,

1165
by the admission of the right hon. Gentleman, the whole object of the measure is to be reversed. The question is not how the money should be spent, but whether it should be spent at all; and the Chief Secretary has offered that it shall be spent by the Boards of Guardians, the Corporations, and the Grand Juries.
*MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said nothing of the kind.
Mr. WILLIAM JOHNSTONrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 265; Noes 186.—(Div. List, No. 87.)
Question pat accordingly.
(6.40.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 189; Noes 263.—(Div. List, No. 88.)
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Whereupon, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH rose in his place, and claimed "That the Original Question be now put."
Original Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
(6.50.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 183; Noes 263.—(Div. List, No. 89.)
It being after Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House at Nine of the clock.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.—(No. 231.)

  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EVENING SITTING.

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

THE LATE SIR WILLIAM PALLISER.
COLONEL NOLAN: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to call attention to the services rendered by the late Sir W. Palliser to the country and to the
1166
economies and increased efficiency which have resulted to the nation from the use of his inventions. There is some difficulty in introducing questions of this kind, but after all, the House of Commons is a most satisfactory tribunal to deal with them. If one brings a case like this before a Court of Law he will be asked for documentary proof, and if you bring it before the Government officials they will only be too glad not to give justice. If you bring it before Ministers it is better, but they are afraid of exceeding their powers. But the House of Commons is a fair tribunal. I admit that the representatives of Sir W. Palliser have no legal claim, but I think they have a strong moral claim upon the consideration of the country. Although by his inventions Sir W. Palliser has already saved the country something like £6,500,000, his family are now destitute. The history of Sir W. Palliser's inventions commenced with the first introduction of the armour plating of ships. The first incident in that naval revolution was when a French gunboat received the fire of the batteries at Sebastopol unscathed. Peace was signed almost immediately afterwards, but the French had learnt a lesson which resulted in the building of La Gloire. The exploits of the Merrimac and the Monitor, ironclads, in the American Civil War, also attracted attention to this subject. About this time the Warrior was built, and the Times published an article in which the Warrior was referred to as the one efficient vessel in our Fleet. Her armour could only be penetrated by steel shot, which would do little execution when they got inside. Sir W. Palliser invented a method of cooling cast-iron shot, which enabled him to send those projectiles through a target made in imitation of the side of the Warrior. This was quite a revolution, and his particular claim upon the country in respect of that invention is the saving in money which it effected. Steel shot cost about £100 a ton, while cast-iron shot cost only about £14 10s. The shot and shell of Sir W. Palliser were a great benefit to the country, as the first Naval Power of the world—England—could not afford to have an impenetrable hostile iron-clad going about; and this invention saved her from that calamity. I consider that in respect of that invention alone Sir W. Palliser

1167
has already saved the country £5,500,000. But his claims are not based on that alone. At that time the country was changing from cast-iron guns to wrought-iron guns on the Armstrong principle. There was an immense stock of guns in the country which seemed to be absolutely useless. Sir W. Palliser invented a plan of converting these guns by putting a wrought-iron tube into them. This tube was rifled, and a 32-pounder smooth bore gun was then converted into a rifled 64-pounder, which was altogether much more formidable weapon. That was done to 1,982 guns. These weapons are well-known to the Volunteers, and I believed that more firing goes on from Palliser guns in this country at the present time than from any other. The Palliser gun up to the present day has always proved to be a good and efficient gun, and is now very largely used, and a great economy has thus resulted to the nation. Another of Sir W. Palliser's inventions was a screw shank. The First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord G. Hamilton), in answer to a question I put to him in this House, stated that the invention was not valuable without some improvement. I hold a letter in my hand signed by Mr. Charles Abel, of the eminent firm of engineers, and stating that he considers the bolts now used in the Navy are strictly in accordance with Sir W. Palliser's patent, that some change has been made in them, but that they are essentially his invention. Another point is with regard to the Palliser bolt. We all know that the armour question is one of the very greatest importance at the present moment. Nearly every fighting ship must have armour of some kind; it may be differently applied in different ships; in Some cases the armour covers the vitals of the ship, while in other oases there is a belt, but it is used in practically every fighting ship. But what is the use of armour if it falls off? The Americans formerly did not attempt to pierce armour-plates, but their idea was to deliver a heavy blow at a low velocity, and so rack the armour-plates that they would be disturbed and possibly break up. Now, what prevents armour-plates from falling off is the use of a great number of bolts. Sir W. Palliser made a remarkably simple invention with regard to these bolts. Every bolt is
1168
screwed more or less into the armour, and Sir W. Palliser's invention was in connection with the screw, thereby increasing the strength of the bolt, which formerly had been weakened by the screw being cut into it. The bolts which are now used to hold on the armour-plates of ships are practically the bolts invented by Sir W. Palliser, though some changes may have been made in the arrangement of armour. I believe that instead of being driven the whole way through the bolts are only driven half-way, but that does not mean that they are not the same bolts. The Government have in no way whatever paid for the bolt. They contend that they have paid something for the shot and shell, and my contention is that the sum is inadequate. They acknowledge that they have taken possession of the bolt, and it is hardly contended that they have paid anything for the gun. Sir W. Palliser was not a very business-like man, and, being extraordinarily patriotic, he did not attempt to launch his inventions in foreign countries. With regard to the financial part of the question, I have some memoranda which were prepared by Sir W. Palliser himself. He states the price of steel shot at £100 a ton. Three years ago the Secretary of State for War said the price of forged steel shot was £150 a ton. One of the managers of the manufactory where the shells are made, in his evidence before the Committee, gave the price of cast steel shells at from £58 to £75 a ton. On the whole, I do not think I shall be guilty of any exaggeration at putting the price of forged shells at £100 a ton. The price of Sir W. Palliser's is about £15 a ton. The figures given before Lord Morley's Committee were £16 a ton for small shell and about £11 for large shell. Making as careful an estimate as I can of the amount of Palliser shot manufactured, the invention must have saved the country an expenditure of £5,600,000, and I do not think that it is possible to vary that calculation by more than a few hundreds. I do not contend that the Palliser shot and shell are equal to forged steel, but there is no proof that the cast steel shell is better than the Palliser shell. I know we are making Palliser shells quite equal to the partially forged steel shells. All steel shells are, of

1169
course, partially-forged; there is that distinction between cast-iron and cast steel. But, allowing that the Palliser shells are not quite so good as forged steel shells, there are second-class places in first-class fortifications, and there are second-class fortifications for which the Palliser shells are quite good enough. In breech-loading guns the saving effected by Sir W. Palliser's invention has not been so large, according to War Office Returns. Sir W. Palliser only converted the smaller guns; but it is no exaggeration to say that his work saved an expenditure of £500,000. As to the bolts, there is no question that Sir W. Palliser received nothing for this invention, and there is no question but they have been largely used. This much we gather from actual knowledge, and from questions asked and answered in the House. Ministers have, to a certain extent, accepted these claims; but they always say that the House of Commons would not pass a Vote of this kind; but it is my belief that the House of Commons will be quite ready to do justice in a matter of this kind if only the Government will vouch for the reasonableness of the claim. On good authority I understand that Sir W. Palliser spent several thousands on his own experiments. It has been represented to me that his losses on this account may be put in the two items of £8,259 and £369. Of the latter amount I know nothing; but some 20yearsago I happened to meet Sir W. Palliser coming from Woolwich, and in conversation, in answer to my question, he said he had spent £8,259. But, of course, the figures are capable of proof, and there has been correspondence on the subject. I asked the head of the gun factory at Woolwich as to the truth of the statement, and he admitted it, the only excuse he could make being that Sir W. Palliser had pushed his experiments too far. Well, of course an inventor must make blunders; it is in the nature of things; there would be an end of invention if all an inventor's plans could be mathematically demonstrated. He received some £10,000 or £12,000, and I do not hesitate to say that not only was the amount inadequate to compensate him for his labours or reward him for his inventions, but he suffered a pecuniary loss. Sir W. Palliser gave up his whole life to these experi-
1170
ments; to these he sacrificed his prospects in a military career. He made a little money through Sir W. Armstrong, who adopted some of his inventions and made use of them in trade with China and South American States. Had Sir W, Palliser gone abroad and pushed his inventions, he might have made his fortune, but he did not do so. Perhaps, in not so doing, he showed he was not a business man; but it was repugnant to his feelings, and though he was wrong, from his own financial point of view, his patriotism has been a great gain to this country, for the Palliser shot and shell have been confined to England. I think the fact that he did not push his inventions abroad ought to strongly support the claim now made on behalf of his family. I am not going to hold up Sir W. Palliser as an all-round paragon; I allow he was not a business man; but he had a great inventive genius, and certainly in his case it was connected with plenty of painstaking. The little money he made he invested in house property, but his speculation turned out a failure shortly before his death, and he whose inventions have been the cause of saving £5,500,000 to his country left absolutely nothing for his family. I want to be very clear and distinct. I have a letter here; it is not a letter I would like to read to the House, but I will place it at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It is written by the brother on behalf of the rest of the family, in reference to the resources of the family. I know so late as last night, a gentleman of considerable position in this House, accepted the statement that the son of Sir W. Palliser inherited a considerable sum; but I say it can be shown that he has inherited nothing but his father's name and a share in the legacy which his father has left the country. The combination of business faculties with inventive genius, such as we can associate with the names of Armstrong, Whitworth, and Krupp, is rare. Sir W. Palliser was a great inventor only. I move my Resolution, and support it on these grounds. I say here is the case of a man who devoted himself to developing the defensive resources of the country, and undoubtedly added immensely to the strength of our Fleet and our coast defences. His inventions have stood the test of 25 years,

