Commons Sitting of 21 December 1893

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition:—
Whereupon Mr. Mellor, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—East India Loan (£10,000,000) Bill, without Amendment.
Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and, being returned;—
Mr. Deputy Speaker reported the Royal Assent to,—

1. Rules Publication Act, 1893.

2. Shop Hours Act, 1893.

3. Savings Banks Act, 1893.

4. Isolation Hospitals Act, 1893.

5. East India Loan Act, 1893.

QUESTION'S.

  KELSTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  Sir R. PAGET: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if his attention has been directed to the case of the public elementary school at Kelston, Somerset, where a room, hitherto allowed by the Department to be used, is no longer to be recognised as supplying school accommodation, and where, in consequence, a class-room will have to be provided; if be is aware that this school, with an average attendance of 29 scholars, has only an endowment of £3 per annum, and is supported by voluntary subscriptions to the extent of £25 a year; and that the balance credit of the school accounts, amounting to about £50, is the result of many years' careful saving, with the express object of providing a fund available for special improvement or repair; and if, under the circumstances, he will be good enough to reconsider the recent decision of the Department, by which the managers of the school in question have this year been refused the special grants under Articles 104 and 105, solely on the ground of the financial state of the school?
  The VICE PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Acland,): The room no longer recognised at this school, though returned by the managers as a class-room, was really the kitchen of the mistress's house, and was furnished as such. No demand has been made for the provision of a class-room. The grants under Articles 174 and 105 of the Code were meant to aid small schools which could not otherwise meet their current expenses, and not to be saved up and used as a building fund for enlargements; but I will look into this case with the view of considering whether, in the circumstances, either or both of the grants may be continued.
  SIR R. PAGET: But did not the Department allow the grant in 1891?
  MR. ACLAND: Yes; but the room is now furnished as a kitchen. I will, however, make further inquiry.

  ST. THOMAS'S SCHOOL, STOCKPORT.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the managers of St. Thomas's School, Stockport, have recently imposed a fee on the children who had been attending free for some time, in consequence of which some hundreds of children were turned away from school; whether he can state the total sum received by this school in voluntary subscriptions and in school fees during the last school year; whether the school has a satisfactory playground area; what would be the accommodation of the school if it were measured according to the Rules of planning of Schedule VII. of the Code; and whether in the accommodation are still included the following class-rooms: three rooms, each 12 by 25½ feet; one room 50 by 37 feet by 8 feet high; and one room 12 by 25½ feet by 11 feet high, as specified on page 265 of the Final Report of the Elementary Education Commission?
  Mr. ACLAND: The Department have been informed by the School Attendance Committee for Stockport that on the 17th November 337 children who had been attending St. Thomas's School as free scholars were sent home for fees. I understand that the greater number of these children are still not attending any school. The managers state that they were forced to this step by financial reasons. The voluntary contributions to the school during the last school year amounted to £7 5s. 6d.; the fees to £697 16s. 4d. Her Majesty's Inspector reports that the playground area is insufficient. The managers, while not denying this, urge that it compares favourably with those of the other voluntary schools in the borough. Without full plans of the school it is not possible to estimate the number of places which it would provide if measured according to the Rules of Schedule VII. Two class-rooms (including the room 50 by 37 feet by 8 feet high) have been condemned, thus reducing the nominal accommodation from 1,966 to 1,692, but four class-rooms of 25½ feet by 12 are still recognised. If the rooms which, primâ facie, do not meet the requirements of Schedule VII. were omitted, and the remaining accommodation calculated at 10 square feet, it would
  68
  be reduced to 1,374 places. The average attendance last year was 1,376. It is, of course, smaller now.
  MR. LODER: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement from the managers of the school? Has one been recently received?
  MR. ACLAND: I am not aware whether any statement has been received since the facts I have quoted were laid before me.

  OLD SOLDIERS IN IRISH WORKHOUSES.
  Captain DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that ex-private Daniel Linehan, late 108th Regiment, is at present an inmate of Midleton Workhouse, County Cork; whether he is aware that Linehan served 17 years in the Army, and was then discharged, owing to defective eyesight, on a pension of 9d. per day; whether he is aware that Linehan has since become quite blind, and that the medical officer of the Union has certified that his blindness is incurable; whether he is aware that, in consequence of this affliction, Linehan has recently petitioned the War Office for a small increase of pension, and that this Petition has been refused on the ground that Linehan was on the Indian Establishment; and will he, under these circumstances, recommend Linehan's case to the proper authorities?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,&c.): When Daniel Linehan was transferred from the late Indian European Army to the Imperial Forces he elected to serve under the Indian Pension Regulations, and he has been granted the maximum pension to which under those Rules his services entitled him. It is certified that his blindness was not caused by the Service.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that ex-private John Barry, late Bengal Cavalry and Royal Artillery, is at present an inmate of Midleton Workhouse, County Cork; whether he is aware that Barry, having served two years in the Bengal Cavalry and 15 years in the Royal Artillery, with a good record, was discharged as unfit for further duty, and is now in receipt of 4d. per day; whether he is aware that

  69
  Barry's Petition for an increase of pension to 8d. per day, to enable him to leave the Union, has just been refused; and whether, in view of the detriment to the Service and the injury caused to recruiting by reason of worn out old soldiers being compelled to end their days in the workhouse, he will request the War Office to reconsider their decision in this case?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: John Barry, when discharged from the Army for disability partly resulting from his own irregular habits, had not served Long enough to entitle him to a permanent pension, He was granted a temporary pension, which he held for nearly four years, and. he established a claim to a deferred pension of 4d. a day, which he has received since 1885. Not having served in any campaign before 1860 he is not eligible for a special campaign pension, and no other is open to him under the Royal Warrant. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to revise the pensions of all soldiers who, after discharge, fall into necessitous circumstances.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain why similar difficulties never appeal when it is a question of adding £1,000 a year to a Field Marshal's pay?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know that any such question has ever arisen.

  THE DE FREYNE EVICTIONS.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police engaged guarding the dismantled houses of widow Cahilahan, Cloonbunny, widow Moran Curraghard, and Pat Moran Curraghard, tenants on the Do Freyne estate, County Roscommon, who wore evicted, and whose homes were levelled by aid of the police in September last, have burned the turf and roofing of the houses of some of those people, and used the hay and Straw of others for bedding, rendering it unmarketable; whether he is aware that bills for the damage were furnished to Mr. Roberts, D.I., Castlerea, who is in charge of the police who so acted, and that the amounts are not yet paid; and whether he has sanctioned the conduct
  70
  of the police; and, if not, will he order payment to be made at once?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. BRYCE(for Mr. J. MORLEY): With regard to the statement that the houses were levelled with the aid of the police, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has already pointed out, in reply to a question previously addressed to him by the hon. Gentleman, that the work of levelling houses on the occasion referred to was not carried out under the protection of the Constabulary. As regards the remainder of the question, inquiry is being made with a view to ascertain whether there is any foundation for the statements in the question so far as they affect the police.

  EVICTIONS ON THE MASSY ESTATE.
  MR. MAGUIRE: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will inquire into the proceedings which have been taken against Cornelius Horgan, a tenant on the Massy estate, at Cahircaveen, near Macroom, for eviction from his holding for nonpayment of rent; whether these proceedings have been taken by the direction of the Chief Receiver to the Court of Chancery in Ireland; is he aware that the tenant, Cornelius Horgan, has offered to pay all arrears of rent according to an arrangement come to between him and the Receiver, but subsequently broken by the Receiver; and that, owing to the fact that Horgan had been a caretaker under the 7th section of the Land Act of 1887, and that his time for redemption had expired, the Receiver has refused to allow him to continue as tenant; and whether the landlord, Mr. Massy, is opposed to the proceedings against this tenant?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): Ejectment proceedings were instituted against two joint tenants on the estate referred to for non-payment of rent, Cornelius and Jeremiah Horgan. A controvesy has arisen between these two tenants, who are cousins, in respect of the holding, which is wholly within the judicial jurisdiction of the Receiver Judge, and the Executive has no power of interfering in the matter in any way.

  AMBULANCE INSTRUCTION IN INDIA.
  Mr. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he will arrange for the Army Medical Officers and their men, stationed in India, to be put through a course of ambulance manœuvres annually similar to those promised by the Secretary of State for War for the Home Army?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. George Russell,): The Secretary of State for India will ascertain from the War Office the nature of the proposed special instruction in medical field duties, and will then forward the papers for the consideration of the Government of India.

  BOMBAY COURT OF SMALL CAUSES.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India is aware that, on the retirement of the second Judge of the Bombay Court of Small Causes, an outsider has been appointed, superseding Mr. Cursetjee, the third Judge, who has three times acted as first Judge; and, if so, whether he will state on what grounds Mr. Cursetjee has been superseded?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State is not aware of the retirement of the second Judge of the Bombay Small Cause Court, or of any appointment to fill the vacancy, the appointment being within the discretion of the Government of Bombay. It is obvious that the fact of Mr. Cursetjee's having acted as Judge for short periods of time cannot be regarded as giving him necessarily a claim to the permanent appointment.

  THE SLAUGHTER OF COWS IN BENGAL.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State for India has been drawn to a complaint in the Indian Press that at Chupra, in Bengal, in a serai or rest-house endowed by a Jani Hindu, and placed at the disposal of the authorities as a matter of courtesy, cows were slaughtered by the authorities for European troops, and hung up by the side of the main road in view of Hindu
  72
  passers-by; whether cow-riot trials were then pending in the local Courts; and whether the Secretary of State will cause inquiry to be made?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State is not aware that any such complaint has been made, but the question will be transmitted to India for such notice as the Government may find necessary.

  THE PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Council of the Young Ireland League, during the mouth of August, 1893, or a little later, forwarded to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with the object of facilitating the passing of the Public Libraries (Ireland) Bill into law, a copy of the said Bill, amended to meet the main suggestions of the Irish Office; would he explain why it is that, although he promised to give the matter his attention, up to the present no reply has been given to the proposition nor statement forwarded as to the terms of the Amendments to be proposed by him; whether the opinion of the Law Advisers has been obtained; and what steps will be taken by the Irish Office to facilitate the passing of this non-contentious measure?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. Morley); A copy of the Bill was sent to the Chief Secretary on the 12th September last, as mentioned in the question; but the Amendments in manuscripts contained in this copy did not meet the objections entertained by the Irish Government to the provisions of the Bill. The promoters of the Bill, including the hon. Member, have, since the Bill reached another place, been informed of the views of the Irish Government, and the points in which the Government think the Bill needs amendment, but neither the promoters nor the hon. Member have signified their assent to these views. The opinion of the Law Officers has long since been obtained. The Government are unable to undertake to provide any special facilities for the passing of this Bill, but, as the hon. Member has already been informed, the Government will not in any way object to its further progress upon the hon. Member agreeing to the necessary Amendments being made.

  DUBLIN NATIONAL GALLERY.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Government will give Irish architects the opportunity of submitting designs for the proposed extension of the National Gallery in Dublin?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): In answer to my hon. Friend on the 15th instant, I stated that I saw no prospect at present of being able to provide the funds requisise for the extension; I think, therefore, the question of an architect is premature.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: But may I take it that an opportunity will be given to Irish architects?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Whenever the question arises, no doubt Irish architects will receive the same consideration as others.

  WORKS IN THE BORRISOKANE UNION.
  Mr. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have as yet received the Report from the Borrisokane Guardians' Engineer, previously asked for; and, if so, will he be so good as now to supply the information asked for?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): The Report referred to was only received by the Local Government Board yesterday, and the matter is now receiving their consideration. The information desired by the hon. Member will be given if he will repeat his question when there has been time for the Local Government Board to consider and give their opinion.

  THE INDIAN OPIUM TRAFFIC.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether there is any truth in the statement which had appeared in the public Press, that official pressure had been brought to bear (in a number of cases with success) upon the Indian (Native) medical men in Bombay, who signed the Petition to Parliament against the opium traffic, to lead them to recant; whether he has any reason to doubt the genuineness of the Petition; and whether he is aware that a Parsee medical man in Bombay was a witness to the signatures of some of the medical practitioners?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State has no reason to think that official pressure has been brought to bear upon medical men in Bombay to lead them to recant the opinions they may have expressed regarding the opium traffic. The Petition which my hon. Friend mentions was not addressed to the Secretary of State, nor has he seen the original document. But it has been specially brought to the notice of the Royal Commission on Opium, who are about to visit Bombay and will be able to verify the facts. The Secretary of State knows nothing as to the witnessing of the signatures to this Petition.

  TRAINING SHIPS FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the strong opinion expressed by the Committee on the Royal Naval Reserve, presided over by Admiral Sir George Tryon in 1891, in favour of a period of training on board ship for Royal Naval Reserve men, effect will be given to the recommendation by sending a drillship to Stornoway?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): The importance of training the Royal Naval Reserve men on board ship is fully recognised by the Board of Admiralty; the mode of giving effect to the principle has not yet been finally decided upon.

  SURCHARGES IN THE NENAGH UNION.
  Mr. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have received a communication from the Nenagh Board of Guardians complaining of certain surcharges made by their auditor against relieving officer Haugh, in his recent audit of the Union accounts; whether he is aware that a surcharge of £8 2s. was made in the case of a man named Hegarty, a labourer, who had been in receipt: of outdoor relief for nearly six years, being disabled from working by an accident, and a surcharge of £3 in the case of a widow Buckley, to whom relief was granted on a medical certificate; and whether, as the Guardians in granting the relief to Hegarty were acting on the precedent of a similar case, for which

  75
  they had received the sanction of the Local Government Board, 28th July, 1886, and the auditor admits that he was cognisant of that correspondence, the Local Government Board will consider the propriety of having these surcharges remitted?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. Morley): Representations have been made by the Nenagh Guardians to the Local Government Board regarding the surcharges referred to in the question, and the Board are at present in communication with the auditor on the subject.

  THE IRISH LAND ACTS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the desirability, before the inquiry into the Irish Land Acts begins, of requesting the various officials and ex-officials who have been engaged in working them, to furnish Reports giving their opinions as to the chief defects in the Acts and in the procedure affecting them?
  Mr. BRYCE (for Mr. J. Morley): I will convoy the suggestion embodied in the question to the Chief Secretary, who has already expressed his readiness to receive and consider any suggestions that may be made in connection with the contemplated Select Committee on the Rent-fixing Clauses of the Land Acts?

  THE IRISH EDUCATION ACT, 1892.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether arrangements have been made under which the School Attendance Committees, prescribed by the Irish Education Act of 1892, will come into operation on 1st January next; and, if not, what action the Government propose to take to give effect to the Act?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. Morley): Of the 118 boroughs, towns, and townships affected by the Irish Education Act of 1892, 93 have signified their willingness to comply with the requirements of the Act. Of these, 89 appointed their half Committees, and approval has been given by the National Education Commission to compliance with their regulations in 82 cases. In 80 cases the Commissioners have before them names of persons deemed suitable for appointment on their own half of
  76
  Committees. The proceedings, therefore. are well advanced in these cases; and as to the remaining cases, six of which arise from complaints under the Act of 1892, they are still under the consideration of the Government, and I cannot at this moment make any statement as to the course which will be pursued.
  Mr. JACKSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in all these cases the children are getting the benefit of free education?
  MR. BRYCE: I think I should have notice of that question.
  Mr. JACKSON: Well, I will give notice. I wish to ask, do the Government intend without delay to bring in a Bill which I understand is necessary to-remedy some defects in the Act of 1892 in order that the School Attendance Committees may be appointed, and the-Compulsory Clauses enforced throughout the districts to which the Act applies?
  MR. BRYCE: I stated to the House on a previous occasion that it was the-wish and the desire of the Government to introduce a Bill to remedy the flaw in. the Act, which has the effect of providing in some cases no means by which the expenses of the School Attendance Committees can be defrayed. That Bill is ready, and would be introduced at once if there was a prospect of passing it this Session as a non-contentious measure. At present there does not seem to be any prospect of that.
  MR. JACKSON: Is it due to the notice given by the hon. Member for North Kerry that the Government are-unable to give effect to the Act of 1892?
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether it is not entirely due to the-failure of the right hon. Gentleman who asks this question to use his influence to-carry out the undertaking that was arrived at? I should like to ask, as the-right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) has stated that, out of 118 cases, 93 are prepared to appoint Committees, whether, with reference to the remaining 25, have they refused to act, and, if so, are there-any means of compelling them to do so?
  MR. BRYCE: Of those that have not complied, I have to say that they are not all in the same position. Some of them have refused to act; some have delayed' in answering, and with regard to others it is not possible at present to see how, owing to the flaw in the Act of 1892, the

  77
  expenses of the School Committees are to he defrayed. If any further information is desired, questions had better he put on the Paper. As regards the questions raised by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Sexton) and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, they appear to belong to matters of controversy which cannot suitably be answered in reply to questions.
  Mr. JACKSON: I wish to know whether the Government accept responsibility for giving effect to the Education Act of 1892, and therefore remedying the defect they have discovered in it?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds who is responsible for the blunder in the Act of 1892?
  MR. BRYCE: The defect belongs to the Act, and has not arisen out of anything subsequently.
  MR. JACKSON: When was it discovered?
  MR. BRYCE: Some little time ago. With regard to the questions just put, I have nothing to add to the statement I have already made, except that the Government are ready and willing to introduce a Bill, but that at present they do not see any prospect of passing it as a non-contentious measure.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to give notice that until the condition is observed under which we allowed the Act to pass, and until certain public elementary schools not in connection with the National Board, willing to accept the Conscience Clause, and to satisfy the requirements of the Education Department as to their efficiency in teaching—until these schools are permitted to obtain a fair share of the public grant, we shall regard any further legislation intended to make compulsion effectual as acutely contentious.
  MR. JACKSON: I think I am entitled to ask, after that notice, whether the Government will delay bringing in a I Bill until the notice is withdrawn?
  MR. BRYCE: I think the House is fully in possession of the facts, and that no further answer is necessary from me.

  CYCLISTS ON CONSTITUTION HILL.
  MR. NAPIER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will kindly consider the possibility of granting to cyclists the use of Constitution Hill for thorough-
  78
  fare under the same or similar conditions as those imposed upon hackney carriages?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): His Royal Highness the Ranger has agreed to my recommendation that cyclists should be allowed to pass along Constitution Hill when open for carriage traffic; and revised Rules will shortly be issued for giving effect to this concession.

  THE DISTRESS AT PASSAGE WEST.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he could now state what steps the Admiralty propose taking in order to relieve the distress at Passage West by giving employment at Haulbowline Docks?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Referring to my answer on the 4th of December, I hope that the Admiral in command at Queenstown will he in a position on Saturday next to call for tenders for the work connected with the additional ventilation of the Warspite. It has also been decided to dock the Albacore and the Hind at Haulbowline. Difficulties have been encountered in arranging for any other work at Haul-bowline or Passage at the present time. Rut the matter will not be lost sight of, as there is every desire to take into consideration the want of employment there and the consequent distress.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that many Queenstown shipwrights are at present idle? Will be kindly give instructions that their interests shall not be allowed to suffer through any provision made for Passage West?
  SIR U. KAY-SIIUTTLEWORTH: I hope that any arrangements made will relieve the pressure both at Haulbowline and Passage West.

  HIGH SHERIFFS AND THE IRISH GRAND JURY SYSTEM.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Lord Lieutenant proposes to appoint as High Sheriffs of Irish counties any gentlemen holding Nationalist opinions in politics, with a view to the reform of the Irish Grand Jury system by the summoning of some Grand Jurors at least in sympathy

  79
  with the majority of the people of the country, during the coming year?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): The appointments of High Sheriffs for counties in Ireland are made by the Lord Lieutenant from lists consisting of three names for each county, submitted by Her Majesty's Judges in pursuance of the practice created by the Statutes regulating the office. The Irish Government have, therefore, no power of choice except as between the three names submitted.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: If Lord Lieutenants can dismiss High Sheriffs why cannot they appoint them?
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of Statutes regulating the office. Is it not a fact that the practice of appointment in Ireland is regulated not by Statute, but by usage?
  MR. BRYCE: That is a legal question of which notice had better be given.
  MR. COHEN: Is it the practice of the Judges, before submitting the names, to inquire into the political opinions of the gentlemen who bear those names?
  MR. BRYCE: I have no knowledge of the practice of the Judges.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Do I gather that these appointments rest by Statute?
  MR. BRYCE: If it is desired to know whether it is Statute modified by usage I will make further inquiry.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman refer us to any Statute governing these matters?
  MR. BRYCE: No; I have no references here.

  THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE LAND ACTS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the vital importance of developing Irish land purchase by occupying tenants on the most appropriate lines, the Government will agree to include in the Reference to the Select Committee on Irish Land Acts a direction to inquire and report as to the working of the several purchase systems up to the present time?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. Morley): Yes, it is proposed to include among the
  80
  I subjects of inquiry by the Committee the principle and practice of the administration of the various purchase systems.

  THE DRAINAGE OF THE WASH.
  MR. BRAND: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee next Session to inquire into the Report of Sir John Rennie, in 1837, as to the better drainage of the Wash, with a view to ascertaining whether any advantage can now be taken of the recommendations then made involving the very considerable improvements in the four ports on the Wash—namely, Boston, Spalding, Sutton Bridge, and Lynn, and the reclamation of land estimated at 150,000 acres?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): This is a very large scheme, upon which no action has been taken for more than half a century, and I could not undertake to recommend the appointment of a Select Committee without a good deal more information on the subject than I at present possess.
  MR. J. STUART: Is there any objection to having a copy of Sir John Rennie's Report printed and distributed among Members?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I must ask for notice of that.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misconception as to nothing having been done. In fact, the Norfolk Estuary Company has done a great deal of reclamation.

  IRISH CONSTABULARY PENSIONS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if, since the agitation of the Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners about the force fund, different and less convenient arrangements as to paying these pensions have been made; and was the former plan that of making payment at the nearest barrack, whereas in some instances old men have now to travel to the county town, often a long distance from their homes?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. Morley): It appears to be the fact that the facilities heretofore given to pensioners in the matter of the payment of pensions have

  81
  recently to some extent been curtailed, but this, lam informed, has been brought about by a provision of the Annual Appropriation Act, under which the Treasury have required that each Constabulary pensioner shall make a declaration of identity and of his title to receive the pension, and in many cases officers have considered themselves obliged to require the personal attendance of pensioners in order to take their declarations. The subject has already been brought under notice, and the Government are now considering the desirability of reverting to the former arrangement. It would still be necessary, however, for pensioners to make the required declarations before either Magistrates or clergymen.

  RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION IN IRELAND
  Dr. R. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the present condition of the railway that is being constructed between Westport, County Mayo, and Achill Sound; is he aware that the works have been stopped for some months, and can he state from what cause; what were the terms of the original agreement on which the line was to be made; and has this agreement been adhered to; and, if not, will he explain way?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: That part of the line which lies between Westport and Mallaranny is being constructed under an agreement with the Midland Great Western Railway Company, which company has loyally carried out all the agreements made with it under the Light Railways Act. The company has given notice of its intention to apply forthwith to the Board of Trade for authority to open the section between Westport and Newport. The portion between Mallaranny and Achill was commenced as a relief work, and, as I have previously stated, the heads of an agreement hive been lately arrived at with the Midland Great Western Railway Company for its future working and maintenance, which will be reduced to formal shape as soon as certain details of plans, &c., are finally settled, and the works will then be completed as quickly as possible.
  MR. DILLON: When may the work on the Mallaranny branch be expected to be commenced? I am informed that no work is proceeding on that portion of the line, although this is
  82
  a time of year when wages are badly needed in that part of Ireland. I am informed, too, that more work is required on the other branch before it can be opened.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTwas understood to reply that matters were being pushed forward as rapidly as possible.

  QUARTER SESSIONS CASES AT ASSIZES.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Birmingham, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the observations of Mr. Justice Charles, in charging the Warwickshire Grand Jury on the 11th instant, to the effect that he found several Sessions cases had been included in the Calendar, and that the Assizes, therefore, did not get the relief which the Legislature intended to give them when the Assizes Relief Act was passed; and whether he has taken steps, since the date of previous questions to him relating to the Assizes Relief Act, by communication with Her Majesty's Judges or otherwise, to see that the intention of that Act is not frustrated hereafter; and, if so, with what result?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): The whole question is under consideration. It is desirable, on the one hand, that the Assizes should be relieved of Sessions cases, and, on the other, that untried persons, charged with Sessions offences, should not be detained for au undue time in custody. In order to mitigate, and, where possible, to prevent, the latter form of hardship, I am issuing a Circular to the Justices of the Kingdom, urging upon them the importance of more freely exercising their power of releasing, on bail, persons committed for trial, and of fixing the amount of bail with a careful regard to the means, character, and circumstances of the accused.
  SIR R. PAGET: Have not Judges repeatedly expressed au opinion that prisoners should not remain too long in prison untried, and that the Assizes should have the effect of a gaol delivery?
  MR. ASQUTTH: In reply to the hon. Baronet, I have to say I am quite aware that great hardship is caused by the long

  83
  detention in gaol of prisoners awaiting trial, and I am issuing a Circular in order to get rid of that hardship. Judges have often made observations of the nature indicated by the hon. Baronet.

  INSTRUCTION IN MODERN LANGUAGES.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what steps the Scotch Education Department will take in order to carry out the recommendations in the Report of Professor Strong on the methods of teaching modern languages in schools on the Continent?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Report by Professor Strong has been published for the information of managers of schools and of others interested in this subject, to which my Lords have frequently called attention in their Annual Reports. The matter is one which must rest primarily with the Local Authorities; and in connection with the inspection of higher class schools and the Leaving Certificate examination, my Lords will study carefully the means by which, for their own part, they may encourage the teaching of modern languages.

  THE AFGHAN TREATY.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, in respect of the engagements recently entered into with His Highness the Ameer of Afghanistan, the territory which has come under British control considerably exceeds in extent that which is given over to Afghanistan; and can Papers with maps be laid before Parliament at an early date describing those territories respectively, also explaining the nature and method of control proposed to be exercised over the territory thus newly brought under the Indian Government?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State, as I mentioned last week (in reply to the hon. Member for Central Hackney), is as yet in possession only of telegraphic summaries of the points of agreement arrived at, and is not in a position consequently to give an answer to these questions.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the agreement arrived at include the question of the Afghan frontier on the Pamirs?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: I would rather not answer any question until I have received full particulars.

  EVICTION PROCEDURE IN IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTON: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution unanimously adopted by the Listowel Board of Guardians on the 14th instant, declaring that owing to want of specific notice of the time at which evictions are to be executed, hardship is suffered invariably when any of the people evicted are aged or infirm, and unable to travel to the residence of the relieving officer; and whether, with a view to prevent the infliction of avoidable hardship, the Government will use their influence to secure that the notices of evictions given to the officers of the Guardians are sufficiently specific to enable those officers to arrange for the timely relief of the evicted?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): My attention has been drawn to the resolution adopted by the Listowel Board of Guardians on the 14th instant, and I quite feel that hardship may occasionally result from the indefiniteness of a notice. Under Section 2 of the Act 11 & 12 Vict., c. 47, notice must be served on the relieving officer of the intended eviction "not less than 48 hours" before the execution of any writ of possession. The Statute does not appear to impose any obligation of stating the precise time when the eviction will take place, and the Executive have no power to compel the landowner to give more specific information than the Act provides, and no efficient means of exerting any influence for that purpose.
  MR. SEXTON: The statutory provision being manifestly inadequate, may I ask whether it is not the duty of the Sheriff, when he applies to the Government for police protection, to state when the evictions are to take place? Could not the information be transmitted then to the relieving officer in order that he might make provision for the aged and infirm?
  MR. BRYCE: I can hardly say without consideration whether such an arrangement is possible, I have, however, already expressed my opinion that the present state of things may work harshly in some instances.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Have the Local Government Board any

  85
  information as to cases in which hardship has been inflicted?
  MR. BRYCE: That is obviously a question which can only be answered after communication with the Local Government Board.

  FEVER HOSPITAL AT WOOLWICH.
  Mr. GODSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a large hospital for fever patients (500 in number) is going to be erected within 150 yards of the present National Military Hospital at Woolwich (for 700 patients); whether there is not a better site further west distant from all habitations, and far more suitable owing to the natural formation of the, land; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary for bringing about an alteration of the site of the proposed new hospital?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have made representations that the War Department objects to the proposed site for the fever hospital, but without success.
  MR. GODSON: To whom can appeal be made?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Local Government Board. I must not be understood as implying doubts as to the wisdom of the decision arrived at by that, Department. I only say that the representations I made on the part of the War Office were of no avail.

  CORK POST OFFICE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the report of a meeting of the Cork Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping on the 4th instant, at which reference was made to the numerous errors in telegrams dealt with in the Cork Post Office, and the losses sustained by the public thereby; whether he is aware that over 20 temporary hands are at present employed, a large number of whom are most inexperienced operators, and who are dealing with most important, public telegrams every day; whether he is also aware that complaints have been made by the Cork newspapers of delay which Press telegrams have sustained owing to the insufficiency of the staff of this office; and whether, considering
  86
  these facts, he will take immediate steps to increase the permanent staff of the Cork office?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): I cannot find that any communication has reached the Department from the Chamber of Commerce, but, immediately after the meeting to which the hon. Member refers, the Postmaster of Cork took steps to obtain particulars of the errors to which attention had been called. Four cases were described to him, one of which occurred in 1889, and the other three in September and November of this year. All these had been inquired into, and the necessity for carefulness had been impressed on the officers concerned, but it, was by no means proved that the responsibility for the errors rested with the telegraphists at Cork. As to Press telegrams, no recent, complaint appears to have been made of delay except in the case of those transmitted from race meetings. The question whether the transmission of such telegrams can be expedited in any way is at present under consideration. It is true that a considerable number of temporary hands are at present employed in the Telegraph Office at Cork, and I am informed that the reason why a proposal has not been made to permanently increase the force is that the telegraph business there has for some time been subject to extreme fluctuations which render it necessary to proceed with caution in making any permanent addition. On this point, however, I am having further inquiry made.

  DUBLIN NATIONAL GALLERY.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state whether the attendants at the National Gallery in Dublin are paid at the same rate as those at the National Galleries in London and Edinburgh; and, if not, whether the Treasury will consider the advisability of placing the Irish attendants upon the same footing as the English and Scotch?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT(who replied): I cannot admit that any fair comparison can be drawn between the pay of porters in the Dublin National Gallery, the attendants in Edinburgh, and the porters in London: but I may say that, in view of comparisons which I have seen between the wages of the porters in the Dublin

  87
  National Gallery and those paid to similar persons by important private firms in Dublin, I am disposed to think that some moderate improvement in the former would be justifiable, and the matter is receiving attention.

  THE INCORPORATION OF OXFORD.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will place upon the Notice Paper the terms of the clause by which he proposes to save the Incorporation of Oxford from the loss of the large number of its members which it would appear to be in danger of sustaining under the provisions of the Local Government Bill?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. Fowler,): I shall be happy to show the hon. Member the clause directly it has been drafted.

  THE RATING QUALIFICATION OF GUARDIANS.
  Mr. M'DERMOTT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that the £20 rating qualification of the Portumna Union renders it impossible for the ratepayers of the Electorial Division of Coose to elect as Guardian a person resident within their own Division; that, Coose is the only division in the said Union which is scheduled as a congested district; and that the ratepayers have to search through the Union for many miles for a person to represent their Division, in which he is not rated, and therefore can have no interest; and whether an Order will be issued reducing the qualification to £5, which has been adopted as the uniform qualification of a Guardian in all the Poor Law Unions of England?
  Mr. T.CURRAN: At the same time I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Tubbercurry Board of Guardians, at their meeting on the 11th instant, adopted a resolution calling on the Local Government Board for Ireland to reduce the rating qualification for Guardians in the Union to £5; will the request of the Guardians be complied with; and, if so, I how soon; and will he see that the reform asked for will be brought into
  88
  operation before the next annual election of Guardians?
  Mr. BRYCE: The facts are substantially as stated, and, as I have already observed, the general question of the reduction of the qualification for the office of Poor Law Guardian is now under the consideration of the Chief Secretary, and it is expected that a decision, which will deal with the two cases now referred to, will be arrived at in full time to admit of its taking effect at the next annual election of Guardians.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Is it the general opinion of the Government that a person could have no interest in the administration of the rates if he is not directly rated, or is it only applicable to Ireland?
  MR. BRYCE: I am not aware that the Government have expressed any such opinion.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: But the question contains that statement, and the right hon. Gentleman said the statements in the question were true?
  MR. BRYCE: If the hon. Gentleman had caught the terms of my answer, he would have noticed that I did not express any opinion on the point he raises. I said, "the facts are substantially as stated."
  MR. M'DERMOTT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that the rating qualification for a member of the Dispensary Committee in the Portumna Union is £30 per annum; that in the Division of Coose there is nobody qualified; in Drummin only three; and in the Union in general extremely few; and, as it is most important that all classes should be represented on the committee, whether an order will be issued reducing the qualification to £5, which has been adopted as the uniform qualification of a Guardian in all the Poor Law Unions of England?
  MR. BRYCE: Under Section 7 of the Medical Charities Act of 1851 the qualification of a resident ratepayer to act as a member of the Dispensary Committee is fixed at a minimum valuation of £30, and the Local Government Board have no power to vary the qualification for this office as suggested. The Local Government Board are empowered, however, to fix the qualification for the office of Poor

  89
  Law Guardian; different qualifications may be provided for different Electoral Divisions, and no higher qualification than a valuation of £30 may be required. The hon. Member will observe, therefore, that the two cases are not parallel.

  SCOTCH POSTMASTERS AND PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a Postmaster is eligible for a seat as a Commissioner of a Police Burgh in Scotland; and how far a Postmaster is allowed to take an active part in political matters?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I have no knowledge of what the special duties and functions of a Commissioner of a Police Burgh in Scotland are, but there is no Regulation prohibiting a Postmaster from taking part in parochial or municipal matters so long as his official duties are not interfered with thereby. But as to political matters the case is different. In these a Postmaster is prohibited from taking an active part.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: May I ask whether Postmasters in England are not prohibited from serving on County Councils?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Yes, Sir: there is a Rule to that effect.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider a County Councillor a political officer?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The Regulation in question was enforced before I was appointed Postmaster General, and I see no reason to interfere with it.

  SICK LEAVE IN THE CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the date of the Treasury authority governing the conditions of employment of assistant clerks and abstractors in the Civil Service, particularly with reference to sick leave; whether the limit of sick leave allowed to assistant clerks and abstractors is a continuous period of six weeks; and whether, in the case of any permanent Civil Service clerk, the amount of annual leave taken in any one year is deducted from the period for which full payment is allowed on account of absence through sickness?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Treasury letter of July 17, 1891, to the Commissioners of Customs laid down that the maximum period on full pay to be allowed to abstractors in respect of ordinary and sick leave together should not exceed six weeks in the year. The leave may or may not be continuous. A circular issued to the Departments on May 2, 1892, directed that the maximum sick leave allowable on full pay under the Orders in Council of March 21 and August 15, 1890, should include all ordinary leave.

  COMPULSORY EDUCATION IN BELFAST.
  MR. MACARTNEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Belfast, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education have yet nominated persons to act on the Committee to be appointed for carrying out the Compulsory Education Act in Belfast; and whether the gentlemen so appointed have consented to act; and, if not, what is the ground of their refusal?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): Five persons have been nominated by the National Board to act as the committee to be appointed for carrying out the compulsory clauses of the Education Act in Belfast. I understand that a statement was made in the public Press that some of these gentlemen had refused to act, but, so far as the Commissioners are aware, this statement is without foundation.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, among the appointments made by the Corporation for the City, one-fourth of the population of which is Roman Catholic, any Catholic gentleman was included?
  MR. BRYCE: I have no information on the subject.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say how many Catholics were nominated?
  MR. BRYCE: I have already said I have no information.

  THE DUNMORE LIFEBOAT.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Mr. Boucher, one of the crew that manned the Dunmore lifeboat when she went last

  91
  week to the rescue of a ship in distress off the Waterford coast, lost his life by the capsizing of the lifeboat; how long has this boat been at Dunmore; has she ever been at any other station; has she ever capsized before; and are lifeboats of a much superior class being built at present; and, if so, could one of the most improved plan be provided for Dunmore, which is at the mouth of the Waterford Harbour?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I have ascertained that the facts are as stated in the hon. Member's question. The coxswain of the lifeboat, who is also a chief boatman in the Coastguard, states that the station boat was away under repair, and that the boat in use had not previously been out on service at Dunmore. I am informed, however, that she is a good boat, of the same dimensions as the station boat, has done good service elsewhere, and has not been connected with any previous accident. I am further informed that the regular station boat is being fitted with the latest improvements, and will he sent back to Dunmore in March next.
  MR. POWER: Are we to understand that there is no one responsible for the proper administration of this most important service?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No one is responsible in this House for the National Lifeboat Association or any other voluntary Association.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is time that someone should be responsible?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No, Sir; I think not.

  SALMON POACHING OFF THE RIVER BROOM.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the prosecution at Dingwall, on the 12th instant, of John M'Lean, crofter fisherman of Letter, Roderick Maclennan, of the same place, and Alexander Mackenzie, for alleged salmon poaching, on the 10th July last, in au arm of the sea a mile distant from the mouth of the River Broom; and that, in their absence, the defendants were sentenced to pay a fine of £2 10s. each, inclusive of costs, or in default seven days' imprisonment; whether he
  92
  will state the reason why proceedings were delayed until 12th December; whether he is aware thst John M'Lean is 80 years of age, bent almost double, that Roderick Maclennan is 60 years of age, and that Alexander Mackenzie is a cripple, 25 years of age; is he aware that, the men were fishing for herrings for bait, and that no trout were found in the boat; that, although M'Lean gave orders to throw back into the sea any trout found in the net, the estate officials seized the net and threw the trout on shore, and cut a square of 16 loops out of the net; and that the net was meshed for herring and not for salmon; is he aware that Sheriff Hill refused the application of the solicitor of Dingwall for the defendants for a postponement of the trial, regardless of the fact that, owing to the shortness of the notice given, he (Mr. McRitchie) had neither received his instructions nor a copy of the citation; can he explain why, seeing that the defendants live nearly 50 miles from the Dingwall Court House and over 30 miles from the nearest railway station, the summonses were issued only two days before the date of trial; why, and by what authority, did the estate officials injure the men's net by cutting a square of 16 loops from it; and will he say whether he will cause immediate inquiry to be made into the case; and whether, pending inquiry, further proceedings will be stayed?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have referred the matter to the Crown Agent for inquiry, but there has not been sufficient time for him to obtain the necessary information. I will answer the hon. Member if he will repeat his question next week.
  MR. WEIR: I should like to point out that the question as originally drawn gave the name of the prosecutor, Mr. —
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! It is not according to the Rule to allow such names to be mentioned in the question, and therefore it was cut out.
  Mr. WEIR: Will all action against these poor people be stayed?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: That cannot be done unless on well ascertained grounds.
  MR. WEIR: Under what Standing Order of the House is it permissible to insert defendants' names in a question

  93
  and not permissible to give the prosecutor's name?
  [No answer was given.]
  DR. MACGEEGOR: Do the Government contemplate an early amendment of the Game and Fishery Laws, so as to remedy the injustice now going on in the country?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: We have not had such good fortune with our Fishery Bills as to induce us to promise any further legislation.

  THE ELECTORAL FRANCHISE.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Law Officers of the Crown have given any opinion as to whether reception into a Poor Law infirmary causes loss of electoral franchise; whether such loss can by any means be obviated by the Guardians making a charge for maintenance; and if the Law Officers have not given any opinion, whether, having regard to the conflicting decisions of Revising Barristers, the Local Government Board will take their opinion?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Law Officers have not, so far as the Local Government Board are aware, advised on the question whether the provisions of the Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Act, 1885, extend to reception into a Poor Law infirmary. The question raised is a legal one, and if there are conflicting decisions of Revising Barristers it can only be settled by the High Court.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Would it not be possible for the Local Government Board to issue a direction to Guardians—assuming the law is in this uncertain state—whereby practically the result objected to might be obviated?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not think that would be in the province of the Local Government Board. This being a pure question of law the Law Courts must settle it.

  SEA CAPTAINS AND THEIR VOTE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many captains of the Peninsular and Oriental and other steamers have to pay Income Tax, and yet through the exi-
  94
  gencies of their service are not allowed votes at Parliamentary elections; and whether he will consider if an alteration of the law or regulations can be made to enable captains of steamers who are entitled to make declarations that they are Englishmen, and have no other home but England, and pay Income Tax, to have votes at Parliamentary elections?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER(Sir W. HARCOURT,): The inconvenience suffered in this case is not peculiar to the persons referred to in the question, but affects all persons whose occupation prevents them from establishing such residence as is required to confer the franchise. It is clear that this matter could only be dealt with in a measure embracing the whole question of residential qualification.

  GOVERNMENT PRINTING WORK IN IRELAND.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what steps have been taken, if any, in remedying the evils complained of in connection with Government printing work in Ireland?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have seen no evidence that the terms of the Resolution of the House of Commons of February 13, 1891, have been infringed by the contractors for Government printing in Ireland; but the same precautious are taken in Ireland as in England for enforcing that Resolution and for ensuring that no preference shall be given as between Unionists and non-Unionists.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Admiralty Department in Ireland have acted upon the terms of the Resolution? Why cannot the same course be taken by the Treasury Department?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I can only repeat that if the hon. Member can indicate any cases in which the terms of the Resolution of the House of Commons are not complied with notice will be taken of them.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the early part of this Session the matter was brought under his notice, and he promised to make inquiry then? Yet the wages paid are still under the current rates, and an excessive number of boys are employed, the number being far in

  95
  excess of that allowed by any Trades Union in the United Kingdom.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: If the hon. Member will give me particulars I will promise to consider them.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: I have already supplied the right hon. Gentleman with the information.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Have the Admiralty laid down any special rule as to contracts?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot say what the Admiralty have done.

  THE DISTRESS AT PASSAGE WEST.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can make any announcement as to the results of the promised consideration of measures for the relief of the intense distress at Passage West?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. Morley): The Chief Secretary for Ireland has been in communication with the Admiralty on the subject of the want of employment and the consequent distress among persons connected with the Passage West Docks. The Admiralty have entered sympathetically into the case, and will, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty in answer to Question No. 2, provide such work as may be found feasible.

  LOBENGULA.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a speech made on Tuesday last by Sir Horace Farquhar, a Director of the South Africa Chartered Company, when presiding over a meeting of the Exploration Company, in which, speaking of the properties apparently held by the latter Company in Mashonaland, he said, that there is every hope that Lobougula will be taken or killed; and whether, in view of the fact that Imperial Forces are acting in conjunction with the forces of the Chartered Company, Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to prevent the killing of that Monarch?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): Her Majesty's Government are in no way responsible for anything Sir H.
  96
  Farquhar may say. But, as he has addressed a letter to me on the subject of the question, I will read it to the House—
  "I notice Mr. Labouchere has a question in the House to-day referring to my speech at the Exploration Company's meeting. This Company has interests in Mashonaland, and in dealing with these I alluded to the military operations in Matabeleland. I stated that the war was practically over, and that I hoped the next news would be that Lobengula had been taken prisoner or killed in war. My remark referred to the resistance to Captain Wilson, of which there has been cable news. From this it seemed apparent that Lobengula, much to my regret, did not intend to surrender."
  As regards the last question, I am quite confident that it is the anxious desire of the Commanders of both the Bechuanaland Police and of the Chartered Company Forces that Lobengula should not be killed or injured; and I repeat that Her Majesty's Government, so far as lies in their power, intend that Lobengula, if captured, shall be treated with every consideration: a consideration which he fully deserves by his conduct to the whites during the war.

  THE MATABELE CATTLE.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has received any further communications from Sir Henry Loch with reference to the seizure of cattle in Matabeleland?
  MR. S. BUXTON: We have received the following further telegram from Sir H. Loch in regard to this subject:—
  "I have been in communication with British South Africa Company respecting cattle, and they assure me that in every case where natives give in their submission they are allowed sufficient cattle to take back with them to their kraals for domestic requirements. I am making every effort to secure a speedy peaceful settlement of the country, and I am receiving every support from British South Africa Company to attain this result."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Who are the judges of what are sufficient cattle?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The judges, I presume, are the persons on the spot, of whom one is Colonel Goold-Adams, representing the Government.

  INDIAN COUNCIL BILLS.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Secretary of

  97
  State for India, in refusing to take less than a minimum price for Indian Council bills, has been acting upon the advice of the Indian Government or upon his own responsibility?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The responsibility for this and for any action that may be taken in respect of Council bills necessarily rests with the Secretary of State in Council, but his action in not selling bills below a minimum was in accordance with the opinion of the Government of India.
  SIR J. GORST: May I ask whether there has been any correspondence with the Government of India on the subject, and whether it can be laid on the Table?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: There has been correspondence, but I cannot say whether it can be laid without consulting the Secretary of State.

