Commons Sitting of 22 December 1893

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

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.

QUESTIONS.

  MARKET FACILITIES FOR LONDON.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he could call the attention of the Railway Companies running to London, and of the London County Council, to the sittings of the Agricultural Commission, and inquire whether they had any proposals to lay before that body, or suggestions to make to it, of affording increased market facilities in London for country produce likely in their judgment to alleviate the existing agricultural depression?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): It is fully within the competence of the Agricultural Commission to call for any evidence or to ask for any suggestions which they may deem necessary, and it is for the Commission to consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Commission has promised to do this.

  THE LEITRIM PARLIAMENTARY REGISTER.
  MR. P. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Clerk of the Peace for the County of
  190
  Leitrim invited tenders for the printing of the register of Parliamentary voters in the county for the year 1894; in what papers and on what dates did the notice inviting tenders appear; when was a tender accepted, and by whom; will he direct the Clerk of the Peace for the County of Leitrim to issue in due time each year in future advertisements calling for tenders for the printing of the Register of Parliamentary voters for the county; and will he also direct that the tenders be opened in public?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,for Mr. J. MORLEY): The Clerk of the Peace reports that he did not invite tenders for the year 1894, as he could not find any statute compelling or authorising him to do so. He states that an application will be submitted to the next Presentment Sessions, and, if passed, the Secretary to the Grand Jury will take steps to insert notices in the newspapers in which county advertisements usually appear inviting tenders, which will be dealt with in open Court, in the same manner as tenders for other works.

  SEAMEN'S SAVINGS BANKS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state how many accounts remain unclaimed for 10 years in the seamen's savings banks, and the amount so unclaimed?
  MR. MUNDELLA: It is more convenient to give the information as to these accounts for the last 13 years. The number of accounts in the Seamen's Savings Banks which have not been operated on for 13 years is 537. The total amount of balances with interest to 20th November last is £11,866 6s. 9d.

  SOLDIERS' BILLETS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of soldiers' billets during the last six months, the total amount paid, and the average payment per man per day, and per horse per day, to the licensed victuallers on whom the troops were billeted?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,&c.): This information would have to he collected from a great many accounts and would take some time to compile. If the hon. Member sees any public advantage in the Return, and will move for it, I shall be happy to give him the information up to the latest date for which accounts have been received—probably the 30th of September.

  EVENING SCHOOLS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can state whether there has been a substantial increase in the number of evening schools this winter in consequence of the new Regulations?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): The number of evening schools claiming grant has risen this winter from just under 2,000 to considerably over 8,000.

  MARKETS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the Agricultural Commission proposes to inquire into the practicability of the establishment of district markets in London for agricultural produce by the Railway Companies and the Local Authorities conjointly, and to consider what legislation is necessary to effect that purpose if found desirable; if not, whether he will ask the Commission to consider the propriety of making such inquiry, as also as to the possibility and utility of establishing between each such district market and particular country markets telephonic communication?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): The Agricultural Commission has not yet considered the question raised by my hon. and learned Friend, but I will undertake to bring it before them.

  THE NATIONAL FLAG AT WESTMINSTER.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether arrangements have yet been made for the hoisting of a flag on the Tower of the Houses of Parliament during the daylight?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg leave to refer the hon. Member to the statement upon this subject which I made in the House on the 12th of September last, in reply to a question of the hon. Member for West Belfast.

  MINERS' WAGES IN WEST SCOTLAND.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on page 183 of The Labour Gazette of December it is stated that the wages of the miners of West Scotland increased in August by an amount Equal to 50 per cent, of that paid to them in July, and that in November a strike took place for a further increase; and whether this statement is correct?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir; it is correct.

  RAILWAY IRREGULARITIES.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Return for alternate months of the year of Railways (Times of Trains), issued by command for the year 1891, will be continued; and whether the Board of Trade has any power to compel the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company to keep better time with the trains on that railway?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I do not, as at present advised, propose to continue the Return of 1891. Lack of punctuality is not a matter with regard to which the Board of Trade have any powers of compulsion, but if any definite and reasonable complaint in reference to specific cases is brought under my notice I will communicate with the company concerned.

  THIRD-CLASS CARRIAGES ON THE DISTRICT RAILWAY.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade

  193
  whether his attention has been called to the new third-class carriages on the District Railway, in which the space allowed for passengers has been reduced so as to make it impossible for them to move with either comfort or decency; and whether he will use all the powers of his Department to compel the Railway Companies to secure better accommodation for third-class passengers?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No, Sir; I am not aware of any such alteration. The Company inform me that they have had no new third-class carriages since November, 1891; that the transverse space has not been reduced, but that the carriages are all constructed up to the extreme limit of the maximum dimensions for safe travelling in the tunnels. The width of the gangways of the compartments was increased in 1891 from 1 foot 8 inches to 1 foot 9½ inches. I have had no complaints on the subject.

  LAND PURCHASE AND THE LOUGH ERNE DRAINAGE SCHEME.
  MR. SEXTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Cavan, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in estimating the security to the Treasury of the lands of Bernard Reilly and other purchasers, near Belturbet, the Laud Commission took into account the probable charge for the Lough Erne Drainage Scheme; and, if so, what estimate did they make of the probable amount of that charge?
  MR. ASQUITH (for Mr. J. MORLEY): The Irish Land Commissioners, when sanctioning in 1887 the advances in the cases referred to, had not before them the possible future liability of the lands in respect to the works indicated in the subsequent awards of the Commissioners of Public Works. The holdings were reported to be very ample security for the advances applied for, and it does not appear to the Commissioners that that security is in any way imperilled by reason of the liability in question.

  ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether his
  194
  attention has been called to the grievances of the engine-room artificers of the Royal Navy in respect of pensions; and whether provision will be made in the Navy Estimates for their receiving a higher rate of pension than at present, or superannuation proportionate to their rank and pay for the time they have been in the service?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): My attention has not been called to this matter, but in view of the high average pension (£54 15s.) a year already enjoyed by engine-room artificers, I am not prepared to admit that they have any grievance in regard to pension.

  LEAVE AFTER FOREIGN SERVICE.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty adhere in all cases to Article 1402 of the Queen's Regulations, which prescribes that Staff-Commanders, Lieutenants, Sub-Lieutenants, Chief Gunners, Chief Boatswains, dinners and Boatswains are, after service on foreign stations, to be allowed one week's leave with the full pay of their respective ranks for every complete six months' service abroad, provided the absence shall not have been less than one year; and, if this Article is not in all cases adhered to and carried out, whether the Admiralty will consider the propriety of rescinding it?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON(who replied) said: The Regulation is adhered to except in rare cases, where for strong Service reasons it is necessary to withhold the leave in question. It is not proposed to alter the practice heretofore followed.

  PONTYMISTER STEEL WORKERS' STRIKE.
  MR. SPICER&c.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can see his way to offer the services of his Department with the view of appointing a mediator in connection with the serious strike that has been going on amongst the steel-workers in Pontymister for some weeks, and which is not only causing great suffering in Pontymister itself but also affecting others?
  MR. MUNDELLA: This is a very regrettable dispute affecting the employés of a single firm. I have no reason to believe that intervention on the part of the Board of Trade would be acceptable, and in the absence of the necessary powers I cannot intervene.

  SANDGATE DRAINAGE WORKS.
  MR. AIRD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the War Department is prepared to cooperate with and assist the Local Authorities as regards the necessary drainage works at Sandgate?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir; the War Department will give, subject to a nominal acknowledgment, way-leave to the Sandgate Local Board to carry their drainage works across lands belonging to the War Department.

  MILK ADULTERATION.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the complaints made with regard to the analysis of samples of milk submitted to the Government analysts at Somerset House; and what steps the Department of Agriculture are taking to protect dairy farmers against the injury done to them by the low standard of quality thus officially laid down?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): The matter is not one in regard to which I possess any statutory powers, but I have from time to time brought under the notice of the Local Government Board and the Board of Inland Revenue the representations made to me on the subject. It is with those Departments that the decision in the matter must rest.

  THE BEHAR CADASTRAL SURVEY.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the heavy cost and annual tax which will fall on the Native landholders, British planters, and ryots of the thickly populated Province of Behar by the Cadastral Survey; and whether it is intended to educe this in any way by legislation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): The Secretary of State is aware that the cost of the Survey and Record of Rights in North Behar may reach about eight annas (or nearly 8d.) per acre. This cost will be incurred once for all; but it has not yet been finally decided what share of the cost will fall upon the landholders and ryots and what upon the Government. The cost of maintaining the Survey and Record of Rights, under the scheme now put forward, is limited to one-quarter anna per rupee of the annual value, that is to about 3¾d. in the £1 of the rental. Half of this (or less than 2d. in the £1) will fall on the landlords and half on the tenants. The charge is not considered heavy in proportion to the benefits secured; and no legislation is at present contemplated on the subject.
  MR. BARTLEY: Then do I understand that that implies there will be a permanent extra 2d. in the £1 tax in this part of India?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Yes, Sir. A tax of 2d. in the £1 on the rental of laud is proposed.

  THE SCOTCH CENSUS.
  MR. R. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland when the Report of the Census of Scotland (1891) was completed; whether the extra work done in connection therewith by the permanent officials engaged in its preparation was greater upon this occasion than was the case in connection with the Census of 1881; and whether such officials have all been paid for their extra labour and additional time expended by them on this work?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,&c.): The Report of the Census of Scotland, 1891, was completed last September. The amount of extra work in connection with its preparation was, I am informed by the Registrar General, greater than on any previous occasion. It has been arranged that the officials, with the exception of the Registrar General himself, shall be paid for the extra labour and additional time expended by them on the work, but I am still in communication with the Treasury on certain points.

