Commons Sitting of 4 May 1894

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  CAMBRIDGE CORPORATION BILL (by Order.)
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. WEBB (Waterford, W.)said, that this Bill, to Section 6 of which he and others objected, had been approved and amended, after full and patient consideration, by a competent Committee upstairs. It had the support of the heads of the University as well as the Corporation of Cambridge, and the Committee could scarcely have done otherwise than pass it back to the House. It was in no spirit of opposition to them—with no desire to call in question their labours or judgment—that he now felt bound to Strive to amend their work. The Committee had to do with details. The House had to do with general principles and to guard individual rights against what might be the wishes of localities, unless they were shown very good reason for letting those wishes prevail. It would be beside the present question to retort that many of them admitted individual rights would be better guarded if the guarding power was not so centralised as at present. They had to deal with the constitution of affairs, and under that constitution they were driven to take up the precious time of this Assembly with the consideration of what at first sight was a trivial, but which was in truth an important, matter. The Bill had to do with Cambridge University jurisdiction over persons and entertainments, with corporate control over bridges, commons, markets and fairs, public-houses, health, and so forth. It would doubtless be beneficial in many respects—in no one more so than where it sought to repeal rights over persons conferred in Queen Elizabeth's reign—entirely out of keeping with our present conceptions of liberty. To one section only did they object—that by which 6 Geo. IV., c. 97, sec. 3,
  336
  modifying 5 Geo. IV., c. 83, sec. 3 at present applying in Oxford was sought to be applied to Cambridge. They would desire the repeal regarding Oxford of this modification, and they strenuously opposed its extension to Cambridge under 5 Geo. IV., c. 83, sec. 3—
  "Every common prostitute wandering in the public streets or public highways or in any place of public resort, behaving in a riotous or indecent manner"
  might, upon conviction, be committed
  "to the House of Correction, there to be kept to hard labour for any term not exceeding one calendar month."
  He (Mr. Webb), and those who were acting with him, had no objection whatever to this clause. It was reasonable that women as well as men behaving in a riotous or indecent manner should be arrested and punished. The modification consisted in omitting the words—
  "Behaving in a riotous and indecent manner."
  The clause would stand—
  "Every common prostitute and night walker found wandering in any public walk, street, or highway, within the precincts of the said University, and not giving a satisfactory account of herself, shall be deemed an idle and disorderly person, "&c," and may be apprehended and dealt with accordingly."
  They strenuously objected to putting it in the power of any underling of the University to charge any woman with being a prostitute and to hale her to prison. The following extract from a local paper would show that in the estimation of some the power had not always been fairly exercised in Oxford. Indeed it was most unlikely that such irresponsible power could be exercised without abuse. "An Oxford Citizen" wrote in The Oxford Chronicle of February 13, 1892—
  "I wish to draw the attention of your readers seriously to the tyranny and cruelty practised by the University towards girls in our midst. If a girl has ever lapsed from the path of virtue, or if the bulldogs, no fair judges, believe so, she has no liberty, no peace. She dare not appear in the street or wait for a public conveyance without risk of being seized by the University spies, when, as a matter of course, she is sent to prison. Our girls are systematically watched by these bulldogs, and notes taken of all their acts, which in the not too impartial imagination of these men are believed to indicate that they are loose women. Nothing is said at first about these things, but they are recorded; and should a poor girl be seized and taken before the Vice-Chancellor, then out they come on oath, with the 'date of each, after months, or even years from their

  337
  occurrence, when the poor girl no longer has any chance of showing that they are true or false. The affair is always so hurried that the girl has no chance of getting legal help, which, also, she is generally too poor to do, and so, without any cross-examination, the statements of these follows are received as gospel by the Vice Chancellor and other University Dons eager to send her to gaol."
  The Courts being held at irregular intervals, the presence of reporters is not always assured.
  "If they can prove that ever in her life she has done a questionable act, she is at their mercy, and all liberty to move about in our streets is denied her."
  What would men say if the same judgment were meted out to them? If it was right that such powers should be conferred upon constables in Cambridge, they should not be withheld from constables all over the Kingdom. Why should Oxford and Cambridge be specially singled out from other University towns in England, in Scotland, and in Ireland? The young men in Universities were better watched and guarded than the young men outside their walls. If such legislation were necessary regarding University towns, it would be more necessary in large cities where young men were free from the vigilance of proctors and their "bulldogs." The principles embodied in this proposed section received by implication the strongest condemnations from this House, when the Contagious Diseases Acts wore repealed. He and his friends objected on principle to such legislation as affecting only one sex, and it was somewhat of a comment on the capacity of men under all circumstances to represent the interests of women that this Bill should have passed so far entirely unchallenged, and that it would most probably now pass unchallenged but for the vigilance of some ladies who had brought it under the notice of certain Members of the House. The proposal was on the face of it specious. The objection to it was that which lay against most legislation of an autocratic or a paternal character. The purpose was apparently effected, but at the cost of a harmful infringement of general principles. Such autocratic legislation might lead to certain apparent benefits, but at the expense of diminution of respect for law and individual rights. Prostitution was fed mainly by the want amongst men
  338
  of proper respect for women. Laws such as this applied to women and not to men tended to foster such want of respect. Women suffered in many ways. They were left unprotected and at the mercy of designing men, who often escaped without punishment for the most heinous crimes, because it would not be possible under all circumstances to guard women without laying innocent men open to ruin from damning accusations. Men must on their side be content to look out for themselves, and by cultivating high principle and resisting temptation to shield themselves from evil lest the law in too closely attempting to shield them should leave innocent women open in like manner to unjust suspicions and damning accusations. Constables were by no means perfect instruments. They too often had a fatal propensity to stick to and justify charges once mad\e—a fatal esprit de corps in supporting each other. Temptation should not be placed in their way. Mistakes would be made in the future as they had been made in the past, and it was much to be doubted that in the past they knew all or the worstcases. What more efficient instrument for blackmailing women could they place within the reach of any man than a provision such as that they were considering? Many a poor girl would part with her last penny sooner than let it be known, even to those nearest to her, that an accusation, however falsely, had been made regarding her chastity. The poorer the most defenceless classes of women, those whose avocations might oblige them to be out alone perhaps at night, would be most likely to suffer. The freedom that women, young and old, in these countries enjoyed as compared to the freedom accorded them on the Continent was largely due to the absence here of legislation such as that they were considering. Objectionable as such a law would be in any University town it was especially to be condemned in Cambridge, because of the large number of young women studying at Girton and Newnham. This consideration especially came home to such of them as had relatives and friends at one or other of these Colleges. The complacency with which such legislation was regarded by many was illustrative of the degree to which the law esteemed property—more sacred than person. What would more tend to

  339
  morality than the suppression of houses of ill-fame, most of which were well known to the police? Regarding them suspicion counted for nothing. Proof, most difficult of attainment, was demanded. Lest the rights of property should be infringed, such houses were permitted to continue centres of the worst social degradation of the worst forms of immorality, whilst under this Bill suspicion alone would be sufficient ground for depriving a woman of her liberty—sufficient ground for condemning her to hard labour and blasting her reputation for life. The proceedings at the Women's Liberal Association two days ago would show how thoughtful women regarded the Bill. A document he held in his hand, signed by the Countess of Carlisle, President of the Federation, on May 2, set forth—
  "The Council of the Women's Liberal Federation, nearly 900 strong, and representing 76,000 women, have to-day passed a resolution condemnatory of the unjust and demoralising enactment proposed to be introduced by Clause 6 of the Cambridge Corporation Bill. They consider it unconstitutional, as putting the burden of proof upon the accused, and open to arbitrary and capricious interpretation for want of legal definitions of all the terms employed."
  The resolution carried was as follows:—
  "That this Council is of opinion that the special jurisdiction as exercised over women at the University towns—Oxford and Cambridge—is both degrading and unjust, and calls for its immediate abolition, and, further, views with alarm the proposed Bill now before the House of Commons, which will give to the proctors and police in Cambridge authority to arrest any woman who is merely walking in the streets, and whom they choose to consider of immoral character, and will render any such woman liable to imprisonment with hard labour as an idle and disorderly person, unless she can give a satisfactory account of herself. This Council, therefore, earnestly hopes that such exceptional and unconstitutional legislation may be rejected by the House of Commons, and that all such cases may be left to the ordinary law."
  Such legislation would defeat its object, and might in the long run intensify the evils it was meant to restrain. He believed that the provisions of the ordinary law, if properly enforced, were sufficient to meet the necessities of the case, and that exceptional legislation was undesirable. Under the ordinary law a woman who was disorderly could be punished; but to pass an exceptional law by which a woman might be imprisoned for merely walking in the street is to create a new offence, and to give a dangerous power to the proctors and policemen which
  340
  must be extremely liable to abuse. Men must learn to respect all women as they respected their own relatives. They must bend their souls to that chastity which was possible, and was to be demanded of them as it was universally acknowledged to be possible and was demanded of women. He begged to move the omission of Clause 6 of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 7, to leave out Clause 6.—(Mr. Webb.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. W. LONGsaid, they had been told that when no opposition was offered the Committee upstairs did not go into the general principles of Bills of this kind. He could assure the House that this was an incorrect description of the method which the Committee pursued. The Government Departments reported upon the Bills, and in some cases recommended changes and in other cases called the attention of the Committee to any exceptional proposals, and asked that they should consider them and accept responsibility. When no objection or comment was made by the Departments the Committee all the same went through the Bills clause by clause, and if matters affecting general principles were contained therein they did not pass them without due consideration. In this instance the Home Office made no Report to the Committee, and they formed the opinion that there was no objection to the proposals of the Bill. Notwithstanding that fact, they were alive to the fact that changes were to be made in the law in this particular case. The attention of the Committee was called by counsel to the fact that the law of Cambridge was to be altered and brought into conformity with that existing in the Sister University town of Oxford. The Committee, therefore, were well aware of what was proposed to be done, and what he wished to tell the House before they proceeded to the further consideration of the matter was that the hon. Gentleman was not correct when he said that the Committee did not consider on their merits the Bills brought before them, even if the Departments did not criticise them. This was an un-