  THE RECLAMATION OF SLOB LANDS.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he was aware, when he referred to private enterprise in connection with the reclamation of slob lands, that the Crown by Act of Parliament in 1866 had taken possession of all the foreshores in the United Kingdom, and that since that time private enterprise could not be made much use of; and whether he will consent to a Select Committee being appointed to consider the question of these reclamations; and, if not, whether the Royal Commission on Agriculture could consider the matter?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): With regard to the appointment of a Select Committee, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer already given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension when he says there was an Act passed in 1866 by which the Government took over these lands. The Act of 1866 effected a change in the management from one Department of the Government to another, but did not establish any new proprietary rights or affect in any manner those proprietary rights which already existed. I may mention that the Commissioners are themselves about to undertake a reclamation of 500 acres of laud on the Humber. This may be taken to show, if it succeeds,
  98
  that there is no indisposition to give effect to this principle of reclamation when it can be done with the certainty of public advantage. Every reasonable facility and encouragement is being given to private persons who are disposed to undertake enterprises of this description. But, so far as the Government know, there is no great disposition in this country to embark capital in such enterprises; and, for my part, I should be very much gratified indeed if there were more.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of the Question.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It would not be within the province of the Royal Commission on Agriculture to consider the matter, nor would it be convenient for them to do so.

  THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. R. T. REID&c.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whatsteps the Government are prepared to take towards expediting the progress of the Local Government Bill, in order to allow sufficient time for the promised legislation of next year?
  MR. CHANNING: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question I beg to ask him whether he has considered the representations which have been largely made by his supporters on this side of the House, that Her Majesty's Government will have their hearty support if they make use of the powers given under Standing Order 25 for bringing the Debate upon a clause or part of a clause to a termination?
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I should like to ask whether it has been brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman that the President of the Local Government Board has given an assurance that Clause 58 of the Local Government Bill will be fully considered when we come to it?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: This is a question of principle and not intended to deal with separate clauses. I have no doubt that that clause as well as others will receive a full and fair consideration. Undoubtedly, a situation has been created for consideration by the Government with reference to the convenience of the House and perhaps with reference to the fair expectation of the country; but I

  99
  am not prepared to make any announcement on the part of the Government at the present moment. But we shall carefully watch the course of future discussion, with regard to which I cannot but attach importance to the declaration of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, who believes that contentious matter will not be found to a large extent in the latter part of the Bill. We shall give our closest attention to the subject from day to day, and we shall take the best counsel which the circumstances of the case may suggest.
  MR. E. G. WEBSTER (St.: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that of 56 Questions on the Paper to-day 45 are asked by his own supporters? And does not that protract the length of the Session by at least an hour?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not see that the casual occurrence of a large majority of questions from this side of the House on a particular occasion tends to protract the Session; especially as these questions are on the average disposed of in less than a minute each.
  DR. MACGREGOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Closure would be very popular in this part of the House?
  [No answer was returned.]

  CONVALESCENT FEVER HOSPITALS.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the great difficulties experienced by the Metropolitan Asylums Board in obtaining a suitable site for an additional convalescent fever hospital; and whether, having regard to the great pressure upon the accommodation for the fever patients of London, he will state the considerations which guide the Local Government Board in deciding on the sites submitted by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, so as to avoid the delays which of late have resulted through the selection by the Metropolitan Board of sites not subsequently sanctioned by the Local Government Board?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am aware of the difficulties with which the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum district have to contend in connection with the provision of sites for infectious
  100
  hospitals for the Metropolis. As regards the action of the Local Government Board, I way state that during my tenure of office the managers have submitted proposals to use permanently as a site for a fever hospital certain land at Tottenham, and to acquire adjoining land for the purpose of extending their hospital at that place, and that both these proposals were assented to. They have also applied for sanction to the acquisition of land for fever hospitals at Lewisham and at Kidbrooke, and the necessary sanction was given in both cases. I was unable to assent to a proposal to acquire laud adjoining Tooting Common for a hospital, but the managers subsequently submitted a proposal to purchase other land for the purpose at no great distance from the site originally suggested, and this was sanctioned. The last proposal had reference to certain land at Norwood, and with regard to this, after full consideration of all the circumstances, the Local Government Board deemed it necessary to withhold their consent. The considerations which govern the Local Government Board in their decision on applications of this character must necessarily depend very much on the local circumstances. Each case is dealt with on its own merits and with due regard to the circumstances generally connected with it as brought before the Board by the managers, by those locally interested, and in the Report of the Board's Inspectors made after a public local inquiry.
  MR. COHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great difficulty experienced by the Managers in providing hospital accommodation?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes. But that would not justify the Local Government Board in sanctioning an injustice.

  GAME LAW PROSECUTIONS IN CORNWALL.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state the legal position of the Magistrates of the West Powder Bench, who, in the cases brought before them on the 26th November last, unlawfully confiscated the gun licences of the defendants Richard Varcoe, Richard Hore, and Frank Willoughby: whether such illegality invalidates the rest of the sentences

  101
  imposed by them; what remedy or redress have the defendants against the Magisterial injustice of which they have been the victims; whether he can suggest any means by which the Cornwall County Magistrates may receive instruction in the law they are appointed to administer.; whether he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to these cases with a view to his adding to the Bench gentlemen with a, due knowledge of the law: and whether, as there is reason to believe that similar miscarriages of justice have been committed on numerous other occasion, he will make further inquiry into the operation of the Poaching Prevention Act, with a view to introducing an amending Bill next year?
  Mr. ASQUITH: (1.) The Justices in passing sentence made no mention of forfeiture, but left that to the operation of the law. Consequently the gun was forfeited, but not the licence. But it would appear that in the words of the conviction it was stated that both were forfeited. The mistake will be corrected. (2.) The sentence is not invalidated. (3.) Under these circumstances, the other questions do not appear to arise.
  MR. CONYBEARE: On this question of licences I want to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the statement of the Chairman—[cries of"Order!"]—who told the defendants that on the next occasion they had better carry their licences with them and show them to the policeman who might ask for it. That statement could only have been made with a view to the forfeiture of the licence. In the second place, I want to know whether the licence has yet been given up: and, if so, have any steps been taken to see that they are delivered?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not: aware that the Chairman made the statement in question. As to the licence, it has probably been given up—at least, I hope it has been. I am sure there will be no unavoidable delay.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on the 25th November, at the West Powder Petty Sessions, the Magistrates, Messrs. Polwhele, Cants-Wilson, G. J. Smith, and Hitchins, fined Richard Varcoe, of St. Agnes, 10s. and 18s. 6d. costs, and in addition forfeited his gun licence and gun; whether
  102
  he is aware that Varcoe was charged with coming from land where it was suspected that he had been in search of game, and that no evidence was produced in support of this charge except the bare suspicion of one policeman; that Varcoe, being challenged to produce his gun licence, offered to do so if the policeman would accompany him to his house; that on the way thither the policeman insisted on searching Varcoe; that on the evidence of two witnesses he beat Varcoe with his staff, and, seizing him by the throat, tore open his collar and shirt and threw him to the ground; that the gun when seized by the constable was still loaded, and had not been fired for the day; and that Varcoe turned out his pockets in the presence of the constable and several other witnesses, who can testify that they were all empty of game; whether a policeman has any right to use such violence upon mere suspicion against a person whom he merely meets on the public highway; whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to the remission of the penalties imposed, and the return to Varcoe of his licence and gun; whether, in connection with the same case, a weak old man of 70, named Francis Harris, of St. Agnes, without a blot on his character, was charged with wilfully obstructing the policeman by stepping between him and Varcoe in order to save the boy from the constable's blows, and that he was fined 10s. and 9s. costs, although the chairman, Mr. Carus-Wilson, stated in imposing that penalty,
  "You did it in ignorance. Had you known you were doing wrong, you would not have done it;"
  and whether he will direct that the penalty shall be, under these circumstances, remitted?
  MR. ASQUITH: (1.) The amount of the penalty is correctly stated in the question. (2.) I am informed that the police constable in question heard a gun fired and saw Varcoe get over a hedge into a lane find proceed in the direction of a plantation; that on the police constable following Varcoe first walked and then ran away; that the police constable, overtaking him, asked him for his gun licence, and that Varcoe replied by saying, "If you want to see my licence you must take a walk along with me;" that the constable sus-

  103
  pected Varcoe of coming from land where he had been in pursuit of game, and took him by the coat for the purpose of searching him; that Varcoe then caught him by the throat, and in the scuffle that ensued both fell to the ground; in the course of the struggle the policeman did strike Varcoe with his truncheon on the arm; it is a fact that the gun was loaded when taken from the prisoner, but there was no evidence to show it had not been fired that day. (3.) The Statute 25 & 26 Vict. c. 114 gives a constable the right of searching on the highway any person whom he may have good cause to suspect, and to seize and detain any gun found upon him, and therefore he is justified in using such force as may be necessary for the purpose. (4.) Except as to the forfeiture of the licence, there appears to be no sufficient ground for reversing the decision of the Magistrates. The defendant might have appealed if he had thought fit. (5.) The Justices' report that it was not to save Varcoe from blows, but to prevent the constable from overtaking him and recovering his helmet that Harris intervened. The chairman pointed out that the Justices could inflict a fine of £5, but in consideration of Harris not knowing he was doing wrong a fine of 10s. and costs only was imposed. (6.) On the subject of the forfeiture of the licence I am in communication with the Justices.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it appears from the evidence that the man walked along for half a mile quite peaceably with the constable, and that the latter suddenly seized Varcoe by the neck and threw him to the ground in order to search him for game. As I have in my possession the signed statement of two witnesses, one of whom was working on the land in question—[Cries of "Order!"]—will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the case?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is hardly so much putting a question as making a statement.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I only want the right hon. Gentleman to assist in this matter. I do not wish to transgress your ruling. I have two witnesses—[Cries of "Order!"]—and I want to know—[Renewed cries of"Order!"]—hon. Gentlemen have had their turn during the past
  104
  hour—I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether he will take into consideration the further evidence I have obtained on this subject; and whether, in spite of the fact that these men, not knowing the law, have allowed the time for appeal to go by, he will allow me to bring the matter before him?
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot undertake to alter the decision which the Justices arrived at on a question of fact; but, of course, if any facts come to light which have only been disclosed since the trial, I will consider them.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every one of the Magistrates who tried this case is a Tory and a game preserver? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I rise to ask if such a question is in Order?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that question is not in Order.
  MR. CONYBEARE: What I desire to know is whether the right hon. Gentleman will bring these cases before the Lord Chancellor, with a view to seeing whether the Lord Chancellor will not put at least one or two Liberal Magistrates on the Board?
  MR. STOREY: Arising out of that question I wish to ask whether, if similar cases from every part of the country are put before him, he will not be inclined to make some change in the law under which a policeman can, as it seems, stop any civilian on the highway and search him violently at his own sweet will?
  MR. ASQUITH: With regard to this particular case I do not see that justice has not substantially been done, but I think the question which the hon. Member for Sunderland raises is worthy of consideration.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries as to the working of the Poaching Prevention Act and oblige me with a Return as to the convictions under it?
  MR. ASQUITH: If the hon. Gentleman will give notice I shall have no objection to the presentation of such a Return.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I will give notice; and I will also bring in a Bill to amend the present Act.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether the same rights of seizure

  105
  and search are not exercised under the Fishery Districts Act, and whether that Act ought not to be amended as much as the other?
  [No answer was returned.]

  OUTDOOR RELIGIOUS SERVICES IN CORK.
  Referring to a question on the Paper (No. 47) by the hon. and gallant Member for East Cork on this subject, which however was not put,—
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid I wish to ask what course will be taken in regard to Question 47, which was not put to-night. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Member for West Belfast put a question on the same subject, but withdrew it at the request of the right hon. Gentleman. That course having been taken in regard to the question of my hon. Friend, I wish to know whether the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is again to appear on the Paper?
  MR. BRYCE: The reasons which induced the hon. and gallant Member for Cork and the hon. Member for West Belfast not to put their questions are those which induce me not to make any statement on the subject.
  MR. MACARTNEY: But am I to understand that no further question on this subject will appear on the Paper?
  MR. BRYCE: I have no control over the Question Paper.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to state that I withdrew my question on the understanding that the hon. Member for West Belfast withdrew his.

  POINT OF ORDER.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name— namely,
  "That this House do meet To-morrow: it Two o'clock."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On a point of Order, can that Motion now be made?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That Motion cannot be made until immediately before the Orders of the Day.

ANNUITIES OF THE DUKE OF SAXECOBURG AND GOTHA.

  STATEMENT.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I wish to take this opportunity of fulfilling an
  106
  engagement I entered into with the House some weeks ago. Various questions were then put to the Government with respect to the altered position of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, now Duke of Saxe-Coburg, and, those questions being more or less of a fragmentary character, I intimated, on behalf of the Government, that we were considering the whole of them, and that when they reached the stage of what might be regarded as maturity I would offer some explanation to the House, presenting a clear view on the subject. That pledge I now wish to redeem by making a statement to the House, of course on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. The House is aware that the position of the Duke of Edinburgh is fixed by two Acts, one of the year 1866, which conferred upon him for his own personal use an annuity of £15,000 a year, and the second an Act of 1873, which, in view of his then immediately approaching marriage, conferred on His Royal Highness a further annuity of £10,000 a year in somewhat different language, for the words used were—
  "In order to provide for the establishment of His Royal Highness and for Her Imperial Highness"
  who was to become, and did become, Duchess of Edinburgh. Both these Acts contained a provision having reference to the contingency of a foreign accession, the provision being to this effect—that it should be allowable for Her Majesty, in the event of such accession, with the consent of Parliament, to reduce or revoke the annuity. The freedom of Parliament was thereby completely secured, and Parliament can take what course it may think proper in the matter. But, in the meantime, I wish to state to the House what has been done by the Executive Government. I have, however, also to say that when the Act of 1873 was passed, in lieu of the reserved power to deal with the annuity on the arrival of a certain contingency, a Motion was made in this House to provide beforehand for an absolute reduction. I represented the Government on that occasion. My speech is reported, I have no doubt, with substantial accuracy in the columns of Hansard, and the effect of it was that the Duke's accession would not necessarily have the consequence of removing him from the cha-

  107
  racter of a British Prince, or from all British obligations, and that, therefore, liberty ought to be reserved to Parliament to consider the case according to circumstances when it arose. I also gave it as the opinion of the Government that the annuity might be reduced, but ought not to be revoked. Parliament was not a party to that declaration, but it was received, I think, on the assurance that Parliament was free, with satisfaction by the House, and it was, I think, regarded as not unreasonable that our discretion should be reserved, and should not be foreclosed by an absolute declaration providing for the reduction of the annuity. Well, Sir, that was the situation, and now the situation is affected, I think, in a manner that will give satisfaction by a declaration of His Royal Highness himself. His Royal Highness has signified to us—it having been, of course, our duty to enter into communications with His Royal Highness on the subject—in the first place that he desires—and he uses, I think, a happy expression—not simply to comply with, but to anticipate the wishes of Parliament, by himself proposing to surrender a portion of the annuity.
  MR. CONYBEARE: All.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: He says a portion of the annuity, and His Royal Highness gives the reason why, as he thinks, that is the proper course. He states in a manner which appears to us perfectly explicit, and for which we make ourselves responsible, that he proposes habitually—of course as a general rule—to pass a portion of the year in England—and for that purpose to retain the possession of Clarence House, and to maintain Clarence House with the establishment that will be necessary for its maintenance. In that manner the Duke of Edinburgh—or, as I should now call him, the Duke of Saxe-Coburg—has manifestly shown, in the first place, that he regards it as his duty to maintain in full his domestic relations in England with the illustrious family of the Queen; and, in the second place, that he contemplates an annual expenditure in England which will be a strictly British expenditure. Well, Sir, under these circumstances, and from this point of view, Her Majesty's Government took the matter into their consideration, and
  108
  the conclusion at which they arrived was that, in the event of the surrender, or, rather, the renunciation of the Act of 1866, which confers an annuity of £15,000 a year, it would be just and equitable, in view of the Duke's prospective British expenditure in his character as a member of the Royal Family, that His Royal Highness should continue during his life to receive the annuity of £10,000 a, year granted by the Act of 1873. That is the substance of what I have to state to the House. What remains is a question of procedure. I have pointed out to the House that the Duke was desirous to anticipate the desires of Parliament and the country within the limits which appear to him to be reasonable, and that Her Majesty's Government have considered those limits to be reasonable. The mode of proceeding adopted has been this. To mark this as a voluntary act on the part of his Royal Highness there has been drawn a deed of renunciation absolving and cancelling altogether the annuity of £15,000 a year. That deed has been executed by the Duke and transmitted to the Government. It will be treated by the Government as a public document; in fact, this matter will be treated in substance as corresponding to a somewhat similar, but not wholly analogous, matter—the case of Leopold King of Belgium. The deed will be treated as a public document, and on the strength of that document any issue of the money will be prevented. That being so, it is quite evident to us that the machinery contemplated by the Act of Parliament need not be put in motion. It was a machinery applicable to the purpose of a coercive giving up of the annuity, for which we think there is no cause when coercive action has been anticipated by a voluntary offer which appears to be reasonable in its terms. I do not think it would be satisfactory to Parliament or to the people of England either that the Duke of Saxe-Coburg should abandon his close relations with the Queen and the Royal Family, or that when he remains for a portion of the year in this country in order to maintain those relations the expense of so doing should be thrown upon himself. We feel that the application of the machinery I have referred to has become altogether unnecessary, and that, besides being unnecessary, inasmuch as we are responsible

  109
  to the House for the full execution of the intentions I have announced, it would he injudicious. I do not know a case in which this House or any quarter of this House has in a matter of this kind shown a disposition, when there is full security for the substantial maintenance of the public interests involved, to receive in an ungracious temper a proposal involving a question of the Royal Family. So much for the question of the annuity. There are two other questions raised by the accession of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to the Principality of Saxe-Coburg. One of them is a question with which I think we in this House have nothing to do. The Duke of Edinburgh is a Peer, and has sat, and no doubt voted, in the House of Lords. The question whether he retains his position in the House of Lords is a question for the House of Lords itself to decide, and the House of Lords would, I imagine, decline to recognise any attempt to interfere in the matter from any other quarter. The other question upon which I have been interrogated in this House is in respect of the Privy Council. I stated upon an earlier occasion that Her Majesty's Government were desirous to leave that matter to he made the subject of communication between His Royal Highness and Her Majesty the Queen. Such communication, Sir, has taken place in the form of a request by the Duke of Saxe-Coburg to Her Majesty that his name might he omitted from the list of the Privy Council. That I believe, whether it, is a necessary proceeding or not, is on the whole a, just and judicious proceeding, and it disposes of the matter in a way which, on the whole, the House will be inclined to think most judicious and proper. That is, I think, a complete statement of all the facts. It relieves the House from all trouble in the matter, and I am bound to say that in my opinion the form of proceeding we have suggested is the best one to adopt—namely, the negative form of recognising the anticipatory act of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and accepting it. I have stated frankly that it is our opinion that the Duke, contemplating it, regular British expenditure, an expenditure which has belonged to the whole of his earlier life, a life which has now reached half a century—should continue to receive the minor income granted to him by Parlia-
  110
  ment—namely, the annuity of £10,000 a year secured by the Act of 1873. That is the redemption of the promise I gave to the House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that he holds that it is the province of the House of Commons to decide whether it shall accept this voluntary renunciation—
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am going to ask a question, Sir. I merely put that as a preamble. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that all in this House do not concur in the opinion that the Duke of Edinburgh ought to continue to receive this £10,000 per annum, an opportunity will be given to those in the House who take that view to express their opinions and register their votes against it?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Any discussion in this House would be quite inconsistent with the views I have already slated. I must again declare my strong opinion that, I do not suppose the House of Commons would think that the Duke of Saxe-Coburg ought to drop altogether his connection with this country and the recollections of the life he has passed in it. I conceive that these recollections are not to be dropped, and if, on the contrary, they are to be maintained by periodical residence, it would not be the view of the House of Commons or, I think, of the hon. Member that the expenditure on that residence ought not to he paid for out, of the pockets of the people of this country.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: That is entirely my view. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman this. Is he prepared to afford this House an opportunity to express its views upon the matter, and to register those views?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It would be absolutely a contradiction of our view that we should ourselves be the proposers of an opportunity which would he a distinct invitation to the House to protest against the present arrangement. There is no necessity for us to do so, and there would be no advantage in doing it.
  MR. DALZIEL&c.): I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can now give any information; in regard to a point in connection with

  111
  the change in the position of the Duke of Edinburgh which I brought to his attention some time ago. It is whether or not the Duke of Edinburgh remains a British subject?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, I am not prepared to give any information on that subject. Anything that is to be said on that matter should be said by the Legal Advisers of the Crown. It is not absolutely involved in the practical arrangements we have to make. I must not, however, be understood to maintain or imply by anything that has fallen from me that His Royal Highness does remain a British subject.
  MR. DALZIEL: I shall put a question on the subject to-morrow to the Attorney General.

ADJOURNMENT.

  PENSIONS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to an urgent matter of definite public importance—namely, to the position of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg in regard to the pensions he has up to now received from Pier Majesty's Government.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman bring up his Motion?
  Mr. LABOUCHEREthereupon went to the Table and wrote out the terms of his Motion.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Northampton asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "The intention to continue the pension of £10,000 per annum to H.R.H. the Duke of Saxe-Coburg." Is the hon. Member supported?
  Less than 40 Members but more than 10 having risen,
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to take a Division upon the subject, Sir.
  Question put, that leave be given to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided: — Ayes 59; Noes 177.—(Division List, No. 391.)

THE DEBATE ON THE NAVY.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I desire, Sir, to make a personal explanation. I understand that a sentence I am reported to have used in the Debate on December 19, that the
  "Professional advisers of the Admiralty considered the existing condition of things with respect to the state of the Navy was satisfactory,"
  is capable of a wider interpretation than I intended to give it. My intention, as the context of my speech will show, was to confine that statement to the relative force of the various countries at the present moment in respect of first-class battleships completed in the present financial year, with which alone I professed to deal in speaking of our actual condition, that having been advanced in the Debate as the test of present naval supremacy. I had no intention to refer in that sentence to further provisions or any other matters than those I have mentioned.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's explanation that the professional advisers of the present. Board of Admiralty are not satisfied in respect of the future?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have made no statement on that subject, and should not be authorised to do so. All I wished to make clear to the House was that I only spoke of the present state of things and the first-class battleships. I did not wish that anything I had said should be capable of misapprehension.