1171
You allotted him a sum of £12,000, and it was inadequate for the services rendered. We still profit by his services, and his family are nearly destitute. I know that a compassionate allowance is made, and I have not said a word against Ministers, who I know are bound by precedent. But the House of Commons is not fettered, it is capable of generous instincts. Unofficially I understand that it is proposed to continue the allowance of £300 a year to the family after the death of Lady Palliser, but that is nothing like sufficient, and my Resolution proposes that the country should make provision for the daughters. There is a son, who I hope inherits part of his father's genius, and who will fight his own way. There is something near a precedent, though I say we are entitled to set a precedent, and I do not think we shall regret setting up an inducement if it results in men bringing about savings of £5,500,000 in national expenditure. But, for a precedent, I may remind the House that 10 years ago Sir James Anstruther succeeded in inducing the House of Commons to acknowledge the inadequacy of the compensation to Lord Cochrane, and to assent to the payment of a salary due 50 years ago. I now leave the case in the hands of the House to say if they are content that the country should continue to benefit by the father's services and leave the family destitute.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "This House recommends that some provision should be made for the daughters of Sir William Palliser,"—[Colonel Nolan,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Question."
COLONEL BLUNDELL: In rising to second the Motion I may say that I had a long personal acquaintance with Sir William Palliser from the time he joined the Service in 1855. I was with him when he carried out his first experiment with a gun. A general officer and staff were on the ground to witness the experiment, but at the last moment the gun capsized, and, fortunately or unfortunately, the general officer was not able to stay
1172
until the gun was righted. When the gun was actually fired it burst. Sir W. Palliser came to his knowledge of the subjects he had to do with by hard work and the exercise of great intelligence. I know that he devoted his whole life to his work, and was perfectly absorbed in his inventions. The invention of "chilled" shot effected an enormous, economy in the national expenditure. It is often said in such cases as these that if one man had not made the invention another man would; but to this I reply by anticipation nothing is more simple than the invention of yesterday, nothing more difficult than the invention of tomorrow. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway has explained the financial value of Sir W. Palliser's inventions in guns and projectiles. The invention in respect to guns had a special value in point of time—it came when we did not know what to do and were waiting for something better. I know the great attention Sir W. Palliser gave to the subject. I happened to meet him once as he was returning from the Staff College, where he had been consulting the mathematical professor in reference to the internal lining for guns which, substituted for the external coating—which was the system at the time—has been of great advantage to the nation. Sir W. Palliser's inventions have stood the test of long experience, but they were not rewarded. In a letter dated January 27, 1869, Sir W. Palliser said—
"Nothing but absolute necessity would induce me to accept so small a reward, founded, as I believe it to be, on a misapprehension of the facts."
So far as I have been able to gather, Sir W. Palliser never received anything for his invention of armour bolts. Financial speculations in which he engaged, with the object, I believe, of reviving an ancient baronetcy in his family, turned out unsuccessful. He was deriving considerable sums from royalties on raw material supplied to Foreign Governments by Sir William Armstrong, but the Government opposed the renewal of his patents, and this affected him very seriously, though I may say it in no way affected the State, and did not come within those considerations which induce the objections to prolongations of patents generally. It, however, had a serious

1173
effect upon Sir W. Palliser's income. The net amount he received from the Government was £10,378; against that total of £10,378 an amount of £13,622 was expended for experiments, and this is established by the vouchers in existence and admitted by the Government in 1869. The inventions of Sir W. Palliser have stood the test of time, they have effected great economies, or they have prevented increased expenditure: they are still being used, and no other military inventions have effected anything approaching the economies these inventions have secured. The whole country gains large sums annually through these inventions; but the family of the inventor is absolutely unprovided for, expect as regards the compassionate allowance from Her Majesty, made on the recommendation of the First Lord. But the life of Lady Palliser is, I am sorry to say, precarious, and with her loss the family will be left absolutely unprovided for. Contrast the amount of reward received by Sir W. Palliser for the inventions of a lifetime with the large sum paid for the invention of a "range Under," which depends on the clearness of the atmosphere. It will be a disgrace if we allow the country to profit largely through the genius of this officer and do not do something to provide for his daughters.
SIR E. J. REED: I rise to support this Motion, not because it is an ordinary case in which an inventor has rendered service to his country, but because it is a very exceptional and remarkable case. I do not think that the value of Sir William Palliser's inventions can be properly or fully estimated by reference to the public savings that he has effected; and if we went simply on that principle the House might some day be asked to vote a good deal of money for my family for inventions for which I have received no consideration. But what should be borne in mind is that every one of these inventions was not the mere accidental expedient of the moment, but the result of a highly-cultivated and mathematically-trained mind and a sound scientific judgment being brought to bear upon the requirements of the nation, and the application of these exceptional gifts supplied a great public want at a critical time, when the want was most felt. That is true of
1174
every one of Sir William Palliser's inventions. I remember very well with what anxiety every one associated with the Army and Navy viewed the change in the nature of ordnance and saw cast-iron ordnance brought into disrepute. It is a common thing to value highly only that which is new; but I think that that is a great talent which devises means for turning stores of existing material, which threaten to become obsolete, into instruments fit for the necessities of the time; and this Sir William Palliser did in utilising the condemned cast-iron ordnance of the country. This invention could not have been produced by any one of the uninstructed or untrained men who were eager to perform services in respect of that ordnance; it could only have been produced by a man with special knowledge and ability for dealing with the problem. Then there is the interesting invention in connection with projectiles. Owing to the long-continued contest between ordnance and armour, there has been no period within the last 25 years when the country could afford to neglect any improvement, either in guns or armour. For my part, I have always attached equal value to Sir William Palliser's inventions, whether they related to guns or projectiles, to matters having reference to the purposes of offence, or to those having reference to defensive armaments. I hardly think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Resolution has done justice to the third and greatest invention of Sir William Palliser, namely, that of the armour bolts. At the time that invention was produced we were almost in a state of panic with regard to the means of keeping the armour in an efficient condition under an attack of hostile ordnance. Then it was that Sir William Palliser came to our relief with an invention which provided a security against the armour-plates positively falling off the sides of a ship under the stress of action. It is only fair to say that there was a very high money value in this invention, and it came particularly under my notice. There were at the time of its completion many Admiralty officials and powerful Committees, composed of eminent men, dealing with the armour-plate question. Great activity was shown, but none suggested the invention, which it was left

1175
to Sir William Palliser to bring forward as the result of years of scientific investigation and the most elaborate mathematical calculation. When the invention came to be tried it was found to be of great value; and, without wishing to reproach anybody, I wish to say I entirely sympathise with the moderate language used by my hon. and gallant Friend as to the action of the Government. I must say that, for a man not employed by the Government for the purpose of producing such an invention with regard to the armour-plates, for it to be adopted by the country at once, and continually up to the present time, and for neither the inventor nor his relatives to receive the slightest public advantage from the invention, is a state of things which the House would not willingly agree to. I do not think I should have said anything about this case if it had been one of any ordinary inventor. It is often true the invention of yesterday is easy, while that of tomorrow is difficult. But there is another consideration which must be taken into account ordinarily in dealing with the claims of inventors, and that is that, to a very large extent, inventions are in the air, that they are produced by several persons at about the same time, and that it often happens that the inventor who sets "up enormous claims only happens to be the man who thought of it yesterday, while 50 thought of it today. Perhaps the House would hardly be prepared to go as far as I should in that respect. But it has been my lot to witness the production of an invention in several different quarters at almost identically the same time. But this is not a case of that kind. This is not a case that can be depreciated, because everyone of Sir William Palliser's inventions was the result of the application of his talent and labours to the needs of the time, and not the result of accident. For these reasons, I think the House might favourably consider the very moderate proposal laid before it without setting up any bad precedent for the future.
ADMIRAL MAYNE: I wish to say a few words as a naval officer. The benefit of Sir William Palliser's inventions has, undoubtedly, been far greater to the Navy than to the Army. No one
1176
who knows anything of shipbuilding can deny what has just fallen from the hon. Member for Cardiff with regard to the invention of armour bolts. That invention has rendered it possible that the ironclads which are now being built could be undertaken; without the invention no one can say that we could have gone on building these vessels. As to the Palliser shot and gun, which are so largely used, only to-day a Naval gunnery officer of ! great experience told me that he considered the country must have saved millions by that invention, and that the Palliser shot and gun were still the most economical as well as among the most effective weapons in use. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway occupied half his speech in trying to show that Sir William Palliser had made ho considerable sum of money by his inventions. But I think the House has a right to take it for granted that Sir W. Palliser did not make any money out of his inventions, from the simple fact that the Government have given his widow £300 a year. I presume that before granting that allowance they satisfied themselves that Sir William had not died a rich man, and had not been able to make adequate provision for his family. What is it the House is now asked to do? The custodians of the Public Purse are asked to do what, I feel sure, the House and the whole country always wish them to do, namely, to reward those who have done great and signal service to their country. I feel equally sure that' the British taxpayer would be the last person in the world to wish the reproach to be truthfully used of this country, that she is in the habit of forgetting those who, by the use of-their ability, their bravery, their time, and their talents, have conferred upon her benefits by which millions are saved, and the greatest possible advantage gained to the nation.
MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to say a word or two in support of this Motion, and to explain the reasons why I intend to support it, because I am not anxious on ordinary Occasions to vote money byway of pensions, or in any way to place further burdens on the taxpayers of this country. I think this is a case particularly deserving the attention and favour of the House. I do not propose