  341
  opposed Bill, not criticised by the Government Department concerned, and brought before the Committee as one which had been agreed upon by the Corporation and the University authorities. It proposed to repeal an Act which gave special powers to the University of Cambridge, and to confer on the University town the same powers that Oxford possessed. He would not deal with the matter from the point of view of either the Corporation or the University, because both had competent Representatives in the House. He had only risen for the purpose of stating what were the facts in regard to the proceedings before the Committee of which he was Chairman, and to assure the House that whether their action was right or wrong it was taken with their eyes open and with a perfect knowledge of the proposals that Were being made. He hoped the House would bear this in mind in coming to any decision upon this question adverse to the opinion of the Committee upstairs—that they would destroy the arrangement which had boon come to between the University authorities and the Corporation, which, in the opinion of the Committee, substituted for the present provisions others which were more equitable and certainly were not calculated to lead to the abuses which were feared by the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDsaid, be wished to congratulate the Mover of the Amendment upon the temperate speech which he had made concerning this very thorny and unpleasant subject. He would, however, recall the attention of the House to the facts of the case with which they were dealing. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that this was a Rill for conferring further powers upon the University authorities of Cambridge. That was not so. In fact, the Bill took away powers from the University authorities—powers which the town thought ought to be removed out of their hands. The history of the Bill was a very long one, and he would not go into the Charters of Queen Elizabeth or Henry VIII., or the numerous old Statutes referring to the University, but simply remind the House that this question had been before them on several previous occasions. In 1892 the Member for Cambridge introduced a Bill dealing
  342
  with the topic which met the fate that private Members' Bills, even in those early days, used to meet and which he was afraid they would meet more frequently in the future. He wished to point out, in justice to the Mover of this Amendment and to the hon. Member for Crowe, that that Bill which was introduced in February, 1892, had in it a clause providing that Clause 28 of the Town Police Act, 1847, should for the purposes of its application in the town of Cambridge have effect as if it provided that
  "every common prostitute loitering or being in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation,"
  &c, and that that Bill was backed by the hon. Member for Crowe.
  MR. W. M'LAREN: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that is the same provision as is in the Bill now?
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDsaid, he had said nothing of the sort. Before he touched on the genesis of the Bill, he wished, in reference to the Resolution which the hon. Member (Mr. Webb) had read as being passed by the Women's Federation, that he saw from The Standard newspaper that there were two ladies present, before whose name the word "Cambridge" was inserted, who were opposed to that resolution. This Bill was a compromise. Ever since the Bill of 1892 there had been a Joint Committee composed of the Council of the Senate of the University of Cambridge and a Committee of the Corporation of the borough, and they had sat frequently and at great length, and had threshed out all these matters. The committee was composed, so far as the town was concerned, of members of both political Parties, who considered that for the welfare of the town and its inhabitants this compromise was advisable. Over and over again the town had objected to the University authorities possessing these exceptional powers. He did not say that they had not been exercised with discretion; but the town objected to them, and he asked the House not to spoil the Bill by agreeing to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
  DR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)asked whether the powers exercised under Section 6 did not still remain with the University authorities?
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDsaid, no; they did not in his opinion and in the opinion of the Joint Committee. It was, of course, within the power of the House to throw this Bill out or to amend it in any way it liked, but he would ask whether it was not better in these days of local self-government and management of local affairs at home to assume that the Local Authorities were the best judges of local requirements and of the best way of dealing with this difficult and irritating and unpleasant question? It would, he thought, be impossible to take out any part of the compromise without rendering the Bill unacceptable to either the University authorities or to the Corporation. The Bill, if passed, would reduce to a minimum a grave cause of friction which had existed for a long time between the town and the University, and he asked the House, on behalf of the town, not to reject this Bill, or to so mutilate it that neither Party could accept it. The modus vivendi had been arranged, and all they asked was that the House should sanction it, so that the decency and morality of the town could be preserved. He hoped the Amendment would not be agreed to, and that the House would pass the Bill in the form in which it left the Committee upstairs.
  MR. JEBBsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for toe Borough of Cambridge had set forth the case for this Bill from the point of view of the town. He wanted to say a few words from the point of view of the University. First, as to the new powers given under this Bill. The law now in force was exercised under the powers of the Elizabethan Charter. The University proctors had power to arrest persons suspected of evil who came or resorted to the town; but it was proposed to abolish that power by Clause 5 of the Bill. The powers proposed by the Bill to be conferred upon the police enabled them to arrest any persons of presumably bad character found wandering in the public thoroughfares who could not give a satisfactory account of themselves; but such powers were to be exercised under peril of an action for false imprisonment if a person should be wrongly arrested. These powers existed at Oxford, and worked satisfactorily. The Bill also proposed to confer a
  344
  similar power upon the proctors, who in this respect were to be placed upon precisely the same footing as the police, and who would have no more powers than the police. Thus the large and ancient powers of the proctors, under the Elizabethan Charter, were abolished, and the local law was brought nearer to the general law of the country. The Vice Chancellor's Court and the Spinning House were to be abolished, and persons arrested would be tried before the ordinary Court, which was the Bench of Borough Magistrates. The result of the proposed change would be that the law of Cambridge, although brought nearer to the ordinary law of the country, would still go somewhat beyond it, inasmuch as a policeman or proctor could arrest a woman found in a public thoroughfare whom they suspected to be of immoral character, even if she was not guilty of riotous or indecent behaviour. There were precedents for variation of powers in the police laws in different localities. For instance, the Edinburgh Act of 1879 conferred power on the police to arrest a woman for loitering or importuning.
  MR. HOPWOOD (Lancashire, S. E., Middleton): Does it not go on to say "for the purposes of prostitution"?.
  MR. JEBBsaid, that in the case of the proposed Cambridge law, an immoral purpose would indeed be presumed by the officer making an arrest, but the presumption would be made at his own peril. He would now go on to say a few words about the reasons which, in their opinion, existed for conferring special powers, which, if this Bill passed, would be peculiar to Cambridge along with Oxford. The first was the position of the students in the University towns of Oxford and Cambridge. These students were young and inexperienced men, freshly released from the discipline and restriction of school life, who, in the Universities, enjoyed a certain measure of independence, and who, from their position as young men enjoying that measure of liberty, tended to attract to Oxford and Cambridge numbers of women of bad character. Some of the students formed an easy prey for such persons, if due precautions were not taken. The number of students in Cambridge was usually about 3,000, and the total population of the town at the last Census was under 37,000. It would be seen,

  345
  therefore, how large a fraction the students formed of the population, and it was easy to understand that women of bad character would be attracted to the town, not only from the surrounding country, but from London. The responsibility of the University authorities was not merely as to the teaching of the students, but as to their conduct and morals. They were bound to prevent as far as possible undue temptation from being thrown in the way of the undergraduates; it was a duty they owed not only to the students, but to the parents of the students, and, above all, to the nation at large. What more serious evil could there be than that the undergraduates in a University town should be exposed to the temptations which some Loudon streets presented daily and nightly? Why was the ordinary law insufficient? Under the ordinary law a woman could not be apprehended unless she were guilty of disorderly or indecent conduct, or unless solicitation could be proved against her. But women of bad character might be perfectly quiet in their external behaviour and might abstain from open solicitation, yet their presence in the public places might constitute a temptation just as much as though they were guilty of solicitation or disorderly conduct. If Cambridge were left under the ordinary powers of the police nothing could be more certain than that there would be a great influx of women of loose character from London. Could the House contemplate with satisfaction the prospect of the principal streets in Cambridge resembling certain streets in London? Nothing could be more disastrous to education in the University. Under the Elizabethan Charter the powers of the proctors were greater than they were under this Bill. To say that the mere walking in the streets would be constituted an offence was to presume that the law would be administered without discretion, intelligence, or ordinary caution; and it must be remembered that the proctors and constables would exercise their exceptional powers at their own peril. During the last two years, while these negotiations had been going on, there had been a marked deterioration in the state of the streets of Cambridge. This had been noticed, not only by members of the University, but by the Borough Council itself; and the towns-
  346
  people were just as anxious as the University that this Bill should pass into law. The Mayor of Cambridge called a public meeting under the Borough Funds Act, at which the clauses of the Bill were gone through, and Clause 6 was adopted practically unanimously. Clause 6 was a vital part of the Bill, and if it were rejected the Bill would be withdrawn. The measure, which settled so many controversies between the town and the University, would be wrecked, and the state of things which existed two years ago would be brought back again. It was not to be supposed that the University would acquiesce in the withdrawal of all control in such an important matter as this. He appealed to the wisdom and common sense of the House not to allow the action of well-meaning and sincere, but ill-advised and ill-regulated, zeal to defeat a measure which protected the interests of morality, and consequently the interests of the country at large.
  MR. W. M'LARENsaid, before he replied briefly to the speeches of the hon. Members who had spoken, he should like to say a word in reference to the proceedings of the Committee which considered the Bill. He had to complain that they had been marked by a diversion from the course they pursued in former years when it was their custom when they passed a Bill whose provisions were in excess of the ordinary law, to send in a Report explaining their reasons for allowing it to go through. He believed that the Standing Order under which this Committee was constituted specifically required that they should send in such a Report, and he complained that they had violated that Regulation. That Committee did not receive the usual instruction when they were applied this Session, because it was found that the Standing Orders met the requirements of the case. He could find no Report of that Committee, and they had merely reported the Bill to the House as amended. They had had no reason given to them why they should accept this legislation. The proceedings altogether of the Committee on this Bill were exceedingly brief. He had read the shorthand report of what took place, and while it was true that the counsel in charge of the Bill mentioned this matter, and that the Committee examined the