  PRIVILEGE.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he wished to call attention to a speech of the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Knox), as reported in The Daily Chronicle of the l5th instant. He would first ask the hon. Member whether this report of his speech at a meeting in the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, was to be taken as a substantially correct report of the words which he used. If the report was correct, he should move that the speech constituted a gross libel on the Members of this House, and was a gross abuse of the Privileges of this House.
  MR. SEXTONrose to Order. The hon. Member had informed the House that he intended to raise a question of Privilege with regard to a speech reported on Friday last. He submitted that the question ought to have been raised on Friday or on Monday at the latest. Different Speakers had repeatedly ruled that questions of Privilege must be raised instanter or on the earliest possible opportunity. If there was no limit of time, grave inconvenience would often be caused.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member is right in supposing that the earliest opportunity should be taken for raising a question of Privilege. But I cannot say that the lapse of a few days should prevent the House from considering any charge against, the integrity of its Members in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties as a matter of Privilege. This question, therefore, does not come with the Rule that a matter of Privilege should be raised at once, and the hon. Member is in Order in bringing it before the House. At the same time, I wish to express my regret that the matter was not brought to the notice of the House before to-day.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the hon. Member would be entitled to present the matter as one of Privilege?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is entirely for the House to decide, by expressing its opinion, whether it is a question of Privilege.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he would like to know, as the Rule requiring promptitude did not apply to this particular question, whether the question was entitled to the priority that was accorded to questions of Privilege?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERcalled upon Mr. Bartley.
  MR. BARTLEY: My next duty is to ask that the report may be read at the Table.
  THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS (Sir R. Palgrave)read the report as follows:—
  "He was surprised that there had not been more protest against the war in the House of Commons, but one reason he would give was that the Chartered Company had placed their shares most judiciously. [Cheers.] Shares which would sell in the City at an enhanced price had been given to Members in the House of Commons. [Cries of "Name1"] In the case of this Company the register of shareholders was
  114
  not obtainable; he knew for a fact that several Members had been allotted shares, payable 3s, on allotment, which they could sell next day in the City for £["Shame!"] Before any settlement was arrived at the register of shareholders should be shown to the British public so that they could see where they stood. [Cheers.] Although he only spoke for himself, he believed that the whole of the Irish people would endorse the protest which they were making that evening. [Cheers.]"
  MR. BARTLEY: These words having been read, very little remains to do except to draw the attention of the House to the extreme gravity of this statement.
  MR. SEXTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me for a moment. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. BARTLEY: No. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
  MR. SEXTON: I rise to submit a question of Order. [Cries of "Order!"] I wish to ask whether my hon. Friend is not entitled, before the House proceeds further, to say whether or not he admits the accuracy of the report?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think I hat is so.
  MR. KNOX: The report which has just been read is a short summary of a speech of some considerable length. I am not prepared to say that, viewing it as a summary, it is entirely inaccurate; but hon. Members who have read summaries of their speeches will, I think, admit that, without being entirely inaccurate, they often do not convey completely the arguments and conclusions of a speaker. There is one substantial error in this report to which I will draw attention at once. I did not say that shares had been given to Members of the House of Commons. I expressly stated that I made no imputation of anything except an ordinary commercial transaction. I used those very words:—"Nothing except an ordinary commercial transaction." I said that, after the shares were applied for, they were allotted, and that the same sum was paid when they were allotted to Members of the House of Commons as was paid by any ordinary member of the public. That is the most substantial inaccuracy to which I have to call attention. I feel, however, that I ought to go further and say something more. With reference to the allotment of shares to Members of the House of Commons, I used the phrase

  115
  "several Members," as stated here, implying a small minority. I confess that if I said—and I am not prepared to say that I may not have not let slip something of the sort—if I said that this was a reason why the House of Commons did not take more action recently on this matter, I admit that I ought not to have said it; and I entirely withdraw it and humbly apologise. I do not know whether I said it, or not; but, if I said it, I entirely withdraw it. In my speech I was making an attack, in no way against the House of Commons, but against the Chartered Company. As far as the Chartered Company is concerned, the venue, if I may use the expression, is elsewhere. As regards this House, the only mischief to which I wished to call attention was the fact that this was a Commercial Company and that Members of the House had, in the ordinary course of commerce, obtained shares in it. I may say that the latter part of that sentence will soon be out of date, inasmuch as the register of shareholders will be thrown open to the public. If I went beyond that, I unreservedly, most amply, and most fully apologise and withdraw.
  MR. BARTLEY: It will be in the recollection of the House that when I first brought this matter forward I did ask the hon. Member whether the report was accurate. I fully acknowledge the apology he has made to the House; but I think we must see that this matter goes a little further even than that. He has not withdrawn the statement that he knew for a fact that several Members were given shares at a false price—[Cries of "Yes!"]—that they were allotted shares at a certain price which they could sell the next day at a very much larger price, the whole idea and purport of the speech being that this was done for a false and corrupt purpose in order to induce them, in this Mouse, to act differently from what they would otherwise have done. I cannot conceive anything more detrimental to the honour and dignity of this House than that statement.
  MR. STOREY: Mr. Deputy Speaker —[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. STOREY: I rise to Order. My hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan has absolutely withdrawn the statement —[Cries of "No, no!"]—and apologised for the statement that hon. Members had had shares given them.
  MR. KNOX: I am sure I did not say so.
  MR. STOREY: No; I know he does not think he said it.
  MR. KNOX: I am sure I did not say it.
  MR. STOREY: He is sure; but, if he did say it, he has withdrawn and apologised for it. [Cries of "Order!."] Since that, the hon. Member has used the phrase as if it was the point in discussion and is proceeding to found an argument upon it. I wish to ask yon, Sir, whether he is in Order in doing that?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot say that the hon. Member is out of Order. He is about to raise a question relating to the Privileges of the House, and it is for the House to say whether he has made out any case.
  MR. BARTLEY: I do not wish in any way to do the hon. Member any injustice. It is not a matter between the hon. Member and myself in any way. It is simply a matter of the dignity and position of the House. If the hon. Member had distinctly withdrawn the statement and said that it was altogether wrong, or that, if he had made it in the heat of the moment, he entirely withdrew it—that would have made all the difference in the circumstances.
  MR. CONYBEARE: He says he never used the words.
  MR. BARTLEY: What is this account in the paper?
  An hon. MEMBER: Which is not right.
  MR. BARTLEY: The account in the paper, as the hon. Member himself has said, is evidently substantially correct on many points, and it certainly does amount to a very serious breach of Privilege. There are two interjections put in by the reporter—one is "Shame!" and the other "Name!" These two interjections clearly show—and there were nine hon. Members of this House present—that the whole idea and animus of the speech was that there had been a, corrupt intention on the part of hon. Members.

  117
  Now, Sir, when we look across the water, and see the instance that occurred in Franco in connection with the Panama Canal and other matters—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. BARTLEY: When we look at these things, it certainly does seem to me that this House should take some notice of these grave charges. It is no light matter for an hon. Member to be accused of these things, and if it should ever come to pass that these statements were correct, the whole confidence, stability, and usefulness of this House would surely he undermined. I therefore feel that the matter is so grave and important that I shall still venture to move. If the hon. Member will withdraw absolutely—[Cries of "He has!"] I will revise my Motion; but, inasmuch as he has only said that a, part of the report is not accurate, and that the whole tenour of the report is practically substantial, and as the gravamen of the charge is that there was corrupt inducement to hon. Members, I shall venture to move that the said speech is a gross libel on the Members of this House, and a grave breach of its Privileges.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the said speech is a gross libel upon the Members of this House, and a grave breach of its Privileges.—(Mr. Bartley.)
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERcalled on Mr. Knox.
  MR. KNOX: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have nothing to add. [Cries of "Names!"]
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes to say anything now is the time.
  MR. KNOX: I have no wish in any wav to let my statement remain equivocal or indefinite. The passage which I say I did not use is the statement that these shares were given to Members of the House. That I absolutely, and without any hesitation, say I did not use. The passage which I say I may have used, but apologise for using, is the imputation that the fact that certain Members hold shares in the Chartered Company was a reason why the House of Commons took no notice.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member will withdraw from the House while the question is under discussion.
  [The hon. Member then withdrew from the House.]
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have the misfortune to approach this question at a moment's notice, and I speak with the indulgence of the House; but the points that occur to me are these—and, though I am far from saying that the hon. Member opposite committed an error in bringing this report to the notice of the House, I confess that I think he is in danger of making a serious error if he perseveres in the Motion he has made. What are the facts before us? We have before us a passage read from a report in a newspaper; we have before us the fact that the passage does not even purport to be a verbatim report, but is in the nature of a summary, and as such it is extremely difficult—I do not say more than that— for us to deal with. Being in the nature of a summary, the hon. Member for West Cavan has made it the subject of a distinct explanation, and has stated that it is in certain respects, which he proceeds to specify, inaccurate. The hon. Member inculpated has declared the indictment against him to contain matter that is not true; and, at the same time, we are to be called upon to pronounce upon the indictment as a whole, what is true and what is untrue being taken together, and to declare it to be a gross breach of the privileges of the House. That appears to me to be an unparalleled proceeding of a most unfortunate character—a proceeding most mischievous, if drawn into a precedent. Any one of us—any man who sits here—is liable to the same danger of having quoted against him a paragraph of which it is allowed that some parts are inaccurate, and of having a Motion made upon that paragraph, without distinction between the correct and the incorrect. It is the right of every man in this country, and, among others, of Members of the House of Commons, for whom I claim nothing exceptional, to know distinctly when they are censured or condemned upon what they are condemned or censured. That we are not now to know at all. We are to take this in the lump, what is true with what is untrue, and, taking it as n whole, the Motion invites us to declare it a gross breach of the Privileges of the House. In my opinion, that in

  119
  itself is a sufficient and commanding reason why we should decline to admit the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. I make all allowance for the circumstances under which he has brought it forward, but it is extremely embarrassing to come to a decision on matters of nicety at a moment's notice, and I cannot help still hoping that the hon. Member will not persevere. That would be, in my opinion, the course most satisfactory on the whole. I pass on to the other points touched by the hon. Member for West Cavan. There was, undoubtedly, in the statements when we first heard them matter for the most serious reprehension. What I understood to be the pith of the charge which was ascribed to the hon. Member for West Cavan, but which has now been withdrawn and made the subject of an explicit and very honourable and proper apology, was that there had been, with a view to influencing the conduct of this House, exceptional proceedings between the Company and certain Members of the House. That is a very fair and proper subject for notice as a breach of the Privileges of the House. If that charge had been made, it would have been the absolute duty of the hon. Member for West Cavan to point out the persons whom he made the subject of this grievous imputation; but, instead of that, the hon. Member has told us in the most explicit way that, according to his belief, and according to what he thinks he said—he seems not to be certain about it, but he covers it by his apology—all the proceedings taken by Members of this House with regard to the Chartered Company were taken by them simply as members of the public. I understand that there were no exceptional proceedings whatever in this case. With regard to the dabbling of Members of the House of Commons in these public companies, that is a question of great breadth and great interest. Whether it is wise for Members of the House, as members of the community at large, to hold an interest themselves in financial schemes that are supposed to partake of the nature of bubbles, that is not a matter on which I enter at all, although it is a serious matter. It is not the matter we have before us. Suppose anybody were to say that Members of the House go into these financial speculations and commit acts of imprudence detrimental to the
  120
  character of the House, that is not a matter that is the subject of a Motion for breach of Privilege. A breach of Privilege consists in an imputation on certain Members of the House that they, conjointly with the company, entered in a transaction under which these Members of the House were to receive some exceptional favour or other, in some shape or other, from the company, out of which favour they can make pecuniary gain. The moment you deprive the proceeding of that exceptional character, what remains? How is it a breach of Privilege to say that these gentlemen—I do not know that there are any, I have not an idea—entered into something in the nature of a financial speculation like the rest of the public? That is a matter with regard to which we have nothing to do, and which, of itself, does not constitute a breach of the Privileges of the House. One other point, and only one, remains. It is that the hon. Member for West Cavan was supposed to have said, and I think is charged in the miscellaneous paragraph that we are invited to adopt as a breach of Privilege with having conveyed in some form or other, that the action of this House was quickened or retarded in consequence of this transaction. That charge, if made, has been entirely and absolutely withdrawn. [Opposition cries of "No, no!"] If it has not been withdrawn, then I think that is a point of great importance, and it would be right to call upon the hon. Member for West Cavan to know whether it has been withdrawn or not.
  MR. SEXTON: He did withdraw.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If the House is charged with having its proceedings retarded or affected in any way by pecuniary transactions between the Chartered Company and certain of its Members, that is a very fair ground to bring before the House. I believe, and I am confirmed by my hon. Friends who sit near me, and who are more capable of judging of the matter than I am, that that charge has been explicitly withdrawn. If that statement has been withdrawn, and the hon. Member's apology reduces what he said to the limits of a statement that Members of the House had, like other members of the community at large, entered into this commercial speculation, then I submit that the speech of the hon. Member for

  121
  Islington is swept away, and that he may consistently and honourably withdraw. I cannot help reverting to that which I first said and say that, whatever we may do, for Heaven's sake let us proceed, in a criminatory matter, upon grounds clear and explicit, and do not let us consent to adopt a mixed report, partly true and partly false, without taking the trouble to disentangle the truth from the falsehood in a report; and make that report in the lump a subject for a vote of censure on one of our number. I cannot describe to the House what I think of the injustice—I do not believe it is intended—and of the prospective danger of such a course as that. I trust that the question that remains in doubt will be effectually cleared up, and, in any case, even if there are to be proceedings on this matter, I entreat the House not to accept a paragraph like this as the ground of an indictment not affecting person or property, but affecting honour or character against one of its own Members.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Like the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, of course I have not had any time to consider and weigh the various facts brought before us by my hon. Friend behind mo and by the hon. Member for West Cavan. But I must confess that the conclusion I have been able to arrive at during the few minutes allowed to me has not been absolutely identical with that which has commended itself to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I will explain to the House why. The right hon. Gentleman has treated this question throughout as if it were primarily and in its essence an accusation brought by one Member of the House against another Member of the House. He has appealed to us—I need hardly say we all respond to that appeal—to take no course in this matter by which any injustice might be done to the incriminated or accused Member. We all must agree to that. Let us, in Heaven's name, be careful that if blame is to be allotted—and evidently blame must be allotted somewhere, as I shall show directly—it shall not be placed on the wrong shoulders, and that no injustice shall be done to the hon. Member. But there is a question of even greater magnitude raised by my hon. Friend behind me, and that is, not whether the hon.
  122
  Member for West Cavan is right or wrong in what he has or has not said—
  Mr. KNOXat this point re-entered the House.
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with the Rule, the hon. Member must withdraw till the question is decided by the House.
  MR. KNOX: I understood that there was a desire to put a question to me.
  [The hon. Member again retired.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the question of Order, I do not desire by my speech to interrupt any explanation which the hon. Gentleman has to give.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If it is desired to put further questions to the hon. Member, how is he to know what he is called upon to answer unless he is allowed to remain? How is he to be made aware of what the House desires him to state?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am partly responsible in this matter, because I said the hon. Member was stated to have charged the House with having the course of its proceedings affected by these pecuniary transactions, and stated, in my belief, as well as I could hear what fell from the hon. Member, that that charge, if made, had been explicitly withdrawn. That was a point on which there seemed to be a difference of opinion, as to matters of fact, among gentlemen opposite, and therefore we hope the hon. Member will clear the matter up.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition having so considerately agreed to the interruption of his speech for the purpose of obtaining an answer, may I move that my hon. Friend be sent for and asked whether he withdraws any aspersion upon the House?
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure that the hon. Member should be recalled. Let the hon. Member be recalled.
  [The Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms went in search of Mr. Knox, and immediately returned with the hon. Member.]
  MR. SEXTON: May I inform my hon. Friend that the question to which the House desires an answer is, whether he unequivocally and unreservedly withdraws, if he uttered, any aspersion against the Members of the House of Commons?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In order that the hon. Gentleman may not have the trouble of speaking twice, may I put to him a question with regard to his statement on a point which appears to me to be in doubt? In the newspaper report these words occur—
  "He knew for a fact that several Members had been allotted shares payable 3s. on allotment, which they could sell next day in the City for £4."
  I should like to ask whether he said that, and whether, if he said it, he withdraws it?
  MR. KNOX: That is the distinct statement which I did make and did not withdraw. I said that that was a fact, and I still believe it to be a fact—in fact, I know it to be a fact. I cannot, therefore, honourably withdraw it. What I did withdraw was, any inference from that statement that Members of this House bad been influenced in their public conduct as Members of this House by what they received. I may also repeat now what I said at the time. During my speech an interrupter did say "Bribery." I thereupon said—"No; I make no accusation of bribery." I said it was an ordinary commercial transaction. I used these words at the time—
  "The money which was paid on allotment was the same sum that was paid by anybody else."
  The actual statement which the right hon. Gentleman has read I could not withdraw. The inference from it I apologise for.
  [Mr. KNOX again withdrew from the House.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When I was, I think very properly, interrupted in the middle of my observations, I was saying that we had a much more important question to decide than the exact statements made in the speech of the hon. Member for West Cavan, and the exact amount by which he receded from these statements. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we ought not to adopt a paragraph wholesale, a paragraph which was avowedly a summary, and which, like most summaries, must be but au imperfect representation of the speech originally made. The deduction from such a doctrine would be that this House never could make a complaint against any speech not reported verbatim. I
  124
  admit with the right hon. Gentleman that gentlemen whose speeches are misreported, and into which some false idea is conveyed, cannot be made responsible for the acts of a newspaper reporter who did not consult them and for whose action they are not answerable. But, at the same time, what I venture to lay before the House is this, that not necessarily by the Member for Cavan, but either by the Member for Cavan or by The Daily Chronicle, there has been one of the most serious accusations brought against this House as a whole—I will say the most serious accusation—I have known during the whole of my Parliamentary life. We cannot dismiss that summarily and ride off upon the question how far a particular Member, whose speech was purported to be reported, was responsible for these words. The words have been published, they have been circulated, and until to-day they have never been contradicted. They had been circulated nominally upon the authority of the hon. Member for Cavan, and I cannot agree that because the hon. Member has been misreported in some particulars, and because be has unequivocally withdrawn in other particulars, and because therefore the House may have no desire to visit any pains and penalties on that hon. Gentleman—certainly I have no desire to do so—because all these things may be true, nevertheless it occurs to me to be obvious on the face of it that we must record our view that this statement, be the newspaper responsible for it or be the Member for West Cavan responsible for it, is a gross breach of the Privileges of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has not unnaturally endeavoured to make this a question in which the conduct of the Member for West Cavan figures as the chief incident. I am always ready, and we are all ready, to accept a full and frank apology from any Member who has been betrayed, as we all may be betrayed in a rash moment, to give expression to views which on calmer reflection we think proper to withdraw. I only regret that the Member for West Cavan has not taken earlier action, and explained that he never meant to make any imputation upon this House. As regards the actual explanation and apology of the hon. Member, though I do not blame him, it is rather unfortunate that he thinks it

  125
  necessary still to adhere to the statement that he knew for a fact that Members had been allotted shares which they could on the next day sell at a profit of £3 17s.
  MR. SEXTON: Like all other members of the public.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was inevitable that every man who heard the hon. Member and every man who read the statement in the paper must have drawn the conclusion that Members of this House had been induced by pecuniary considerations to give a vote which, without those pecuniary considerations, they would not have given. I do not desire, and I do not think my hon. Friend desires by the Motion he has made, to direct the censure of this House against a gentleman who has shown every desire to withdraw the statement, but the statement has been made, and it has been in circulation for three or four days, and has never been contradicted. When we consider how important it is to our credit with the country that no stain of a pecuniary kind, no suspicion even of the possibility of our being animated by pecuniary motives, should rest upon us, we should not be well advised on the present occasion if we contented ourselves with the withdrawal of the hon. Gentleman. I should therefore recommend the House to accept fully and frankly the apology of the hon. Gentleman and to pronounce no censure upon him, but to say that the words reported in such and such a newspaper are an unquestionable breach of the Privileges of this House.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what course he proposes to take, and against whom he proposes to proceed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it is necessary.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It is necessary, after you have moved that a thing is a, breach of the Privileges of the House, to proceed further. It is certainly not dignified, if after having given that vote you cannot proceed further. I entirely agree with the right lion. Gentleman that a graver charge than this could not be made. It is the first duty of the House to resent such a charge. But what is the charge before the House? The hon. Member who has been ordered to leave the House has not withdrawn his statement of the fact as to the sale
  126
  of these shares, and what he said with reference to that part of the subject was what might have been said of anybody else in the country; but what I understand he has apologised for is in his having made a statement which should lead to the inference which cast, an imputation of corruption on the House of Commons. Such an imputation would be highly improper, but I understand that the hon. Member has apologised and withdrawn the statement. If you go to a question of breach of Privilege, what more can you get than that? As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he does not propose to take any further measures. What more can be obtained than the disavowal of the hon. Member for Cavan? I am as solicitous as the right hon. Gentleman can be to take any and every measure which is necessary to vindicate the reputation of the House of Commons against imputations which I agree with him are the very gravest and most heinous which can be brought against this Chamber. But the only question is whether we can gain anything by such a Motion as that which has been made, and whether, in demanding and receiving that disavowal and apology from the lion. Member, the House ought not to be satisfied.
  MR. COURTNEY: I should like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to consider for a moment this point before they proceed to a decision on the question. It is no longer a question between the House and the Member for West Cavan. The hon. Gentleman denies the worst part of the report, and, as to the second part, he has apologised and withdrawn any imputation against the House. Therefore, as far as the Member for West Cavan is concerned, the matter may be said to be closed. But there remain the printed words in the newspaper, and the publication of these words, quite independently of the alleged authorship of the words, is no doubt a technical breach of the Privileges of the House. If we are forced to vote upon this matter the majority of the House will probably vote that it is not a breach of Privilege, although they must all know that it is a breach of Privilege, and, of course, it is very desirable that that should not occur. On former occasions,

  127
  when questions of this kind arose, a suggestion was made to get rid of the whole matter by moving the Previous Question. I am prepared to make such a Motion now. I would submit to the hon. Member for Islington that as against the newspaper he is not forced at once to make a Motion. The blunder may have been a perfectly honest one on the part of the reporter with which the editor may not be disposed to sympathise, and the matter may be brought up again if necessary. We ought not to do anything which would imperil the force and power of this House in respect to breaches of Privilege.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he saw no objection to the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Bodmin that the Motion should be disposed of by means of the Previous Question. He desired to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that his ingenious argument that the newspaper was responsible would scarcely apply to the Motion before the Chair. The Motion did not declare that any report of the speech was a breach of Privilege of the House. The speech complained of was not a speech of the editor of The Daily Chronicle or of any member of his Staff, but it was the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan. It was now universally admitted that the question between his hon. Friend and the House was at an end, because his lion. Friend had stated that the shares were allotted to Members of the House on the same terms as to the rest of the public, and that there was no discrimination in dealing with Members of Parliament and the public, but he suggested that hon. Members ought not to concern themselves with these quasi-political undertakings with which they had to deal as Representatives of the people. He was bound to say that he agreed with his hon. Friend in that, and was sure the majority of the House, and the majority of the country, would also agree with him. However, as he had said, the matter between his hon. Friend and the House was at an end. With regard to the newspaper it was quite a different question. The reporter who attended the meeting was instructed, no doubt, when he got to the office to give an abstract report. No one denied that that abstract was given in good faith, and therefore the attempt to transfer the
  128
  matter from his hon. Friend, who had absolutely disposed of the complaint against him, to the editor of The Daily Chronicle and his staff, who were absolutely innocent of any guilty intention was a matter that would not hear a moment's examination. The essence of a breach of Privilege was malice. No one suggested that the reporter or the editor acted from malice, and he contended that the House would best assert its own dignity by adopting the Previous Question.
  MR. DALZIEL&c.)stated that in the first leading article after the speech in question was delivered the editor of The Daily Chronicle in clear and emphatic language disclaimed all association whatever with the remarks of the hon. Member for Cavan, and accepted no responsibility for them.
  MR. J. BURNSsaid, he did not intend to take any part in the discussion, but wished to put to the First Lord of the Treasury a question which he thought ought to be answered in connection with this matter—whether, considering the mistrust and degradation of the representative character and honour of both Houses of Parliament that were daily occurring from Members of both Houses identifying themselves with company-promoting, the Government would take early steps to make the acceptance of office in connection with companies a compulsory vacation of the seat of the Peer or commoner accepting such office?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: After the definite statement of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, that the newspaper expressly repudiated any responsibility for the speech of the hon. Member for West Cavan; and considering that the hon. Member himself has apologised, I venture to advise my hon. Friend that the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bodmin as to the Previous Question might be adopted.
  MR. J. BURNS: I persist in my question.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is out of Order upon the matter now before the House.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I beg to move the Previous Question.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Question is, "That the Question be not now put."
  Resolved, That the Question be not now put.