  EVICTIONS IN IRELAND.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many tenants have been evicted in Ireland since the Evicted Tenants Commission sat last year; and whether the cases of these tenants will be included in the Bill promised to be brought in next Session?
  MR. ASQUITH (for Mr. J. MORLEY): Since January 1, 1893, the date on which the Evicted Tenants Commission ceased to entertain applications, 738 tenants and 250 sub-tenants have been actually turned out of their holdings. Of the former 11 were re-admitted as tenants on the day of eviction, and of the latter 80 were readmitted either as tenants or sub-tenants. There is no information as to the number which may have afterwards been readmitted. It is impossible at the present moment to discuss the scope of the Bill to be brought in next Session to deal with the evicted tenants case.

  THIEVES' SUPPERS.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the correspondence concerning the annual "Thieves' Slipper"; and whether, seeing the opinion of Sir E. DuCane and others is so much opposed to the gathering in the interests of the prevention of crime, he can take steps to prevent or discourage them?
  MR. ASQUITH: The terms "Thieves' Supper" appears to be a misnomer. I am informed that of the 150 boys present on the last occasion, only about 10 had been convicted, and all were gaining a livelihood by honest work, some Inning been in their situations for long periods. The matter is beyond my province. The object to be sought with regard to those who have fallen into ways of dishonesty and crime is to make them once more respectable members of society, but opinions differ as to the means to be adopted. My personal opinion is that large festive gatherings of a public character are not favourable to the end in view.

  CARD POSTAGE.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, as now envelopes of all sizes can go through the post with circulars for one halfpenny stamp affixed to them, he will reconsider his decision and allow cards of certain dimensions to pass with a halfpenny adhesive stamp?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): This matter was very carefully considered by the late Government, and I cannot depart from the decision then arrived at. The proper time to raise the question is when new contracts are required.
  MR. BARTLEY: When will that be?
  MR. A. MORLEY: About three years hence.

  THE KILLARNEY SETTLEMENT OF CROFTERS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what steps are being taken to obtain the payment of the first instalment of the advances made to the Killarney Settlement of Crofters, who, according to the Report of the Colonisation Board, are prospering, and which was due in September, 1892; whether he can state the total amount advanced and the total amount due and unpaid; and whether it is proposed to arrange for any emigration in the spring of 1894?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: The total amount of advances is approximately £12,050, none of which have practically been repaid. The agent of the Colonisation Board has been directed, if necessary, to take proceedings to recover the advances, but in connection with the Report recently received from Sir Charles Tupper, I am considering the desirability or otherwise of granting an extension of time for repayment. Having regard to what I have previously stated in this House, it is not at present proposed to carry out a further scheme of colonisation.

  BINDING OVER WITNESSES.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in several of the cases against persons charged before the Justices of the West Biding of Yorkshire, sitting at

  199
  Barnsley, with rioting at Rockingham and Elscar, and subsequently sent by such Justices for trial at the recent Assizes at Leeds, the Justices refused to bind over material witnesses for the accused persons to appear and give evidence at such Assizes, so that the cost of such witnesses attending the Assizes could not be allowed or ordered to be paid out of the county or other public funds; and whether he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the above facts if found to be as suggested, and to the Report of the Featherstone Inquiry Commission, with a view to strengthening the Barnsley Bench by fresh appointments, and also call the attention of such Bench to the law enabling accused persons to call material witnesses in their defence at the public cost?
  MR. ASQUITH: It is the clear duty of Justices under 30 & 31 Vict., c. 35, s. 3, to bind over all witnesses called for the defence, not being witnesses merely to character, as have, in their opinion, given evidence in any way material or tending to prove the innocence of the accused person. This is, in my opinion, a duty of great importance in the administration of justice, and it can only be in a case where the evidence is obviously immaterial that the Magistrates are entitled to refuse to bind over the witness. The matter is, however, left by the statute in their discretion, and the Justices referred to inform me that, in case of certain of the prisoners, they did not consider the evidence of such a kind as would warrant them in binding over the witnesses. I cannot interfere with their discretion, and I have no materials before me which would enable mo to say whether it was wisely exercised. The Report of the Featherstone Commission will be duly considered by the Lord Chancellor, so far as it bears on the state of the Magistracy in the West Riding.
  MR. DODD: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether it is not a fact that the Magistrates refused in this case to bind the witnesses over even before they heard them, saying they were immaterial because they were to be called to prove an alibi?
  MR. ASQUITH: If my hon. Friend will put before me any facts I will carefully consider them.

  THE LIEUTENANCY OF KILDARE.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the vacancy which has been created in the lieutenancy of Kildare by the death of the Duke of Leinster, whether, in view of the fact that the Bench in Kildare is mainly composed of landlords and Conservatives, while there are practically no men on the Bench in sympathy with the general body of the population, it is intended, in filling up the lieutenancy, to appoint some person whose views are in sympathy with the majority of the people of Kildare?
  MR. ASQUITH (for Mr. J. MORLEY): The question of filling the vacancy which has been created in the lieutenancy of Kildare is at present receiving the consideration of the Chief Secretary. He will give the matter careful attention before any recommendation is made.

  NON-PAROCHIAL REGISTERS.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen, in The Daily News of 18th December, a letter of the Rev. W. Urwick, of St. Albans, stating that whereas for many years Nonconformist ministers were allowed, without payment of fees, special facilities for inspecting the Nonconformist Registers of Births, Marriages, and Deaths which in 1837 were deposited with the Registrar General at Somerset House, such facilities are now denied, and the payment of fees is required; whether, as they were so deposited at the special request of the Registration Authorities, he will make such representations to the Registrar General as will secure for those who are specially interested in them the means of referring to these Registers without payment and without inconvenience; and whether the catalogue of Non-Parochial Registers, having been long out of print, can be reprinted and sold at a moderate price?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): I have communicated with the Registrar General on the subject of the question, and he

  201
  states that the Non-Parochial Registers were deposited in the General Register Office under authority given by the Non-Parochial Registers Acts, 3 & 4 Vict., c. 92, and 21 & 22 Vict., c. 25, and under the provisions of those Acts the Registrar General is directed to cause lists to be made of all the registers and records, and any person is entitled, on payment of the statutory fees, to make searches and to have certified copies of the entries in those registers and records, the sinus so received by or on account of the Registrar General being paid to the Treasury. The Registrar General states that it is true that in the early days of the formation of his Department facilities were given to properly introduced persons to inspect and take copies of Non-Parochial Registers for literary purposes only. But of late years he has had neither the necessary space at his command, nor the requisite staff to enable him to give those facilities, and he is obliged therefore to refuse all such applications, and to enforce strict compliance with the statutory regulations under which certified copies are given. The Registrar General further states that the lists of Non-Parochial Registers, which are prepared for official purposes only, are sufficient and in perfect order.

  IMPRISONMENT FOR TAKING SEA WEED.
  MR. SEXTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Cavan, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the cases of William McCartan, an old man of 80, and Thomas and Henry Burden, two illiterate fishermen, from the barony of Mourne, who were arrested for taking seaweed below low water near Kilkeel, wading into the sea for the purpose, and who are now in Belfast Gaol, under an attachment issued by leave of the Vice-Chancellor for contempt of an order of the Chancery Division; whether the alleged rights of Lord Kilmorey and his licensees, under grant from the Crown, extend below low water; and whether having regard to the men's ignorance of the nature of proceedings in Chancery, and their inability to obtain legal aid, and to the rights of the Crown in the matter, he will order an inquiry to be made?
  MR. ASQUITH (for Mr. J. MORLEY): I understand that the landlord established in the Superior Courts, both in the interests of himself and his tenants, his absolute right to the seaweed along the Mourne shore. It appears that the three men referred to were, after repeated warnings, proceeded against and a writ of attachment for contempt of an order of the Superior Courts obtained. The matter is one in which the Executive Government has no power to interfere. Any representation on behalf of the men should be made to the committing Court.
  MR. SEXTON: So it seems that an ignorant old peasant of 80 is to be imprisoned for a long time for contempt of an order of the Court of Chancery in a very complicated matter! Would it not be possible to make any representations to secure his release?
  MR. ASQUITH: That is a hardship which often occurs. But I imagine that any representation made should be made on behalf of the men themselves.
  MR. BYLES: As it is an offence to gather seaweed in Ireland, is it equally an offence in England?
  MR. ASQUITH: What I understand to have happened is this. An order was made by the Court of Chancery in Ireland declaring the rights of certain persons, and these men were arrested for disobedience to that order. The imprisonment has not taken place under the ordinary law.
  MR. SEXTON: Is there any means of getting the men released until the Vice-Chancellor consents to let them out?
  MR. ASQUITH: The powers of the Superior Court are unlimited.
  MR. CARSON: Has any application been made to the Vice-Chancellor on any undertaking by the men that the offence shall not be repeated?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no information as to that.

  POST OFFICE RULES.
  MR. SEXTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Cavan, I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will order, in the interest of the officials,

  203
  also in the interest of the Public Service, that the revised Book of Rules recently issued to Head Postmasters shall be open to the inspection of the clerks of the Belfast Post Office, including those in the sorting department?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Before notice of this question appeared, I had already directed that a copy of the Book of Rules should be supplied to the staff of the Belfast Post Office.

  REGISTER OF THE BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the copy of the Register of the British South Africa Company, which is shortly to be laid upon the Table, is a complete copy of the entire Register, showing all the transfers which have taken place since the formation of the Company; and by whom the copy is being prepared?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The Return referred to will comprise the list of original shareholders in the British South Africa Company, including the members of the African Lakes Company, to all of whom shares were allotted under the agreement for the absorption of that Company by the Chartered Company; a list of the present shareholders in the Company made up to the 3rd of November last; and lists of the original and present shareholders in the United Concessions and Exploring Companies. The Returns are very voluminous. The list was copied by the Company from their Share Registers.

  BECHUANALAND RAILWAY GRANT.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now say when the Draft Agreement as to the proposed money grant to the Bechuanaland Railway will be brought before the House; and when the promised opportunity will be given to discuss the matter before the grant is allowed?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The question is still in the stage of negotiation, and I cannot say when it will be completed.