  347
  Mayor and the Vice Chancellor, all that was said was that there was practically no opposition to the Bill. The speeches of the hon. Member for Cambridge and the hon. Member for Cambridge University showed a discrepancy in this respect. It was quite evident from the speech of the hon. Member for the University that it was the University and not the town that was standing out for this provision. The town of Cambridge was willing to accept the clause in the Bill of 1891. He certainly backed that Bill, and he was willing to stand by the clause of 1891 now, and always was willing to stand by it, and perhaps the best thing would be that the Bill should be recommitted for the substitution of that clause. He supposed the hon. Member for Cambridge University would support a Motion of that sort. But in addition to that, to show the feeling of the Corporation on the matter, he might say that he had seen more than one letter from the Mayor of Cambridge, stating that the Liberal Members of the Council objected to this particular clause, and that it was forced upon them by the University. It was, in fact, a price which had been wrung out of the town by the University.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: In a question of arbitration you cannot speak of anything having been forced on you. The clause was agreed to in consideration of something else.
  MR. W. M'LARENsaid, he had already-stated that it was a price that the town had to pay, and he thought it was a very high price indeed; and it exhibited the terrorism which the University had exercised when the Mayor of Cambridge said that if this Bill was not accepted now they would be unable to do anything more for a generation. The whole public opinion of the country, as well as of the town of Cambridge, was opposed to the special powers which existed under the Charter of Elizabeth; and to tell the House that this Bill would be withdrawn if the House exercised its prerogative, or to say that nothing could be done again for a generation, was to attempt to impose upon their credulity. While ho was as anxious as the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge to do everything that was reasonable to protect the morals of the students, he believed that the necessity of the
  348
  case would be met by the acceptance of the clause which was in the Cambridge Corporation Bill of three years ago, and which the Corporation themselves believed was amply adequate. This Bill deviated from the ordinary law in respect of Clause 6. He maintained that the ordinary law would meet all the necessities of the case if rigorously enforced. Women were already liable to be arrested for solicitation and for disorderly conduct under the Common Law, but he submitted that, however bad a character she might be, a woman who was walking peaceably and in a quiet manner along the street was as much entitled to be there as any other woman, or any man. That was a Constitutional principle from which the House was now asked to depart for the supposed benefit of Cambridge undergraduates, who presumably were not sufficiently strong-minded to look after themselves. Assuredly it was a very dangerous course to take to re-enact in the present state of public opinion an old and practically obsolete law of George IV. They were told that a provision of that clause was in operation at Oxford, but he hoped if ever the Corporation of that place came to Parliament with a Private Bill on any subject they would be able to strike at that clause. He had in his hand a letter from a doctor of 30 years' standing in Oxford whose name he was willing to give privately to the hon. Member for Cambridge, in which he said, as the result of his practical observation, that the operation of the clause at Oxford was most injurious. He was frequently consulted by young women employés in shops and other business establishments, and when he told them that what they needed was more exercise—[A laugh.] He could not understand that laugh; it said exceedingly little for the tone of mind and temper of hon. Members opposite that they should sneer and jeer at honest young women who were working in shops, and for whose health exercise was needed. To return to the letter, the writer informed him that when he advised these young persons to take more exercise, they replied that they dared not go into the streets of an evening because the Universities authorities were constantly on the look-out to run them in. This system afforded opportunities for blackmail, because any honest

  349
  young woman, rather than have her character blasted for life by being run in, would pay any demand made upon her for money. He submitted that women should be as free as other citizens. A Memorial had been signed by ladies whose sons were undergraduates at Oxford stating that they did not desire at the expense of the women of Cambridge to have this exceptional legislation, even for the benefit of their sons; while the resolution of the Women's Liberal Federation, supported as it was by some 900 ladies interested in public and political affairs, ought to carry great weight with the House, He therefore urged the House to abolish this special legislation, which was not needed for young men anywhere else. His own University at Edinburgh did not want it, although there were more students there than in Cambridge; the University of Glasgow did not want it, and the University College of London did not want it. He refused to believe that the young men of Cambridge were less moral than those of any other town; they were able to take care of themselves, and, if strenuously enforced, as it would be, the ordinary law was amply sufficient to meet the case.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): As time is precious, and as I think the case has been extremely well stated from both sides upon this matter, I hope the House will now come to a decision. I do not rise to speak on behalf of the Government, or to exert any influence upon others, but what I owe to the University of Cambridge and to Cambridge generally forbids my being silent on this occasion. I speak my own sentiments and those of the Home Secretary. This question, as between the town and University of Cambridge has, to my certain knowledge, been a subject of very painful and injurious dispute for a great many years. The jurisdiction of the University of Cambridge was founded upon a very ancient Charter, and it was a jurisdiction which was much resented by the town of Cambridge. That was natural enough, but now I understand that the University and town of Cambridge have come to a unanimous accord as to how this question shall be settled. They desire a settlement upon a footing which both consider advantageous to the
  350
  community. The hon. Gentleman has raised some question as to whether the town really does desire this clause, but I can myself take no opinion on that subject, except the official statement on the part of the Corporation which represents the town. It is said that this is exceptional legislation. So, in a certain sense, it is, unquestionably, but the University towns are in an exceptional position. I know something of University towns—I know a good deal of Cambridge, and I used to be at Oxford—and I am, therefore, entitled to express my own opinion on the subject. I say that in my belief, as in the belief of the towns themselves, they require exceptional provisions and exceptional protection. If you are to attach any weight whatever to local opinion and local government, you ought to listen to the voice both of the Universities and of the towns of Cambridge and Oxford. That voice should carry with it much more weight than the voice of individual Members, who probably had never belonged to either Oxford or Cambridge. A Select Committee of the House has approved the special clause inserted in the Bill, and I am satisfied that if the Corporation and those who represent the interests of Oxford have, as the hon. Member suggests, been dissatisfied with the law which has prevailed there for many years, they would not have left it to a single doctor to write about it, but would have taken very active measures to get rid of a state of things of which they did not approve. These are the reasons which influence me—I speak for myself alone—in supporting the provisions of the Bill. I think they are very reasonable provisions. The settlement of this long-disputed question between the University of Cambridge and the town is very desirable, and the House will, I think, do well to approve the Bill.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he very much regretted that he had not had an opportunity of speaking before the Leader of the House, because he had desired to make to the right hon. Gentleman an appeal which he now feared it was too late to make. But he would oven now appeal to the Member for Cambridge and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. The hon. Member for Cambridge had spoken of this as a compromise between the town

  351
  and the University, but he had not pretended that that was an all-sufficient reason for agreeing to this particular clause, although the unusual course had been taken of threatening to withdraw the Bill unless the clause was retained in it. But all that sank into insignificance after the speech of the Leader of the House. He regretted that speech. There was an extension of the Criminal Law, and the doctrine of his right hon. Friend was Home Rule on a petty scale run mad. His doctrine was that the inhabitants of a borough were the best judges of what Criminal Law they desired for themselves, and that it was for the House to accept their judgment. What they wanted was a Contagious Diseases Act for the University and town of Cambridge, and if that was to be the policy of the Government he ventured to tell them that they had undertaken a very serious resonsibility with regard to their supporters, both in the House and in the country. He objected, and always had objected, to this insidious method of legislation by Private Bills, which could be promoted by persons in authority in any small locality, and which often resulted in changes of the Criminal Law of the country. What had been proposed by the authorities of the town and accepted by the authorities of the University was now the unanimous agreement of the town and University. It was desired that the position of Cambridge should be assimilated to the state of affairs which had existed in Oxford to the satisfaction of the University and the town for a great number of years. They did not ask for a new experiment to be made in legislation. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said they were going to extend the Criminal Law. They were going to do nothing of the kind. They were going to mitigate the law as it at present existed in the University of Cambridge. The provision to which exception was taken said—
  "Every common prostitute and night walker found wandering in any public street or highway not giving a satisfactory account of herself shall be deemed to be an idle and disorderly person."
  The law would apply not to every woman who walked about the street, but only to such persons as, when apprehended,
  352
  could be proved to be common prostitutes and night walkers.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is that before they are apprehended or after?
  SIR J. GORSTsaid, that if any proctor or constable took upon himself to apprehend a person who did not satisfy the definition of the Act of Parliament, he was liable to an action for false imprisonment. ["Oh, oh!"] He quite understood from the interruption of the hon. Member for Northampton and the jeers of other hon. Members that there was a section of the House who believed in the objection to which expression had been given by the hon. Member for Crewe, on the authority of an anonymous medical gentleman, that the civil population of Cambridge resented this kind of interference with their liberty. But they did not. He was very familiar with this kind of objection, because it was one he had constantly heard, years ago, in discussions that took place in the House respecting the Contagious Diseases Acts. No Contagions Diseases Act had ever been in force in Oxford or in Cambridge. But the Contagious Diseases Acts were in force in Chatham, a town he represented for 17 years, and he had frequently been told by the inhabitants of that town that the operation of those Acts had such an effect in clearing the streets of improper characters that their daughters could walk out at night without the danger they incurred before. It was curious how hon. Gentlemen opposite sometimes appealed to local wishes and sometimes scouted them. If they acted on local wishes they would pass this Bill. If they took upon themselves to override local self-government and to regulate Cambridge according to the views of the hon. Member for Crewe, then they would accept the Amendment.
  MR. LABOUCHERE—[Cries of "Divide!"]—said, it was rather remarkable that, whilst hon. Members opposite were not very loth to waste the time of the House on other occasions, whenever there was a proposal to restrict or an attack on the liberty of individuals, they shouted "Divide, divide!" The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had hardly mended the case of his friends.