MOTION.

  SITTING OF THE HOUSE (FRIDAY).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do meet Tomorrow, at Two of the clock."—(Mr. H. E. Gladstone.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he hoped the Motion would not be divided upon, or even debated. He understood that it was agreed that the Debate on the Parish Councils Bill should be continued until between 5 and 5.30 p.m., and that it would be open to any hon. Gentleman to discuss the Motion for Adjournment which would then be proposed.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We propane to report Progress at half-past 5 o'clock to-morrow.
  Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.

    LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question proposed [20 December] on Consideration of Lords' Amendments, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the Amendment in page 2, line 22, after Clause 5, to Insert Clause (a)—
    (Notice to be given by seamen.)
    "(a) A seaman intending to claim compensation for personal injury shall give notice in writing, stating, in ordinary language, the nature of the injury, to the master of the vessel on which he is employed, who shall forthwith enter a copy of the notice received into the official log of the vessel, or to the owner of the vessel, within three mouths from the date of his sustaining such injury, and the action shall be commenced within three mouths of the seaman's arrival at any purl of the United Kingdom. Provided always, that if on the hearing of the ease the plaintiff can show to the satisfaction of the Court that, by reason of the nature of his injury, or otherwise, it was impossible for him to give such notice as aforesaid, the Court shall dispense with such notice, and shall hear and decide the case as though such notice, had been duly given."—(Mr. Secretary Asquith.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. DONKINsaid, as one who had lengthened experience, he was obliged to the Home Secretary for admitting that he had scruples in regard to the subject dealt with in this Amendment. That admission was, however, only in keeping with the views put forward by the right hon. Gentleman to a deputation of shipowners on the 8th of March. The views which the right hon. Gentleman then expressed had raised the hopes of the shipowners, who now found that their confidence in the right hon. Gentleman had been misplaced. At that time he acknowledged that cases of hardship might arise, and he premised to give the matter careful consideration— that was, the point, as to a special limit of time within which claims could be filed. It was remarkable that not one of the Gladstonian Peers had raised a voice against the Amendment. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman for his change of view—
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I have not changed my views at all.
    MR. DONKINsaid, he had referred to the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the point: and he might say that he was amazed at the right, hon. Gentleman's change of expression. The reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave was that he did not see any difference between the shipping industry and other industries. The shipping industry was the one, above all others, which was the most interfered with by legislative enactments, and shipowners could hardly move hand or foot without having some official or other down upon them. This arose from the fact that the shipping industry was distinct from every other industry in the country. That it, was distinct from other industries he could show by reference to a case of a sailor injured on an Australian vessel, which sailed from the United Kingdom, and was away six months, during the whole of which time the question involved must remain in abeyance; or, again, by reference to a case where action could not he taken until a time at which the ship would have sailed again. Would the right hon. Gentleman get any analogous cases in other industries? Again, a claim might be made 6 or 12 months I after the hands had been paid off, when the captain and officers had gone back to

    131
    sea, and, in that event, the owner would l>e absolutely without evidence. It was remarkable that not a single Member of the other side (the Government side) had said a word on this subject, he asked hon. Members opposite to give some reason for the faith that was in them. The shipping industry was certainly the most important in this country; and if the Government harassed it still further with legislative enactments, they might try it almost to the breaking strain.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, he hoped the House would disagree with this Amendment. Such notices as it provided were really no safeguard, and, indeed, inflicted very great injury on suitors; and he understood they were now looked upon as almost obsolete, so far, at any rate, as any question of their reenactment was concerned. There were crews and crews; and lo assume that a crew of Lascars, for instance, was to know the law was to lay a very heavy burden upon them. Even if the members of a crew knew that they must give notice, they might not know how it was to be done. If a man did know and went to the cabin and said that he charged the captain or mate with negligence and requested that a note of it should be made in the official log, what would be the effect upon the happiness or comfort of that man for the rest of the voyage? he did not see that the inconvenience as to want of notice was so great as had been pointed out. If the crew were scattered, the owner would have more means of bringing them back than the sailor who might want their evidence. But this they knew from experience: that if a complainant hold back and made no complaint, and it seemed that he had allowed the crew to be scattered for the purpose of being placed in a position of advantage, the Courts would postpone the trial almost from year to year till those persons were brought back. And where it appeared that a man had chosen not to make his complaint promptly, the fact always reflected upon him in the eyes of any common sense jury. As to the power given to the Judge, at his own discretion, to say the complainant ought to have given notice or not, it seemed to be reducing litigation to au absurdity. Such a power, if given at all, ought to be exercised before the litigation commenced,
    132
    and not after the expenses of the trial were already incurred. On the whole, he submitted that no case had been made out for the Amendment.
    MR. C. H. WILSONsaid, speaking as a shipowner, he was of opinion that the Amendment as it stood would do more harm than good. The shipowning interest had had so many camels to swallow in the shape of legislation that it was no use straining at this small gnat. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would be allowed to drop as one not really in the interests of shipowners at all. They must remember that, after all was said and done, the life of the sailor was a hard life, and he really wanted a certain amount of protection.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he agreed that the case of the shipowners required special consideration, but he thought the Amendment as it stood was not a good Amendment, He would remind the House that it would often be difficult to get evidence when required by reason of the captain and officers, as they often did to his own knowledge, going home to their wives and families after landing, and then taking another vessel and going away. There was no certainty of employment. As a practical proposal he would suggest that when au injury occurred to a man on board ship, he should, if he proposed to bring an action, give notice of the injury to the captain and have it entered in the log-book, when it would become a valuable record in case of an action at law. But he could not vote for the Lords' Amendment as it stood. He did not agree with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury. His opinion was that sailors wore very ready to make complaint; but they would not, perhaps, be so anxious to make frivolous complaints if they had to deal with entries in the log-book.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Subsequent Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 7, line 33, considered, and agreed to.
    Amendment in page 7, line 33, after the word "Act," to insert the words—
    "Other than an agreement for insurance against injury within the exception contained in section four."
    The next Amendment read a second time, and disagreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned re the herds fur disagreeing to certain of the Amendments:—Sir. Secretary Asquith. Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, The Lord Advocate. Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Herbert Gladstone. Mr. Thomas hurl, mid Mr. Causton:—To withdraw immediately.
    Ordered, that Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Secretary Asquith.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALLS) BILL.—(No. 271.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 18th December.]

      TWENTY-THIRD NIGHT.
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      [Sir J.GOLDSMID in the Chair.]
      Clause 19x (Election and Qualification of Guardians).
      Amendment proposed,
      In pane 12, line 30, before the word "there." to insert the words "the Local Government Board shall appoint to he members of each heard of Guardians a number of persons not exceeding one for every five elected Guardians, and not exceeding three on anyone Board."—(Mr. Rathbone.)
      Question again proposed, "That those words he there inserted."
      Debate resumed.
      MR. RATHBONEsaid that, after what had passed from the Leader of the Opposition, it would he simply waste of time for the House to attempt to divide upon the Amendment. But he might he permit led to point out that the Practical Authorities on both sides almost all admitted the necessity of some such safeguard as he had proposed. The Government had slated their willingness to consider any reasonable proposal, and the Front Bench opposite had slated pretty plainly that they were anxious to have something like this Amendment, if not the Amendment itself. It was clear that the Government, having agreed to consider some safeguard, the Opposition ought to say what they would propose us representing the landed, interests of the country.
      MR. WHARTONdesired, before the Amendment was actually withdrawn, to say a few words on the subject, he was very glad the Amendment had been placed before
      134
      the Committee, because, although he did not altogether agree with it, and did not regard tile suggestion of the hon. Member as very workable, still it had enabled the Committee to discuss the question as to what ought to be done, and would no doubt have assisted them in coming to a, wise conclusion in the end. What they were aiming at was to provide something which should take the place of the ex officio elements in the Boards of Guardians. He did not defend the present proportion of ex officio Guardians on the Boards, but, at the same time, without men of that character, some of the Boards would be badly off, and that opinion, he believed, was largely held on both sides of the House. What the House had now to consider was how they could best form Boards of Guardians so as to get the best men to serve upon them and administer the Poor Law to the best of their ability. Now that the constituency of the Boards was about to be changed, it was more than over necessary to have some controlling power on the part of those who hail been hitherto ex officio. In the first place, he would ask this question: Up to the present lime had the Boards of Guardians or not done their duty fairly well? He thought, with few exceptions, they had. There had been up to the present time a gradual and growing feeling in favour of the present system of indoor relief as compared with outdoor relief, and what many of them feared was I hat, there would be in the future under the scheme in Clause 19 a fur more general tendency in favour of outdoor relied' than there had been hitherto, and that would he made use of in a way that would not be conducive to the best interests of the country. Hon. Members opposite might think that was a groundless fear, but it was a fear shared by everybody who had been officially connected with the Boor Law up to the present time, and he ventured to say the officials of the Local Government Board would be of the same opinion. The present system of Boards of Guardians was a good one, whilst the system desired by the Bill might be a very dangerous system indeed. On the question of expense, if they were to add to the expenses of election and the various rates under the adoptive Acts an indiscriminate system of outdoor relief, be thought the people might look forward to

      135
      a substantial increase in their rate. There was, therefore, good reason why they should attempt to retain in some shape or another those who had been ex officio Guardians in the past. A Return which had been recently presented stated that in 242 cases the chairmen of the Boards of Guardians were ex officios at the present time. Surely that showed the Boards of Guardians themselves had, to a very great extent, trust in the ex officio members, and these were the men who ought, if possible, to be retained. He hoped, therefore, they would be able to formulate some Amendment to this clause by which the services might be retained of those who had discharged their duties so well in the past.
      MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he should not have spoken at this stage if the President of the Local Government Board had not in his speech invited them to deal with the general question. The short, but very important speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer also gave a tone and turn to this Debate, because the right hon. Gentleman very pointedly expressed a, desire on the part of the Government that the Opposition should state what class of persons were to be substituted for Magistrates and nominated Guardians, and how it was proposed to appoint them, and the tone of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate that he was conscious of the destructive character of the clause as it stood, and ready to modify it in some way. The Member for Carnarvonshire had had great experience in the administration of the Poor Law, and he thought has proposal might have received a more cordial reception from the Government Bench. If the hon. Gentleman went to a Division he should certainly support him. What was the way in which the right hon. Gentleman attempted to minimise the alteration which it was proposed to make with regard to the Boards of Guardians? They were told there were 28,000 Guardians, and at one stroke of the pen 8,000 were struck off, while as to the 20,000 the change proposed was enormous. The constitution of the Boards of Guardians was the crux of the whole matter. He admitted that there was a sort of cynical propriety in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. The light hon. Gentleman with marked emphasis
      136
      contrasted the rigidity with which the Lords Lieutenant nominated men for the Bench from 1830 with the laxity with which the Lord Chancellor had thrust men on to the Bench only the other day. He said that 50 years ago Magistrates were comparatively a small number, whilst at present they were a large number. It was a curious thing that no sooner did the right hon. Gentleman's Colleague take upon himself to place Magistrates on the Bench for religions and political reasons than the right hon. Gentleman in this House struck off a very large proportion of their duties. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have thought that Magistrates were no longer fitted as they were in days gone by to discharge important duties in connection with the Poor Law. The right hon. Gentleman said he would uphold the principles of the new Poor Law, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman truly or accurately represented what the new Poor Law did. The policy of the new Poor Law Commissioners was to get rid of the parish, and to substitute for the parish the Union, and what they claimed as having done with the greatest advantage was the creation of the Boards of Guardians. What did Sir George Nichols, one of the Poor Law Commissioners, say as to the Boards of Guardians? He said—
      "The tribunal of a Board of Guardians, generally consisting of the principal persons in the district (the resilient Magistrates being members ex offfcio and the others elected by the ratepayers) was not only more distant, but necessarily more impartial, less open to suspicion, and less likely to excite revengeful feelings in dealing with the labouring poor than the executive of a single parish."
      The Commissioners were pleased with the results of what they had done, and in their first Report in 1835 they thus described the Boards of Guardians as they had constituted them, and which the right hon. Gentleman now wanted to alter—
      The Guardians are, in respect of education, interest in good management and station, far superior to the Overseers… At these Local Hoards the chief occupiers, the yeomanry, the gentry, and we may add the nobility, meet and act together. This is the first time, we believe, in the history of the country, that these classes have ever habitually met in rural districts for the transaction of public business.'
      This inter-communion of the most intelligent men of the different classes and

      137
      parties within each district must itself be productive of the most beneficial consequences. The right hon. Gentleman met the contention of the Member for Carnarvonshire with three arguments: First of all, he declared that the Local Authorities must be constituted by popular election, pure and simple—One Man One Vote; and he spoke largely on an arrangement which would be based on the people's will. It so happened that out of the 30,000 Local Authorities in England, not one of them was based upon the same line on which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to base these new Boards. The Municipal and County Councils had Aldermen; the School Boards were elected on a different franchise, and the Conservancy and other Boards for administration in towns were all elected and constituted on methods quite different to the one the right hon. Gentleman proposed. Although the right hon. Gentleman desired to have everything simple and uniform, he was proposing what was without precedent and perfectly novel. What was the second argument of the right hon. Gentleman? That they must never have two authorities where they could have one. But the Boards of Guardians were not to have the same area as the District Boards, and there would thus be two Boards working on entirely different lines. The third argument of the right hon. Gentleman destroyed altogether his first. The first argument was that there should be popular local control against centralisation, but his third argument was this: "The Local Boards are my servants and the machinery by which I carry out the Poor Law." All the real authority was with the right hon. Gentleman, and popular and local control were nothing but make-believe simply for platform oratory, and had no existence in Fact at all. One of the results of the new poor Law was the appointment of these Commissioners in Whitehall, but so great was the unpopularity attaching to them that after five years their services were dispensed with. The right hon. Gentleman, however, seemed disposed to revert to the system of central control. The Union of Atcham in his (Mr. Stanley Leighton's) own constituency had been mentioned in the course of these Debates. That Union had one ex officio chairman from its beginning to the year 1871, and
      138
      he did not think it would have been possible for the work to have been done but for the long-continued attendance of one chairman not liable to be turned out. Since 1871 they had had their chairmen all ex officios. The Committee appointed to inquire in the condition of the agricultural labourers reported to the House the other day, and what did Mr. Cecil Chapman say regarding the Atcham Union?—
      "The best evidence as to the condition of the district is to be found in the Poor Law statistics. In 1831 the rate per cent, of population was 7·3, and in 1831 it was only 0·8."
      And yet the right hon. Gentleman proposed with a light heart to strike out the system which had produced such admirable results. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would pause before striking out a system which had been productive of so much good: and he would remind him of the words of Lord Althorp in 1834, that—
      "No Member of the Government would be justified in bringing forward a measure that would apply generally to the whole collective system of the Poor Law without investigation by Commission on the spot."
      MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, speaking from some experience of administration of the Poor Law in London and in the country, he thought it was not necessary to make the proposed change with reference to ex officio Guardians so sweeping at the present time. In one case that he was aware of, a, County Court Judge was among the most prominent of the members of a Poor Law Board, and it was undesirable that one holding such a position should enter upon a contested election. In another case a retired Navy officer became a Magistrate and a member of a Poor Law Board, But he would not have taken the trouble of going through an election. If they were to make a change it should be made gradually. The ex officios had rendered very valuable services in the administration of the Poor Law. They brought to the discharge of their duties knowledge, ability, and practical experience of life, as well as independence. He viewed with great apprehension the change which was suggested, and trusted that, at all events, some exception might yet be made in the direction of retaining the services of the present ex officio Guardians. The retention at least of any

      139
      chairman or vice-chairman as an ex officio would be of great benefit in the administration of the Poor Law.
      MR. WHITMOREsaid, there was a, local peculiarity in London connected with these Poor Law elections which ought to be borne in mind. It was the great difficulty of getting any appreciable number of voters to take part in local elections. During the last five years the elections for Guardians in Chelsea had only brought out a half of the electors to record their votes, and in the Vestry elections only one-sixth of the electors recorded their voles. The inevitable effect of the election of Boards of Guardians under the system proposed by the Bill, unless it was modified in some respect, would be, not only in the East End Unions but throughout all the Unions in London, owing to the small number of well-to-do electors who would go to the poll, that the Guardians elected would necessarily be the advocates of rather extreme views. That was a grave danger, for the Guardians would be elected by one class which contributed but little to the poor rate, and would certainly outvote on the Board all other classes which together paid the rate.
      MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's,) said that, having been President of the Poor Law Board soon after the passing of the Act by Mr. Gathorne-Hardy, he desired to say a word upon this question. The Act was passed in 1867 in consequence of the very great agitation in London with regard to the administration of the Poor Law, which was not directed against excessive outdoor relief, but against Poor Law administration generally, on the ground that it was harsh, ineffective, and bore hardly upon the deserving poor. One reform introduced by that Act was the appointment of nominated Guardians in some parishes, and the result was a change in the system and spirit of the Poor Law in the direction of humane and good administration. Power should be reserved to the Local Government Board, if the Act was not properly administered by the Boards of Guardians, to strengthen the Boards of Guardians by a, certain number of nominated Guardians. The President of the Local Government Board would bear him out that the system of nominated Guardians in London had worked admirably; for
      140
      not only had it saved thousands of pounds in poor parishes, but it had also led to better management of hospitals and infirmaries, and to greater control over the rough element among workhouse officials. Many of these Boards of Guardians had become models for other Boards. Who were the nominated Guardians? They did not go on to these Boards in order simply to protect the ratepayers and see that the rates were kept down. That was not their main object. There was no great honour, privilege, or comfort in being appointed a Guardian in an East End parish; but the men who went on these Boards threw their whole souls into the work, and were anxious that in the administrative treatment of the poor a little more civilisation and humanity should be introduced. By the nomination of men of leisure as Guardians men were brought to look at it not as a duty, but rather as a privilege to be able to exercise some good influence and assist the poor in some of the poorest parts of the Metropolis. The abolition of nominated Guardians in the poorer parts of the Metropolis—
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: There are only 28 nominated Guardians in London and 705 elected ones.
      MR. GOSCHENsaid, that might be so; but the 23 might exercise an extremely good influence in the parishes where they were now, and one which the Government would wish to maintain. In abolishing these Guardians the Government would be destroying what was in many places a safeguard, and they would be reversing the experiment which had been one of the most successful in the administration of the Poor Law.
      MR. STEPHENSsaid, he thought the system of out-doer relief was the most successful part of the poor law administration. It was true that its administration by magistrates and overseers had broken down in a short time, but its administration by the parishes had been thoroughly good, magistrates had jurisdiction over an area which made local knowledge of the poor impossible, but parishes with small areas had such complete knowledge find could do a great deal towards individual treatment of cases, while in the unions they had to treat the paupers as a sort of mob—
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is going beyond the very wide limit of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this question.
      MR. STEPHENSsaid, he thought, as the right hon. Gentleman was allowed to go so far, he would be entitled to follow him. If that were not so, he would not occupy the time of the Committee.
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he desired to ask one question. It would only take a minute to ask and a, minute to answer. Would the right hon. Gentleman listen to the appeal made to him by the Mover of the Amendment? Though the proposal could not be accepted in the form in which it now stood, the Government acknowledged that there was something worthy of recognition in his contention. ["No, no!"] That was what he understood, and if he was wrong the Minister m charge of the Bill would correct him. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to indicate something practical in the direction of the Amendment, so as to facilitate the further progress of the clause?
      MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he desired to dispel an illusion created by some figures given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on Friday night. The right hon. Gentleman, quoting from a Return he held in his hand, said there were a great many ex officios in some places and very few in others, and he gave instances. And having done that, he' said he would commend these figures to the attention of anyone who was prepared to bring forward the argument that outdoor relief was less favoured by ex officio than by elected Guardians. He (Mr. Lawson) had taken those figures and examined them with the Return on pauperism presented to the House in March last, and so far from carrying out the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion they showed an opposite result. The amounts mentioned could be divided into two groups—where the ex officios were in a majority and where they were in a minority. In the first group, if the right hon. Gentleman's contention was right, they would find more outdoor paupers than indoor paupers—
      MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that was not his argument. The hon. Member had misunderstood him. He had been
      142
      showing that the presence or absence of the ex officio element threw no light on the efficiency or inefficiency of Poor Law administration.
      MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, that that being the case, he contended that the figures given to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman had no bearing on the question before them, because no one attempted to set up a defence of the present irregular attendance of ex officio Guardians at the meetings of Boards of Guardians; but what they were contending for was that this matter should be dealt with in a practical manner. They were not content with the present system, but they submitted that when the ex officio members were in a majority there was less outdoor relief than when they were in a minority. An error had crept into the discussion, for several hon. Members had taken up the ground that before the year 1834 the Magistrates—now the ex officios—were responsible for the miserable state into which the Poor Law had drifted. If that charge could be brought against the Magistrates, why was it? It, was because the pauper could take the relieving officer before the Magistrate at his own discretion, if he considered himself unjustly treated, and unfortunately the Magistrates who had to deal with the cases sought popularity. But was there not a danger of reverting to that condition of things? The whole body of Guardians that the Government proposed to set up would be seeking popularity, and they would seek it through the medium of outdoor relief, which would consequently be greatly increased.
      MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that in reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Goschen), he did not wish to underrate the value of the nominated Guardians in London. As a matter of fact, during his own administration he had increased their number from 21 to 23. There were a largo number of Unions in the Metropolis in which there were no nominated Guardians at all. Out of the 30 Unions only nine, in fact, possessed nominated Guardians. There were none, for instance, in Camberwell, Chelsea, St. George's, St. Giles's, Bermoudsey, Lambeth, Hackney, Lewisham, Marylebone, St. Paucras, and