  LAND RIGHTS IN MATABELELAND.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government has obtained from the Law Officers of the Crown any opinion as to the rights to land (if any) possessed by the South Africa Chartered Company in Matabeleland, and from the concessions-of Lobengula; and whether, if so, he will lay upon the Table of the House the statement of the case submitted to-the Law Officers, together with their opinion thereon?
  MR. S. BUXTON: Her Majesty's Government have not consulted the Law Officers on the question, as it is one which does not appear to involve any difficult point of law.

  POOR LAW PROCEDURE.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he has received any communication from the Mayor of Leeds as-to the warrant taken out by the relieving officer to the Bromley Guardians against Mr. Harrabin; whether he is aware that the clerk to the Guardians offered to give Mr. Harrabin's solicitors the warrant on payment of 27s. 9d.; and whether the-clerk to the Guardians sent a copy of that letter to the Local Government Board?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,): The Local Government Board have received a communication from the Mayor of Leeds as to the warrant taken out by the relieving officer of the Bramley Union against Mr. Harrabin. It appears to be the case-that in a letter of the clerk to the Guardians to the solicitor of Mr. Harrabin the clerk offered to give up the warrant on payment of 27s. 9d. A copy of this letter was sent to the Local Government Board by the clerk to the Guardians in reply to their inquiry in connection with the previous question of my hon. Friend. The sum of 27s. 9d. referred to, as the Board are informed by the clerk to the Guardians, was made up. of 21s. 9d. in respect of the relief given, by the Guardians to the wife, and 6s. the cost of taking out the warrant.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: May I ask whether officers of Boards of Guardians have a right to take out warrants for the purpose of extorting money? Is it not their duty rather simply to take out warrants against persons likely to go away?
  SIR W. FOSTER: Without expressing any opinion with regard to the facts of this particular case, it appears to me that when a warrant is taken out under the Vagrant Act on behalf of a Board of Guardians the circumstances must be very exceptional to justify any unnecessary delay in the execution of the warrant, or such proceedings as those referred to.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: This case has caused a great deal of feeling in Leeds. Will the Department hold a local inquiry into the circumstances?
  SIR W. FOSTER: The facts, so far as the proceedings of the Guardians and their officers are concerned, do not appear to be in dispute, and it would not seem that any advantage would result from an inquiry being held by the Board.

  ANARCHISTS IN ENGLAND.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true, as reported, that, owing to the activity of the Continental Governments against the Anarchists, a large number are coming to this country; and whether he proposes to introduce any legislation to put a stop to this country being made the centre of the operations of these dangerous persons?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir F. GREY,): No information has been received at the Foreign Office to the effect that large numbers of Anarchists are coming to this country, and the question of legislation is not one for the Foreign Office to decide.

  REPORTS OF DEBATES.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the recommendations on reporting the Debates in this House are lo be carried out; and, if so, when?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): I am sorry I am as yet unable to give any definite reply to this question, but I hope to fie able to do so before the end of the Session.
  MR. BARTLEY: I will repeat the question next Wednesday.

  DR. GRIGSBY.
  MR. BALDWIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any, and what, arrangement have been, or will be, made for the return of Dr. W. E. Grigsby to this country for public examination as a Director of the Solicitors' Government Stock Investment Company (Limited); and when his presence in England may be expected?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The Court has been informed that if Dr. Grigsby's presence was required he would be directed to return; and we have just received a communication from the Official Receiver to the effect that his presence will be required on February 19.

  THE CASE OF MR. SADLEIR.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why Mr. Sadleir, Tipperary, has not been tried at the Cork Assizes for the crime which he has been returned for; how often has his trial been postponed; when was the alleged offence committed; and what instructions as to challenging juries likely to be in sympathy with him have been given in his case?
  MR. ASQUITH (for Mr. J. MORLEY): As this question is down without previous notice, I regret that I have been unable to obtain a specific Report. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it again next week.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION AT CARNARVON.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE&c.): I beg to ask the hon. Member for Merionethshire whether the Charity Commissioners have raised any difficulties in the way of putting the Welsh Intermediate Education Act into operation in the town of Carnarvon; what is the

  207
  nature of their objections; and whether there is any immediate prospect of such difficulties being removed?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS,): The Commissioners have pointed out that the Local Governing Body have not as yet raised the amount of local contribution required by the scheme to enable that Body on its own initiative to open a temporary school at Carnarvon. The difficulty may be overcome if the County Governing Body decides to waive that condition, and makes such proposals as the Commissioners can approve for permitting the Carnarvon County School to be opened in temporary premises.

  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any steps have yet been taken by the Treasury to carry out the Resolution of the House on the subject of granting pensions to teachers in elementary schools?
  MR. ACLAND(who replied) said: The matter is under consideration by a Departmental Committee, but the subject is so complicated that they are not likely to report for some time. The Treasury cannot take any steps until a scheme has been decided upon.

  THE ILLITERATE VOTER.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any, and if so what, arrangement is to be made for the illiterate voter for the Parish Council elections?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is not proposed to make any alteration in the provisions of the Ballot Act with regard to illiterate voters in their application to Parish Council elections.

  PAPERS ON MATABELELAND.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will be able to lay further Papers upon the Table on the subject of Matabeleland?
  MR. S. BUXTON: There would be no advantage in presenting further
  208
  Papers at present. All news of interest in regard to the military operations has appeared in the Press; and with regard to political questions, the correspondence is not yet complete. But I have already undertaken to lay Papers in time for their consideration before any Vote is asked from the House.

  CONDITIONS OF LABOUR IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the following letter (in reply to a communication from the London Trades Council), which appeared in The Star newspaper of 15th December, is authentic:—
  "Admiralty, Whitehall.—Sir, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to inform you that they have had under their careful consideration your letter of 26th May last, respecting the alleged excessive employment of apprentices by Messrs. Waterman Brothers, of Plymouth, in the execution of Admiralty orders for boats. My Lords find upon investigation that the facts stated in your letter are substantially correct, and being unable to accept the explanations offered in justification, have intimated their views to Messrs. Waterman Brothers as a warning to comply with the spirit of the House of Commons Resolution;"
  and was it issued under the Resolution of this House of 13th February, 1891, or under any other; and, if so, what Regulation?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Yes, Sir; the letter is authentic.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: Then I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he will act in a similar manner in regard to Government work in Ireland as the Admiralty have done with regard to their contracts?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I should like to consider first what action the Admiralty have taken.
  MR. SEXTON: The question on the Paper shows what the Admiralty have done.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: No. I think not. I want to ascertain exactly what the Admiralty have done.
  MR. SEXTON: I suppose that we may take it that what the Admiralty

  209
  have done in regard to their printing contracts the Treasury will do in regard to their contracts?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I will consider what is to be done. I told the hon. Member yesterday that if he would lay before me any cases in which there was cause of complaint I would take them into consideration.

  SECOND DIVISION CLERKS IN DUBLIN.
  MR. MAGUIRE: On behalf of the hon. Members for the Northern Division of the County of Dublin, I bog to ask the Postmaster General if it is a fact that the Second Division clerks of the Secretary's Office, General Dost Office, Dublin, have presented several Memorials since the year 1890 to the head of their Department praying for an improvement in their position, to which no reply has been given: whether the subject of these Memorials has been considered, and what is the cause of the great delay in replying; whether the work in the Secretary's Department, General Dost Office, Dublin, has considerably increased during the past six years, and whether if, is a fact that during that period no addition has been made to the staff; whether the Second Division clerks in the Secretary's Office, General Post Office, London, have recently been placed on an improved scale of salary with enhanced prospects; whether the Second Division clerks in the Dublin Secretary's Office perform duties of an analogous and a superior character to those performed by the London clerks heretofore classed as Second Division; and whether it is intended to apply the London scheme to the Dublin Secretary's Office?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The Second Division clerks in the Secretary's Office of the Dublin Post Office form part of a classification which is not confined to the Post Office, but is common to the whole of the Civil Service. The whole question of the status and scales of salary of the Second Division clerks was carefully considered and settled by Order in Council about three years ago, and I have no power to alter them. The Memorials in question have been received, and now that the revision in the Secretary's Office in London has been settled, I hope to be
  210
  able shortly to deal with the corresponding Office in Dublin.

  NAVAL FORCES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for West, Belfast, I bog to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the statement that our position in the Mediterranean was secured by our possessing a preponderance of first-class battleships in the proportion of 19 to 10, whether such preponderance actually exists in the Mediterranean; whether he is aware that, of the 19 ironclads referred to, 4 wore on the 19th December at Arosa Bay, 600 miles from Gibraltar, and six others were lying incompleted at Portsmouth and Chatham Dockyards, 1,100 and 1,300 miles respectively from Gibraltar; and whether any steps will be taken to strengthen the Naval Forces in the Mediterranean?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): It is a matter of policy for the Admiralty to decide how the ships of England can be distributed and where they shall be placed. Any other information it would be injurious to give; and I therefore cannot make a more particular statement on this subject.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Was the statement that the proportion was 19 to 10 intended to refer to the state of affairs in the Mediterranean at present or to the Navy as a whole?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: To the Navy as a whole.