  353
  He had given as a reason why they ought to pass the Bill that it would produce the same effect in Cambridge as the Contagious Diseases Acts produced in the towns which were under those Statutes. He (Mr. Labouchere) wanted the House to understand the meaning of the clause. It was difficult to find out what it meant, as the copies of the Bill in the Bill Officio were exhausted, but it was admitted that it was a compromise. It was a compromise between the University of Cambridge and the town, so that it could not then be said that the town was wholly in favour of it. The word "compromise" showed that the town was not in favour of it. The exercise of the powers conferred on the University Authorities had produced great abuse, and the Town Authorities had protested against it again and again. The town naturally wished to be under the same law as any other town in the United Kingdom. They were told that that could not be permitted, and that if the University gave up its ancient powers those powers would be adopted and carried out by the police. Therefore, he maintained that it could not be asserted to be the wish of the town that this Bill should pass in its present form. For his part he would vote with pleasure for any Bill which entirely abolished all the power which was to be possessed either by the University Authorities or the Police Authorities. The rights of men and women were not dependent upon the police nor upon the morality of individuals. A woman had got a perfect right to walk about the streets of Cambridge provided that she did not offend against the Common Law of the country, yet this Bill provided that a woman might be arrested by any policeman who took it into his head to suppose that she was a bad character. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that the policeman might be prosecuted afterwards if he arrested a respectable woman, but was that any guarantee that respectable women would not be arrested? Everyone knew perfectly well that when the Contagious Diseases Acts were in operation women of respectable character were frequently arrested by the police. No one had a greater respect for the police than he had, but he wished to know whether any gentleman meant to say that a policeman was invested with such vast intelligence
  354
  that, on seeing a woman walking along the streets, he could tell whether she was respectable or the reverse? He contended that any woman had a right to walk in the streets of Cambridge provided she did not solicit or loiter or molest. The hon. Member for the University (Mr. Jebb) had said the House ought to pass this Bill, because there were in Cambridge young men who were inexperienced, and who would fall an easy prey to women. Well, he (Mr. Labouchere) would ask whether there were not such young men in London? He was not a young man himself, and he did not pretend to be an easy prey; but were there not many young men in London who were as liable to these temptations as the young men in Cambridge? Were there not also other Universities besides those of Oxford and Cambridge? Hon. Members knew very well that there were; and if it was thought that the effect of a superior education made a man a more easy prey than were the young men employed in shops, a similar Bill ought to be passed with regard to other University towns, including London, where there was a University. He objected to these local attacks upon private rights and he specially objected to action of this kind being taken by attempting to sneak a clause through a Private Bill, and then telling the House that there was not time to discuss it fairly and legitimately.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.): I have arrived at an opinion upon this question, having been one of the alumni at Oxford, and being a Doctor of Civil Law of Cambridge. I detected in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stausfeld) the fanaticism that marks all his speeches on questions of this character. It is evident that it is impossible for him to take a reasonable view of what are the wishes of a locality or of a great University. It seems to be utterly impossible for him to recognise that the arrangement now proposed in the Bill has been tried for some years with great success in another University, which equals Cambridge in greatness. He can think of nothing but the Contagious Diseases Act, which has nothing to do with either the law of Oxford or that at Cambridge. This is a mere precautionary arrangement made with the object of

  355
  securing some order and decency in the streets of an ancient University town. In these matters the University of Cambridge is co-operating with the Corporation of Cambridge just as the University of Oxford co-operate with the Corporation of Oxford. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has done what he always does; he has turned all ordinary conceptions of morality into ridicule. [Cries of "Oh!"] Yes, he laughed at them. He never loses an opportunity of ridiculing ordinarily received opinions. Does he suppose that he is above everybody? Is his code of philosophy to be adopted by civilised society in England, and are great Educational Institutions to take their laws from him? He said he would speak for his University and for the town of Cambridge. He shall not speak for the town of Cambridge. He may speak for his own town of Northampton, where I daresay his morality goes down. The Leader of the House (Sir W. Harcourt) has appealed to his followers to pass this Bill. [Cries of "No!"] Well, he supported the Bill, and if the Leader of a Party takes a particular course on a public question the Members of the Party usually follow him. The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority on a matter relating to Cambridge University, as he was intimately connected with the University for years, and held a very eminent Professorial Chair in the University. I know very well what is the motive that actuates gentlemen below the Gangway. It is the same motive as causes them to object to all Church establishments and to all Universities. They want to deprive the Universities of their representation in Parliament, to put an end to order and decency in the streets of University towns, and to turn the condition of affairs in those streets at night into a saturnalia. The Radical Party is ready to do anything to degrade the Universities. There is no injury they would not do to Universities like Oxford and Cambridge, which are old, which are famous, which have a long history, and which have done so much good not only amongst the wealthy classes, but, by the extension of University education, amongst the middle classes all over England. The hon. Member for Northampton said that no woman walking the streets at night
  356
  ought to be molested by the police as long as she did not loiter, solicit, or molest.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the noble Lord excuse me? I do not think I said that. What I think I said was that a woman who does not loiter or solicit may be arrested.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: I beg pardon. I took down the hon. Gentleman's words, and what he said was that if a woman did not loiter or solicit or molest she ought not to be interfered with by the police. Well, Sir, that rule is carefully observed both in Oxford and Cambridge. You really strike a serious blow and utter a great insult to the University by saying that you will not trust them with the most moderate and most reasonable provision for preserving order in their town. All I can say is that if you do this you lay yourselves open to one more attack, and you are placing a strong case in our hands to lay before the country. I protest against the forces of the Radical Party, reinforced by the Irish Party, doing their best to destroy a University so ancient and so improving as that of Cambridge. I will not detain the House longer, but I must cuter my protest against this insidious attempt to injure the great University of Cambridge.
  MR. H. J. WILSON (York, W. R., Holmfirth)said, he hoped the House would allow him for a moment or two to explain why, as a Member of the Committee, ho could not support this Clause 6, and intended to vote for the Amendment. He was absent from the House and the country for a considerable time, and this Bill came before the Committee when it was impossible for him to be present; had he been present he should have felt it his duty to oppose this clause. While recognising the fair way in which the hon. Gentleman who presided over this Committee referred to the functions and efforts of the Committee, he felt bound to say he thought they were not called upon to accept an agreement, merely because it was an agreement between the parties, if in their view it was contrary to what it ought to be. At the same time, he felt obliged to condemn his colleagues on that Committee if they did not insist upon evidence, and, as a matter of fact, no evidence was given on this point.

  357
  Why the ordinary law of the laud would not suffice for Cambridge nothing was said—no evidence was given on that question. They were told of an ancient Charter from the time of Elizabeth and so on, but he did not understand why the House, at this time of the day, should be asked to compromise and strike a kind of average between the views held in the time of Elizabeth and the views held in 1894. It might be desirable to boar an old Statute for but a short time longer, but it was undesirable that the House should give sanction by conferring great powers upon a University to deal with the women of Cambridge, and the laws of the land ought to be enough to protect the collegians without a Bill of this kind. They knew that a Bill of this kind gave an enormous opportunity for blackmailing.
  Major RASCH rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. H. J. WILSONsaid, they were not justified in giving these enormous powers to the police on the ground that they would not be exercised when given. He should certainly vote for the Amendment.
  MR. DIAMOND (Monaghan, N.)said, that as a Member of the Committee he wished to say a word, and that was that they inquired very carefully as to what the local opinion on the subject was. It had been said by the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. W. M'Laren) that there was a strong local feeling against it, and that he had some letter from the Mayor of Cambridge saying that the Local Council had a strong feeling against this clause. All he could say was that when the Mayor was in the chair giving evidence before the Committee he (Mr. Diamond) put the question to him whether there was a minority in the Council even opposed to it, and was there any local opposition, and the Mayor answered that there was no local opposition, and that he had neither heard of nor seen any of it.
  MR. W. M'LARENsaid, he had the Mayor's letter in his pocket, in which he stated that the Liberal Members of the
  358
  Town Council and the locality disliked the clause exceedingly.
  MR. DIAMONDsaid, he appealed from Philip drunk to Philip sober, he appealed from the statement of the Mayor contained in his letter to his evidence given on oath, he thought, before the Committee upstairs. He thought that the close inquiry that he had shown was made by the Committee absolved those Members who, unlike the hon. Member who spoke last, were present, and who he might claim felt as strongly on the subject as the hon. Member—absolved them from any charge of carelessness. It was only because the remarks of the hon. Member seemed to convey a reflection on the Members of the Committee that he had asked leave to say a few words on this question.
  MR. W. M'LAREN: I wish to apologise for an error. I find the letter to which I referred was written by an ex-Mayor.
  MR. DIAMONDsaid, he should vote for the Bill on the grounds of Homo Rule. He did not profess to know as accurately as the people of Cambridge knew their own local needs and requirements; and when he remembered that the Bill abolished the Spinning House, that it did away with the Vice Chancellor's Court, that it was recognised on all sides to be a great improvement on the present state of affairs, he did not see how he could well vote against it. He regretted the discussion seemed to have partaken of, or to have even made to wear, the complexion of a Party discussion. [Cries of "No, no!"] There had been remarks made that would convey that idea. He thought there would be those found on both sides of the House who would agree that the local view ought to be considered in a matter of this kind. While he had the greatest respect for the 900 ladies and the method by which they expressed those opinions, he also had a great respect for the local women of Cambridge, and surely their vote, given in opposition to the votes of the 900 ladies, ought not to be lightly passed over. As a Member of the Committee it was his intention to support what was done upstairs.
  MR. A. C. MORTONwho spoke amidst continued cries of "Divide!" said, he should not have thought it necessary to detain the House