      143
      Woolwich. There were 705 elected Guardians, and although there was power to appoint 121 nominated Guardians, only 23 were, as he had already stated, now appointed, owing to the fact that successive Ministers had not exercised their power except to a limited extent.
      SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, it appeared to him that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman cut two ways. Why were no nominated Guardians appointed in the Unions to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded? It was because there were so many ex officio Guardians there doing the very work for which the nominated Guardians were appointed under the Act of 1867. What had happened in this case? It seemed to him that the ease as to the Metropolis had been conclusively put before the House by his right hon. Friend the Member for Hanover Square. In some of the Unions there had always been a considerable number of ex officio Guardians, and in those Unions, for what reason he would not now inquire, the administration of the Poor Law was efficient and economical in the main. In oilier Unions, notably in the East End, there was a dearth of ex officio Guardians. In 1868 he was Secretary to the Poor Law Board, and at that date the scandals in regard to the management of certain of the workhouse infirmaries in the East End were well known. Parliament, therefore, supplemented the Guardians in those Unions by enabling the Poor Law Board to nominate Guardians to serve on the Boards. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had declared, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not deny, that some of the best administered Unions now were those to which nominated Guardians had been appointed. Why, then, should the Local Government Board divest themselves of this power, which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had himself shown need only be exercised where required: and why should they not, in the Metropolis at least, retain this security for good and humane administration which Parliament had placed in their hands? He admitted that there was force in the contention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Govern-
      144
      ment Board, that it would impose considerable responsibility and difficulty on the Local Government Board if they were charged with the appointment of nominated Guardians throughout the country at large. Well, there were other suggestions which might be made to the same effect which would be more consistent with the local government character of the Bill. He could not discuss them on this Amendment, but he entreated the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the good administration of the Poor; Law, not to abdicate this right, which need only be exercised where it was seen to be required.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had suggested to him that possibly, although the Amendment was one that could not be accepted because it would throw too great a burden upon a Central Authority, yet it might be desirable for the Government to consider whether they would continue a power in the Local Government Board to nominate Guardians in cases where they thought such a course would result in the efficient administration of the Poor Law. They had all felt that the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member opposite which would compel the Local Government Board to appoint some thousands of persons, throughout the country was one which would throw too great a burden on any Central Authority. He, therefore, threw out the suggestion to which he had given expression. He did not ask the Government to arrive at a decision upon it at once, but threw out the suggestion tentatively.
      MAJOR DARWINsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he desired to move to amend the clause by inserting in line 30, before the word "There," the words—
      "The County Councillors elected for any electoral division, wholly or partly included in the Union under the jurisdiction of a Board of Guardians, shall be, by virtue of their office, additional members of such hoard. Provided

      145
      that a County Councillor for a division included in more than one Union shall only be qualified to sit on one such Board, and shall, in writing addressed to the chairman of each Board, elect on which Board he will sit."
      This Amendment was unlike the one just disposed of, its object being to introduce into the Boards of Guardians ex officio members who had been already elected to the County Councils. No one would deny that in this case the persons it was proposed lo add had some sense of electoral responsibility and stood in a different position to those who were admitted by nomination. His chief object in making the proposal was to promote harmony and smooth corking between the County Councils and the Local Authorities. In the old days this harmony had been brought about by the presence of County Justices on the Boards of Guardians. The Act of 1888 interfered with these relations. A good many of the Justices ceased to belong to the County Authority, and though they had still performed their duty very efficiently on the Boards of Guardians, yet there had not been quite the same harmonious working between the two authorities owing to the want of so many common links between them. But the present proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would make things a good deal worse. It would remove from the Boards of Guardians a large number of men who were members of the County Authority. There would no longer be the same knowledge on the one authority of the proceedings of the other, and consequently there would be danger of misunderstanding and friction. He would call attention especially to the question of assessment. For some years the law had been in a very anomalous condition, the County Authority having to make an assessment for county purposes in a different manner to the way in which it was made by the Guardians for parochial and Union purposes. He sincerely hoped that on the early day the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would himself attend to this question. He (Mr. Hobhouse) merely mentioned it now to show the right hon. Gentleman that he was going to make matters a good deal worse than they were on this particular question. At present, under the Union Assessment Act, there had to be a certain proportion of
      146
      Justices on every Assessment Committee—namely, one-third. That ensured a good many members who took part in the settlement of the county rate having also something to do with the assessment for Union purposes. That was a convenient practice. It, avoided a great deal of the expense and trouble of re-assessments. He felt certain that if the Bill passed in its present form the assessment for county purposes would no longer be as easy to make, and there would be far more chance of misunderstandings in these matters between the Guardians and the County Authorities. They had had experience in his own county of misunderstandings that had arisen in the matter of county rates between Guardians and County Councils owing to want of knowledge on many Boards of Guardians as to the exact purposes for which the county rate had to be levied. So far as he had been able to observe, it was on those Boards on which there were no County Councillors, or very few County Councillors, that there had been the most serious complaints—very often unfounded—of the weight of the county rates. The Bill, if it were not altered, would aggravate the state of things. His proposal, besides placing on the District Boards men who had a knowledge of the action of the County Authority, would also give them a very useful class of men with wider experiences, whom they would not get otherwise—for there were very few men who were already serving on the County Authority who would care to go through a second election in order to serve in the district. His Amendment was strictly limited in its character. He did not propose even to add the County Aldermen, though he confessed that his own feeling would have led him to propose that. But he had been most anxious in putting down his Amendment to reduce it to what he might call a minimum—that was merely to add to the District Authority the actual men already elected by the popular vote within the divisions in the Union. He did not believe that the proportion of County Councillors so added would be more than about one in nine. In some cases it would be less and in some a little more. He did not think any difficulty would arise as to the selection of the Board on which the County Coun-

      147
      cillors should sit in cases where Unions overlapped in County Divisions. He had provided for such contingency in his Amendment. The Amendment, if accepted, would not infringe any democratic principles.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 12, line 30, before the word "there," to insert the words "The County Councillors elected for any Electoral Division, wholly or partly included in the Union under the jurisdiction of a Board of Guardians, shall he, by virtue of their office, additional members of such Board. Provided that a County Councillor for a Division included in more than one Union shall only be qualified to sit on one such Board and shall, in writing addressed to the chairman of each Board, elect on which Board he will sit."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he was hound to say the Amendment had upon the face of it a great deal to recommend it, and that it had received the most careful attention of the Government. They had looked at it in all its hearings, and had not arrived at a decision with regard to it without full consideration. So far as the Amendment was concerned it was confined to Boards of Guardians, but presumably, if it were carried, the hon. Member would propose to extend it—in order to effect what he had called harmonious working between the County and Local Authorities—to the Rural District Councils. No doubt it is desirable that there should be some connection between the Rural and the County Authority. He thought that the feeling that would he created by the County Councillors being ex officio members of Rural Councils would he more likely to create friction than allowing, say, chairmen of Rural Councils to be ex officio members of County Councils. But that was not within the scope of the present Bill, and he hoped on some future day to be able to deal with that and many other points that required to be legislated upon in connection with county government. The law of assessment was in an unsatisfactory condition, and he did not know any branch of local administration of a financial character that wanted more radical and drastic treatment than that. They had different principles prevailing in different parts of the country. Hon. Members had been good enough to quote from his Report.
      148
      If they would refer to the last two or three pages of the financial portion of it, and note the difference between London and the rest of the country in the matter of the discrepancy between the assessable value and the actual rentals, they would see that there was a wide margin, and that either the one was assessed too high or the other was assessed too low. His ideal system would be one valuation all round, all local rates being assessed on it. But that, of course, was not within their purview at present. What he understood the hon. Member to propose was, that the County Councillors elected for any electoral Division wholly or partly included in the Union should practically be ex officio Guardians. Now, there were three points to which he would call the attention of the Committee in dealing with the Amendment. In the first place, there was no real connection between the duties of the County Councils and the Boards of Guardians. They were elected for different purposes, and the work which fell on the Councillor was a, different class of work from that which fell on the Guardian. He was not sure that the same class of ability which would make a man a great success as a County Councillor would make him a success as an administrator of the Poor Law. Next, County Councillors were fully occupied with the duties they already had to discharge. And his belief was that Parliament would, in future, very largely extend the area of County Council administration. Thirdly, it was impossible to work out the system suggested by the lion. Member on anything like a fair basis. He was much taken with the proposal when he first saw it, but he had b, number of counties taken out, and had found that the inequalities in the working of the system would be hardly more defensible than the inequalities under the present ex officio system. In one county he found that one Union would have six additional Guardians, another would have three, another eight, and another only one.
      MR. COURTNEY: What would be the proportion—six to how many?
      MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he had not worked that out. He was speaking of such places as Bridport, Dorchester, Poole, Chard, and so on. In another county he found that one Union would

      149
      have 12 additional Guardians, another four, another five, another three, another one. In Gloucestershire one Union would have eight, another four, another two, another three, another six, and another one, and so on. In the North of England—in Northumberland—the discrepancies would be extraordinary. In one Union there would be 22 Guardians added, while an adjoining Union would have one; another would have seven, another six, and so on. In Somersetshire he found similar discrepancies; also in Suffolk. It would be seen, therefore, that a system founded on the principle advocated by the hon. Member could neither be defended nor commended. Obviously, if County Councillors were to be added it would have to be under a different system to that proposed by the hon. Member. Another objection to the proposal was that by it the county boroughs would be altogether excluded, and some of the largest and most important Hoards of Guardians were those in the county boroughs. There were 62 county boroughs which would be excluded altogether. The Government, therefore, did not see that any compensating advantage would result from accepting the Amendment: they did not think it was workable, and they believed that, if it were carried into effect, it would involve inequalities, differences, and difficulties almost as great as those with which the Committee were now endeavouring to grapple. In those circumstances the Government, after the fullest consideration, bad come to the conclusion that the Amendment was not one to which they could assent.
      SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, be thought it would be desirable that something should be done; in the nature of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Somerset, so that there should be a connection established between the County Councils and the Boards of Guardians, or District Councils. If this connection were established there would be less friction and greater harmony. Still, he was very much disposed to agree with the objections which the President of the Local Government Board had urged against this particular proposal. He was sure it would very much astonish members of Town Councils in county boroughs if they were told that, in addition to the duties they
      150
      had to perform on their own bodies, they would also have to be members of Boards of Guardians, without special appointment or election. He was anxious that there should be some such element as the ex officios added to the Boards of Guardians in the interests of good and sound Poor Law administration; but he would greatly prefer that that element should be directly added by the choice or nomination of somebody else than that persons elected to one public office should, because elected to that office, be ex officio members of another body. There was one other objection to the Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had not alluded. It occurred to him in connection with the Union where his own property happened to be situated, that not only were both the County Councillors non-resident within the Union, but they resided at such a distance that they could not attend the Board of Guardians if made ex officio members of it. Therefore, he confessed, he could not support the proposal.
      MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he had no alternative, after the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen, but to withdraw the Amendment. At the same time, be thought that now that all their local machinery was being overhauled and put to some extent out of joint by the present Bill the Government should find some alternative for this Amendment—some proposal which would secure harmonious action between the County and District Authorities in the future. If he had proposed that every chairman of a, District Council should be an ex officio member of the County Council be was almost sure the right hon. Gentleman the President, of the Local Government Board would have stated as a good reason for rejecting the proposal that it would not be acceptable to the County Councils. There was no force in any of the objections taken by the right hon. Gentleman except that bearing upon the discrepancy between the numbers of added Guardians in the different Unions. The number of County Councillors ought to depend on the population. He imagined that the number of District Councillors must also depend upon the population. Therefore, the numbers of the two sets of Councillors ought to correspond to some extent in the same

      151
      district. He looked forward at an early day to having the reform of local government carried a little further, and having the areas of Unions made to correspond with the areas of large towns. He thought, however, it would be a long time before any machinery of this kind was again devised, and that a great deal of misunderstanding, friction, and difficulty would be caused owing to the want of having some such connection as had now been twice proposed in the Committee. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      SIR R. PAGETsaid, the arguments in favour of the Amendment were those which supported the object the hon. Member had in view—namely, the provision of the connect-ting link between the various Local Bodies. He could not entirely approve of the Amendment because one of its effects would be to make every County Councillor a member of a District Council, and it was not every County Councillor who would be disposed to attend the meetings. For instance, he himself should not be able to attend to the duties of the District Council, and at the same time he know there were many ex officio members who desired to remain members of Boards of Guardians, but who would not be affected by the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he desired to amend Sub-section 1 by inserting—
      "The Local Government Board shall have power to nominate Guardians of the Poor, provided the persons nominated have hitherto acted as ex officio or nominated Guardians in the same Union."
      The fact was, the ex officio Guardians had not been at all unpopular amongst their fellow-Guardians. In something like 250, or nearly one-half the total number of Boards existing in the country, an ex officio member had been chosen as chairman, while in a very considerable number of cases the offices of vice chairman had also been filled with ex officio Guardians. Anyone who had had experience in the management of Poor Law business knew how essential it was to have at the head of the Board a man well versed in the work to be done, and it was an undoubted fact that those Boards which had been most successfully managed were the
      152
      very ones which had for their presiding officers ex officio members who conducted the proceedings on businesslike lines. That the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the Boards of Guardians had done their duty was, he thought, generally admitted, and he did not think anyone would deny that Unions where Magistrates had filled the position of chairmen of Boards of Guardians the work, as a rule, had been satisfactorily performed. Some very distinguished men had considered it their duty in their various neighbourhoods to occupy the position of chairmen of Boards of Guardians, and not only that, but had made it their business to attend. Take, for instance, the Union in West Sussex, of which the Duke of Richmond and Gordon was chairman. His Grace made it a point to be present at the meetings of the Guardians whenever his other duties would allow him, and there were other Unions in which men of high social position acted in a similar capacity. He (Mr. Bolton) maintained that the success of many Boards of Guardians in the past had depended upon the very satisfactory way in which the chairman and vice-chairman had discharged their duties. They had something like 250 Boards of Guardians presided over by chairmen who were ex officio Guardians, and it was very desirable that their important influence should be preserved. There were a considerable number of Magistrates in the country who took an active interest in Poor Law work. On a Board in the country with which he had been connected there were Magistrates who nearly always attended. At the present moment the chairman of the Board was a Magistrate. He was free to admit that on some Boards the Magistrates did not attend in large numbers, but on very many others two and three and four Magistrates made it their business to attend, and their presence added weight and character and usefulness to the deliberations. Was it not desirable that upwards of 250 gentlemen in various parts of the country on these Boards should be continued? When they were making this experiment by altering the character of the Boards, he would suggest that so far as they could they should preserve the continuity of the policy. Nothing would do that better, without restricting or restraining the popular influence,

      153
      than the presence of these gentlemen of position and standing and influence. The right hon. Gentleman had not suggested any change of principle or policy. On the contrary, he had, in effect, said that no change of principle or policy would he permitted by the Central Board in London. Therefore, the right, hon. Gentleman's sympathy must he in favour of a practical suggestion which would help to secure the present principle and policy of the Poor Law administration. It was said that ex officios, if they were so useful and their ability was so recognised, were sure to be elected. The Committee had to consider, in the first place, whether it was possible in many places always to elect I hem. As a rule, when a, man was once made a Guardian, if there was nothing against him, and he was willing to serve, he was continued. It was considered an unusual and unkind thing to offer opposition to such a man. That feeding prevailed considerably, and there was no doubt that the old Guardians throughout the country would be generally re-elected. That all militated against an opening for men who had been ex officio members. Besides, the ex officio, it might be the squire of the parish, would not like to oppose the re-election of an old Guardian. The present proposal was of a limited and temporary character, inasmuch as it provided that the Local Government Board should have power to appoint only from a certain class. As the present ex officios died out the number of possible nominees would become reduced, and would ultimately disappear. The Amendment would give an opportunity for a gradual transition. There would be nothing to prevent the Local Government Board from getting the opinion of the elected Guardians as to the nomination of ex officios if that was thought desirable. The thing need not be done offensively, but in good temper. If the Government would not accept his Amendment, they ought at least to do something to meet the wishes of many Members of the Commit lee in the matter. The President of the Local Government Board must see that there was a, very strong feeling in the House—a feeling, too, which widely prevailed in the country—that, in the interest of the efficient working of the Poor Law, the ex officio element should be continued, to some extent, on these Boards.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 12, line 30, before the word "There," to insert the words "The Local Government Board shall have power to nominate Guardians of the Poor, provided the persons nominated have hitherto acted as ex officio or nominated Guardians in the same Union, and subject thereto."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: Perhaps I was not strictly in Order, but, with the in-diligence of the Committee, I thought the moving of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon a favourable opportunity for stating the views of the Government on this question of ex officio Guardians. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, who has conducted the discussion of the Bill from the other side of the House, expressed his approval of the step I took, and he himself addressed the Committee on the subject with great force. The Debate on that Amendment was continued, and to-night the Amendment was withdrawn. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras now moves an Amendment which re-opens the whole question, and he must not think me discourteous if I decline to follow him over the old ground. This Amendment is, of course, in Order, as it has been allowed by the Chair; but there is but little difference between it and the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, which the Government, out of respect for my hon. Friend, did not negative, but allowed him to withdraw; and as the Amendment was withdrawn, of course, the subject can come up again in Order. The difference between the two Amendments is, that the first one was compulsory and this is optional. The first allowed the Local Government Board to select the nominated Guardians from any persons they thought proper in the locality, and this confines them to persons who have acted as ex officio Guardians, which, though it limits the area of selection, is still an area of very wide extent. Now, I have to say that, every objection raised against, the Local Government Board acting in the first case applies with equal force to their acting in this case. There are 600 Unions in Great Britain, and you want the Local Government Board to select from the ex officios of all those Unions persons

      155
      whom they think proper to appoint as nominated Guardians. There has been a great deal of criticism on the Lord Chancellor with reference to the appointment of Magistrates. It was said that he did not proceed with sufficient rapidity in the appointment of Magistrates. Sow the Local Government Board are asked to nominate Guardians in every Union, and no limit is fixed, for under the Amendment they might appoint five or 50 on every Board.
      MR. T. H. BOLTON: The number is limited to the present ex officio Guardians.
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: And that means 8,000. The proposal is unpractical, and we cannot, under any circumstances, accept it.
      MR. W. LONGsaid, that the President of the Local Government Board, when he complained of the action of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, forgot what had taken place since the initiation of the Debate on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carnarvon—namely, that the Opposition had been specially invited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday night to make some proposal on this subject of the ex officio element which might be capable of consideration by the Government. The Amendment might be open to the objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman—that there was no limit fixed to the nomination of Guardians. But the difficulty which the appointment of the Guardians would lay on the Department had been exaggerated by the right hon. Gentleman, for surely the right hon. Gentleman would admit that the information which the head of the Department for the time being could set from the Poor Law Inspectors, who had been well termed the eyes and ears of the Department, would very much facilitate such work as this if it became the duty of the Department to discharge it. The right hon. Gentleman had been a little hard on the hon. Member for St. Pancras when he suggested that his Amendment had been practically covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carnarvon. He did not presume to say what would have been the ruling of the Deputy Chairman, supposing that that Amendment had been negatived instead of withdrawn; but he thought the present proposal differed a
      156
      good deal from the proposal of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, and was one that might be very well accepted by the Government without laying themselves open to the charge of having changed their minds on the matter. It had been admitted in many quarters of the House that this Poor Law question was the most difficult one they had to contend with, and he, therefore, thought the Government had no reason to complain of the attitude taken up by the Opposition, and because Amendment followed Amendment in rapid succession. He believed that amongst a great number of Members of the House on both sides there was a feeling that there was, at all events, some risk in the scheme of the Government—it might be in the direction of increased Poor Law, or, what was still more deplorable, in the direction of a return to the old inhuman administration of the Poor Law which had been referred to by his right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's earlier in the evening; and, that being so, there was good reason for considerable discussion of the matter in the House. Besides, the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday night indicated, as plainly as a speech could indicate it, that the Government were alive to the difficulties and risks of the situation, and that they were prepared to consider some compromise which would minimise these risks and difficulties. He did not know whether the President of the Local Government Board, who had an immense deal to do in connection with the Bill, had had his attention called to a letter which had appeared in The Standard of the 19th instant, signed by S. Wyndham, Chairman of the Farnham Union, in reply to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that the true check to outdoor relief was the central control. In that letter it was pointed out that the expenditure in outdoor relief in the Union for the year ending Michaelmas, 1882, had been £8,932, and for the year ending Michaelmas, 1892–10 years after—it was £1,540, showing a decrease of £2,392. This most satisfactory result was due entirely to the wise and energetic action of one or two Guardians. That case was well worth the attention of the Committee, He entirely endorsed the statements of the writer of the letter. Everyone who