  UNITED STATES MAIL SERVICE.
  SIR F. EVANS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the steamship Paris, which left Southampton on Saturday, the 9th instant, delivered her mails at the New York Post Office at 30 minutes past midnight on Saturday, the 16th instant, in Philadelphia at 9 a.m. on Sunday, the 17th, and in Chicago on Monday, the 18th, at 9.30 a.m.; and that the Cunard steamship Aurania, which sailed from Liverpool on the same day that the Paris sailed from Southampton, only arrived at, Sandy Hook at 5 o'clock

  211
  on the 19th instant, whence it would take probably four hours to deliver the mails at the New York Post Office; and whether, having regard to the great, saving in time of delivery of United States mails in New York when sent by the Paris and New York from Southampton, he would consider whether the Southampton route could be frequently used for the conveyance of Her Majesty's mails to the United States?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The official Returns of the voyages in question have not yet been received from the United States Post Office; but, according to Lloyd's List, the Paris reached New York at 6 p.m. on the 16th instant, and the Aurania at 5 a.m. on The 19th. My hon. Friend has probably overlooked the fact that the mails carried by the Aurania left Loudon at 8 p.m. on the 9th, while the mails for the Paris left at 9.5 a.m. on the same day. An isolated case of this kind does not, in my opinion, show that the contract service viâ Queenstown is unsatisfactory; but persons desirous of sending letters by way of Southampton can attain that object by special superscription.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the American mail is despatched from Queenstown and not from Liverpool, and that, therefore, no fair comparison can be drawn as between Southampton and Queenstown without giving the time of sailing from Liverpool; also, whether comparing the performances of one of the fastest vessels on the American line with those of one of the slowest vessels on the Cunard line is a reasonable comparison in testing the superiority of the Southampton route; further, is it not a fact that the Great South Western Railway Company of Ireland have just taken further steps to facilitate the service between Queenstown and Kingstown?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I think I have already sufficiently answered the first part of the question. As to the last question, negotiations are pending for an improvement of the railway service.
  Sir F. EVANS: I should like to say that the Aurania does not happen to be a slow boat; it is, on the contrary, one of the fastest boats belonging to the Company?

  THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DIRECTORS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the; Attorney General whether it is proposed to introduce any legislation on the subject of the responsibility of Directors next Session?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,): On the part of the Attorney General I have to say that it is not at present proposed to introduce any legislation on the subject of the responsibility of Directors next Session. It is a difficult question which requires very long consideration.

  THE DUKE OF SAXE-COBURG.
  MR. DALZIEL&c.): I beg to ask the Attorney General whether H.R.H. the Duke of Saxe-Coburg is legally a British subject, and whether he has ceased to owe allegiance to this country?
  SIR J. RIGBY: I will ask the hon. Member to postpone that question until the Attorney General returns.

  THE COST OF THE INDIAN OPIUM COMMISSION.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that the finances of the Government of India require a large loan, he still intends that part of the cost of the Opium Commission shall fall on India; and, if so, whether he will afford facilities for a Debate on the subject this Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): Yes, Sir. The present arrangement as to the cost of the Opium Commission is divided between the Indian and the British Exchequer. That arrangement was arrived at by the Secretary of State in strict conference with the Indian Government; and that being so, I do not think that the fact of passing the Indian Loan Bill has any bearing on the question.

  NAVAL EXPENDITURE.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, early next Session, he will appoint a Commission or a Committee to

  213
  consider and report upon the question of our Naval Expenditure; and whether it would not be possible to obtain greater results from the amount now expended?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: With regard to the last part of the question of my hon. Friend, it is a rather large demand to make upon me to state in answer to a question whether it is or is not possible for the country to get more for its money—that is, for the £35,000,000, or I know not how many, spent on the Army and Navy. Any opinion on that subject to be of any value ought to be the result of long inquiry, and I should be sorry to give an opinion without that information. With regard to the former part of the question, the circumstances are these—certain administrative subjects connected with the Navy and the Army have recently been referred to a Royal Commission which has made its Report, and as regards these administrative matters I do not suppose my hon. Friend wishes that they should be referred to a, new Royal Commission. I understand that, my hon. Friend refers to the provision made for the scale of expenditure. I do not think that is a matter which ever has been referred to a Royal Commission. It would be, pro tanto, taking the matter which essentially belongs to it a way from the hands of Parliament. But with regard to Committees of this House it is very different. They have repeatedly sat upon Army and Navy Expenditure. A Committee sat on this expenditure so very recently as five years ago, and made its Report, and I would observe that I do not think it is desirable that this Committee which is suggested should be appointed. I think the inquiry of my hon. Friend would be more appropriate to the approaching Session.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Has any Commission ever been appointed for the purpose of taking evidence with regard to the expenditure in the dockyards and naval construction?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Undoubtedly.

  THE FEATHERSTONE COMMISSION.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he could close the Committee on the Local Go-
  214
  vernment Bill on some convenient evening an hour or two before midnight, or in some other way could undertake to afford the House an opportunity of discussing the Report and Evidence of the Featherstone Inquiry Committee?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am told the evidence has just been circulated. [Mr. BYLES: On Saturday.] I think some time should be allowed for its consideration, and if the question is repeated on a future day the Government will consider whether any arrangement for a discussion can be made.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 274.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 21st December.]
    [TWENTY-FOURTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Sir J. GOLDSMID (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.]
    Clause 19 (Election and qualification of guardians.)
    Amendment proposed,
    In Page 12, line 30, after the word "guardian," 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 again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Debate resumed.
    SIR J. DORINGTONsaid, that when the Debate was interrupted on the previous night he was in the act of pointing out that the Amendment was, of all the proposals on the Paper, the one best suited for securing continuity of Poor Law administration. The suggestion of the Government that the chairman and vice chairman might be chosen from outside was open to the objection that persons might be selected, not because they were necessarily desirable, but because they might be useful for political reasons. He desired that they should avoid the poison of polities in Poor Law administration.

    215
    In the past they had secured that object very largely in consequence of the presence of the ex-officio element. The ex officios had rendered good service in the past; their presence at Board meetings had been recognised and welcomed, no jealousy had been shown of them, and it would be remembered that one of the Inspectors of the Poor Law Board in his evidence in 1878 said—
    "The ex officio members attended regularly, they were received with courtesy, and did very useful work.'
    He specifically asked if there were any jealousy in regard to them, the Inspector gave an emphatic negative, and added that on the contrary in his district an ex officio was generally elected as chairman. The objection to the present system was the possibility of large numbers of ex officio Guardians, who did not usually take part in the business of the Board, coming in for special reasons. That he admitted was an abuse of the system, and so far as he had any personal influence he had tried to stop it; it did not at any rate occur in his own Union. His experience was that a certain small number of ex officio Guardians attended the meetings regularly, and his desire was that the moderating influence which they exercised should be retained. The administration of the Poor Law largely depended upon the excellent examples set in certain places. These examples had always emanated from ex officio Guardians of remarkable ability and power, who had been able to influence their Board by their wise and sound knowledge, and had so directed its operations that the administration of their Union had become a model for all England. He had cited the case of the Hatcham Union, which not only had done good work for itself, but had set such a good example that the Pauperism Returns for the whole County of Shropshire compared favourably with those of other counties. In 1836, in the Hatcham Union, they had 1,395 paupers to deal with, or about 7·3 per cent, of the population. Soon the number was reduced to 577, while in 1853 it came down to 365, or only 1·9 of the population. There was a very remarkable feature in the history of this Union, which showed that it was no accidental piece of administration that produced that great
    216
    change. In 1871 the Union of Shrewsbury was added bodily to the Union of Hatcham, its population being 27,000 persons. That raised the number of; paupers to be dealt with from 365 to 1,062, and the question arose whether it was possible to do with an urban population that which had been so successfully done with a rural one? The policy did: prove successful. By 1872 the total number of paupers was diminished to 584, and by 1890 to 421. Those were striking results of successful administration, and he might add that the influence of the example was beneficially felt in many other Unions. He had before him the ease of another and totally different Union—one in Berkshire, Brad-field. In 1871 the number of paupers there was 1,258; in 1889 it was 130. The expenditure in 1871 was £10,800; in 1888 it was only £7,600, and the percentage of paupers to population 1· 2. What was the result of the example set by Bradfield Union? The adjoining Union—Reading—was an extremely bad one before 1836, and in 1889 it was specially mentioned because of its high percentage of paupers—3·1. Yet, thanks to the example set it, that percentage has fallen now to a little over 1 per cent. There could be no doubt that the influence of Bradfield was spreading into other districts, just as the influence of Lancashire had spread into Shropshire. His only object in referring to these cases was to show how largely administration was the basis of Poor Law reforms, and that when an able man was secured—for the condition of things at Bradfield was solely owing to the exertions of Mr. Garland, an ex officio—he was generally drawn from the ex officio classes. If they ever were content to stand on the elective element alone, it ought to be proved that it had done as much good as the nominated element. Personally, he did not think it would bring them out of the ordinary ruck of administration. Bodies elected for short periods would not be inclined to try new experiments, and it would be impossible for them to make Poor Law administration a popular matter. They said that everybody should submit himself to a popular vote, but if that was to be done fairly and with good results, the subject to be administered must be capable of