  359
  but for the speech they had just listened to. He was astonished to hear such a speech from an Irish Member, the Irish Party having always objected to exceptional laws against themselves; and now the Irish Representatives were going to treat the people of Cambridge in the way they themselves objected to be treated. For his part, he desired to see the people of Cambridge treated in the same way as the people of every other county in the United Kingdom. The people of Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Andrews, and Aberdeen had no such exceptional laws, and the men there were as highly moral—more so, he thought—as the people of Oxford and Cambridge. He objected to the insinuation that these young men sent to Oxford and Cambridge wanted protection on account of their tendency to immorality above all other men of the United Kingdom; he objected to that, and trusted the House would not be carried away, but would vote for the liberty of the subject.
  Mr. MACLURE (Lancashire, S. E., Stretford): I beg to move, Sir, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 242; Noes 157.—(Division List, No. 39.)
  MR. H. L. W. LAWSONsaid, the point he wished to raise by way of Amendment to Clause 19 was very simple, but he did not think it was unimportant. The proposal in this clause gave power to erect baths and wash houses on common land. It was a matter of public policy not to allow any Public Authority to take common land for this purpose, and he reminded the House that the Board of Agriculture made a protest against it, which the Committee had been unable to comply with. It was undesirable that any part of these commons in the borough should be enclosed, and he therefore suggested that this provision should be struck out unless it was proved that it was absolutely necessary. [An hon. MEMBER: It is necessary.] Yes, but there did not seem to have been any extensive evidence taken on this point; and yet the Committee was satisfied the place was suitable for that purpose. He
  360
  submitted the Corporation of Cambridge should act under the Public Health Act and obtain the land in the ordinary way and not take common land, which ought to be used for purposes of recreation and open spaces. He did not wish to weary the House, but put the point that this was a matter of principle that common land should not be used for purposes such as this.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 6, to leave out Sub-section (d) (Erect baths, wash-houses, and lavatories.)—(Mr. H. L. W. Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We have already wasted a good deal of time, and though an important Bill in itself there is still more important business which the House has agreed should be concluded to-day; and under those circumstances, unless we have some assurance that this matter will be disposed of in five minutes, I will move the adjournment. I beg to move that the Debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  [House cleared for a Division, but on the Question being again put the adjournment of the Debate was not persisted in.]
  MR. W. LONGsaid, the Committee had inquired very closely into the proposal with reference to the commons. They found that the land proposed to be taken was not practically available for other purposes now, but was suitable for the erection of bathing places for the poorer people of the town of Cambridge. Further than that, it was only proposed to deal with two small spots and no injury would be done to the commons. The proposal had the support and sympathy of everyone in Cambridge.
  SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he understood that the proposal was to erect bathing sheds, but the words seemed to be much too wide to cover that purpose.
  MR. W. LONGexplained that it was thought that it might be necessary subsequently to erect certain covered buildings for washing purposes.
  Amendment negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time.

QUESTIONS.

  CONFEY GRAVEYARD.
  MR. KENNEDY (Kildare, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the ancient graveyard of Con-fey, near Leixlip, Union of Celbridge, is at present entirely uncared for, and that, owing to the absence of any proper walk, and the presence of bushwood and weeds, the interment of the dead is rendered a matter of much difficulty; and whether he will cause the Local Government Board to direct the Local Burial Board to put the graveyard in decent repair, and appoint a caretaker for its proper management, according to the existing Rules and Regulations of the Local Government Board with regard to burial grounds in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): The Local Government Board inform me that no complaints have been made to them with regard to the condition of the graveyard referred to. They learn, however, from the clerk of the Union that some repairs are necessary in the walls surrounding the cemetery, but that its present state is not such as to render interments more difficult than hitherto. The Guardians have appointed a caretaker for the ground, and have now under consideration the question of the propriety of taking steps to improve and enlarge the cemetery.

  CROFTER COMMISSION APPEALS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state when the appeal of John Mackenzie, Plock of Kyle, Lochalsh, Ross-shire, against the decision of the Crofters' Commission in December, 1891, will be heard; is he aware that, in consequence of the delay, there is a danger of Mackenzie being evicted from his holding, and that the county rate collector has threatened proceedings for nonpayment of rates assessed upon the old rent; whether the rates should be
  362
  assessed upon the rent fixed by the Crofters' Commission; and whether proceedings will be stayed until the decision of the Appeal Court has been given?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I am informed by the Crofters' Commission that the appeal mentioned will be heard as soon after the end of this month as is practicable. John Mackenzie's rent was reduced by the Commission from £8 to £4, and his arrears of £08 8s. 6d. cancelled down to £12, that sum being made payable in three instalments of £4 each. As Mackenzie has challenged the decision of the Commission by lodging an appeal, the county rate collector is entitled to assess upon the old rent; but if Mackenzie disputes this he can consign the amount without prejudice to his appeal. I have ascertained that the landlord has taken no proceedings to remove Mackenzie.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state when the appeals against the decisions of the Crofters' Commission in the Lochalsh district of Ross-shire will be heard?
  SIR G. TREYELYAN: I am informed by the Crofters' Commission that the appeals from the quarter mentioned will be heard as soon after the end of this month as is practicable.

  HARBOUR WORKS AT PORTNESS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, during the approaching summer, efforts will be made to secure the completion of the harbour works at Portness, Island of Lewis?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I can answer the hon. Member that every effort has been, and will be, made during the present summer to put forward the harbour works at Portness.

  THE COMMISSION ON IMPERIAL FINANCE.
  MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.): On behalf of the hon. Member for Water-ford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state the names of the members of the Commission to inquire into the Financial Relations of Great Britain and Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am glad to say that a complete list of the eight names of the gentlemen who have been invited

  363
  to serve on the Commission has now been framed, and in the course of a few days, after the names have been submitted to Her Majesty, I shall be able to announce their names to the House.

  IMPRISONMENT OF A BOMBAY MISSIONARY.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Rev. A. W. Prauteh, a young missionary in Bombay, has been sent to prison for a month for denouncing the conduct of the Government in professing to close the licensed opium dens, and allowing the opening of unlicensed places of a precisely similar character all over their jurisdiction, although they have the power given them by the Opium Act of 1878 to frame rules to close them; and whether the Government will take steps for his immediate release?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): The Bombay newspapers report part of a case in which the Rev. Mr. Prauteh, with others, was charged with "defamation" by one Damajee Lakmi-chund, a licensed opium vendor; but they do not give the result of the trial. I have telegraphed to the Government of Bombay for information as to this case, and if my hon. Friend will repeat his question I will give him the result of my inquiry.

  BOMBAY MIDNIGHT MISSION.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a Memorial which a number of women of ill-fame have sent to the Governor of the Bombay Presidency with reference to the work of the Bombay Midnight Mission; and is he aware that on the following Wednesday to the presentation of the Memorial the Commissioners of Police had the whole of the Midnight Mission turned out of the street in which these women resided; and whether the police were justified in so doing?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: My attention has been called to the publication in a Bombay newspaper of such a Memorial as is described in my hon. Friend's question. I have telegraphed for information as to the action of the police in the matter.

  HOURS OK LABOUR AT WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  MR. MACDONALD; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the engine-drivers, stokers, and oilers engaged in the Woolwich Arsenal are compelled to be at their posts for 60 hours a week; whether under the new arrangement of hours their time should be 53 hours—namely, 48 hours' work and five meal hours; and whether on night shift in all other branches of work in the factory men are paid a bonus of three hours per night or 15 hours per week, as under the 54 hours system, whereas the engine-drivers, stokers, and oilers are paid a bonus of only 10 hours?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,)(who replied) said): Engine-drivers, stokers, and oilers are required to be present during all meal hours and to give such extra time beyond the ordinary factory hours as the nature of their duties requires; but their time for work will have been sensibly reduced by the factories only being open for a less number of hours. They are on consolidated rates of pay, which cover mealtimes and time for cleaning and oiling the machinery. The usual bonus of three hours per night is paid to the men on night-shift, except in the Royal Gun Factory, where a fixed nightly rate is in use.
  MR. MACDONALD: Is this a new arrangement which did not prevail before the eight hours system was introduced into the Arsenal?
  MR. WOODALL: I am not quite sure; I imagine not.

  CANTEEN SERGEANTS' PAY.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a sergeant becoming canteen sergeant only receives private's pay; on what principle this reduction of pay is made; and what are the inducements or the compensation to balance this loss of pay?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): The canteen sergeant is an additional sergeant to those required for military purposes specially granted to take charge of the canteen. He is

  365
  only paid from Army Estimates the pay and allowances of a private; but this is supplemented from the profits of the canteen. The arrangement was made to avoid the employment of a duty sergeant. The inducement, to the man is pay at from 2s. 6d. to 5s. a day from the canteen fund, without sacrificing his claim to count his service towards sergeant's pension on discharge.

  MEAT INMILITARY HOSPITALS.
  MR. BANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has received any recent Reports of the quality of meat supplied to the large military hospitals, especially Netley, and what is the purport of these Reports; and whether any arrangements are being made to enable Army medical officers to attend the meat inspection classes in Edinburgh?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No special Reports have been called for on meat alone; but an Inspector, who was recently sent round to several hospitals, including Netley, reported that in some cases the articles generally supplied by contractors were not quite up to the specification. Steps were at once taken to remedy this state of things. A class of medical officers will attend the next course in meat-judging.
  MR. JEFFREYS: Was it foreign meat?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not heard that it was.
  MR. HANBURY: Does the rule as to two-thirds of foreign meat apply to hospitals as well as elsewhere?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not sure.

  SOLDIERS' BEDDING.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War in how many barracks adequate washing accommodation for the private soldier exists, including the use of warm water once a day in winter; whether he is only allowed clean sheets once a mouth, and clean blankets once a year, and how this system compares with that in workhouses: and whether the rooms in which they sleep are usually also the eating rooms, or in how many barracks separate dining rooms exist?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In all barracks there is washing accommodation for the private soldier, but hot water is not supplied at the public expense to ablution and bath rooms, except in those barracks where recruits are received. There hot baths are provided as required. In the new barracks, however, at Aldershot flues have been lot into the walls of the kitchens, and baths are supplied by regimental arrangements. The soldiers' sheets are washed monthly, though he gets one (dean sheet each fort-night, and his blankets yearly. Each soldier gets, however, a (dean pair of sheets, and never succeeds to those of another man. The same practice seems to prevail in gaols and in Metropolitan police stations. I have no information as to workhouses. In the great majority of barracks the sleeping rooms are also the eating rooms; but day looms are being tried at Dublin in the reconstructed barracks and in those provided by the conversion of the Woking prisons. At these places the additional rooms have been provided without much extra cost. The advantage of separate day rooms is recognised; but, in view of more pressing requirements, money is not likely to be available for their adoption generally. It must be remembered, however, that spacious reading rooms and recreation rooms are now provided which serve the purpose of day rooms.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give orders, in the interests of cleanliness and decency, for the issue of more clean linen? I cannot understand the comparison of soldiers with inhabitants of gaols and workhouses.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Does the hon. and gallant Member impute that I thought soldiers should not be treated better than the inhabitants of gaols or workhouses?
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I do not impute anything of the sort. I simply say no such comparison should be drawn.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: So far as I have been able to consult soldiers well acquainted with these matters, I find that they are generally disposed to think that the present arrangements are sufficient and satisfactory. It must be remembered that any material alteration in the supply of linen

  367
  and blankets to soldiers would cost a great deal of money. For instance, I have ascertained by a rough calculation that to provide soldiers with a pair of clean sheets fortnightly instead of monthly would involve an additional expenditure of £10,000 per annum. While I quite admit that there may be an advantage in such an alteration being made, I am not quite sure that £10,000 a year may not be better spent on other matters which would better conduce to the advantage and comfort of the soldier.
  MR. HANBURY: I have received complaints on the subject from medical officers, and, as I do not regard the right hon. Gentleman's answer as satisfactory, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to the subject on the Army Vote.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman will give me the information he has received from the medical officers, because my own information is in exactly a different direction.