1177
to deal with it from a technical point of view, or to approach the merely personal aspects of the question; but I shall take my stand on the broad and general principle that it has been too much the habit of the Government in this country to neglect and, in some cases, to treat with extrem unfairness those who make these great I. entions. I need not stay now to call attention to any particular case, but I hope we may be said to be turning over a new leaf in this respect. No doubt a Session or two ago a large sum—£100,000—was voted to the in ventor of some new engine of war—I think it was the case of the Brennan torpedo—but I believe that was an exceptional case. In the course of my reading I have constantly come across cases in which men who have given this country the benefit of great inventions have received no adequate payment for the services rendered. I am not bringing this charge against any Government in particular; it has, unfortunately, been a characteristic of English Governments that they have been stingy in this respect. I hope we shall put an end to that state of things, because the effect is to discourage inventors and compel them to take service under Foreign Governments. That, surely, is not the best policy to pursue. It is neither the most economical, the wisest, or the most patriotic. Now, we know that Sir William Palliser was so patriotic as not to take his great inventions to foreign countries; he gave this country the benefit of all of them. I, therefore, consider that the House is bound to recognise the services of Sir W. Palliser, and to see that his family are not left in the condition the House is now led to believe they are in. We know that the ancient Greeks had a special system of providing for those who rendered great services to their country. But we, unfortunately, do nothing of the kind, and now we hear of men in humble life who wear the Victoria Cross, and men who are survivors of the Balaclava Charge, spending their last days on earth in a workhouse. That surely is not the way to treat those who have bravely and nobly served the country. Before I sit down I should like to fortify the position I have taken up by pointing out that in the past the Government have made
1178
special provision for the families of men who have rendered notable service to the country. In 1854 the three Misses Tucker were granted a pension in consideration of their late father's services as Surveyor to the Navy for 18 years; two years later the three daughters of Mr. Bayly, of the War Office, were awarded a pension in consideration of their father's long and meritorious services; grants have also since been made to Miss Ford in 1861; to Miss Lizzie Vincent; to the daughters of Sir John Burgoyne (who occupied the position of Constable of the Tower); and to General Chesney for his exploration in the Euphrates Valley. We have pensions granted to ladies, the living descendants of men of long ago. It can hardly be suggested that the daughters of Sir William Palliser are not entitled to consideration at our hands. A pension is granted to Prince Lucien Buonaparte for his literary services, but those services were done to the world, not to Englishmen. I believe in Cornwall he put up a memorial to Peggy somebody or other, the last woman who spoke in the Cornish dialect. I am not aware that his explorations in the field of philology have given him any real claim upon the English Civil List, but rather on his own people. Then I find a notable pension to Mr. K. Thompson for his services to the Royal Family, but it seems to mo that personal services might well entitle him to a pension out of the Privy Purse, and not the Civil List. But if a man is entitled to a pension on such grounds, then aà fortiori, Sir William Palliser is entitled to consideration at our hands. I can only hope we shall hear no discordant note from those Benches opposite, though I do not think we need fear it, because there is so much support from both sides of the House, and the onus and burden of the responsibility of granting a pension will rest, not upon a part, but the whole House.
MR. JENNINGS: Sir, I thought this case of Sir William Pallisser was a very hard one, and that it was, in point of fact, the case of an officer who had rendered distinguished services to his country, and whose services had not been recognised: But I must confess, since I have listened'to the discussion, that opinion has been

1179
very considerably shaken. The hon. Member (Mr. Conybeare) has gone extensively into the Civil List with a view to find cases? which would show that the services of Sir William Palliser had been overlooked. I shall not go into the cases which he quoted, but he may rest assured that they all come strictly within the Act under which Civil Service Pensions are granted. In that Act services to the Sovereign are distinctly mentioned. The hon. Member seems not to be aware that on this very Civil List there are two pensions to the family of Sir William Palliser ["How much?"] £300 a year—as large a pension as there is on the Civil List, with three or four exceptions. There are pensions on the Civil List which I am not going to defend. I think the distribution of the Civil List has often been open to grave and grievous criticism—in fact, I would go so far as to say that it is not properly distributed. But under the present Government there has not been the misapplication of a single shilling on the Civil List, on which the family of Sir W. Palliser are fairly represented. There appear two pensions granted to the family of Sir W. Palliser, amounting together to £300. Very few pensions on the Civil List are for larger sums. Then Sir W. Palliser has received himself £24,000 from the Government, and a sum of £20,000 was paid to him by Sir W. Armstrong for his inventions. These are not mean sums. If the descendants of the inventor of the spinning jenny had been brought into the Lobby to appeal to hon. Members' sympathies, would they have been given anything? Has the inventor of the spinning jenny, or of any other wonderful invention benefiting commerce, ever received a single shilling from the country? No, those inventors have been left to languish in poverty and neglect. Their names will not be found in the Civil List. Had the Government been niggardly in its recognition of Sir W. Palliser's services, something might have been said for this additional demand, but it has not been niggardly. £24,000 is a large sum to give for the improvements which Sir W. Palliser introduced. We are asked to provide some indefinite sum out of some unnamed fund for the benefit of a family that is undoubtedly deserving of sympathy and respect,
1180
but not more so than many another family now in the direst depths of poverty and misery. Out of what fund does the hon. and gallant Member propose that this money should come? We have all heard lately distressing stories about the gallant men who fought at Balaclava, and the Secretary of State for War has stated that he has no fund at his disposal for their relief. It is evident that if once the State were to relieve these gallant fellows the matter could not end there, for how are we to draw a line between the men who fought, at Balaclava and those who fought and bled at Lucknow and Delhi and throughout the Indian Mutiny? But if the Secretary of State for War has not the means of relieving the grevious necessities of these heroic men, how can it be expected that he should provide a large sum of money for the family of Sir W. Palliser? The hon. and gallant Member has calculated the debt which, he said, the country owes to the family by the saving on the shot and shell introduced by Sir W. Palliser. But when is the calculation to end? I presume that the saving will go on, and if the application be granted I suppose that in ten years' time another application will be made to the country on behalf of the family. The hon. Member for Cardiff has fairly enough represented that an application in progress of time would come from his family, but I hope it will be many years before that application is made. Is there to be no limit? Is this House the proper tribunal to decide upon those inventions, or to vote away public money in ignorance to a large extent of their value and of the extent to which future applications will be made? I am quite aware that, surrounded as we are by representatives of the Services, the voice of a civilian will be "as the voice of one crying in the wilderness." But I do not think the country will approve, with a pension list which already exceeds £7,000,000, of our voting another pension of considerable amount. Coming down to the House this evening I read a paragraph in an evening paper to the effect that considerable influence had been brought to bear on us here. I read that it was an unique incident. I have seen a good deal of lobbying in other countries. [Cheers from below the Gangway.]
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must appeal to hon. Members not to continue these constant interruptions of the hon. Member.
MR. JENNINGS: The fact that Sir William Palliser was an Irishman may account for these constant interruptions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite really do carry their patriotism a little too far, if that is the explanation. However, there is this paragraph in the evening paper. It says that a considerable amount of Lobbying went on, and that the names of Members who promised to vote for the Motion were put down in a book. I say that is a very improper way of bringing influence to bear, and when money is to be voted away, although I hope it will not be permitted to damage the case which has been presented, still, I sincerely trust it will not help it. I am perfectly convinced that the country would not approve an extension of the pension list, or our voting blindly and recklessly another grant of money. Sir, I shall vote against the Amendment.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, the hon. Member who has just sat down is a journalist, yet actually being a journalist, he asks this House to believe everything that appears in an evening paper. The hon. Gentleman says that there was a considerable amount of Lobbying, and it seems to me that he is anxious to pose as a species of Scipio Africanus. Now, about this Lobbying by my hon, and gallant Friend who had this Motion before the House this evening. Everybody knows that when an hon. Member has a private Motion on at 9 o'clock on a Friday night, it is not always easy to get a House. My hon. Friend went about asking his friends, apparently with some success, to be good enough to come here and to make a House, and to hear the arguments which he was prepared to advance in regard to this matter. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jennings) asks where the money is to come from. Where? If it does not come from the Civil Pension List, it will come from the Supplementary Estimates. Instead of a pension, you will give a lump sum, the amount of which my hon. and gallant Friend left to the Government. This is a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence. I do not think we ought to import any
1182
specious sentiment into the matter. To say that because there are other families living in misery, we ought not, therefore, to give the daughters of this inventor some adequate recognition of their father's services to the country, is very poor logic. The hon. Gentleman also said that Sir William Palliser received adequate reward for his inventions, and he says that if we are to consider the amount of saving which those inventions have effected the country, we shall have some one else, ten year a hence, asking for more. There would be some point in this if we based our calculation of what should be granted on the amount saved. But we do not. We only ask that a reasonable amount should be given to the children of Sir W. Palliser. The saving may have been £3,000,000 or £12,000,000, or £1,000,000, I will not discuss the point. I will assume, for the purpose of my argument, it is £1,000,000. What has he roceived? He has received the sum of £24,000, but of that he expended in these inventions £13,171, so that he only received £10,378. Considering the disparity between the saving effected, the grant made, and the pension given, I do not think Sir W. Palliser's services have been adequately rewarded. It is said that Radicals are niggardly in the matter of public expenditure. I have always protested against this. We do not want money to be illegitimately or improperly spent. When a fair case is made out, we are as ready to take a generous view of the matter as any Member in any part of the House. We do not trouble ourselves about Lobbying. We are asked to come down and hear the case, and we are not, of course, actuated by anything but a fair and honest belief, on our part that the country has benefited very largely by these inventions. If this gentleman had sold them to some private firm, he would have been able to have left his family much more money than he did, but he preferred to deal with the Government, and the Government ought to deal fairly and generously by his family.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): Sir, the hon. Member who has just sat down