    217
    popular treatment. He was afraid they could not persuade an ordinary man of the poorer class that to refuse him half a crown was more to his interest than to give him one. How could they put that proposition popularly? If they could show him (Sir J. Dorington) how that could be done, he would at once give in to the principle of popular election. But certainly it could be shown that the giving of half a crown was as mischievous to the man himself as it was to his neighbours. The Report of 1834 showed that in consequence of the liberal outdoor relief many parishes in England had been reduced to absolute bankruptcy. The land was deserted, and everybody expected to have relief provided for him. In many cases the resources of adjoining parishes had to be called in to eke out the substance that was disappearing in the parishes in which the Guardians existed. That state of things disappeared as soon as a stricter system was adopted, and it was only known now as a dream of the past. The movement in favour of popular bodies was not a new phase of public opinion. In 1726 outdoor relief was absolutely prohibited. People had learnt at that time that it was an unsatisfactory method of dealing with the problem of the poor. So successful was that prohibition that pauperism to a large extent disappeared. In 1796 an Act was passed' by which outdoor relief was not only permitted but almost directed to be given, and in 36 years from that date a condition of things arose which was a scandal to the country and a dreadful disaster to the poor and to the nation. They were now in jeopardy of entering again on the old mistaken course of outdoor relief through popular elections. The President of the Local Government Board said that there was the safeguard of the central administration. But if they had central administration he did not see what was the use of talking about popular government. The two things would not go together, and there must be a certain amount of latitude. In the Poor Law Report of 1878 it was said the ex officio Guardians had felt themselves trammelled and hampered by the Poor Law Hoard, and if that were so it would be much more the case with these popularly Elected Bodies. How was the right hon. Gentleman going to adminis-
    218
    ter the Poor Law more stringently than heretofore? He could only do it by multiplying the Inspectors of Poor Law Boards. These officials could attend meetings of Hoards of Guardians now. They could not vote, but could only advise and give general directions, and those functions they exercised with great discretion. Their advice was admirable; and very useful, but the extent to which I they could give advice was limited, and when they were vis a vis with popularly Elected Bodies, and they endeavoured to draw the strings too tight, he thought the authority of the Central Office would be likely to snap and become a failure. These were the reasons why he thought they should make some serious attempt to preserve the ex officio clement. He thought it was vain to say that the ex officio Guardians who had been in the habit of attending the meetings would be elected under the system of popular election. Of course, they would not be elected, as it would necessitate the turning out of their own friends who had been elected, and had stood the brunt of the elections. They would have to say—"Jones or Brown, will you go away so that I may continue to attend?" That was not the way to begin a new Board. The present ex officio Guardians would have to stand outside in most cases, unless by means of some such proposal as that of his hon. Friend, or possibly by the action of the chairman, they were brought in again. He could not imagine why the Government set themselves so stiffly against a proposal of this kind. There was no question of privilege in it—no one thought it a matter of privilege to serve as a Guardian. There was a wide distinction between town and country parishes. In the town districts, unless the population consisted exclusively of the poorer class, there were always sufficient persons of independent means and considerable education who were willing to undertake the duties of elected Guardians, but in the, country districts the persons from whom the present ex officio Guardians were drawn were not well suited for popular election by reason of their position and their relations to the people among whom they lived. In justice to themselves these gentlemen would not be likely to put themselves in opposition

    219
    to those whom they were likely to meet at a contested election. He believed the proposal before the Committee had a certain amount of advantage in it. It would be absolutely free from the objection to the present ex officio Guardians, which was that on special occasions they attended in large numbers a Board which they did not usually attend, to alter the character of the vote of that Board. That was an abuse which he would like to put an end to, and if the present system were to continue he thought he could suggest a remedy. On all these grounds, and on many others that might be suggested, he ventured to hope that the Government would make some serious attempt before the clause passed to give an effective representation on the Board to those who, up to the present, had been ex officio members, and had done good service to their country and neighbours.
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, he did not intend to make another speech, but he would urge the Government to make a slight concession to those who feared danger from the Bill as at present framed. Could they not do this? They might surely be allowed to choose two outside persons, not as chairman and vice-chairman, but as ordinary members, if they desired to do so. That would effect what hon. Members wanted. As the hon. Member who had just spoken had pointed out, they only wanted two or three men to strengthen the administration, and act as a check to the elected members. The difficulty was to bring home to the men whom it was desirable to have on the Boards that it was their duty to attend and work. If they had to go through an election they would not serve.
    MR. GODSONsaid, that as an ex officio Guardian, who was not in the habit of attending the meetings of the Board of which he was a member, he desired to say a word or two on behalf of ex officios, more especially on behalf of those on the Board in the district he represented. The argument of hon. Members who proposed and supported the Amendment was that the presence of the ex officios on the assessment committee was most valuable, and it was desirable that it should not cease. The
    220
    elected Guardians would, no doubt, represent the feeling of the localities and possess a knowledge of local difficulties and local requirements. But the ex officos, in a sense, represented a wider area in the county. They were known in the districts outside their own, and were able to bring to bear upon the work of the Boards a varied and wide experience. He submitted, therefore, that unless power was given to put such persons as were contemplated in the Amendment on the Boards of Guardians and on the assessment committee, there would be great danger, not that the localities would not be well represented, but that a general and broad view of the wider districts surrounding and beyond the localities would not be taken. This point was one which had occupied the attention of the Board of which he had spoken. They held that it was almost vital that they should more or less have representatives of this class on the assessment committee. He, therefore, supported the Amendment.
    MR. DODDsaid, he hoped that the Government would not give way in regard to this Amendment.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: No, no.
    MR. DODDsaid, he was glad to hear that the Government had no intention of giving way. He considered this a most unfortunate Amendment, and he did not at all agree with the arguments by which it had been supported. It had been recommended, because it was desirable to avoid amongst Guardians the poison of politics. Well, the way to avoid the poison of Party being introduced into these elections was not to elect Guardians from the body of county Magistrates, who nearly all belonged to the Tory Party. The county Magistrates were at present elected by the Lords Lieutenant in the counties. They were not themselves in any way elected by or representative of the people. The mode of appointment was most unfortunate. All suitable citizens should be allowed to take part in the business of, and have a voice in, the election of Guardians and of all other Public Bodies, and the system of electing a person because he belongs to a particular class should be done away with.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member who had just sat down had thought it desirable to introduce an element which hitherto they had all been anxious to avoid into the discussion of this question of Poor Law administration. It might be that hon. Members on the other side, many of whom spoke with a considerable degree of local experience and knowledge of that particular department of local government, entirely disagreed with the Opposition as to the administrative result of the present proposal of the Government, but, at any rate, they had not thought it necessary hitherto to introduce into the Debate that element of Party politics which had just been introduced by the hon. Member for Essex. A comparison might well be drawn to the advantage of the Opposition side of the House between the speech of the hon. Member and that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Gloucestershire (Sir J. Dorington). If an additional argument were required in support of the view of Members of the Opposition, it would be found in the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire. There was no one in the House or out of it who spoke with greater authority on these questions of Poor Law and county administration, and he (Mr. Long) ventured to say that this statement would be confirmed by Gloucestershire gentlemen who were as sturdy Radicals as any to be found on the Ministerial side of the House. They would be ready to testify to the impartial and honest character of the work which the hon. Baronet had performed as a Poor Law and county government administrator. The hon. Baronet had supported the Amendment in no sense because the Magistrates were drawn from a particular class. Everybody who would take the trouble to study the question of Poor Law administration on the spot for himself, or to read any of the numerous books which had been written on the subject, would see that Poor Law administration stood on a different footing from any other part of the local government system. It was impossible for anyone to become acquainted with the difficulties and labours of Poor Law administration in a short time. It could not be
    222
    learnt from books or hearsay. It could only be acquired by incessant, arduous attention to the duties on the spot, and the greatest possible injury might be done to the working classes by a failure to appreciate the difficulties which presented themselves. Constant attention was necessary, and constant effort to steel themselves against their natural inclinations. Instead of acting from feelings of pity and commiseration, they should have in view nothing but good government. Nothing short of that would enable a man to become a wise and good administrator of the Poor Law. Almost at the moment the hon. Member for Essex was making his speech he (Mr. Long) had been reading a letter he had received that morning from the clerk of a large Board of Guardians—a gentleman who had always acted with the Party now in Office—who called attention to a particular illustration in his own Union of the view which the Opposition had been advancing. The chairman of the Board in question had been chairman for 30 years, and was an ex officio Guardian; and the chairman of the Assessment Committee, who had occupied the position for 25 years, was also an ex officio. The former gentleman was a Tory, and the latter a Liberal, and neither of them would stand for a contested election. No doubt parallel cases could be quoted. In the selection of ex officio Guardians to act as chairmen or vice-chairmen, or as chairmen of Assessment Committees, no regard was had to those political differences of which so much was heard in the House. The effort of the Boards was to get men of experience and natural aptitude. To his mind an unwise administration of the Assessment Committee would be almost as unfortunate as an unwise administration of Poor Law administration. The work was difficult and detailed, and it was necessary that it should be performed by those who had had some experience in the matter. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said that his Party were determined that these matters should be governed by popular election, but he (Mr. Long) had pointed to a case in which two important members of a Board of Guardians who had served long and honourably, and who had the confidence not only of the Board but of their

    223
    neighbours, would decline to stand a contested election. They would say—"We are too old to enter upon contested elections in which we have not hitherto taken part; you must find other people to undertake our work. If that were one of the first results of the Bill on the Boards of Guardians and Assessment Committees the result would be disastrous and an injury to administration. He could not for the life of him understand why it was that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and his Colleagues would not give way in some little degree on this point. By giving way they would not be infringing the principle of popular representation, because it was certain that the men would be chosen, not because they were Liberals or Conservatives, but solely because they were capable Poor Law administrators. Men of experience would be secured. The present ex officio system was, no doubt, unsound. He had said that on the introduction of the Bill and again on the Second Reading, but it was a mistake to confuse two totally different things. No doubt a few of the ex officios who had taken a prominent part in the work of the Hoards of Guardians were good administrators, and there would be a great risk of losing their services unless some provision was now made whereby they could be added to the Boards. It was not always the best men who went through the strain of a contested election. It was not, indeed, the best men who were always returned to Parliament—if it were, he, for one, would not be there representing as he did a portion of Liverpool. They might disperse the existing army of men who enjoyed the confidence of their neighbours and were familiar with the work of the Board of Guardians, and were willing to carry it on; but unless they admitted into the councils of the Boards some nominated or ex officio element, they would never recover the strength so lost. Whatever hon. Members opposite thought of those who advocated the retention of this nominated or ex officio element, they were endeavouring to act solely in the interests of good government and wise administration. They pointed to the fact, which had been referred to over and over again, that the ex officio element had been
    224
    a worthy one. It was open to some objections which it was not necessary to enter upon; but those who had done the work had done it well, and in such a way that they deserved the confidence both of their fellow-Guardians and of their neighbours generally. It was desirable that the Government should make some provision which would make it absolutely certain that a certain proportion of these men should be maintained on the Boards of Guardians. It was no use for the President of the Local Government Board to say that this clause was occupying too much of the time of the Committee. The clause ought to have been a Bill in itself; it ought to have been split up into a variety of clauses, and much more time than it was receiving ought to have been devoted to it. The Government were going; to alter the administration of the Poor Law because they were going to alter the administrators, and he (Mr. Long) and those who thought with him were of opinion that they would be doing well if they made some provision for the addition of the ex officio element to the now Boards of Guardians.
    MR. ROUNDsaid, that as an ex officio Guardian—although one who had been unable to attend to his duties this autumn in consequence of the action of Her Majesty's Government—he did not wish to give a silent vote on the Amendment. The hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex had expressed himself strongly against the Magistrates. The hon. Member was entitled to his opinion, but he (Mr. Round) begged to say that he and those who thought with him did not want the right of co-opting conferred upon the Guardians in order that they might select persons from a particular class, but to enable them to choose useful men to assist them in the discharge of their duties. It was said that the best men who formed the ex officio element would be elected in the future; but he did not think there would be room for them. The services of many Justices who had been able administrators at Quarter Sessions had been lost to the counties when the Local Government Act of 1888 became law, although it was said, when the Act was passed, that those men would be elected.