      157
      knew anything of the administration of outdoor relief was aware that the action of one man who urged his views on the Board in plain simple language might be marvellous, and often was most beneficial. Fie hoped, therefore, that the Government would endeavour to meet the feeling in the House and in the country that great risks were to be feared from this scheme, which would revolutionise the constitution of Boards of Guardians in the future, by introducing some safeguards such as that suggested in the Amendment. To him it seemed a most moderate proposal; and if the Government accepted, or put forward some alternative proposal of their own based on the same foundation, they would not alone be acting ill the best interests of the Bill, but in the best interests also of local government and the wise administration of outdoor relief.
      COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, it was plain that the Committee were endeavouring to find some, common ground on which they could agree on the difficult application of this principle of nominated Guardians. For his own part, he could not say that he preferred the Amendment before the Committee. It was open to the very grave and serious objection that it proposed to give the Local Government Board power to nominate gentlemen all over the country; and also to the further objection that in some Unions the Local Government Board would have a large field, and in other Unions a small field for choice. He should like to emphasize what his hon. Friend had just said with regard to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was a very important speech, and indicated a desire on the part of the Government to find some compromise, if possible, by which the difficult question could be settled. For his own part he rather preferred an Amendment standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, which appeared in the Paper somewhat later on, but which he would of course be out of Order in now discussing. This question was of far greater importance in populous towns than in the country.
      MR. WHARTONsuggested the addition, at the end of the Amendment, of the words "not exceeding one-fifth of the whole body." That would meet the objection
      158
      of the Government as to the unlimited power given to the Local Government Board by the Amendment. The Amendment simply said that the Local Government Board should have the power to retain on all Boards of Guardians the men who had acted well in the past. That was what all Parties in the House were anxious to do; and if the Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment before the Committee they might put an Amendment of their own on the Paper.
      MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that the Government, had only placed before the Committee one destructive proposal, he did not think the Government desired to sweep away all the members of the Boards of Guardians who had done good work in the past. And yet they did nothing but put forward ibis clause. What, therefore, could the Opposition do? Surely they could only bring forward new arguments in favour of the different proposals they advanced in order to modify the destructive proposal of the Government. All the Amendments being put forward were designed to keep up the continuity in the work of local government. The Opposition could not help pressing these Amendments on the Government so long as the Government maintained their irreconcilable attitude in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman had scarcely done justice to the Department of which he was President, when he said that the Local Government Board was incompetent to do what they were asked to do in the Amendment. He did not believe that, the Local Government Board was incapable of making a selection out of a, small number of men which would be satisfactory to the Boards of Guardians. In a very large number of instances those who came on the Board from their position other than that of elected Guardians were chosen to act as chairmen, and the argument against Magistrates being satisfactory as ex officio Guardians on account of their enormous number, was taken out of account by the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), because the Amendment said that the President, of the Local Government Board should select those who would be likely to help in the matter. That removed both the objection that there were too many and

      159
      the objection against the varying character of the Board. He thought the local business knowledge of the hon. Member would support him in this—that there was nothing so unlit for genuine work as a weak Board, as a weak Board was always under the control of its clerk; therefore, if they placed upon the Board men who were in a superior position to their clerk they strengthened the Board, and consequently he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see the importance; of introducing upon a representative Board others who were equally representative, though not popularly elected. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not go on forcing them to bring forward new arguments in favour of each of these Amendments, bill would bring forward himself something that would be acceptable to the Committee.
      SIR H. FLETCHERsaid, be would urge the President of the Local Government Board to listen to the appeal of the hon. Member for Liverpool, who had asked that something might be done to meet their views. He (Sir H. Fletcher) had for many years been an ex officio Guardian engaged in the administration of the Boor Law. He did not often trouble the House, and he had not, before spoken during the whole of these Debates on this Bill; but for a period of about 35 years he had been an active Magistrate. He had been Chairman of Petty Sessions for 22 years; he had been Chairman of a large Board of Guardians comprising some 40 or 50 members, and, though not speaking on behalf of himself, he was sure that in the opinion of many Guardians it was most desirable that men of a different class in life to the Urban and Rural Guardians, of which so many Boards were composed, should preside over their proceedings. He was satisfied that on many occasions it had been the means of creating peace between the Urban and Rural Guardians, who sometimes, he regretted to say, took rather a Party view when measures were brought forward which were of interest to one side or the other; therefore, when a man presided over them who was not altogether mixed up with either of those classes he was able, by a little tact and firm judgment, to pacify both Parties, and bring the subject to a successful issue. He felt that ex officio Guardians were doomed, and had to pass away; but
      160
      having presided over a Board of Guardians for 22 years, He felt that he should like to continue his work on the Board for some years longer if the light hon. Gentleman could possibly see his way to save him, and allow him to carry out his main idea, for a few years longer. He did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, but he did ask him to accede, if possible, to the views that had been thrown out. He hoped the right lion. Gentleman would inform the Committee as soon as he could what measures he proposed to take in order to secure that nominated or ex officio members might in some way still be kept on.
      MR. CROSFIELDsaid, that during the past few days I hey had been discussing the Amendments they seemed to have been making an effort to save the ex officio members of various Hoards of Guardians throughout the country—a vain effort it seemed to be to the minds of many gentlemen who spoke from the opposite side of the House—but he claimed that in supporting the opinion of Her Majesty's Government they were really doing the best that could be done to obtain the object they all bad in view. He admitted that gentlemen like the hon. Member who had just spoken bad rendered most valuable—he might say invaluable—service in this department of public life, but were these gentlemen afraid that the services and benefits they had conferred upon the community were not to be recognised by their neighbours amongst whom they lived? He believed that if these gentlemen were still willing to give their services to the country under the Poor Law administration, they would be amongst the first to be elected under the new system. He himself had bad the honour of serving on a Board of Guardians for many years as a colleague of his hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), and even in the hon. Member's presence be would venture to say there was no man in the country whose services had been so valuable in Poor Law administration as the hon. Member. It might be supposed by those not familiar with Boards of Guardians in the neighbourhood with which the hon. Member was so conspicuously connected, that be was himself an ex officio member sitting in his capacity as a County Magistrate, but that was not the case. If his memory

      161
      served him rightly, for 22 years, or even more, the hon. Member had served in the parish, and been returned by the voles of the open Vestry; never in any one year had the hon. Member served on the Board as an ex officio Guardian, He would venture lo prophesy—though he did it on the principle that it was never sale lo prophesy unless they knew—thai the experience of the hon. Member would be the experience of those ex officios who ventured on the rough sea of an open election, and that they would be returned by their neighbours to still continue the valuable services they had rendered in the past.
      SIR J. KENNAWAYsaid, the sentiments expressed by the last speaker undoubtedly commended themselves to hon. Members who were supporting the view of the Government, but he wished to point out there was another view from which the question should he regarded. There was no doubt that in many cases the ex officios, if they wished to stand, would be elected by their own parishes; but those who had done good service to the community, and filled these posts with distinction, had other duties to perform in other places, so that they would not be able to enter into a contested election. He was speaking with the knowledge of a particular case in which the present chairman of a Board of Guardians, an ex officio member, had told him he would not be able to continue his services as an elected Guardian, because the duties of an elected Guardian would require him to he intimately acquainted with the particular parish which he would represent; therefore he would not be able conscientiously to undertake the duties, because he would not be able to give the time to satisfy himself as to the position of those asking relief, consequently he could not perform what would he double duty. That being so, this gentleman would be shut out, and be no longer able to retain the office of chairman. He added his appeal to that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, that this was too serious a matter to be lightly dealt with. In the interests of the poor, in the interests of good administration, however much they remembered the popular
      162
      idea, of everything being done by popular election, of the popular vote being absolutely supreme, he thought that cither through this Amendment or that of his hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire (Sir R. Paget), which came next, some means of qualifying the representation, of introducing an element of stability and knowledge should he adopted by the Government.
      MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, those Amendments were not unimportant, and yet they were not answered from the Treasury Bench.
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have made a speech and done my best to answer them.
      MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he had not been in the House during the whole of the evening, but the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the first Amendment, at any rate.
      MR. H. H FOWLER: Yes I did.
      MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, in that ease he begged pardon. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had given very respectful attention to the proceedings in Committee, but before the Amendment was disposed of he should like to make one observation in answer to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Crosfield). The hon. Member spoke of the good services rendered by ex officio members in the past, and slated they might be satisfied they would continue to render them in the future in another capacity, and that the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Rathbone) had for a long time been an elected member of the Liverpool Board of Guardians. He had no doubt the hon. Member was right about the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Rathboue), whose reputation was so high in Liverpool, and who was practically certain of re-election, and that those elected members who had rendered such good service in the past might, as long as they chose, render similar service in the future, but the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Crosfield) made a confusion between that part of the question and that they were trying to urge. They said that those who had been ex officio Guardians would

      163
      not be certain to be elected in the future, because there would be no room for them. Was it to be supposed that Guardians who were now elected would stand aside in order that their places as elected Guardians might be taken by those who were now ex officio or nominated Guardians? He failed to understand why the Government, knowing the good work that had been done by ex officio and nominated Guardians, wished, without advancing any substantial argument, to make a clean sweep of the present state of things. If the Opposition were to be met with a non possumus they could only regret it; but he hoped that a concession might even yet be made by the Government. It was not the way to make progress with the Bill to allow the Opposition to move Amendment after Amendment just to see how the Opposition would shape their course. If the Government had any proposal to make let them submit it to the Committee. If the Government would not do that the Opposition could do nothing but go on moving Amendments and supporting them by whatever arguments they could adduce.
      MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that as be felt he had sufficiently presented the case of the present ex officio Guardians, and hoping that, it would yet receive further consideration from the Government, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment in Order stands in the name of the hon. Member for Aston Manor (Captain Grice-Hutchinson). The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Sir R. Paget) ought to be moved as an Amendment to that of the hon. and gallant Member.
      CAPTAIN GRICE-HUTCHINSONsaid, the Amendment which he proposed contained this cardinal difference to former Amendments: that it proposed to extend the power of nomination to the Boards of Guardians themselves, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. This, he thought, was a considerable
      164
      improvement on former Amendments, and he hoped the Government would be able to assent to it. The system of the Local Government Board nominating ex officio Guardians had, no doubt, worked very well in London, but in rural districts it was impracticable to delegate this power to the Central Authority. As it was only natural to suppose that the Boards of Guardians themselves knew the wishes and aspirations of individual members of the Board, he thought they were the best persons to say whether they should have any nominated person upon the Board or not. He was afraid they must consider the ex officio member by this Bill was dead and buried; but, still, he thought it would be a grave calamity to the administration of the Boor Law if Boards of Guardians were to be altogether deprived of the ex officio's services, and, therefore, he considered that Boards of Guardians should be permitted to decide whether nominated members should come into their ranks. That was what his Amendment aimed at, and be believed that if a poll were taken of the various Boards of Guardians throughout the country they would be in favour of some such proposal as that. The Boards of Guardians in his constituency could not be accused of holding retrograde ideas, and they had sent him a Memorial, in which the principle contained in his Amendment was embodied. He need not reiterate all that ex officio and nominated Guardians had done, or that their services had not been amply recognised, but, with all due respect to the President of the Local Government Board, he thought his able statement, on Friday night, about the preponderance of ex officios in one particular area and their absence from another had nothing to do with the question whether Boards of Guardians wanted the system continued or not. He believed that the Boards of Guardians were strongly in favour of having some system of nomination such as he proposed in his Amendment, and he knew perfectly well that if the chairman of the Board of Guardians in his district was ousted from his position he would not enter upon a fight and go to the expense of a contested election. Thus the services of a good man might be lost to the Board, and he therefore asked that the President of the Local Government Board should

      165
      not take up a cast-iron position with regard to this question. His Amendment embodied the principle of co-optation, and it would apply not only to Justices of the Peace and ex officio members, but also to County Councillors, Parish Councillors, or any private individuals of capacity whom the Guardians might think would he of service and give strength to their deliberations in the administration of the Poor Law. On that account the Amendment was a broader and wider one than any that had yet been proposed. He asked the Government to try and meet them in some way and not to take up this stone-wall attitude. They were prepared to make this Bill a, thoroughly good Bill if the Government would only give them the chance, and he was convinced that the more freedom and liberty they gave to these Local Authorities the better would be the Pill, and the greater the benefit to the parish. They were putting the agricultural labourer in very tight loading strings by this Bill. No doubt that was right in the case of newly-elected bodies. But they ought to give every freedom to Boards of Guardians, composed of men of experience in Poor Law administration, especially as regards nominating outside members. It was on this account and in the hopes of making the Pill better and a thoroughly good Bill, likely to he an advantage and benefit to the rural population, that he urged the Government to accept his Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 12, line 30, to leave out Sub-section (1), and insert the words, "Any Board of Guardians shall be empowered to nominate co-optative members in the proportion of one co-optative member to six elected Guardians."—(Captain Grice-Hutchinson.)
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: The hon. Member for the Oxford University has complained that the Government have assumed a stone-wall attitude, and allusion has been made to what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday night. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was this: He asked gentlemen who wore dissatisfied with the proposals of the Government to make proposals of their own, which he promised should receive the most careful
      166
      consideration of the Government. That is no pledge on the part of the Government to make proposals of their own. The Government have made their proposals; they are in the Pill. At the same time we will carefully consider any proposals made on behalf of the Opposition. We have had three proposals to-night. First of all there was the proposal of the hon. Member for Carnavon-shire, which was, perhaps, more completely demolished by the speech of the Leader of the Opposition than by any other speaker. He would have none of it. Then there was the proposal of the hon. Member for East Somerset, but the Member for West Bristol would not have that. The last proposal seemed to have no friends at all, except in so far as it served as an occasion to raise the general question, and that was withdrawn without anybody wishing to press it to a Division; therefore we have had no proposal on behalf, at all events, of the official Opposition, and as representing their case. Up to the present time the challenge to hon. Members to put their proposals on paper has not been accepted. With reference to the present Amendment, the hon. Member proposes that the Boards of Guardians shall co-optate, in addition to their existing body, a certain number of other members. We are told that the dangers of this system we are now proposing is that it may interfere with the wise administration of the Poor Law, and that it class of Guardians may be elected who will prejudicially administer the Poor Law. Will the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Paget) look what the effect of his proposal which he has on the Paper would be? The effect of a proposal of this sort is simply to give a small majority a large majority on a Board of Guardians. If you have—and mind I do not believe all this; I am only putting your arguments, and I cannot believe that there is this danger to the administration of the Poor Law. Assuming for a moment that a majority of a Board of Guardians is elected in favour of extravagant or unwise outdoor relief, and that this majority consists of one—supposing it is a large Board of Guardians of, say, 30 members—what does the Amendment propose to give them? It proposes to immediately add five to their majority, and possibly make it a

      167
      safe working majority. I cannot conceive a mode which would be open to many more objections than this. You simply give the majority, if you have a dividing Hue, the power of converting a small majority into a large one. I very much doubt whether in that way you would secure what you desire and what I desire—namely, the very best men to servo on the Boards of Guardians. I have been listening to what is really the practical objection to the proposal of the Government, which is weighing on a great many hon. Members' minds, and I find in every speech it is this: There are a very large number of gentlemen who have been doing important and good service, who have been chairmen of Boards of Guardians for a long series of years, and who would not be disposed to go through either the fatigue or the other, perhaps not pleasant, circumstances of a contested election, and sooner than stand they would retire from the Boards of Guardians. Therefore, it is said, in 240 or 250 cases you are to lose the services of these gentlemen. Now, am I not putting it fairly? Is not that the case which comes home to their judgment, that there are a large number of gentlemen who at present, and for many years past, have most wisely and ably administered Poor Law affairs, who possess the confidence of their fellow-Guardians, whoso services their fellow-Guardians would like to have, but under the operation of this Bill these services would be lost. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, but that is not the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen have not read the Bill. Under the Bill every one of these chairmen can be retained. The Boards of Guardians can elect them, and I am quite certain my hon. Friend overlooked that point. Under this Bill he could be elected and could continue to be chairman for another 22 years. That is a point that I think has been lost sight of in this Debate. I am free to confess I do not attach any blame to hon. Members for not having discerned this provision in the Bill. It is perhaps not in the best place in the Bill. It is not in a very prominent part of the Bill. It is in Clause 46, and I think, myself, it should have been in Clause 19. Nevertheless there will be very little difficulty in putting it in Clause 19. I will put
      168
      another point. Under the Poor Law Regulations Boards of Guardians are obliged to elect not only a chairman, but every Board of Guardians is obliged to elect a vice-chairman. Now, Sir, my judgment is this: that the Committee will be well advised if it extended the power of election outside the Board not only to the chairman, but to the vice-chairman. That would leave to every Board of Guardians in the Kingdom, entirely in its own option, the power to elect, if they thought proper so to do, two gentlemen of great Poor Law experience and knowledge, and so far as I can make out it is only a small number of ex officio Guardians who do attend. A gentleman sent me up a case either yesterday or this morning from a large Union in the South of England. He sends me particulars of the Guardians, and speaks most highly of the chairman, who is an ex officio, and has held office for a great many years. He says that the idea that the ex officio Guardians had control of, or in any way influence the policy of, the Boards of Guardians is a great mistake; and after telling me of their other qualifications, which he says are very good, he tells me, last of all, that he is a Conservative; therefore he does not regard the proceedings of the present Government with any great approval. He sends me a Return, for two years, of the attendances at the Board. I find in one of these Returns that there are in this Union 10 ex officio Guardians. The chairman has attended 10 times; another ex officio Guardian once; another, four times, and not a single oilier one ever attended a single meeting; whereas, in the case of the elected Guardians, out of a total of 12 meetings, their attendances range from 12, 10, 9, 7, to 6, and so on. I am only giving that as an illustration among many others to the same effect—namely, that what I may call the regular attendance of the ex officios for Poor Law administration purposes docs not extend to a large number of meetings. It is a very limited number who do attend, and I therefore think, if the House should see fit to ensure that the Boards of Guardians should have the opportunity of electing two gentlemen from outside, they will secure, what has been all through desired, not a majority, but the influence of a strong

      169
      man experienced in the work of a Board of Guardians. What I venture to submit to the House is, that the proposal I have made will carry out that desire. One half of it is in the Bill already. I find no fault with anybody for not having discerned it, because it is not, I confess, in the proper place, and ought to have been elsewhere. The House will quite understand the immense labour and trouble of a Bill with its many details, and perhaps some excuse may be made for me. At all events, it is in the Bill already so far as the chairmen are concerned, and I am willing to extend if to vice-chairmen. That is the proposal I submit with some confidence to the Committee, and I hope one will accuse the Government of a non possumus attitude, or of assuming a stone-wall position. The present Amendment I cannot accept, but I throw out this suggestion.
      SIR R. PAGETsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had at last revealed to their anxious eyes the proposal of the Government. After examining Amendment after Amendment they at last came to the Amendment of the Government, and if accusations were levelled at the Opposition for wasting the time of the Committee, surely they had the most complete reply on this occasion. They had had the evening entirely devoted to the consideration of Amendments which, alter they had been discussed and placed for formality before the Committee, were severally dismissed one after another until the Grand Turk was ready to throw his handkerchief and had led his own favourite on the scene.
      MR. H. H. FOWLKR: I thought it more respectful to hon. Members to discuss their Amendments.
      SIR R. PAGETsaid, he regretted that the Amendment which he had down on the Paper had not an opportunity of being discussed before the Government let out of the bag their extraordinary cat. The proposal of the Government was, that Boards of Guardians in the future were to have the power of electing themselves the chairman and vice-chairman, He did not know whether they were to be additional members.
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes, if the Boards of Guardians think proper. I do not propose that a Board of Guardians should be compelled to elect their chairman or vice-chairman. I adopt the spirit of the Amendment, and provide that it shall be within their power, if they choose, to elect as chairman one who has been elected to the Board, or, if they think fit, to exercise the power of appointing a chairman or vice-chairman from outside the Board; then I suggest that they shall be additional members of the Board.
      MR. T. H. BOLTON: Assuming that it Board of Guardians elects to these places two of the elected members, will there be any opportunity for filling the two places of the elected members?
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: No: in that case there would be no opportunity of electing others.
      SIR R. PAGETsaid, their desire was to make this Bill as effective as possible, and he thought the view he bad expressed in his Amendment would be more effectual than the recommendation of the light hon. Gentleman. He knew of Boards of Guardians where the ex officio element existed, where the Magistrates hi tended regularly, and were selected to serve on the Committees which did the principal part of the work. It would not be unreasonable to add as additional members Justices to the extent of one-sixth of the number of Guardians on the Board. The Opposition was very anxious about this matter, because they feared that unless the Government adopted their suggestion the administration of the Poor Law would, under the new system, be endangered, and that the demoralisation of the poorer classes which was brought about previous to 1834, and which ii required something like a revolution to expel, would again occur. The poorer classes of the country, prior to 1834, became imbued with the notion that nothing was to be done without constant relief, and the effect of it was to reduce their wages, and there was a condition of things which was a shame to the country.