  CLARA AND BANAGHER RAILWAY.
  MR. MOLLOY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the possible early closing of the Clara and Banagher Railway, owing to the refusal of the Great Southern and Western Railway to renew the agreement for working the lino, which has been in operation during the last 10 years; if the proposal by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to purchase the line and amalgamate it with their system has been brought to his notice, and the difficulty which has arisen with the Board of Works in consequence of a sum of £30,000 advauced to complete the line under the powers of the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Amendment Act of 1880; if he is aware that the (dosing of this line will inflict 80 serious a blow upon the industry of the surrounding district as may leave the district unable to meet the barony guarantee; and whether ho can see his way to take any steps in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The proposal by the Great Southern and Western Railway to purchase the Clara and Banagher line has been brought
  368
  under the notice of the Treasury.' The Board of Works, as mortgagees, are necessary parties to any transaction having for its object the disposal of the line; but nothing has arisen, or is likely to arise, in connection with the advance referred to in the question of a nature to place a difficulty in the way of a sale to the Great Southern Railway Company.

  ARREARS OF POORS RATE IN IRELAND.
  MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what are the grounds of the objection of the Local Government Board to the publication of the lists of ratepayers in arrear with their rates by Boards of Guardians in Ireland; and whether, as large defalcations by rate collectors have taken place in various Unions in Ireland, notably in the case of a collector named Daly, in Athlone Union, and of a collector named Finn, in Boyle Union, and as these large defalcations would have been impossible if the lists of people returned as in arrear by these collectors had been circulated from time to time amongst the ratepayers, he will authorise the Local Government Board to permit Boards of Guardians to issue these lists whenever they consider it advisable and necessary?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board have been advised that it is no part of the duty of Boards of Guardians to publish lists of persons in arrear with their rates, and that the expense of printing and posting such lists could not be regarded as a legal charge on the rates. The Board have also been advised that as the posting of these lists is not part of the duty of the Guardians they would not be in any way privileged in doing so, and if, by mistake, the name of a person not in default were included in the list the Guardians would be exposed to an action for damages. No doubt instances occur of default on the part of rate collectors. In the cases referred to in the question a collector was dismissed in Boyle Union in 1885, and a collector in Athlone last year for this cause, and possibly if lists of persons owing rates were published it would render detection more easy. The Local Government Board consider, however, that if a collector's books are properly and regularly checked by the clerk of the Union fewer cases of embezzlement of rates

  369
  would occur, and if in every case of default the Guardians insisted upon the sureties making good the amount it would result in greater care being exercised in inquiring into the character of persons appointed to the responsible position of collector. As it is, large sums, I understand, are lost to the rates by the failure of the Guardians to see that a collector's sureties are solvent, and, when they are able to meet their liabilities, taking prompt steps to make them do so.

  FLESK MILLS, KILLAENEY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Fishery Inspectors has been directed to the action of the proprietors of the Flesk Mills, on the River Flesk, near Killarney, in working the mills night and day, on every day of the week, including Sunday, the power being used during the day for grinding purposes and at night for working the dynamos for the Killarney Lighting Company: whether such a continuous working of the mills by water power is contrary to the weekly close season law, which expressly provides that the water sluices supplying the mills shall be closed for 24 hours consecutively every week, and consequently the mills stop working; whether, considering that the fishing is one of the main sources of revenue in the district, any steps will be taken to prevent this systematic breach of the law; whether the Fishery Inspectors' attention has been drawn to the fact that there is no "Queen's gap," or "Fish pass," in the dam constructed across the River Flesk by the owners of the mills, the absence of which prevents the spawning fish reaching the upper waters; and if any steps will be taken to compel the proprietors to provide such a gap?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The attention of the Inspectors of Fisheries has been drawn to the working of the Flesk Mills near Killarney day and night the week through, including Sundays. It is required by law that the sluices shall be closed for 24 consecutive hours during each week to force the water through any existing gap, and through the waste gate if no gap exists. In the case of the Flesk Mills there is no such gap. The section, however, also provides that by
  370
  the opening of the waste gate the mill must not be deprived of the necessary-supply of water for its full and efficient working. In the present case the opening of the waste gate would deprive the mills of the water power; and, in these circumstances, the Inspectors do not recommend any steps to be taken. The weir at the mills is not a "fishing" weir; and, therefore, no question of "Queen's" gap arises. Having been constructed before the year 1842, no obligation exists in the owner to construct a fish pass at his own expense. The millowner intends to erect a wooden structure, which, it is hoped, will have the effect of facilitating the ascent of fish.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But was not the mill contemplated by the Act a corn mill or a mill for spinning purposes? Surely it was never contemplated it should be used for grinding electricity on Sunday. The Statute must have contemplated mills for some mercantile purpose.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Yes, I should think that must have been so.

  DISCHARGED LABOURERS FROM KINGSTOWN PIER
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a number of old servants of the Board of Works of from 15 to 30 years' service, at wages of 12s. to 15s. per week, were recently discharged at Kingstown, and are left with no means of subsistence; are other Government labourers at Kingstown Pier working 58 hours per week paid from 9s. to 14s.; and will ho inquire into the question of the discharge and remuneration of these men?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I understand that there was no alternative but to discharge 12 Kingstown labourers in February last, because they were no longer able to perform their duties. In the cases of eight of these labourers the Treasury have awarded gratuities. The service of the remaining four does not bring them within the statutory powers under which gratuities can be given. The wages of men employed as labourers at Kingstown Pier vary from 12s. to 15s., not from 9s. to 14s. It is only in the case of boys that wages at the rate of 9s. are paid. The working hours per week at the harbour are 57 in summer and 54 in winter.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As these men, I am told, are in a state of great destitution after working for a long time for the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of granting some gratuity?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTwas understood to say that there were no funds available for the purpose.

  CROFTERS' COMMISSION APPEALS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, in consequence of the illness of Sheriff Brand, great inconvenience has been occasioned through the inability of the Crofters' Commission to take up consideration of cases requiring the attendance of three Commissioners as a Court of Appeal; and, if so, whether ho will consider the desirability of strengthening the Commission by the addition of one or more members?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Sheriff Brand informs me that he greatly regrets the inconvenience occasioned by his detention at home from an affection of the knee, but is now very much better, and entertains the confident hope of being able to resume duty outside by the 21st of this month. He has all along been giving careful attention to such duties of the Crofters' Commission as could be discharged by means of written communications and correspondence. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary to consider the suggestion conveyed at the close of the question.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are now some 1,600 appeals awaiting trial?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Yes, I am aware of it.

  THE KILLARNEY GUARDTANS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, by the issue of a sealed Order, the Local Government Board have impounded the rates due to the Killarney Board of Guardians; whether this course has been taken on account of the non-payment of the seed potatoes loan, amounting to £2,03,5 15s. 8d.; and if he can state whether this action on the part of the Local Government Board prevents the payment of any other of the liabilities incurred by the Board of Guardians?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts are as-stated in paragraphs I and 2 of the question. The Board of Works having certified that the amount was payable to them by the Guardians, it was obligatory on the Local Government Board, under Section 4 of the Seed Potatoes Supply (Ireland) Act, 1S90, to issue the Impounding Order. The treasurer of the Union is bound, on receipt of the Impounding Order, to pay the amount mentioned therein to the Board of Works out of any money then in his hands to the credit of the Guardians, or, if such money is insufficient, out of all money subsequently received by him on account of the Guardians. The Local Government Board, however, have asked the treasurer to retain enough money in his hands to pay outdoor relief cheques.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: In a previons answer the right hon. Gentleman admitted that cheques amounting to £2,000 had been issued and dishonoured. Now that the whole rates are impounded, how is the work to be carried on by this bankrupt Union?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I suppose some arrangement is made for that.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it, imperative under the law to impound the whole rates in order to secure the payment of arrears, or can discretion be exercised so as to extend the time in the interests of the ratepayers?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am told the Local Government Board have no alternative. I am not sure that the arrangement which has been made to keep in baud sufficient for outdoor relief is legal.

  SCOTCH EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. DIAMOND (Mouaghan, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the requirements demanded by the Scotch Education Code from Standards IV. and V., he will give instructions that the additional arithmetical work imposed by the New Code shall not be enforced this year, seeing that a number of schools liable to early examinations would be placed at a serious disadvantage thereby?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Instructions will be given that, until the end of the year, due consideration will be shown in view of the changes in the requirements as regards arithmetic.