1183
terminated his speech with an appeal which every Member of the House must have regarded with great satisfaction. Nobody can doubt that in matters of this kind, where the power of the State is on one side, and the weakness of the individual on the other, it is extremely necessary that the House should see that justice is done. This is not a case in which we need fear the House of Commons will not do justice. Sir W. Palliser wasenormously respected, and untilalmost recently one of our Colleagues in this House, well-known to many of us, and his inventions have achieved an almost world-wide reputation. A great deal of public sympathy has been evoked in the matter, and the subjecthasbeen constantly brought before the Departments. Successive Secretaries of State, First Lords of the Admiralty, and Chancellors of the Exchequer have been involved in the decision of it. The contention of the Government is that it is necessary to shut out our personal sympathies, which are naturally on the side of a man who has done good service to his country, in order that we may do justice between him and others who may have equally well-founded claims. Looking at it from that point of view, it is very difficult to see the great injustice which it is suggested has been done to Sir W. Palliser. Hon. Members seem to forget when they speak of Sir W. Palliser as a man who has given his lifetime to inventions, and who might have dealt with foreign Governments and private firms, that he was an officer in the Army, holding Her Majesty's commission, from the beginning to the end of the inventions. Lieutenant Palliser, as he was then, joined the Army in 1855. He went on half-pay in 1864 at his own desire, and remained on half-pay up till 1871. In June, 1867, having perfected his inventions of chilled projectiles, he received £15,000. In February, 1869, he received £7,500 for his plans for converting cast-iron guns. In 1871, and before he left the Army, he received £1,500 for improvements in artillery, and those payments were treated, not merely' by the Department but by Sir W. Palliser himself, as a final settlement of his claim. In subsequent' communications, Sir W. Palliser acknowledged frankly that although he had not had the intrinsic value of bis inventions given. him, still the
1184
account was finally closed between him and the War Department. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway said that out of these sums Sir W. Palliser only received £12,000 altogether. For my own part, I am not in a position, and I do not think that any Member of the House is in a position, to establish exactly what sum Sir W. Palliser spent on his inventions. Those are always difficult questions, but one thing we do know is, that those hon. Members who have spoken and have assumed that the Government had a monopoly of the inventions, are in error. There are two fallacies underlying this. In the first place, it is not germane to the case of 1890to compare the sums which would be given now by foreign Governments with those which would have been given 23 years ago. But there is another fallacy in this, because the Government did not buy from Sir W. Palliser a monopoly. He received from Sir W. Armstrong alone over £20,000 during the same period, and, therefore, even taking the computation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who brought forward this case with so much moderation, Sir W. Palliser received for his inventions in the course of four or five years between £30,000 and £40,000. It has been urged that this is not a large sum as compared with what has been received by some inventors. I am not going to trouble the House with a comparison which would probably be inaccurate, and would certainly be unconvincing, but I should like to say that it is an error to sup pose that the War Office are responsible for the check which occurred to Sir W. Palliser's profits, when the question of the patents being renewed was brought before the Privy Council. The War Office made no objection to the prolongation of the patents in 1876, but stipulated that, as they had paid £15,000 for their share in that particular invention, the Government rights should be reserved, and that they should not be forced to pay a royalty. The Privy Council considered the case in all its bearings, and came to the conclusion that the profits made by Sir W. Palliser, amounting, as they knew, to some £20,000 from private sources alone, represented a fair consideration for the patent, and they refused the application altogether But I put it most strongly to the House that we—the present War

1185
Office—are not responsible for that decision. The Government were anxious to protect themselves, of course, but would have welcomed any concession made to Sir W. Palliser. The hon. and gallant Member also called attention to the treatment of Sir W. Palliser by the Admiralty with reference to the bolts for armour plates. I will leave it to the First Lord of the Admiralty to explain to the House the exact difference in these armour bolts, which prevents the patent being as valuable now as it was in the first instance, but I should like to refer the House to the fact that in 1874 Sir W. Pallissr wrote to the Admiralty and asked for an acknowledgment of his services with respect to these armour bolts, his method of testing material by tension, and chilled projectiles. In his letter he said—
"I beg respectfully to state that, should ray request be granted. Ishould not raise any claim of a pecuniary nature for the use of my patent bolts nor on any other account."
I maintain that these words should be taken by the House, as they were taken by the Government, to be a formal renunciation on the part of Sir W. Palliser to any further royalties, subject to the condition that the Government should acknowledge the benefit of his invention, which was patented, and which he was at liberty to offer to any Foreign Power. Now, I am not here to contend that the sums paid to Sir W. Palliser are to be taken as a full equivalent of the whole gain which the Government may have obtained; but I do contend that the Government made their bargain at the time, and that that bargain was accepted by Sir W. Palliser for his services as an inventor alone.
MR. MAC WEILL: I would ask if there is not a letter of Sir W. Palliser's extant in which he says—[Cries of "Order:!"].
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can use that argument in-Debate.
*MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of correcting me later on if I say anything which does not accord with his view of the facts. But I would put it to the House that the Government have not been niggardly in endeavouring to show their recognition of Sir W. Palliser's services to the Em-
1186
pire. Hon. Members will not expect me to put any pecuniary value upon the honours which were conferred upon Sir W. Palliser; but we all know that he received the Cross of the Bath, and in 1872 was raised to the honour of knighthood. Those honours will be admitted by every one to be a token of the value of his inventions and a recognition of his public services. Hon. Members have somewhat disregarded what has been done since the death of Sir W. Palliser. When the hon. Member for Stockport spoke there was a laugh among hon. Members opposite at the mention of the sum of £300 a year having been granted to Lady Palliser and her children. We must all regret that after considerable sums passed through the hands of Sir W. Palliser he was not in a position to make provision for his family. I believe that Sir William Palliser invested a considerable amount of money in freehold securities, which, as he died intestate, passed to his only son.
COLONEL NOLAN: They were absolutely valueless.
*MR. BRODRICK: At all events, whatever its value, the freehold property of Sir W. Palliser descended to his eldest son, to the exclusion of the widow and her daughters. I should like the House to consider the relative value of the pensions which it is in the power of the Government to give. No doubt £300 may seem to many to be a low sum. In the case of the £250 pension awarded to Prince Lucien Bounaparte there were exceptional circumstances, which were explained to the apparent satisfaction of the House by the leader of the Opposition. A pension of £300 is higher than that which can be awarded to the widow of any General Officer, whatever his distinction, even if he happens to have fallen on the field of battle and in the service of his country. No higher pension could be given to the widow of, say, Lord Napier of Magdala, and therefore it cannot be said that the widow of Sir W. Palliser suffers by comparison with other cases. Great stress has been laid on the sums said to have been saved by Sir W. Palliser's inventions; but the estimate of over £5,500,000 is based upon an assumption of the present cost of steel projectiles, which cannot be admitted. It must also