    225
    There were two notable instances in the first County Council elections in Essex, where two Justices most conversant with Quarter Sessions duties failed to secure election—they were picked men, and their services were lost to the County I Council, and so it would probably be with the Poor Law elections as now proposed by the Government Hill. In his experience as an ex officio Guardian he had noticed that very often the ex officio Guardians were more inclined to be lenient towards the poor than the elected Guardians. The reason, perhaps, was that the elected Guardians had very rightly thought more of the ratepayers' interests than the ex officio Guardians did. He thought, therefore, that in the interests of the poor it would be a great mistake to dispense with the services of the ex officio Guardians altogether. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment, and he trusted that before the Bill was passed the Government would find some way of meeting the very strong wishes expressed on the subject on the Opposition side of the House.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he took it that the Mover of this and other Amendments were not wedded to the particular form of the Amendments they had moved. He was not among those who shared the fears so largely hold by some Members, but he was bound to say that those who had read the Report of the Commission of 1834, and, more particularly, the evidence on which that Report was founded, were naturally impressed with the terrible state of things in existence before the present Poor Laws came into operation, and must have some sort of sympathy with the fears of gentlemen opposite respecting a return to that state of affairs. The then condition of things not only affected the moneyed classes, but reduced the working men to a most deplorable social and economical position. If the Government wanted to pass this Hill, why could they not make a slight concession to the views of the men of great experience who had urged objections to the clause as it stood? They had already surrendered the principle in allowing the chairman and vice-chairman
    226
    to be appointed from outside. Why did they not conduct the Bill as every other Bill which it was desired to pass was conducted? His right hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) knew that where there was a very strong feeling about a minor matter, urged by men who were entitled to speak on that matter, it was the invariable practice of every man who desired to get his Bill through to make some concession. The attitude adopted by his right hon. Friend gave colour to the suspicion that ho did not want to get his Bill through. It seemed to be sufficient for a section of Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House that any Amendment should be moved from the other side, and they must oppose it whether it was good or bad. He feared that the Government were giving themselves into that section of Members, who, as a rule, were men with absolutely no experience in local government. This was not a quest ion of ex officio members, but of the election by Boards of Guardians of persons from the outside.
    MR. LOGAN: Certain persons.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he had no doubt that the Mover of the Amendment, as well as those who had placed other Amendments on the Paper, would give way if the Government would move an Amendment of their own, which would secure the very small concession now asked for. All that was desired was the adoption by the Government to a little larger extent of the principle which they had already assented to. He had never been an advocate of the election of people from outside, but experience obliged him to admit that that system had answered well. Take the question of Free Libraries. For seven years he was chairman of the great library institution in Birmingham, and he ventured to say that the institution would never have succeeded without the special and expert knowledge and the great assistance that was derived from men who were not known to the outside world sufficiently to give them any chance in a popular election. It was acting the part of the purest doctrinaire to say that, in spite of all experience, the Government ought to maintain the position they

    227
    had taken up. In the management of King' Edward VI.'s Grammar School the assistance given by persons selected from outside had resulted in extraordinary success in the administration of the institution. He thought, the Government might with grace grant the proposed extension of their own principle. The attitude they were now adopting was resulting simply in a waste of time. The Government had taken the opportunity afforded by the introduction of a simple Local Government Bill, which they might have passed without opposition, to engraft on it three or four Bills—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the limits of the Amendment.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he was going to show why the Government should give way on this very small matter. The Government themselves were the great obstructives on this question, inasmuch as they refused to make any concession. The Opposition would not be tied down to this particular Amendment, but they wanted some extension of the principle assented to by the Government. It might be that the object of the Government in refusing all Amendments was to spin out the time, to overload the Bill so that it would have to be put right in another place, and then to go to the country and say that the Parish Councils Bill had been rejected.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): The right hon. Gentleman says he will not be tied down to the Amendment under discussion. I wish, without going into the general matter he has introduced in his speech, to point out that this is purely a matter of procedure. Last night we rejected, by about two to one, an Amendment providing that any Board of Guardians should be empowered lo maintain co-optative members in the proportion of one member to six elected Guardians, and that there should be no ex officio Guardians.
    MR. J. GRANT LAWSON: What we voted on was Sub-section 1.
    THE CHAIRMAN: No; the right ion. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) is perfectly right. The question was put to leave out Sub-section 1 in order to insert the words referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, but the last words he has mentioned were not in the Amendment.
    MR. ACLAND: No, the last few words were not. But we negatived the proposal that co-optative Guardians could be appointed.
    MR. COURTNEY: On the point of Order, I submit that what we did vote upon was the striking out of Sub-section 1. I declined to vote for that, though I was perfectly ready to support the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That shows that the Amendment was negatived by implication. When it is proposed to strike out anything in order to insert something else, and the Committee refuses to strike out anything, the Amendment is negatived by implication.
    SIR J. DORINGTON: My hon. Friend the Member for the Wells Division of Somerset (Sir R. Paget) intended, and so stated, to move to amend that portion of the Amendment which was not put.
    MR. ACLAND: I believe that the Chairman confirms my statement—that what we negatived last night was the proposal to enable Guardians to nominate co-optative members. [Cries of "No!"] It is all very well for Members to say "No," but I have the support of the Chairman in that statement.
    COMMANDER BETHELL: It is not a question of Order, but a question of fact.
    MR. ACLAND: And on the question of fact, as I have stated, I have received the support of the Chairman.
    COMMANDER BETHELL: I do not think that has anything to do with it. It is a matter of fact.
    MR. ACLAND: What I wanted to say was that, having negatived that proposal, I believe it would not be in our power to make any further proposition in that direction, nor do we propose to make any, because our final proposals on this subject were made last night. We are limited now to the discussion of whether the co-optation should be from

    229
    Justices of the Peace. That, and that only, is now the question under discussion, and we do not think it necessary to repeat again the arguments which have already been slated. Having said that we could not accept the wider proposal—the proposal to co-optate at large—we need not say that we refuse to co-optate amongst the Justices of the Peace. We therefore refuse to argue the question any further, not from any discourtesy, but because we have already argued the question very fully.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was quite true that the Amendment now under discussion was one to allow the co-optation of additional members from amongst the Justices of the Peace, but no one know better than his right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill that the disposition of a particular Amendment was often very much facilitated by a statement of the views of the Government on questions allied to that Amendment. His right hon. Friend said last night that he was willing to allow the co-optation of two additional members as chairman and vice-chairman. If his right hon. Friend could see his way to allow the two members who wore to be co-optated to be freed from the necessity of filling the posts of chairman and vice-chairman, he might dispose of this and many other Amendments. The principle of co-optation was not only justified by the nature of the case, but was justified by the experience of our kinsmen across the Atlantic. In the United States they had resorted to popular elections in the widest and freest form, and yet at the same time they had everywhere adopted a modification of popular elections, so as to firing in persons chosen at secondhand. Such a modification was employed in the ease of school trustees, in the selection of persons charged with different branches of local administration, such as sanitation and water supply. It would really facilitate progress very much if the Government would carry out his suggestion. He did not see what obstacle was in the way of their doing so. They had consented to allow two persons to be brought in from the outside, but they insisted that they must, be the chairman and vice-chairman. Elected members were not likely, except in the rarest possible
    230
    cases, to introduce outsiders on the Board for the purpose of offering them such positions of honour and distinction. He could only say that, if his suggestion was adopted and the modification introduced, he thought they would get more rapidly through the clause.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend could not hare been in the House last night, for, had he been present, he must have known that the questions which he had now raised were then answered by the Government. His right hon. Friend was, he thought, even more out of Order than he generally was in these Debates. The matter had been thoroughly threshed out in the four nights during which it had been considered. If the Government could not accede to the proposals of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was not because they wanted a lax administration of the Poor Law, but because they wished to uphold its good administration. It was a novel doctrine to say that no measure ought to pass through that House unless the majority were prepared to give way to the minority on vital questions.
    MR. COURTNEY: I never said any thing of the kind.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he would hardly be justified in asking the Committee to agree to Amendments which his judgment did not approve on the ground that such agreement would facilitate the progress of the measure. The Government had not approached this question without full and most careful consideration and an earnest desire to meet, as far as possible, the views of those Members of the House who were experienced in Poor Law administration. They had made a proposal respecting the co-optation of chairmen and vice-chairmen, and to that proposal they were prepared to adhere. The Committee bad already decided in favour of their views by a majority of about two to one. He really must put it to the Committee whether they should go further after a four days' discussion. Were the Government to be blamed and censured because they would not repeat their views over and over again? He could only say that they held those views, and were prepared to stand by them.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that he had received communications from his constituents which compelled him to speak out on this question. A large section of his constituents viewed the sub-section which was passed last night with the greatest alarm; but that alarm would be mitigated in some degree if the present Amendment were passed. In his part of Surrey they were very apprehensive of a possible return to the evils which existed before 1834. If men were to be brought in from the outside to serve on Boards of Guardians, Justices of the Peace ought to be chosen. In his opinion Justices of the Peace had not been appointed to their positions for Party reasons. There had been as many Liberal Lord Chancellors in this generation as Conservative Lord Chancellors, and one Party was as much responsible as the other in the appointment of Magistrates. The small concession which the Government had made was a very little sop to fling to the Cerberus that sat on the Opposition Benches. In fact, this so-called concession would really effect nothing at all.
    MR. BARTLEYrose—
    Mr. H. H. Fowler rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 60.—(Division List, No. 393.)
    Question put accordingly.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 119.—(Division List, No. 394.)
    MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he had to move an Amendment providing that—
    "Any ex officio or nominated Guardian who is, at the passing of this Act, or has been within five years thereof, chairman or vice-chairman of any Board of Guardians, shall continue to be an ex officio member of such Board."
    He only asked for the irreducible minimum of concession—namely, that those gentlemen who, as ex officio Guardians, had been held by their colleagues to be so useful that they had been appointed chairmen or vice-chairmen should continue on the Board. He would like
    232
    to point out the difference between ex officio Guardians in the chair and ex officios who had not held any position of that kind—
    MR. HALLEY STEWARTrose to Order. He submitted that the Committee had already decided that no ex officio or nominated Guardians should be sanctioned, and that the hon. Member was now traversing the decision arrived at.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Amendment is out of Order.
    MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he would point out that in the Southampton Union there were 48 ex officio Guardians, with 18 elected members, while the Plymouth Union had 50 elected members, but no ex officio members; and in order to show the beneficial influence of ex officio chairmen in the management of the Union he would like the House to know that in the Southampton Union there wore 2·6 outdoor paupers to every indoor pauper, while in Plymouth, with no ex officio Guardians, there were 3·7 outdoor paupers to every indoor pauper. His Amendment did not deal with the future management, and there was no claim for perpetuity of privilege. His desire was simply to give a good start to the new Boards. Besides, he thought it was only a matter of courtesy that the gentlemen who had served in the capacity of chairmen and vice-chairmen should not be sent about their business in this summary manner; but that they should be given a period in which to exercise their knowledge and experience for the benefit of the Boards as they would be constituted under the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 12, line 30, after the word "Guardians," to insert the words "appointed after the passing of this Act, but any ex officio or nominated Guardian who is, at the passing of this Act, or has been within five years thereof, chairman or vice-chairman of any Board of Guardians, shall continue to be an ex officio member of such Board."—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,)said, he must invite the attention of the Committee to the position in