  THE EVENING SCHOOL CODE.
  SIR F. S. POWELL: I beg-to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education when the New Code relating to evening schools, which was presented on the 29th of March, became law; and when such New Code will be printed and circulated, so that those who are responsible for the management of evening schools may know the conditions required to be fulfilled by these schools in order to obtain the annual Parliamentary grant?
  MR. A. H. SMITH: At the same time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Evening School Code will be in the hands of Members; and whether any change will be made in the mode of payment of teachers in order to avoid the possible hardship of a teacher being engaged in tuition for as much as 23 hours and receiving payment for only 12 hours?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND.,): In reply to this question, and to the one which stands further down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Christchurch, I propose to lay the new Minute of the Committee of Council on Education, establishing the new Evening School Code, on the Table to-day, and it will be issued thereupon as soon as it can be printed. Members will thus have it in their hands before Whitsuntide, and will have full opportunity of discussing it after the House reassembles. This Minute will supersede the Code which was laid on the Table on the 29th of March, and will provide that, in future, the Evening School Code shall be presented to Parliament before the 1st of May in each year.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Then the Code laid on the Table on the 29th of March has not become law?
  MR. ACLAND: Yes, so far as it is a reproduction of the old Code.

  DISPENSARY COMMITTEES.
  MR. HAYDEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether persons are qualified to be members of a Dispensary Committee who do not reside in the Dis-
  374
  pensary District; and whether he will have the law on this point carried into force, as much inconvenience is caused to the poor where it is not observed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Under Section 7 of the Medical Charities (Ireland) Act, 1851, Dispensary Committees in Ireland are composed of the ex officio and elected Guardians of the Poor who are resident, or owners, or occupiers of property in the district, together with a number of ratepayers resident in the district and rated for property therein. It is not, therefore, necessary for Guardians, ex officio and elected, to reside in the district for which they are members of committees provided they either own, or are in occupation of, property therein. With respect to the second part of the question, the Local Government Board inform me that they are not aware of any instance in which the provisions of the law referred to have not been complied with.

  THE NORTH SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. HENEAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position to give any further information with regard to the North Sea Fisheries Convention; and what steps are being taken to carry out the North Sea Fisheries Act of last year?
  THE PRESIDENT OK THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The Convention of 1887 for dealing with the liquor traffic amongst fishermen in the North Sea, as modified by the relative Protocol of last year, was ratified on the 11th of last month. The Protocol provides that the Convention shall come into force six weeks after ratification; and notice has accordingly been given in pursuance of Section 10 of the North Sea Fisheries Act, 1893, the Act for giving effect to the Convention on the part of this country, that the Act will come into force on the 23rd instant. The requisite executive steps are being taken, with the co-operation of the Admiralty, for ensuring the enforcement of the Act.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, then, if it is a fact that after the 23rd of May English vessels in the North Sea will be liable to be stopped and, if he deems it necessary,

  375
  taken into port by a subordinate officer in the Belgian or in any other Navy?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Any vessel contravening International Regulations will be liable to be dealt with under the Act. MR. GIBSON BOWLES: My question is: Has a subordinate officer of any Navy power to stop and seize any English vessel?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Subject to Regulations made by the Admiralty.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Are the Regulations part of the Convention?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, they are.

  GERMAN PRISON-MADE GOODS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, now that he has been placed in possession of the name and address of the foreign agent in London who supplies brushes throughout England, made in a German prison, at a price per dozen below that of the mere labour alone at Trade Union rates in English-made brushes, he will take steps to restrain by law the competition from abroad of forced prison labour, which has been abandoned at home as unfair to those in this country who live by the productions of their industry?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have had no notice of this question till I saw it on the Paper this morning. After I left the Board of Trade yesterday the hon. Gentleman sent a brush with the address of the agent who is said to supply them, but DO particulars were furnished as to prices of sale or manufacture. With the aid of the Foreign Office the Board of Trade are inquiring into the matter.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I have here for the information of hon. Members the card of the agent in England of the German convict prisons, and also a specimen of the prison-made goods he is selling in England.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have no knowledge of this.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I brought it to the right hon. Gentleman's notice.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The hon. and gallant Member did not intimate to me that he was going to put a question.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: The right hon. Gentleman has not said
  376
  whether the Government is prepared to take steps to exclude the importation of these goods.
  MR. MUNDELLA: We have no means of taking steps to exclude anything.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday next I shall ask leave to introduce a Bill to prevent the importation into this country of goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by foreign prison labour.
  MR. MUNDELLA: It will interest the House to know that an agitation is going on in Germany against the competition of prison labour, and the German Government have ordered a full inquiry into the whole matter. We await with interest the result, of that inquiry.

  HOURS OF LABOUR IN GOVERNMENT DOCKYARDS.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state when the principle of the eight hours day will be practically applied in the Government Dockyards; and when the scheme by which it is intended to apply it will be published?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): The scheme applying the eight hours day to the dockyards has practically been approved by the Board of Admiralty, but certain details remain to be settled. As soon as this has been done the scheme will be promulgated.

  COMPRESSED FODDER CONTRACTS.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the War Department have ordered from Chicago dealers 500 tons of compressed fodder?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; I have made inquiry, and can find no ground for this report.

  LECTURE THEATRE OF THE ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY.
  MR. W. KENNY (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the cause of the delay in commencing the

  377
  works for the construction of the new lecture theatre of the Royal Dublin Society in Dublin, to which the Society has subscribed £5,000; will he explain why, although plans were approved of in November, 1892, tenders were not invited by the Board of Works until December, 1893; if he is aware that tenders were sent in last January, and that no apparent action has been taken with reference to them since that time; and if he will take steps with a view to having the works at once commenced, and the contract with the Society, on the faith of which they subscribed the £5,000, carried out?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The plans approved of in November, 1892, were only preliminary or sketch plans, without any details agreed upon between the Royal Dublin Society and the Board of Works, and the delay since the revised plans were ready (in April, 1893) has been due chiefly to the fact that the estimate of cost largely exceeded the sum authorised by the Treasury, and it was therefore necessary to make arrangements for the purpose of avoiding such excess. It has been within the knowledge of the Society ever since January that the Board of Works have been in communication with the architects and the surveyor with that object. The contract for the theatre is now ready for signature, and is only delayed by a demand by the Society for the inclusion in the scheme of two rooms having no connection with the purposes of a theatre. The Board of Works have informed the Society of the impossibility of proceeding with the work on the understanding that these rooms are to be provided, and as soon as the Society assent to their omission the contract will be signed and the work begun forthwith.

  THE ESTATE DUTY IN IRELAND.
  MR. CARSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in determining the rate of Estate Duty to be paid by tenant purchasers in Ireland under the Land Purchase Acts, the value of tenant-right and the tenant's interest in the holding, together with his stock and other property, will be added to the interest acquired by the purchase of the landlord's interest under the said Acts?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The Estate Duty will be charged on the value of the holdings, including all the incidents which go to constitute such value, together with the stock and other property of the tenant.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether, in the case of a holding on which only a part of the capital money has been repaid, the duty will bo leviable on the whole sum?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put the question on the Paper.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can say whether the principal value does not include the whole value of the estate?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No, I cannot.

  CROFTER LEGISLATION.
  MR. WEIR: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now prepared to name a day when effect will be given to the repeated pledges of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, the Secretary for Scotland, and the Lord Advocate, by introducing a Bill to extend the Crofters Act, 1886, to small tenants?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No, Sir; I cannot name a day.

  LAW OFFICERS' FEES.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.): May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will be able to inform the House of the new arrangement as to fees with the Law Officers of the Crown?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Certainly; before the Vote comes on for discussion.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PERIOD OF QUALIFICATION AND ELECTIONS BILL.—(No. 161.)

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [1st May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
    "this House declines to proceed further with a Bill containing provisions effecting extensive changes in the representative system of the country, in the absence of proposals for the redress of the large inequalities existing in the distribution of electoral power."—(Sir E. Clarke.)
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.): I have, in the first place, to express my grateful recognition of the courtesy of the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who has refrained from exercising his right to continue the Debate. I am always very sorry to interfere with any hon. Member of the House, and I am especially so in the case of my right hon. Friend, who has made a special study of this subject. But, Sir, I understand the Government desire that this Debate should be brought to a close this evening, and further, very naturally and properly, they wish to have, at all events, a fair opportunity of replying upon the whole Debate, and as the previous discussion of a Private Bill has taken so much time I ventured to think it might be desirable I should rise at once. I regret very much that other circumstances over which I had not absolute control prevented mo from being present yesterday to listen to the most admirable speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury. Sir, I do not, think that anyone, whether they agree with that speech or not, will contest its ability or will hesitate to say it was a most eloquent and most exhaustive indictment of the whole policy of the Government as contained in this Bill. I read it to-day, and I must say it appears to me, and I think it must have appeared to the House at the time, that the reply of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India was a most inadequate answer. I am not in the least detracting from the eloquence or the ability of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, but I am certain that ability was chiefly shown on the occasion of this Debate yesterday in the skill with which he managed to
    380
    avoid all the main issues in conflict. My right hon. Friend began with a vehement declamation in which he accused the right hon. Member for Bury of gross inconsistency. Sir, that is the staple argument of the supporters of the Ministry and of the Members of the Ministry—a staple argument with gentlemen who, of course, must feel that they, at any rate, are free from the slightest suspicion or reproach in regard to this subject. As regards many of the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury, the Secretary of State for India passed them over without any notice whatsoever. Anyone who will read the printed reports of the two speeches will find that, practically, questions one after another were submitted to the Government, and as to the majority of them the Government have taken no notice whatsoever; and even as regards those that they did notice I must say it appears to me the reply was altogether insufficient. Now, Sir, I feel that under these circumstances, in following my right hon. Friend, my chief duty is to repeat and to reinforce the arguments which he advanced. I hope that, although I cannot expect to put these arguments forward any better, if as well, as my right hon. Friend, at all events I can do it in a rather different way, and, perhaps, I may be more fortunate than he was, because the Secretary of State for India professed as one reason for not replying to my right hon. Friend that he could not understand his argument. At least I will endeavour to make myself intelligible. I should also say at the commencement that I approach the policy of the Government with, on the whole, more favourable feelings than may be entertained by some of my hon. Friends opposite. I have always admitted that the state of our Registration Law7 was a scandal and abuse, and it was the duty as well as the natural desire of every Government to amend this law, and I am prepared to do justice to the Government and to say they were quite right and would fail in their duty were they not to call the attention of the House to the subject. It may, however, be a little more questionable whether in calling the attention of the House to the undoubted defects in our Registration Law they were entitled for the first time, in