1187
be said, on the other hand, that if we had not had the benefit of Sir W. Palliser's inventions, we should have saved some of the money that has been expended in availing ourselves of them, and which in the absence of such inventions we should not have been called upon to spend. ["Oh, oh !"and laughter,.] Well, you cannot calculate it both ways at the same time. We have benefited by steam and railways, and in estimating that benefit we do not usually take account of the alternative expenditure that would have been incurred in attempting to carry on our traffic at the same speed as by train by means of horses. You cannot take the comparison both ways. While Sir W. Palliser's inventions were of public service at the time, still we should simply have had to content ourselves with a less perfect service, not have had to spend so much money in their absence as the hon. and gallant Member estimates. I will only put one other consideration before the House. No subject has occupied the serious attention of the Government more than this, even during the present Session. It has been brought forward in the most influential manner from time to time. I will not allude to the points raised by the hon. Member for Stockport, an attempt to destroy which was made by the hon. Member for Northampton by a relation of circumstances which, I venture to say, was altogether incomplete. I venture to say that the statement of the hon. Member might with truth have been extended. Nothing that sentiment could do has been wanting. If instead of Sir W. Palliser being an officer of distinction he had been a private soldier, or if instead of being a Member of Parliament he had been a mechanic, no one would say that the case has not been sufficiently recognised by what has been done by the Government, supplemented as it has been by sums paid by private firms. I do not for a moment suggest that the hon. Member for Galway would have done less for a man of low estate; but, still, the social position of a distinguished officer and Member of Parliament does make an appeal to sympathies which might not have been touched in other cases. The
1188
Government desire to do full justice in the matter, and in the event of the death of the widow will be glad to consider the position and claims of the daughters; but they consider that everything has been done which they are justified in doing up to the present time; and they therefore hope that the Motion will not be pressed to a Division, but that it will be recognised that the Government have acted with justice and liberality, but also with that equality which they are bound to observe in dealing with claims upon the public purse.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I have considerable sympathy with the attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings), and deprecate any attempt to put undue pressure on the House. I must say, however, that my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) would have been the last man to have taken part in any such attempt. The only request made to me was that I should come down and help to make a House. I declined in any way to engage to support his Motion. I came down in order to assist in getting the matter legitimately discussed. Having heard it discussed I will venture to say a few words on it. Every Member must in the course of his experience have had brought under his attention the claims of neglected individuals. As an Irishman I shall never forget the action taken by the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord G. Hamilton) on a private petition I presented to him with regard to an unfortunate coast-guardsman who had exhausted himself in the service of the State, and whose children were in a destitute condition. The First Lord of the Admiralty, having no public funds on which he could draw to meet the case, was so good as to send me a cheque on his private account. I could not help feeling that the noble Lord was an Irishman, and that I was another. Now, Sir, I have heard the statement of my hon. and gallant Friend, and the statement made on behalf of the Government. I may mention that Sir W. Palliser was an Irish landlord, who could not in any way claim sympathy from those who speak on behalf of the tenants, being separated from us by gulfs as far as social relations are concerned. But when a case is made we cannot shut our eyes or ears to it.

1189
My hon, and gallant Friend says the inventions of Sir W. Palliser have saved the State some £5,000,000 of money. ["No."] Well, the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Brodrick) did not dispute that. I am willing to take the saving at £1,000,000. If he saved the State that amount his family have claims upon our consideration. The claims of individuals do not, as a rule, fare well in this House, not because the House is unwilling to do justice, but for various reasons. I remember when Frank Power was killed with Gordon in Khartoum we had to keep the House sitting till 4 o'clock in the morning to get his sisters £150 a year. They had no claim on us. On the contrary, Frank Power's brother is at this moment helping the hon. Member for Hunts (Mr. Smith-Barry) to exterminate the tenants in the South of Ireland. It is very much of a lottery whether these private claims are well treated in this House or not. It may be difficult, in the first place, to get someone to understand the case, and then there is the difficulty of getting someone to take it up, and the further difficulty of obtaining a day for its discussion. The present Pension List is ridiculous. I believe that £50 a year is paid to one gentleman, whom I knew myself to be the chief Fenian poet in the days of insurrection in Ireland. I am sure I hope he enjoys his £50. I quite agree that there may be hundreds of deserving cases that have not been dealt with, but that is no reason why we should not deal properly with any case that is brought before us. The hon. Gentleman opposite says Sir W. Palliser was loaded with honours. What were the loads? He got a knighthood. Well, you get a knighthood for winning a borough. [An hon. MEMBER: Or losing one like Lewis.] I do not desire to introduce anything of a controversial character into this Debate. It is clear that Sir W. Palliser saved the State a large amount. He has left a considerable family. I am glad to hear that the Treasury have promised a certain amount. I think the Treasury should act handsomely in such a matter. I entirely repudiate the idea that anyone on this side of the House is supporting the claims of these ladies because they are Irish ladies, and I think that Irish
1190
Members are as lit and competent to deal with a question of this kind as any gentleman born within sound of Bow Bells. I think that something more ought to be done for Sir W. Palliser's family than is now being done or intended to be done.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Faling): I wish to state the nature of the transactions between Sir W. Palliser and the Admiralty. The hon. and learned Member who has just sat down made an allusion personal to myself, and I may, perhaps, be permitted to refer to it as showing that we sometimes oppose grants of public money not out of niggardliness of spirit, but because we feel, as guardians of the public purse, it is necessary for us to be less charitable in public than in private life. I happened to be a personal friend of the late Sir W. Palliser, and had the honour of belonging to the regiment to which he for some time belonged. Therefore, all my predilections and personal sympathies would be in favour of this claim. But upon consideration of the facts of the case I find myself unable to support it. It seems to be assumed that Sir W. Palliser was for the last 22 years of his life in the Public Service on full pay. This was not the fact. For nine years of that time he was on full pay as an officer, and while on full pay he took out two patents for inventions. When his regiment was ordered to India he made an application to be allowed, on special terms, to retire on half-pay, and from that period—it was in 1864—up to the time of his death he devoted his time to inventions, mainly on commercial lines. He did not give the whole of his time to the State. His transactions with the State were of two kinds. So far as his chilled projectiles were concerned the State gave him a lump sum in full discharge, and as regarded the bolts, he took out a patent, and during the whole time the patent was in existence the Government paid the royalties. The House will observe what an unfair position the Government are placed in with regard to the matter. On the one

1191
hand, if a lump sum is paid to an officer for the use of his invention, it is asserted that he is inadequately remunerated, and, on the other hand, if the commercial mode of transaction is adopted and a royalty is paid, it is stated that the State does not pay for the invention at all. The patent for the bolts, which were of great use, ran from 1862 to 1876, and two years before it terminated Sir W. Palliser wrote a letter to the Admiralty, stating that if they would give him a testimonial pointing out the value of his services—
"I will not raise any claim of a pecuniary nature for the use of my patent bolts, nor on any other account."
A letter was written to him to that effect, and these are the facts of the case so far as the Admiralty are concerned. Sir W. Palliser was a man of most prepossessing manners; and I think must have been liked by all who knew him. He was a Member of this House. However, I hope the House will not, for these reasons, treat the case as an exceptional one. I would ask whether the House desires us to treat the inventions of any humble dockyard man on a different principle from that of Sir W. Palliser? Various inventions, some of them of a very ingenious character, are frequently brought to the notice of the Government, but I do not know of any inventor who has received greater consideration than Sir W. Palliser. I am certain that if any man in a lower position in the employment of the State were to die and his wife obtained a pension, no Department of the State would make provision for the children when the pension terminated. If what I say be in accordance with the invariable rule, ought we to make an exception in the case of an individual who happens to be a Member of this House? I venture very respectfully to say that it would not, in my opinion, be wise for the House to assent to the form of recommendation which has been placed before it, because the public will not fail to draw a contrast between the treatment of this case and that of inventors generally.
SIR W. BARTTELOT: This question has been very ably
1192
dealt with from both points of view; but I think justice has hardly been done to those who have advocated the claims of Sir William Palliser, because one or two points made by them have not been noticed. Looking at what Sir W. Palliser received, and the benefits his inventions conferred on the country, and, bearing in mind also the money he spent in perfecting his inventions, it can hardly be said that he was adequately remunerated. The expenses which he had necessarily to incur in order to carry out the inventions ought to be taken into account when the sums paid to him are mentioned. If, therefore, you deduct £13,621 for expenses, you find he absolutely received from the Government £10,328. The Financial Secretary to the War Department (Mr. Brodrick) made very little of the conversion of the old iron guns into rifled guns. I undertake to say that at that particular time there was nothing of greater importance to this country than the increase of the number of rifled guns, and, but for this invention, other guns would have cost the nation a very much larger sum of money. By means of the invention guns which were lying idle and useless in the dockyards were converted to very good purposes. As to a royalty having been paid by the Government for the bolts, I have just been shown a letter in which Sir W. Palliser denies that any royalty was given him for the bolts, and this can be confirmed by one who was nearly connected with him. I should, therefore, like to be informed of the amount of the royalties alleged to have been paid to the deceased officer. In my opinion, Sir W. Palliser, the value of whose inventions to the country is not disputed, was not adequately remunerated by the State for the services he rendered. It is nothing to the purpose to say that had he lived at the present time he would have received much larger sums; but if of any value it is an argument in favour of increasing the payment now.