    233
    which it was now placed. Last night the Committee passed a proposal to the effect that ex officio members should cease; but it was suggested on the other side of the House that either the Opposition should suggest, or the Government should suggest, some accommodation consistent with the principle that no ex officio members should remain. The Government made an offer, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) accepted it. But since that proposal had been agreed to the course pursued by hon. Members was to invent every species of Amendment for the re-introduction in some form or another of ex officio members, and upon every one of the Amendments was repeated the same speeches and the same arguments. The speech of the hon. Member was simply an elaborate and careful resumé of every one of the speeches made during the last four days. All speeches delivered that afternoon had been arguments in favour of the ex officio members, and there was no reason that he could see, except the exhaustion of the ingenuity of hon. Members, why the Committee should not go on for 365 days more in mere permutations and combinations of suggestions for upsetting the agreement arrived at, and which the Leader of the Opposition had accepted as satisfactory.
    MR. W. LONG: No.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman told him there was no acceptance of the agreement in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.
    MR. W. LONG: I did not say that.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Gentleman could not deny that there was no agreement; and if there was to be a deliberate attempt, as soon as an agreement was arrived at, by hook or by crook—by what he would call an abuse of the Forms of the House—to defeat the arrangement, then it was impossible for progress to be made. The Amendment was in deliberate contradiction to the Resolution passed yesterday, and if this was not obstruction, he did not know what was. The Government had said that upon these Boards of Guardians there was not to be ex officio members,
    234
    as such, and therefore they could not accept this Amendment. They had declared their views over and over again, and it was perfectly idle to think that further discussion would lead them to alter those views.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, ho did not know what object the right hon. Gentleman had in view in intervening at this period of the Debate. If his object was to accelerate matters, he had selected a singularly unfortunate way of doing it. He had chosen to make an attack upon the Opposition, and to accuse them of obstruction, and had said that the Leader of the Opposition had accepted a proposal emanating from the Government in satisfaction of the subject under discussion. His right hon. Friend was absent while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, but he was now in the House, and could speak for himself. He (Mr. Long), however, ventured to say that the Leader of the Opposition did nothing of the kind. All he said was that the proposal of the Government, as far as it went, was one to which the Opposition were prepared to agree. Ho did not say that they were prepared to agree to accept it in satisfaction of all claims put, forward from that side of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also said that Amendments had been devised and moved for purely obstructive purposes.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I did not say that.
    MR. W. LONGsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman did not say it, his words sounded very like it. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman believed this Amendment had been moved from some obstructive tendency. The suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to this—that the House was to agree upon one proposition which might he approved as a matter of principle but not in detail, and they were not to say anything more in favour of any other proposal on the subject. Well, his (Mr. Long's) view was that hon. Members were bound to bring forward proposals founded on the views taken by their constituents. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to realise the deep interest that was taken by the country in this 19th clause. The President of the

    235
    Local Government Board spoke of a two to one majority; but he must remember the period at which they were forced to discuss the clause, and the circumstances under which they were met to-day. For his part, he claimed the right to state the views that he entertained on all these important proposals, and, if his hon. Friend went to a Division on this Amendment, he should certainly support him.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had a very lively recollection of what took place last night. The Government hinted that they were prepared to meet the Opposition half-way by allowing that, in addition to the chairman, the vice-chairman of the Board of Guardians should be selected from outside, and an appeal was made to him by the Government that he would give his opinion upon the proposal. Although the appeal was not very regular, he told the House that the proposition was in itself perfectly inadequate to meet the object which the Opposition had in view; but that, no doubt, so far as it went, it went in the direction of carrying out that object. That assurance he was ready to repeat; but the Government were mistaken if they thought the well-founded alarms which existed could be removed by allowing one member, and only one member, more to be elected from outside. Had the right hon. Gentleman not closured the last Amendment he had intended to put certain questions to the Committee with regard to the present position which would have exhibited clearly the necessity of something more being done than had been suggested. They were agreed—
    MR. STOREYwas understood to say he did not agree.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, at all events the Government agreed that if they were to meddle with the machinery of the Boor Law, it would be impossible to maintain the existing system of ex officio Guardians without change. A second point of agreement was that ex officio Guardians had in many parts of the country done a work in the interests of Poor Law reform the value of which could not be exaggerated. There was a third point—that if they insisted upon having a system by which ex officio
    236
    Guardians were either excluded altogether, or could only be chosen in place of the ordinary Guardians by going through all the worry and labour of a contested election, they would exclude some of the best and most desirable members who could be found. Had they not some right to appeal to the Government to do something more than make a concession, which he would not characterise as illusory, but which was very small and insignificant? This is the appeal we made to them, and it has also been made by my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment. The Radical Party—those who particularly pride themselves on being Radicals of the orthodox type—object to this proposal because they appear to think it is a Tory scheme, and that there is some mysterious form of Party advantage obtained. What on earth have we as Party men to gain? Absolutely none. Whether the Amendment, be accepted or rejected cannot matter one farthing to the comfort, dignity, or political influence of any single Member of the Party. We only desire to safeguard the interests of the public, and it is evident that we cannot desire anything else. The very fact that we have advocated some retention of the ex officio element may be urged against country Members who have taken that course, but at all events it is perfectly evident that in the action which we have taken we were actuated by motives wholly divorced from Party and political issues. What arguments have either the Government or those who sit behind them brought forward against this Amendment? I put it to the Radical Party, or to that sprinkling of them who happen to he present, whether they think they have any reason to be proud of the line which they have taken up? The argument brought forward by the Opposition has been directed solely to good Poor Law administration. To what have the arguments on the other side been directed? No hon. Member has had the audacity to suggest that we shall have better, or even as good machinery as now when we have passed the Bill. The only thing pretended has been that, upon certain abstract, doctrinaire, and somewhat threadbare principles, it is impossible to have any form of co-optation. Is that common-sense?

    237
    Is it a businesslike way of approaching the subject? Is that a way in which we can raise ourselves in the eyes of the public? All the arguments drawn from prolonged personal experience are on one side; and on the other nothing but empty platitudes, scarcely fit to be repeated upon a public platform. I trust that the Government will see that, both from the point of view of Parliamentary expedition and from the permanent interests of Poor Law administration, they should go a little further along the path the advantages of which, I think, they have shown some indication of seeing. I trust I have now made myself perfectly clear upon this matter.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has appealed to the Government, and I must ask the Committee to consider what is the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman himself has taken up. Only a few days ago I asked hon. Gentlemen opposite to state what, in their view, would be a proper solution of the difficulty. From that day to this the right, hon. Gentleman has not stated what that solution is, and the Government Lave in vain endeavoured to extract from the right hon. Gentleman any proposal to which they would adhere, and to come forward and make that proposal to the Government. What is the use of the Government making any fresh proposals when the proposal which they have made is apparently accepted one day, but rejected the next? The Government Lave, both publicly and privately, endeavoured from day to day to get at the mind of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite. We have even given them a proposal which we hoped would settle the matter. It would be perfectly idle for us to put forward any further proposition; for no sooner would it be made, and apparently accepted, than it would be rejected, and we would be then told it was insufficient. If this matter is of such supreme importance as it is stated to be, why have right hon. Gentlemen opposite not made up their minds about it?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has repeated now what I suppose ho said before, when f was not in my place—namely, that we had expressed last night our intention of accepting his proposal, and that to-day we have
    238
    receded from it. I expressed last night my intention of accepting it if I could get nothing better. We accepted it as better than nothing. We have been telling the Government for days past what our position is. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells moved an Amendment in favour of which my hon. Friend next me (Mr. Long) spoke, of which the Member for Bodmin and the Member for Carnarvonshire expressed their approval, and of which I should have expressed my approval if I had not been cut out by the incidents of the Debate. We defended it in argument and voted for it. What more could we do? That was rejected. Then my hon. Friend behind me made another proposal, one of far less value, I think, and necessarily so. I should certainly vote for that if it comes to a Division. It was a strange statement for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make, when he said that no proposition had been made in response to his invitation. The Government must have known that their arguments would not satisfy the Opposition, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was really putting the saddle on the wrong horse.
    COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, that the Opposition had been put in rather a difficult position by the attitude the Government had taken up. Only an hour ago the President of the Local Government Board made a most unyielding speech; but now the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got up, as he got up the other night, in a much more conciliatory manner. The Chancellor of the Exchequer drew on unfortunate Members of the Opposition to make propositions; and they were then thrown overboard. He protested against the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The action of the Opposition in this matter had been the action on every great Bill—at any rate, over since he had been in Parliament. If he had learnt anything as to the method of carrying out this process, it had been learnt from hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. It was absurd to charge the Opposition with obstruction. [Ironical Ministerial laughter.] He was only saying what hon. Gentlemen said a few years ago almost in the same words. He had often looked forward to the