      171
      There was no duty more difficult and delicate than that of the administration of outdoor relief. The welfare of the country was intimately bound up with the question of the administration of the Poor Law. The new Board of Guardians, elected on an entirely novel principle without any qualification, with no ex officio members, no official experience, could not possibly be the same body as those who now administered the Poor Law; and the Opposition merely asked that this untried body should at least be furnished with such aid as the present Board of Guardians had. If the right hon. Gentleman could obtain a Return to show the number of ex officio Justices who were elected by Boards of Guardians to serve on the Committees which did the work, he would find that in every Board there was a large number of ex officios, not alone selected as chairmen and vice-chairmen, but to serve on the various committees, the ex officios being really the working bees. At any rate, that was the case in a great many Unions. He did not think the power of electing the chairman and vice-chairman from outside would be a sufficient guarantee for that good and sound administration of the Poor Law which they all desired. In his opinion it was a fatal error on the part of the Government to introduce the Poor Law clauses at all, and whatever Amendment might be suggested he should hold himself perfectly free to vote against Clause 19 as a mischievous clause which had enormously lengthened the proceedings on the Bill, and had touched the fringe of a great question in a way which might possibly endanger the system which existed and be another step in the direction of the demoralisation of the country. The Committee could not dismiss this subject in a light-hearted fashion. It was far too deep and serious a matter for that. He did not quite know how the Committee stood with regard to this Amendment. The Committee had before them an Amendment, and a suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that he means to propose something else. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman put his Amendment on the Paper? The right hon. Gentleman had not told the Committee what were its terms and when he posed to bring it forward.
      MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that he should propose an additional sub-section to the clause providing that the chairman and vice-chairman might be chosen outside the Board, and would become thereby additional members.
      SIR R. PAGETsaid, that he had to complain that that important Amendment would appear on the Paper next day, when there was no one left to discuss it. If it were on the Paper now the Committee might have been able to discover some common ground of agreement.
      MAJOR DARWINsaid, he regretted that the Government could not see their way to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He could see the value of the provision that the vice-chairman and chairman might be chosen from outside the Board; but if they were not so chosen no outsiders would be elected at all. If it was right in one case to elect outsiders to the Board, why not in all cases? Everything that helped to get the best men on the Board was an advantage. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment would do no good in the case of an extravagant Board. He thought that in the Debate too much stress had been laid on the desire to bring back some of the old ex officio Guardians. No doubt that was an extremely desirable object, and he hoped it would be brought about in some way; but what he should like to do was to make the Board of Guardians of the future as good as they possibly could. There were many reasons-why the addition of the outside element to Boards of Guardians would be valuable, even though they were to put aside the ex officio element, whose merits he fully recognised. As his right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin had pointed out the other day, any member of a Board of Guardians who did his work conscientiously might, under certain circumstances, incur unpopularity; but the members of the Board who worked with him would know the value of his services, and even though he was unpopular would, in many cases, elect him on the Board. That was a very strong reason for power being given to the Guar-

      173
      dians to add outsiders to the Board. It was desirable also to have on the Boards a number of members who had not to look back on electioneering speeches, or to look forward to electioneering speeches. Nominated Guardians would be independent of electors and pledges, and could look entirely to the duties they had to perform. Such members would be representative members just as much as the members of the United States Senate; and the argument that they would not be representative had not been sustained. It had been said, too, that a good many of the good men would not stand. But that was not the point at all. What the Committee had to do was to give every encouragement to good men to join the Boards. In the future elections would be more and more political. He regretted it; though there would be the advantage that more interest would be taken in the elections under those circumstances. The evil was that good men would come to be rejected merely because they belonged to the wrong Party. The Amendment would correct that evil. He hoped too that when a Party victory had been gained the elected Guardians would have wisdom enough to co-opt the most useful man on the other side. On the whole, he thought there were sufficient arguments in favour of the Amendment to make it a desirable one to adopt.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he objected to ex officio members of every kind whatever. Experience was entirely against them. In the City of London the Board of Guardians, consisting of 92 members, had not a single ex officio, because Justices in the City had not the right to sit on the Board. Though he was not a member of that Board, he understood it bore the highest character of any Board of Guardians in the country, or at least a character as good as any Board in the country. There were no complaints about them, though they had to deal with four millions of assessments. That showed that ex officio Guardians were not required at all: and if elected Guardians were good for the City of Loudon they ought to be good for every other part of the United
      174
      Kingdom. If ex officio Guardians were so good, why did not the Tory Party propose that there should be ex officio or co-opted Members of the House of Commons? Simply because the country would not stand it, and the House itself would not hoar of it. He should say also that he was not in favour of the chairman or vice-chairman being elected from outside, because he believed it was a very bad practice. Let the House give the country responsible Boards of Guardians, composed of people who would feel their responsibility by having to go before their constituents at least once in three years. That was the only way to prevent extravagance, and compel the Guardians to do their duty. For his part, he intended to vote against ex officios of all sorts and sizes.
      MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, the hon. Member for Peterborough had naturally praised the Board of Guardians of the City of London. It was about the worst administered Board in the country, and its Poor Law relief was about the highest. He should like to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he agreed with the praise which had been given to the City Board?
      MR. A. C MORTON: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to ask whether here has ever been a complaint against the City of London Board?
      MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, he should be willing to allow the hon. Gentleman to ask him any questions; but he would use his own discretion in replying to them. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman opposite should oppose the principle of co-optation generally when he accepted it in the ease of the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the Boards. Some better reason ought to be given for the rejection of the Amendment.
      MR. J. LOWLANDSsaid, he was surprised at the way the discussion was going. The Government had made a concession, and, like all concessions, it had been received in the most sneering manner by the Opposition. They

      175
      did not thank the right hon. Gentleman for having made the concession, because he had not gone further. He was not afraid to say distinctly that he did not agree with the concession, and that he was utterly opposed to co-optation. He knew Public Bodies in London on which the members were co-opted, and he knew the evils which resulted from that system. The evil on one of the Boards to which he referred—a Trustee Board—was that gentlemen were appointed who did not attend to their duties, and as the qualification was a £75 rating, he and other residents in the parish were not allowed to become members, though they might become Members of Parliament. Why should they not be the electors to elect Boards of Guardians, as well as other Public Bodies? Every argument in favour of popular election to the House of Commons applied with equal force to Boards of Guardians. Members of Parliament made promises which they did not intend to perform, and they traded on these promises when they thought there were votes to be got. In fact, Members of Parliament often changed their opinions three times in the week. He thought there was only one standard that they could follow, and that was to give the people the full control of their own affairs. With regard to the attacks which hail been made on the system of outdoor relief, he would point out that there was another side to the picture. Almost in every Union huge buildings might be seen in the course of erection for the accommodation of indoor paupers, and people were asking themselves whether the money might not be more judicially and more beneficially spent in relieving the people outside by a system of discriminate outdoor relief. He was not one of those who thought that when a man fell by the roadside in the struggle for life they should send him to a workhouse and break up his home and family when, by a little temporary outdoor relief, they might enable him to start afresh and keep the homestead over his head. He hoped the Government would not give any more concessions, but stand firmly by the Bill and allow the people to elect their own Poor Law Guardians, the same as the members of the School Board and the County Council.
      SIR W. HARCOURT: My right hon. Friend has been condemned by some hon. Members of the House for his proposal to allow the chairman and the vice-chairman to be elected from the outside. I would remind them that the power of electing outside has existed ever since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act. It was given to the County Councils in 1888, and it has already been given in the present Bill to Parish Councils, and if it is not given to Boards of Guardians they will be the sole exception. What we suggest is that the Amendment should be negatived, and that we should then have an opportunity of bringing under the consideration of the Committee the proposal which has been made by the President of the Local Government Board. The proposal has been made with the view of meeting the difficulty that has been raised and of making progress with the Bill, lint if hon. Members opposite are not disposed to regard the proposal with favour, we will withdraw it, and no more time need be spent upon it.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not rise to discuss in any carping spirit the proposal of the President of the Local Government Board. He desired to consider this and all other suggestions affecting the Bill in a practical way with the view of obtaining the best possible administrative Boards for the rural districts. While he deprecated the introduction of Party feeling into the consideration of the Amendment, he should also say that it sometimes reduced one to despair to see hon. Members picking up abstract principles and running them to death. His hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury objected to co-optation because on a Board of Trustees, with a high and restricted qualification, the co-opted members did not attend to their duties. That bore no relation at all to this proposal which applied to Unions where there was no qualification at all for membership. The President of the Local Government Board had suggested that the vice-chairman as well as the chairman might be allowed to be elected from the outside, just as the Corporations were allowed to elect their Mayors from the out-

      177
      side. That proposal admitted the principle of co-optation in a restricted fashion. As to the statement that good men would he co-opted, the scheme in that respect would be likely to be a nullity, because it would be rarely acted on. On Municipal Councils it was a very rare occurrence to take a Mayor from without. He admitted that the limitation would secure rather a high standard on the part of the added members, and so far he saw an argument in its favour; bill, on the other hand, it was pretty sure to make the whole matter a nullity, because, as a rule, they would not get Boards of Guardians to give this honoured distinction to men who were not members of their own body. If they allowed two members to be added, why not allow two to be added at large? What was considered the argument against that had already been given—namely, that where they allowed two to be added at large they would give the majority the power of adding two more to their own side, which was not exactly what was wanted. They would be adding to the majority, but would have no security whatever of obtaining those conditions of experience and knowledge which it was so desirable to have on Boards of Guardians. Well, was it impossible, as a working problem, to secure what he wished to secure with the avoidance of what he wished to avoid? They could add two members, not to fill the post of chairman and vice-chairman, but who, at the same time, would be added with regard to qualification, the action of the Hoards of Guardians being limited to useful members. For example, if it were provided that the Guardians should he able to co-opt two members qualified by reason of having served two or three years on those Boards. If that were done the country would start with new Boards of Guardians capable of discharging all their duties, the co-opted members forming a connecting link between the new and the old authority.
      SIR J. KENNAWAYsaid, the question before them was whether Boards of Guardians should have power to nominate co-optative members. They must bear in mind the remarks made from the opposite side of the House, that it was extremely probable that these elections in
      178
      the future would become more and more political. In view of that, he was bound to say he attached considerable weight to the argument of the President of the Local Government Board that there was great danger of a bare majority being increased in this way to a large majority by the election of members of the same political complexion. He confessed he agreed very much with the hon. Baronet the Member for Somerset that they had lost a good deal of time in not having had the proposal of the Government before them until now, but it was a very great improvement to the Bill. It was an improvement which the Committee should be thankful to accept. It would enable a Board to secure the services of two valued ex officio Guardians instead of losing them altogether. He did not think that the power would be rarely acted on. The Boards, in the first place, would not be composed of men much accustomed to public business. They would be thankful to be able to get men of experience from outside. He shared the apprehensions which had been expressed as to what these men and untried bodies would do, but be was of opinion that there would be some security for continuity if the proposal of the Government were adopted.
      MR. LEES KNOWLESsaid, he did not think the proposal to give Boards of Guardians power to elect chairmen and vice-chairmen from without was of any importance, because, in the first place, as had been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, it was extremely unlikely that Guardians would look outside their own body for persons to fill these posts of honour. The temptation to them would be to confer such posts on themselves. That was a point which struck him very forcibly; and not only that, but if they did away altogether with these ex officio Guardians, one would wonder who the Boards of Guardians would appoint from without, because there would be no one outside who would have experience in Poor Law administration. It would be highly desirable if, at till events for the present, the ex officio element were allowed to continue; or, least, that the Guardians who were at present

      179
      ex officio Guardians should not be discontinued. If they liked, abolish the appointment of ex officios for the future, but allow those now in existence, so long as they continued qualified, to remain ex officio Guardians. One point he would call attention to was that in the Bill itself there was as yet no provision relating to the election of a chairman. What would happen when one of those new Boards met? What would they do? They could not appoint a temporary chairman, for there was no provision for that. He had put down an Amendment to provide for nomination and election according to Rules framed by the Local Government Board.
      MR. STOREY: There are Local Government Board Rules already in existence.
      MR. LEES KNOWLES: Not under the Bill.
      MR. STOREY: There are existing Rules which cover the point.
      MR. LEES KNOWLESsaid, that if that were the case his object would be met. On that (the Opposition) side of the House hon. Gentlemen thought that the election of Guardians would be fought on political lines. He himself thought that that would be the case. In an extremely able article which had appeared in the December number of The Economic Journal, Mr. Loch, secretary to the Charity Organisation Society, had written—
      "If the franchise for the election of Guardians be lowered as the qualification has been, it is likely that in many places elections will turn solely on political grounds. Already there are signs of this."
      Even if the present proposal were not accepted, some such Amendment should be agreed to in order that some businesslike element might continue to be on the Boards. He himself had a proposal on the Paper which, if accepted, would have the effect of retaining the present ex officio Guardians, whilst preventing new ones being appointed.
      MR.LUTTRELLsaid, hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side were glad that the Government had not accepted the Amendment.
      180
      Many of them were sorry that the Government had made any concession at all. They had considered this to be a good opportunity for abolishing ex officio s on the Boards of Guardians, and thought it was time that all these Poor Law functionaries should be not ex officios, but in officios, chosen by the people at large. He would point out to the Government that if they accepted Amendments of this sort they must be careful that they did not find themselves in the position of ex officios.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know what occasion the Government have given for these violent threats on the part of their supporters that they will be promptly pitchforked out of Office, in order, presumably, that the gentlemen who make the throats may take their place. I take it that the Government have not made any undue concession. They have treated the Opposition with courtesy; but the concessions have been made to their own supporters. I do not see why we should be visited with these thundrous threats from Olympus on account of the humble attempts at conciliation made by the Treasury Bench. Hon. Members opposite seem to have an extremely violent prejudice against anything in the nature of a secondary election. They seem to regard it as horrible and revolting to say that an assembly chosen by the people shall choose anybody else. They do not reflect that the most important body in this country is simply selected by the House of Commons informally, but practically and substantially by secondary election. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite realise—does the hon. Gentleman who has just threatened the Government with exclusion from Office realise—that they themselves have helped to elect the Government? Has the right hon. Gentleman never so far grasped the fundamental although unwritten principle of the Constitution under which we live as not to have realised that the Cabinet who conduct the whole business of the country are themselves elected by secondary election?
      MR. LUTTRELL: I would point out that Ministers are appointed from the inside and not from the outside.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is just the point I was endeavouring to explain, though in more prolix language. They are elected from the inside.
      MR. LUTTRELL: This House cannot choose people from the outside.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not admit that, because the Cabinet includes Members of the House of Lords. They are certainly not selected in accordance with the will of the House of Lords—hon. Gentlemen will admit that at all events. Therefore we are governed in this country by a body which is co-optated by this House, partly from its own Members and partly from amongst the privileged Members of another place.
      MR. LUTTRELL: I should like to point out that, although we may have a Government elected partly from the inside and partly from the outside, the whole of the Ministers in this House are elected from inside this House.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am delighted to carry on this dialogue. The hon. Member appears to forget for a moment that there is such a place as India, that we have Colonies, and that we have a Navy; that we conduct foreign affairs. The Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the India Office, and the Admiralty are managed by Peers co-optated by Members of this House, of whom the hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted me is one of the most distinguished. Is this in accordance with Radical principles? [Cries of"No, no!"] Gentlemen have only to express that opinion in the orthodox fashion by Resolution to have the Administration selected from inside this House. There is no constitutional difficulty in such a procedure: there is not the slightest objection to it if hon. Gentlemen have the courage of their opinions. There is a certain absurdity in all this—I will not call it cant, because the word is offensive, and I mean no offensive reference to anyone in this House—talk about democratic institutions. After all, what are you dealing with? You are dealing with a body which is elected by popular representation. It is assumed, ex hypothesi, that an
      182
      elected Board is fit for every administrative duty except choosing a member or two of its own body. Is that common sense? Is it consistent with any principle, democratic or otherwise? It is utterly absurd. I think we ought to consider this question, not from the point of view of rather worm-eaten theories, but rather from the point of view of the practical efficiency of the body we desire to get. But I rose primarily, not to discuss with the hon. Gentleman opposite an abstract theory, but to reply to the invitation given to us on this Bench by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what we think of the suggestion of the Government as an improvement in the Bill. I cannot honestly say that I think it a great improvement. The improvement consists in this: that whereas, under the Bill as it now stands, the Chairman of the Board of Guardians may be selected from outside, under the new proposal the vice-chairman may be selected as well as the chairman. It cannot be maintained, even by the Government themselves, that this is likely to have a material effect upon the constitution of Boards of Guardians. I accept it as far as it goes, but I should be acting unfairly if I pretended that it settles the great difficulties raised by the Bill or provides an adequate substitute for some of the proposals placed on the Paper by other hon. Members. If I may add one further remark, it is that I think it would be an improvement in the Government suggestion if they accepted the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. That right hon. Member has pointed out that Boards of Guardians will be very reluctant to choose their two chief officers from outside. Where these officers are at present ex officio the Guardians will probably desire to keep their services. But when that race comes to an end, as under the Bill it must necessarily do within a measurable period. I do not believe Guardians will be willing to elect from outside men, presumably untried, who will not merely help them, but will preside over them. It is a strong order. I do not think they will do it; therefore, if the Government ask me if I think the suggestion they have made will bear any important fruit in the future, it appears to me subject, to what the Boards will have

      183
      to say on the question. I, however, am sure that the Government mean their proposal in a spirit of conciliation, and in that spirit I desire that the Committee shall meet them.
      MR. WHITBREADsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had forgotten the object many hon. Members on the Ministerial side had in view. The object of the proposal of the Government was to secure that the experience some men had gained in the offices of chairman and vice-chairman of Boards of Guardians should not be lost to the districts with which they were connected. It had been no easy task to arrive at a, solution which would not conflict with free election. This proposal was one which, to his mind, would least conflict with the principle of free election, because the men who had been freely elected would be those to whom the opportunity would be given of securing the services of the specially competent persons whose services might otherwise be shut out. In time the elected Guardians would gain sufficient experience themselves. They would be able to select a chairman and vice-chairman from their own body, and would not find it necessary to go outside for those functionaries. The only object the Government had in view was to prevent the shutting out of the experience of men who had done good work on the Boards of Guardians in the past. This proposal was one which secured that. He hoped that hon. Gentleman on the Ministerial side of the House would not take an exaggerated view of the concession which had been made. It did not seem to him to be one which would conflict with those principles which they desired to see put in form in the Bill. It was the mildest concession that could be made.
      MR. LITTLE—[Cries of"Divide!"]—said he sorry there should be signs of impatience on the Front Ministerial Bench in the case of a Member who had not opened his mouth on the Bill before. He desired to say he objected both to the Amendment and to the proposals of the Government. This
      184
      was a matter which he had had under careful observation for 20 years in the Municipalities of Liverpool and South-port, and he ventured to say that anyone who had carefully observed the effect of this system of the co-optation of Aldermen in Liverpool and in Southport in connection with the management of municipal affairs must come to the conclusion that the system was a distinctly had one. Certainly, as far as he was concerned, no vote of his would assist either the Government or the Proposer of the Amendment to maintain anything of the sort. What had been the effect in Liverpool? It was this: When a man had been rejected by the ratepayers, looking back upon his conduct for the past three years, he had time after time been elected to the position of Alderman, and had been given a vote in the expenditure of the ratepayers' money, and in the management of the affairs of the city. He conceived that if people believed in popular election at all, they must be of opinion that that was an improper system of government. The suggestion of the Government was that there were a certain number of people who had experience as members of existing Boards of Guardians who were too delicately matured to undergo the excitement of an election. He confessed, after a considerable observation of people of that class who had got into aldermanic seats in Liverpool and Southport, that management of local affars was infinitely better without that kind of people. They had had a remarkable statement from the Leader of the Opposition as to the effect of co-optation on the House. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the House of Commons co-optating the Cabinet. But did they by that system add a, single Member to the House? No; and the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the House had nothing to do with the election of the various Members of the Government. The majority of the House had to do with turning out an existing Administration, but the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly well aware that they had nothing to do with the selection of the man who was to form the Administration, that man being selected by a person much higher in the realm than anyone in the House of Commons or in the House of Peers.

      185
      There was no co-optation in the matter at all. How the Prime Minister acted in forming his Cabinet the House of Commons did not know. There was no record kept of the operation. The Lender of the Opposition suggested that the formation of a Cabinet was an example of co-optation. He must either have forgotten what co-optation meant or was endeavouring to throw dust in the eyes of the House. Was the right hon. Gentleman laughing at the intelligence of hon. Members? The Government, by their proposal, were introducing a principle into the Bill which had proved to he bad in the past, which was contrary to true Liberal principles, and which would not work well.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should explain that the hon. Member has quite misunderstood my point. The hon. Member behind him stated, or led the House to understand, that in these matters the only system be approved of was the direct action of the popularly elected body. I pointed out to him that in the ease of a most important body dealing with the affairs of the people of this country they do not act directly, but through selected Members of the House. The hon. Member says that the majority to which he belongs have nothing to do with the fact that Members of the House of Lords are Members of the Cabinet. I have only to point out to him that if he moves a Resolution dissenting from the appointment of Members of the House of Lords on the Cabinet, and carries it, either those Members will leave the Cabinet or the Government will resign.
      MR. LITTLEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman now took a totally different point from that taken by him before. He was, however, perfectly prepared to deal with the new point. At the present moment there was no way of getting rid of the Peers who were now Members of Her Majesty's Government without a General Election; but when the next General Election took place he understood that this would be the proposition made by a very large number of the Party which sat on the Ministerial side of the House. The majority of Members on that side of the House were of opinion that the Cabinet would be
      186
      infinitely improved if it contained no Members who had received no vote from the country. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of a Cabinet being selected by some system of co-optation he forgot that every Member of the Cabinet who sat in the House of Commons did not so sit by reason of his election, but on accepting office had to obtain re-election. As regarded the concession the Government intended to make, if they persisted in it they would introduce a, principle into the Bill which had been proved to be bad in the past, which was contrary to good Liberal principles, and which would not work well.
      MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he understood that the Government simply proposed to insert the words "and vice." The right hon. Gentleman had, he believed, stated that there were thousands of chairmen who were elected members. Would the right hon. Gentleman say what the exact numbers were, so that the Committee might lest the value of the proposed Amendment? If the great majority of the vice-chairmen were elected Guardians, he did not see how the proposed Amendment would improve matters.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 69.—(Division List, No. 392.)
      SIR R. PAGETproposed an Amendment providing that each Board of Guardians should have power to elect as additional members of their body Justices of the Peace resident in the district, not exceeding one-sixth of the number of members of the Board.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 12, line 30, after the word "Guardians," to insert the words "but each Board of Guardians shall have the power to elect from time to time as additional members of their body such number of Justices of the Peace resident in their district as they may think fit, not exceeding one-sixth of the number of members of such Board."—(Sir R Paget.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not think I need trouble the Committee on this Amendment after I have expressed so fully and frequently the views of the Government on this question. I need

      187
      only say that it is utterly impossible to accept this Amendment. I think I have made a fair proposal to meet the difficulty which has been suggested by hon. Members, and by that proposal we intend to stand without any variation.
      SIR J. DORINGTONsaid, he very much regretted the conclusion stated by the right hon. Gentleman, because by what he had said he had passed sentence upon that system of Poor Law administration which it was at one time the glory of the Liberal Party to have set up. By doing away with the plural vote the Government had altered the whole character of the Guardians, and by doing away with the ex officio members, who had been the mainstay of the Boards of Guardians in many places, they would leave in the hands of an utterly untrained body the administration of a sum of £5,000,000 a year, and would leave that body, perhaps, to drag down Poor Law administration to the condition it was in prior to 1834. He did not think the country had yet realised what was being done. To whom was to be attributed all the great improvements that had taken place in Poor Law administration in the past? Certainly the ex officio members had taken the lead in the Poor Law conferences that were set up 10 or 15 years ago, with the full approval of the Local Government Board, for bringing together men who were skilled in local administration.
      It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow at Two of the clock.

      EMPLOYEES' LIABILITY BILL.
      Reasons for disagreeing to Lords' Amendments, reported, and agreed to.
      To be communicated to the Lords.—(Mr. Secretary Asquith.)

      RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
      Copy presented,—of Returns of Accidents and Casualties reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the nine months ending 30th September, 1893, with Reports of Inspecting Officers upon certain Accidents
      188
      which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

      COUNTY PALATINE OF LANCASTER (ORDER AND RULES).
      Copy presented,—of General Order and Rules of the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster, dated 18th December, 1893 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
      ARMY (AVERAGE NUMBERS AT HOME AND ABROAD).
      Address for "Return for each year from 1870 to 1892 as regards the United Kingdom, and from 1879 to 1892 as regards Foreign stations, showing separately for the United Kingdom, Bengal, Madras, Bombay, Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Egypt, Canada, Bermuda, West Indies, Jamaica, South Africa, Mauritius, Ceylon, Straits Settlements, and Hong Kong the average annual strength of the Troops; the admissions of Soldiers to hospital; and the ratio of admissions per thousand of mean strength for primary venereal sores, secondary syphilis, and gonorrhœa respectively, together with the total numbers constantly sick from those causes and the ratio constantly sick from such causes per thousand of mean strength. The Return to specify any changes which have been made, during the period it covers, in the nomenclature of the diseases referred to, showing the general effect on the subsequent statistics in the Return, with the dates when such changes were made."—(Mr. Jeffreys.)
      BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY, &C. (SHAREHOLDERS).
      Address for "Return of Lists of the original and of the present Shareholders (made up to as late a date as practicable) in the British South Africa Company, the United Concessions Company (Limited), and the Exploring Company (Limited), together with the number of Shares held by each Shareholder, and such other particulars as can be supplied."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Marjoribanks,)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.