1193
The position of the case is this: Sir W. Palliser received a certain sum of money from the Government, and he might have received large sums elsewhere. There is now nothing left for his children. They are very young, and there is no money to educate them with. My hon. Friend thinks there is something still due to him from the Government. Assuredly, if Sir W. Palliser is entitled to receive anything more, his family has a right to know that they will receive it; because it may be said by a future Treasury, "If anything ought to be done, it ought to have been done before." I appeal to the Government not to put the House to the trouble of a Division, but to say that they will give a fair and reasonable sum for the education of the children, and after the death of Lady Palliser will continue the grant to the children.
SIR J. GOLDSMID: I desire to say a few words in support of the appeal just made to the Government. I know how difficult it is for the House of Commons to decide how a variety of claims shall be dealt with, but I have had brought before me during the last three or four years circumstances connected with the work of Sir W. Palliser, and I venture to say that in regard to the good he has done the country he has not been sufficiently remunerated. If that is the general feeling the Government ought to meet the views of the House of Commons. I happen to know that Sir W. Palliser's daughters have been left in a very poor position, and that one of them shows signs of considerable ability, which might be developed if there were means to give her a suitable training. It is not for one invention, but for several, that Sir W. Palliser's family have claims on the country. Therefore, the case is one in which further generosity could fitly be exercised. If something is not done in this case no claim can he successfully made upon the House of Commons again. This is a good case. The feeling of the House is in favour of something being done, and I hope the Government will give effect to that feeling.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The Government feel a great deal of sympathy for the very generous aspirations of many of my hon. Friends and of Gentlemen opposite in this case. The hon. Gentleman opposite has appealed to the Government to show their sympathy. I think the Government have already done so. In 1877 the late Lord Iddesleigh obtained a grant for Lady Palliser of £150 a year, and I myself obtained a grant of £150 more, making altogether £300 a year. But the Government are now asked to propose to the House of Commons to give a grant of thousands in consideration of services which, in the language of the gallant officer himself, have been amply rewarded. A Memorandum has been alluded to. That Memorandum must not be held up to the House or the Government to reverse or to alter the character of the discharge which has been given. If the Government are not to regard transactions of this kind as final they will be exposed to all manner of claims. It is, of course, a very agreeable thing to be liberal, but to be liberal in the sense of giving away that which is expressly barred is a responsibility which I cannot undertake. In 1869 Sir W. Palliser wrote to the Under Secretary of State as follows:—
"I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 24th inst., enclosing an order for £7,500, which sum I accept in full discharge of ray claim upon the War Office for the system of converting cast iron guns."
That letter is dated 21 years ago, and now a claim is set up, not only with respect to these guns, but for other transactions not with the Government of the present day, but with the Government which existed in 1868. Reference has been made to the Judgment of Sir Barnes Peacock. He decided that the invention was a meritorious one, and that it was impossible to say how much had been expended by Sir W. Palliser on his patents. He further went on to say that Sir W. Palliser had received £20,000 for his invention by the Government, and that he had also received large remuneration from Sir W. Armstrong in respect of royalties. It is to be deeply regretted that Sir W. Palliser should have made no provision for his family; but I ask the House whether it

1195
is a wise course, out of sympathy alone, to go behind transactions of 20 years ago and make a grant of money which has been held not to be due by the officers of successive Governments acting in the simple discharge of their duty. Moreover, the grants which have been made out of Her Majesty's bounty on the recommendation of the Government exceed the pension which the widow of a Flag Officer of the highest rank is entitled to receive under the Regulations of the Service. Under these circumstances, I trust the House will not agree to the Motion.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I am bound to say I feel it my duty to support the First Lord of the Treasury in the position he has taken up. Nothing is easier and more agreeable than to be sympathetic, generous, and liberal with other people's money, but it should be recollected that we are dealing with the money of the nation. We have to consider whether, in acceding to this Motion, we should be acting upon a rule which we can apply to others under all circumstances. Otherwise we should be properly condemned for having established a sort of privilege or favour in one particular case. Sir W. Palliser was a man of distinguished ability, but he received very large rewards from the State, with which he declared himself to be satisfied. It would be unsafe, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, for any Government to disregard that acquittance. Besides that, it appears that Sir W. Palliser has derived what everyone must consider a very considerable sum on his own private account. It is to be regretted that he has left his family unprovided for; but in dealing with other persons the absence of that provision cannot be taken as a ground for replacing it with public money. Moreover, it is not denied that the benevolence which has been granted to Lady Palliser is at least as great as has ever been accorded to anyone under similar circumstances. I think nothing could be more dangerous than to encourage Motions of this kind in favour of individual interests, and if a Division takes place I shall certainly vote against the Motion.
MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to add one word. I ought to have said
1196
that, having regard to the circumstances under which the children of Lady Palliser are now placed, I shall deem it my duty to endeavour to secure that the pension of £300 a year which Lady Palliser now receives shall be continued to her children in the unfortunate event of her death.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland Division): I think we are all thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he has made. I object to the manner in which this casa has been met. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby says it is wrong to be generous with other people's money; but I think we may ask the State to be honest and just in its dealings with its servants who have served the State well; it is no question of generosity. The First Lord of the Treasury says that £300 a year is more than would be received by the family of a General Officer who had passed his life in the Service; but has a General Officer ever saved the country £5,000,000? I have listened to the whole Debate, but no answer has been given to this part of the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend. It is said that present claims are at least five times too high, and still large claims on the State are left unrecognised. I was sorry the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) used the argument he did. I belong to the same profession as the hon. Gentleman, but I think it would be very unfair to hold reasonable claims urged in this House prejudiced by what may have appeared in the newspapers. Every case should be judged upon its own merits, and so we on this side support the claim. We have no feeling in the matter. Sir W. Palliser was politically an opponent of ours, and I suppose his family have inherited the political traditions. Comment has been made upon the fact that Sir William Palliser left no provision for his family, and the inference has been drawn that he was a man of extravagant habits. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reason why his family were left unprovided for was that he made speculations in house property which did not turn out successfully. A further reason was that his mind was so preoccupied in scientific pursuits that he was unable to pay sufficient attention to the material interests of himself and

1197
family, like many another man from whose services the country at large has benefited.
GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: As to what the First Lord of the Treasury said just now, I would observe that though Sir William Palliser is dead his inventions still live, and we are still deriving advantage from them. Quite recently the manufacture was being carried on at Woolwich. I feel very strongly the position in which Sir W. Palliser's family is placed. At this time money is particularly required for education, and year by year the country is saving immense sums of money beyond anything that was anticipated when the inventions were submitted to the Government. Strong supporter of the Government as I am when I think they are in the right, I must, if there is a Division, support this Motion.
SIR E. WATKIN: I will only detain the House for a moment, but I cannot but protest against the mean and shabby character of the speeches with which the First Lord and the right hon. Member for Derby have opposed this Motion. I am quite sure the First Lord would never apply such principles to his transactions in the Strand. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that if an employer does not treat members of his staff with a generous measure of justice he cannot keep a good staff together. The lesson he teaches the House he would not apply to his own affairs. Here is a man who has done the State a noble service, and in his unselfish efforts his family have suffered, and is the justice of the case met by the miserable pittance the right hon. Gentleman offers? I am not an Irishman; I am an Englishman—perhaps I should be better if I were an Irishman and a little more generous; but I have 30,000 people engaged in industrial employment to deal with, and I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I would not demean myself, I would not injure the sentiment that should exist between
1198
employer and employed by dealing with a question of this kind in the manner of the right hon. Gentleman. I was attracted to this discussion because I knew the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway had, year after year, urged this House to adopt the system of breech-loading to our guns, and in vain. Yet, at last, that system has been adopted after enormous waste. I respect such a representative, and I felt sure he would urge the just claims of a man who did his best to arrest the miserable dry rot of the Service, and to give us improved defences; and though he may fail of success to-night, in my judgment he has done good service. If you are to have good employeÉs you must not talk about justice and generosity in the tone of official utterances we have heard from both sides to-night. Is it just to requite the services of a man who has saved you millions by inventions you are using to-day by giving £6 a week towards the expenses of his wife and family? Is there any hon. Member present who will say he thinks that is a just way of dealing with this matter? I will be no party to such a settlement. I will tell you what I will do. I make this offer to the right hon. Gentlemen the First Lord of the Treasury and the Member for Derby, if they will join with me I will add to this miserable £300 a year my share to make £300 a year more.
SIR J. PULESTON: I do not wish to prolong the discussion. I will only make a suggestion which may prevent a Division, which, I think, we are all desirous to avoid. There is not, I think, any great division of opinion on the merits of the case, for there is no question of the advantage the country has derived from the inventions. Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury allow me to make an appeal to him to carry his own suggestion a little further and to make at once an additional allowance of £150 a year to the children of Sir William Palliser, an additional income being more needed now to meet educational requirements than it will be hereafter. In the unfortunate event of the

1199
death of Lady Palliser, the sum of £300 might be reverted to. This is not inconsistent with the view of the right hon. Gentleman, and will meet the present necessities of the young ladies immediately concerned.
(12.10.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 85.—(Div. List, No. 90.)
Main question proposed, "That Mr-Speaker do now leave the chair."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
COLONEL HUGHESwho had a Notice on the Paper: "To call attention to the low wages paid to labourers in the Government Establishments; and to move, That a Committee of this House be appointed to inquire and report thereon, and the market rate of wages for similar labour in private firms,"rose—
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The Motion is withdrawn.
COLONEL HUGHES: My Motion, Sir, is not withdrawn.
*MR. SPEAKER: The Motion to which the hon. and gallant Member has given notice of Amendment has been withdrawn.
Committee upon Monday next.