    239
    opportunity when he should have to say it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The discussion must come back to the Amendment.
    COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he did not propose to argue the question again; but if his hon. Friend thought proper to take the sense of the Committee on the Amendment, although he was not an enthusiastic advocate of the particular proposal, yet by way of protest he should give his vote in favour of it.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 112.—(Division List, No. 395.)
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. H. H. Fowler,)—put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.

  ADJOURNMENT.—CHRISTMAS.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MARJORIBANKS,): I beg to move:—
  "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Wednesday next."

  THE LATE MR. E. STANHOPE
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can hardly allow the present Sitting to pass over without making myself in some sense the mouthpiece for the profound feeling with which I am sure every Member of the House has received the tragic news of the death of Mr. Stanhope. I say nothing about the personal feelings with which his friend and those who were intimately acquainted with him have received the news of this great tragedy. We were bound to him by public as well as by private ties. It is impossible to have been a colleague of a man like Mr. Stanhope for many years, to have joined with him both in counsel and in action without feeling profoundly the loss which his departure necessarily must cause. But it is not on the private aspect of this calamity that I have any right to address the House. I should like to remind hon. Members that Mr. Stanhope was for 20 years a prominent
  240
  figure in this House; that he upon official duties almost immediately after he became one of ourselves, and that in a great variety of administrative offices he subsequently served his Queen and country. It would be quite out of place were I to attempt an estimate of the work which in those years he has done, but I am sure that everybody will feel—everybody, at all events, who had some personal acquaintance with the work which he did—that in losing him we have lost one of those men who really shed lustre upon the great offices which they are called upon to fill. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall add nothing more; but I am sure the House will forgive me for having so far trespassed upon their time, and they will feel that I could hardly allow the occasion to pass without offering this tribute, slight and imperfect as it is, to one whose presence will long be missed from within the walls of this House.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I desire, on the part of the Government and of every gentleman on this side of the House, to associate myself with the regret which the right hon. Gentleman has so well expressed. I have had the advantage of a great many years' personal acquaintance—I may say of friendship—with Mr. Stanhope. He was a man who was brought up in the midst of associations of great historic traditions, and I think the whole of his life showed the influences of those traditions. He was brought up, I believe, and he died in a place that was associated with the great names of Chatham and Stanhope. Everybody recognised in him an accomplished gentleman; everybody recognised in him a conscientious public man; and I think no man in this House will recollect any word that he has said or any sentiment he uttered which has left any feeling of bitterness behind. He has filled with distinction to himself and advantage to the country great public stations, and he was a man whom the House of Commons can ill afford to lose. I am sure that we on this side of the House join with gentlemen opposite in expressing our sympathy with them in the loss of such a Colleague, and with his friends and relatives, to whom I am sure this House will desire to convey the feelings of regret and sympathy.

  EXPLOSION AT WALTHAM
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any information as to a fresh explosion which is reported to have taken place at Waltham Abbey?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,&c.): No, Sir; I have received no information whatever, although I have endeavoured to obtain it. There is, I believe, some information to that effect in the newspapers, although I have not received it. I should deeply deplore any such occurrence.
  Subsequently,—
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid: I have received through the Financial Secretary to the War Office a telegram from the superintendent of the gunpowder factory at Waltham. It reads—
  "I regret to say that at noon to-day there was an explosion at Joyce's cartridge factory in this town: four men injured."
  I deplore the accident wherever it occurred; but it is some satisfaction to know that it is not a repetition of the recent melancholy accident in the Government factory.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. R. T. REIDremarked that he was very reluctant to occupy a short space of time; but he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could render discussion unnecessary by holding out to them the hope that when they returned after the short Recess something would be done for the purpose of abridging the abnormal length of the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill. The Bill had now occupied in Committee stage 23 or 24 days, and the Committee had gone a comparatively short way through the 19th clause. There still remained 52 more clauses to be dealt with. Nobody could suppose that at such a rate of progress they would finish the Committee stage within 20 days. If they could do so it would still be the end of the first or the beginning of the second week of February before that House could expect to part with the Bill; and it would probably occupy three weeks in the
  242
  other House. The Leader of the Opposition stated the other evening that he anticipated the Committee stage of the Bill would last until the end of February.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no; I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. The only statement which I have made which I think could even, through error, convey the impression the hon. Gentleman has expressed is that I recollect saying—"What can the Government expect from a plan which would bring up the discussion of the Lords Amendments to the end of February?"
  MR. R. T. REIDwits sure he was inaccurate in not understanding the right hon. Gentleman as he no doubt expressed himself, but even that, which was a much less serious state of things than he anticipated, would lead to the destruction of the great hopes many of them had entertained of the coming Session of Parliament. [Opposition laughter.] He could quite understand hon. Members opposite. For himself for two or three weeks he hail been of opinion that there had been a purpose to destroy the Session of 1894 by running the Local Government Bill so long into it as to make it impossible for other work to be done. He had not taken part in the Bill itself by one single sentence, and he was one of those who might serve as an illustration of a class. He was a Scotch Member; they had been there for a year; and, with the exception of one small, uncontested Bill, not a single thing had been done for Scotland. They might as well have forgotten that the country existed. Now they were looking forward to what they were all convinced were the genuine and sincere intentions of the Government to pass laws much needed affecting Scotland in the course of next year. A Government wishing an end ought to will the necessary means. In the absence of some accommodation, he would put it to the plain sense of any gentleman who cared for any of the reforms that were likely to come in the next Session—probably the last Session of this Parliament—was it not obvious that unless some summary and early steps were taken these hopes were doomed to be disappointed? His remarks were dictated by a sincere desire to further the honour and the business of the House,

  243
  and to enable them to get forward with other business. They had carried patience to the point at which it seemed likely to be mistaken for pusillanimity, and he asked other independent Members of the House who were interested in these matters to use friendly pressure with the Government, whom he heartily supported.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not rise for the purpose of continuing this discussion. I do not think this is a moment at which the Government can say, or it would be desirable for the House to discuss, what is to be done in the future. Our holiday is to be a very short one, and I should for the present, at all events, at half-past o o'clock, within so brief a period of the arrival of Christmas, recommend that for this afternoon, at least, we should wish one another a merry Christmas; and when we have passed that merry Christmas and are reaching the happiness of the New Year, I hope we shall make better progress than we have done in the year that has passed.
  MR. DARLINGwas afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had somewhat misunderstood his supporter who commenced this discussion. He was perfectly certain, from his knowledge of the hon. Gentleman and the country from which he came, that this was intended merely as a Scotch joke for the enlivenment of the Christmas season on which they were about to enter. The hon. Member for Dumfries had observed that his interest in this measure was that of a Scotch Member. But it was more than that; it was the interest of a Scotch borough Member who had not time to attend even now, and who had not attended during the Committee stage of this Bill more than 24 out of the 65 Divisions which had taken place. The Bill, the hon. Member told them, had been in Committee 24 days, so that was one Division a day.
  MR. R. T. REID: I have not put my appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I think has been very flippantly dealt with, although very good humouredly, on the ground of my personal convenience at all; I have put it on the ground of interference with Public Business.
  MR. DARLINGsaid, it certainly was unfortunate that the two Members who
  244
  had rebuked the Government on this matter should be two Scotch Members, one of whom was in the position in regard to Divisions of the hon. Member opposite, and the other of whom, the Member for Haddingtonshire, had naturally paired till the 10th of January, before he incited the Government to take sterner measures with the Opposition. He, therefore, thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was entirely justified in treating with flippancy the demand of the hon. Member for Dumfries. He only hoped this would be a lesson to them as to what was the real feeling of the Government and the House upon this matter, which was that such attempts as they had made to coerce Members who were interested in the Local Government Councils Bill deserved no better treatment than the flippancy with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated the present attempt.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he had only one remark to make on the subject which had been brought forward by the Member for Dumfries. His hon. Friend had reproached the House with having done no business, but his reproaches came too late. His reproaches and his remonstrances might have been useful if they had been made during the first eight months of the Session, when the Government knew they were wasting the time of the House. But during that time the hon. Member was discreetly silent. Now, when they were called upon to do a little business his hon. Friend thought it was the occasion to speak of it. He would recommend his hon. Friend in future to have the courage to speak at a time when his remonstrances would be useful. In the time of Queen Elizabeth there was a Parliament, which sat six months, and when the Queen asked the Speaker what they had passed, he replied, "Six months." So when the country asked this Parliament at Christmas what they had passed, the reply would be "Ten months."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Wednesday next.
  House adjourned accordingly at a quarter before Six of the clock, till Wednesday next.