INLAND REVENUE REGULATION (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 211.)
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to put a question, Sir, on a point of order. I am not contesting this Bill; but to-day, Sir, while you were in the Chair in Committee on another Bill, this Bill stood as second Order, and the question I have to put is on a matter of regularity. The Evening Sitting is well understood to be devoted to discussions raised by private Members on Bills or Motions as they stand on the Notice Paper. But we find that the order of business has been completely changed, and the Government Orders have been plumped down in front
1200
of the private Bills Now, considering the few opportunities private Members have, I think we may well protest against the little salvage of time that remains between this and 1 o'clock being appropriated by the Government.
THE CHAIRMAN: Friday is a Government night, subject to the obligation of putting down Supply as the first Order, and the arrangement for the evening is subject to alterations consequent on the Morning Sitting.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Does that not involve the obligation that the Government are to proceed with the Motion for Supply, and that when the Motions hon. Members desire to raise are exhausted, they should take Supply? Instead of this, the Government propose to appropriate the time to these Bills. I must say, speaking with all submission, that this is an irregular and unusual proceeding. Why was Supply withdrawn? Are not the Government anxious to proceed with Supply?
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
Clause 1.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to move, Sir, that you do now report Progress. I have been a close observer of procedure for some years, and I have never known a transaction of the nature we have just met with. When a Division has been taken on the first Amendment to a Motion for Supply, it is usual for the Member having the next notice to proceed with the matter he desires to raise on the Main Question, and which he is entitled to discuss.
THE CHAIRMAN: In Committee on this Bill the hon. Member cannot discuss what may have happened in the House on a Motion for going into Committee on Supply.
MR. SEXTON: I merely wish to make my protest against the manoeuvre which has been practised: Supply being withdrawn before any Member could rise, and before we were aware of what was proceeding.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to move to report Progress, but he cannot now enter into what happened before I was in the Chair. I am quite unconscious of what happened in the House, and the hon. Member cannot discuss that now.
MR. SEXTON: On the ground that by the proceeding which has been adopted we have been deprived of our Constitutional right to raise grievances on the Motion of Supply, I move that Progress be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
COLONEL HUGHES: I support the Motion for reporting Progress. I appreciate the kindness of those who consider I had a right to proceed with the Motion I have upon the Paper. I was waiting to be called, but I understand that the original Motion to which my Motion was an Amendment, was withdrawn, and I was, therefore, precluded from moving my Motion. I can only think that was a slight upon myself, because it was done without a word of explanation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must point out again, as I have already pointed out to the hon. Member for West Belfast, it is incompetent for hon. Members on this Motion to discuss what happened when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair.
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sorry to find so serious a misapprehension prevails in certain quarters of the House as to the course which has been pursued. It was in perfect accordance with the rules of the House, and there was no intention of taking any advantage of my hon. and gallant Friend. I may, perhaps, be allowed to make this explanation to remove misapprehension. The hon. and gallant Member could not have made his Motion under any circumstances, because the question that Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair was carried by the Division which took place.
MR. SEXTON: But he might have discussed it. He might have made his speech.
*MR. W. H. SMITH: No doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman might have made his speech, but he could not have made his Motion. I understand the hon. and gallant Member desired to do more than make a speech.
COLONEL HUGHES: No.
*MR. W. H. SMITH: The course taken was precisely that which has over and over again been taken under similar circumstances. All I can say now is that if hon. Members do not desire to make Progress, I have no objection to this Motion being carried, and then I will move the Adjournment of the House forthwith.
DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid): I want the First Lord to understand the real circumstances of the case in connection with to-night's Sitting. In the course of the last few days we were asked by a Conservative Whip whether there might not be a count-out taken this evening, and in the face of that—
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I simply wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman in reference to Order No. 35 (School Board for London (Superannuation) Bill). It has been several times before the House. Are the Government prepared to accept the Second Reading and refer the Bill to a Select Committee? I am only raising the question in the interest of the hon. Baronet (Sir Richard Temple), to whom I have promised support.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The First Lord has suggested a course which is somewhat inconvenient. It is far better to run through the Orders than to have them deferred in a batch. It is far better to let the day's work be done in the day. There is no advantage in a sudden Motion for Adjournment.
MR. W. H. SMITH: On the whole, I think it is better to move the Adjournment, seeing there is no disposition to make progress with business we have before us.
MR. CONYBEARE: It is not that we object to making progress; we object to the shabby dodge the Government have resorted to.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am not going to oppose the Motion, but I call on the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham to witness, that I have done my best to help him to get forward with the Bill in which School Board teachers are interested, and which I believe the Government are in favour of. I undertook to assist the hon. Baronet in facilitating the progress of the measure, and if I have failed it is not from any want of zeal on my part.
SIR R. TEMPLE: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his assistance, and I hope that on some other occasion our joint efforts may be more successful.
MR. T. M. HEALY: We cannot pass this Motion without a protest against the deliberate attempt of the First Lord of the Treasury to fasten upon us responsibility for it. The right hon. Gentleman says he makes the Motion because he understands there is a desire on our part not to go on with business. So far is that from the fact that we have made an offer to the Government to proceed with non-contentious business. Among this there are the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Pleuropneumonia Bill, a Government measure they profess to be anxious to get on with, the East India (Civil Servants) Committee, the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill, and there is the Statute Law Revision Bill, all Government Orders, which they might have proceeded with, but for reasons of their own, perhaps to furnish an election cry, the Government have deliberately refused the proposal
1204
to go through the Orders, and they make this sudden Motion. We take note of their action. I suppose they have some motive in it, possibly it foreshadows an early dissolution, and an appeal to the country on the question of obstruction. If it does, I can tell the Government that they have attempted a bad piece of tactics. We made the offer to proceed with business in the usual way, and it was deliberately refused.
MR. SEXTON: If the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to do more, perhaps he will tell us what he proposes to take between now and the adjournment for the holidays?
MR. W. H. SMITH: The desire of the Government is to pass the Budget Bill before the holidays, and to that end we propose to proceed with it day by day. In answer to the remark of the hon. Member for Longford I may point out that we did desire to proceed with a Bill that was practically uncontested, and were met with a Motion to report Progress. I yielded to that rather than subject the Committee to a protracted discussion, and had no alternative.
MR. CREMER: I feel it my duty to make a protest against the course the Government have pursued, and, for my part, I am disposed to divide against the Motion now submitted to us, as a protest against the treatment meted out to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes). If the Government did not care to utilise the three-quarters of an hour left after the Division surely they might have allowed the hon. Member the opportunity of discussing the important Motion standing in his name. It seems to me that when questions are attempted to be raised here vitally affecting the interests of thousands of our skilled artisans and labourers —I have noticed it on other occasions when efforts have been made to discuss these grievances—by some ingenious process the Motion is invariably shunted. Many of us remained in the House to-night for the purpose of supporting the hon.

1205
Member on a question which, in my view, is a far more serious one than that upon which to-night we have wasted several hours' discussion. But, whatever view may be taken of its importance, we had the reasonable hope and expectation that it would be discussed. The Government have acted in a most disingenious manner towards thousands of men whose complaints the hon. Member for Woolwich was to unfold to-night. If I get any assistance I shall register my protest by taking a Division.
MR. J. ROWLANDS: I rose just now to make a similar protest, and I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. It was known that many of us were waiting here to take part in the very important discussion we expected. The importance of the subject has been indicated by the questions which, from time to time, have been asked, and to a very large number of the artisan class it is of serious interest. Though, by the Rules of the House, the Motion could not technically have been made, yet in three-quarters of an hour we could have ventilated the grievances complained of, and could have extracted from the Ministerial Bench some statement as to the action the Government are prepared to take. It is not a question necessary to divide upon; it is for the Government to say if they will assent to a Committee, and then we shall know what course to take in and out of the House. Instead of this, we have, if the expression is not un-Parliamentary, been jockeyed out of the Debate. I lodge my emphatic protest against this, and, if my hon. Friend divides, I will with pleasure act as Teller with him. Then, on another question. We have tried to get the School Board Superannuation Bill through the House, and, as the hon. Member for the Scotland Division has said, it would have been possible to have taken the Second Reading to-night. We all know the
1206
deep interest taken in this measure by school teachers throughout the country, and the Second Reading might have been taken; but simply because the Government did not happen to have their way with the First Order the right hon. Gentleman turns round in dudgeon and says, there shall be no progress with anything else. I denounce this obstructive policy on the part of the Government.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I hope a Division will be taken as a protest against these tactics. We are frequently blamed for what is called wasting time, but here we are anxious and eager to do business, anxious to advance a Bill a stage, but because, for reasons that seem good to themselves, Members objected to proceeding with business unexpectedly brought on, the First Lord, in a fit of temper, makes this sudden Motion for adjournment. I think we certainly ought to divide against the Motion.
MR. F. S. POWELL: I have but a single observation to make in reference to the School Board Superannuation Bill, and that is that I and others deeply interested in the work of voluntary schools should have opposed the Bill in the strongest manner possible, and the Second Reading could not have passed to-night. More than that, we have had support in our opposition from that quarter of the House from which we now hear of support to the Bill. It is a fact that hon. Members on the other side have on previous occasions raised objection to the Bill, and I have no doubt they will do the same on future occasions. It is, therefore, unfair to say that the action of the Government has in any way prevented the passing of the Bill.
MR. H. J. WILSON: It is a fact that should not pass without comment that the Government can find day after day for the purpose of providing compensation for publicans, and yet they are unwilling to afford 40 minutes for the consideration of the griev-

1207
ances of a body of public servants, whom the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich represents. While they are prepared to spend millions in the one case—for though not now, millions are ultimately involved—they will not hear the grievances, or alleged grievances, to which the hon. Member desired to draw attention. I sincerely hope the protest will be carried to Division.
COLONEL HUGHES: I have no wish at all to provoke a fierce contention. I certainly was under the impression that it was competent for me, at least, to speak to the Motion of which I had given notice. Perhaps, Sir, you will be good enough to say whether I understand the point rightly. Is it the case that it was not possible for me, after the Division on the Motion for going into Supply, to even speak upon the second Motion? [Cries of "No."] Could I not even speak to my Motion unless the Government set up Supply a second time? [Cries of "No."] If that is the rule I must bow to it; but if I am incorrect it seems to me that somehow, in a maimer I do not understand, I have lost a right I thought I possessed and should not have lost. Perhaps, Sir, I may have a word of explanation?
MR. SPEAKER: There was no need for the Government to set up Supply again for the purpose of enabling the hon. and gallant Member to speak; the Motion for Supply was still before the House after the Division. After the result of the Division was declared a Member of the Government rose at the Table and said, "Supply withdrawn, Supply Monday," and this I repeated from the Chair. I was not bound to call upon the hon. and gallant. Gentleman, seeing that his Motion would be an Amendment to the Motion that I leave the Chair. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not rise when, in a load voice, I said, "Motion withdrawn, Supply Monday." This was what passed, and when the hon. and gallant Gentleman
1208
rose and said, "My Motion is not withdrawn," I said the Motion on which the hon. and gallant Member's notice gave him the right to speak was withdrawn. With the withdrawal of the Motion his right disappeared.
SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: One question, Sir, I beg to put to you. Would it not be more convenient that the question for the withdrawal of the Motion for Supply should be put from the Chair in the same manner as ordinary questions upon which there is right of discussion? Probably in such a case no misunderstanding would have arisen. The hon. and gallant Member did not rise quickly enough, being under the impression that he would be called; and so the Motion for Supply was withdrawn apparently without objection. If, Sir, you could adopt the practice followed in the ordinary course of putting the Question "That the Motion be withdrawn, no such difficulty could arise.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet will observe that I said "Motion withdrawn, Supply Monday." It was competent for any hon. Member to question that. I could not put the Question in any other way.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOB IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): May I ask you, Sir, would it not have been competent for the hon. Member to have made his speech on the Motion for withdrawal of Supply?
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member being under the impression that I would call upon him did not rise. But I was not bound to call upon him, though I expected him to rise; but. when the Motion for withdrawal came, I was under the impression that the whole thing had been arranged.
MR. ILLINGWORTH: I must say I think the Government have acted with very little consideration for one of their own supporters. They knew the hon. and gallant Gentleman had the notice on the Paper,

1209
and they should have known the importance of the subject. I do not say what line I may have taken on the case put forward; but I do say it is a gross injustice towards a great body of men outside, as well as to those who had been waiting here through the evening, to refuse to have the case heard, and it is but scant courtesy to one of their own supporters.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrising was met with cries of "spoken."
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to order, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken. If he asks the indulgence of the House I apprehend there will be no objection to his speaking again, but he has no right to speak again.
*MR. SPEAKER: Only by the indulgence of the House can a Member speak the second time. [Cries of "Ask indulgence."]
*MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite willing to ask the indulgence of the House; but I think, Sir, you will allow that when I rose just now it was to ask your opinion on a point of order, and by doing this I am not aware that I exhausted my right of speaking. But I have no wish to insist on the right I think I possess, and I will ask the indulgence of hon. Gentlemen if they will listen to a word or two. We are attacked for a want of generosity towards those whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman so ably represents. But, in the first place, the Government have acted strictly in accordance with the usual practice; and, secondly, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had thoroughly understood the procedure usual on these occasions, and had risen immediately after the Division had been declared, he would probably have been called upon, and he would have had the opportunity of making the statement he desires to make. He could have laid the case of the workmen in the Government establishments before the House, but he could not have made
1210
his Motion or have taken a Division. All that the hon. and gallant Gentleman could have done under any circumstances was to make his speech, and he had the opportunity under the ordinary Rules of the House had he risen. The Government strictly followed the ordinary procedure on Friday nights, and nothing that was done was intended to prevent, or could have prevented, the hon. and gallant Gentleman making that statement to which we should all have listened with great interest.
MR. DILLON: It seems to me the Government did not follow the usual course, but a very unusual course. What occurred? The hon. Member for Woolwich did rise to address the House as soon as the opportunity offered; but a Member of the Government, availing himself of his nearer proximity to the Table, took a course utterly without parallel in my recollection of proceedings on Friday nights. The Government, knowing there was a Member behind them who had an important Motion to bring forward—and I may mention a very embarrassing Motion, indeed, for the Government—a very important matter for consideration, and knowing that he would make his statement, without taking the trouble to look round to see whether the hon. Member was prepared to rise or not, sidled up to the Table and requested the withdrawal of the original Motion for Supply before the hon. Member or anyone else was aware of what was being done. The fact is, both the hon. Member and those of us on this side, who I may perhaps say are more up to the tricks and dodges of debate than the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, were taken by surprise by the rapid manoœeuvre executed by the Government, and before we had time to appreciate the situation the right of the hon. Member for Woolwich was gone. All that I can say is, that if the Government had practised such a trick upon a Member of our Party they would hear a

1211
great deal more of it than perhaps they may from their own supporters. I am sure the Government would not dream of attempting such a trick against one of their opponents. All I can say is, during the time I have been in the House, and I have been a close observer of proceedings, I have never seen such a thing done before.
MR. MAC NEILLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Debate resumed.
MR. CHARLES DARLING: It was my desire to second the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, and, for my own part, I do not think—and I do not think that my hon. Friend believes either—that any kind of trick has been practised against us. It is perfectly obvious that if my hon. Friend had understood what the hon. Member calls the dodges of this House, as well as hon. Members do who have made them the subject of study and practice, he might, without being called upon, and after the Government had made the Motion for withdrawal, have done exactly what he could have done before. [Cries of "No !"and "Divide !"] It will be easier to divide if I am allowed to proceed without interruption. It is perfectly obvious my hon. Friend might have made the speech he intended to make, and others interested in the subject might have followed him; but, after all, the time at our disposal was only that between 12.15 and 1 o'clock, and, I must say, I think that those who have complained that we did not proceed with the subject at 12.15 are far more anxious to make out a grievance against the Government than to have an adequate and effective discussion of the subject itself. We desired to go to a Division, but
1212
we could not have done so. ["Yes."] We could not have done so. I prefer the opinion of the Speaker to that of any hon. Member. We could not have gone to a Division. [Cries of "Agreed."] No, we are not agreed yet. What my hon. Friend and I, with others who support him, desire if we do not get the inquiry for which we ask is that we should be able to take a Division on the subject.
Mr. R. PHILIPPSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
*MR. SPEAKER: I have not thought it right to put the Question. The Motion before the House is the Adjournment; and in two minutes I shall, in accordance with the Rules of the House, leave the Chair, and, therefore, I do not think I am called upon to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
MR. SEXTON: On a point of order, Sir, I would ask you whether, if the hon. Member for Woolwich had spoken after the Division, he could not have divided the House on the Main Question, that you do leave the Chair?
*MR. SPEAKER: Yes; the hon. Member could have challenged a Division on the Motion that I now leave the Chair, but not on his own Motion.
THE UNDER SECRETARY FOE INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): May I ask you, Sir, if any Member had objected to the withdrawal of Supply could the Motion have been withdrawn without discussion?
*MR. SPEAKER: The Motion could not have been withdrawn under those circumstances. As I have already explained, I put the Question "Motion withdrawn," "Supply Monday." These were the words that passed my lips.
It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.