    381
    such a case, to introduce, bead and shoulders, a subject which has really no direct reference to the main object of the Bill, and whether they were justified, to use the words of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in cutting deeply into the franchise. And, Sir, I suppose that all Parties on both sides of the House will agree that no Government—I will not say this, but any, Government—would be justified in touching this subject at all, in dealing with great questions affecting our electoral system, if they were to approach it in a partisan spirit and solely with a view to Party interest and Party supremacy. The Secretary of State for India most indignantly repudiated any intention of the kind. He said that suggestions to that effect occurred in the speech of the Member for Bury, and he most indignantly repudiated them, and I think the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the course of the Debate declared they had no Party object. Very well, I accept the assurance of my right hon. Friend. I am not going to contest, that in the course of this Debate, and I can only express my sympathy with them at their disappointment when, after having introduced a Bill of this kind in the most disinterested way and without any Party object, they found in the course of the Debate that they had been entirely mistaken and that the Bill will do the very thing they do not want to do. Well, now, Sir, the Secretary of State for India said that what they proposed to do was to deal with pressing and admitted grievances, and that they had no ulterior object. He said they could not, they had not the time, and I suppose not the inclination, to deal with all the anomalies in our electoral system, and consequently they have been obliged to make a selection. A selection! Is it a natural selection? Is it a survival of the fittest? The process of selection in the case of a Government dealing with a highly technical and controversial subject is always, I think the Secretary of State for India will agree, an extremely delicate matter, and admitting that their object is to deal fairly with all Parties in this matter, I must say I cannot compliment them on their success. Imagine they had proceeded on a totally different supposition, and suppose the Government had said to themselves, "Here is a General Election coming and we are going to be beaten;
    382
    let us shuffle the cards; let us arrange for a new pack, and under these circumstances we may possibly have some chance of victory, which at present we have not." Suppose they had said that, what would have been their course? They would have surveyed the whole of the electoral field, and they would have made a list of every anomaly and of everything which by any chance could be called a grievance affecting any Party or individual, and having made that list they would proceed to a process of selection, and they would have selected precisely those anomalies for redress which at the present time toll in favour of their opponents, and would have discarded altogether all those anomalies which happen to tell on the other side. That is clearly what they would do if they desired to bring forward a Party Bill. But, Sir, what is this Bill? That is precisely what this Bill does. I say it is admitted. The supporters of the Government—not, perhaps, in this House, but out of it, in the country—have been saying for themselves what the Government have done and will do by this Bill. The late Attorney General has been quoted, and no explanation has been given of his speech. He pointed out that by the changes which this Bill would involve constituencies which wore now safe seats for the Conservative or Unionist. Party would become safe seats for the Government. I am going frankly to accept the assurances given to us by my right hon. Friends, but it does appear to me they are the only people in this House and, I believe, in the country who do not know what the inevitable results would be of their own Bill. I am unwilling to bring any charge! against the Government, or to say that this extraordinary coincidence is due to any deliberate action on their part, and, therefore, we have to find who it is who is responsible, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury yesterday pointed out the culprit. There is a French proverb which says if you want to know who is the criminal you must find out who will most profit by the crime. There is no doubt who will profit by this Bill. Only one section of the community, of course the Party of the Government, may at all events gain a temporary advantage through the provisions of the Bill. I am not speaking of political advantage. The direct pecu-

    383
    niary and personal advantage which is to be gained by this Bill will all go to political agents and wire-pullers, whether of the one Party or another. As to that there is no doubt whatever. This is not a Party question; this is not a matter of controversy, nor, I believe, is this a result which any Party in this House would really desire to bring about. I am not going to dwell, at this time especially, at any length upon the question of the enormous additional expense which this Bill will involve. The Secretary of State for India really treated the matter much too lightly. I think his reply was totally insufficient on the subject, and I think his figures were figures which no one practically acquainted with the working of our registration system in the different constituencies would justify for one moment. This matter has been, I think, proved to the satisfaction of the House. Authorities on this subject on both sides have concurred in the view that the effect of this Bill would be to throw an additional charge upon the rates of between £300,000 and £500,000. Now, that is rather a serious thing. Why should we take out of the pockets of the ratepayers a sum of between £300,000 and £500,000 in order to find subsistence for a number of officials already existing and a great number more who will be created as soon as this Bill passes both Houses of Parliament? But that is not the worst. I would be content if we got sufficient advantage to leave the rates to take care of themselves. But what about the candidates? Why are we to have imposed upon us for no public good whatsoever the enormous additional expense which will be involved by this Bill? And remember that expense will come upon us for two reasons, and to one of these sufficient importance has not been attached. The Secretary of State for India told us in a lucid moment, before he got up to support this Bill, that under a system of double registration you would have registration all the year round. Every person who comes forward for Parliamentary honours, if he wants to stand a fair chance against his opponent, will have to keep the preparations for and the work of registration going month after month and week after week throughout the whole 12 mouths. That in itself means an enormous expense. But then you have
    384
    also the immensely increased necessity for an expert and professional supervision of registration which is involved in this Bill. You are making the Registration Law much more complicated than before, you are opening the door to bogus qualifications, you are making personation much more easy. You are doing all these things, and no man who can afford it will fail to protect himself against that possibility. He can only protect himself through persons who are skilled in that particular kind of work—dirty work I was almost going to say; but, at all events, they must be persons who are professionally qualified, and professional assistance, valuable as it is, is also very expensive. I say that is undoubtedly a proof, if any proof were wanted, that the real authors of this Bill are the leaders of the professional organisation, Mr. Schnadhorst and his acolytes, who see their advantage in a change which certainly will not be at all to the advantage of their employers or of the public. What the Government ought to have done was to have codified the Law of Registration. We want to have a simple and single law, and not to have to run through I do not know how many Acts of Parliament from early times down to the present. There are also a great number of conflicting decisions given by the Courts; those are all left untouched. Not one single thing is done which will take 1s. off the expense, but everything is done in order to increase the expense. I appeal to hon. Members who desire that poverty should not be a bar to representation in this House. I say you are doing all you can to prevent poor men from coming to this House. You talk about payment of Members. Even if you were to pay them upon a royal scale it would not be enough to pay the legitimate expenses of providing for registration in the case of a Bill of this kind. But I do not appeal on behalf of the poor men only; I appeal on behalf of the best men. I mean by that the men who have no personal objects to serve, who come here because they honestly desire to do public work and public service, and those are just the men, whether rich or poor, who resent the imposition upon their shoulders of an unnecessary and extortionate charge because they are willing to serve their country. You are doing a great injury to the character of

    385
    this House and of the representation in the United Kingdom when you unnecessarily, put upon the shoulders of candidates these very heavy charges. This matter, of course, is not a Party question, and I appeal to the Government, when we come into Committee, to leave it an open question. In that case, I undertake to say, we shall amend the Bill so that the new association of Party agents will not know their own offspring. Another non-contentious point is the question of official registration. Why on earth is that proposal dropped out of the present Bill? I believe the creation of an official registration system was really one of the main items of the programme of the Liberal Party before the split. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean gave an explanation of the provision in question which I should have thought rather ridiculous. He said the Government had dropped it because the Loader of the Opposition killed it. That is a great compliment to the Leader of the Opposition, and it is the first occasion on which such a compliment has been paid to any Member of the Opposition. But I did not understand that the argument of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition killed the principle of the proposal. He pointed out, and very properly, the dangers of official registration if you were not very careful to secure your officials from political and Party influence; but if, by taking such precautious as are always taken in regard to every appointment which is in the nature of a judicial appointment, you can have a thoroughly impartial official system, then I think it would be very much to our advantage to adopt if. Certainly that is one of the things which will greatly lessen the expense of registration to candidates and enable them to dispense with what, after all, I think everybody desires as far as possible to dispense with—namely, purely professional agency. Then I come to the question of one polling day. That, again, cannot be a matter of principle; it is a matter rather of the general convenience of the constituencies. I do not pretend that to have the elections on one day would be more injurious to our Party than to the Party of the Government, but I do say it would be a most inconvenient arrangement. The Secretary of State for India said that it was perfectly
    386
    easy to have one polling day because they have it in America. It is quite true that they have it in America for a certain election, but the circumstances of the Presidential Election are totally different to those of our General Election, and I venture to say that, whether it be convenient or not in America, it would be extremely inconvenient in this country. Why? Because if you are to have it on one day you must either shorten the time for the polling in counties or lengthen it for boroughs, or you must do both—as, indeed, the Bill does. The Government have shortened the time for counties and lengthened it for boroughs. To the former, although I should have thought it very difficult, considering the enormous extent of many county divisions, I should have no objection; but I do ask, in the name of my fellow Members for boroughs, why on earth a lengthened period is to be imposed upon us? Everybody knows that to lengthen the period means to increase the expense, and generally to increase the excitement, which is not always desirable. I submit, therefore, that here also we should be allowed absolute freedom to treat this as a non-controversial matter, and to vote according to the opinions and desires of our constituencies. Then comes another question—if you are to have one day, is that day to be Saturday? It is not a question of Party importance, but Saturday is the worst day you could possibly choose, and I cannot understand how anybody with the experience of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India could have allowed his name to be attached to a proposal of this kind. If he had taken the opinion of his Association in Wolverhampton he would have found they wore entirely opposed to it. At all events, my own constituents, and I may say the whole population of Birmingham of both Parties, are entirely opposed to Saturday polling. And why? There are three reasons. In the first place, it affects the Jews. Now the Jews, although not a very numerous body, are, at all events, entitled to he considered. The Secretary of State for India spoke almost with indignation of any suggestion that the poll should be held in this country on Sunday. Well, the Jews may take the same objection to a poll on Saturday. Why should you put this great and unnecessary in-

    387
    convenience on a very considerable number of perfectly respectable voters and capable citizens? In the second place, it is extremely inconvenient for the small shopkeepers in the towns. Saturday is the busiest day of the week in all our large towns. The working classes make their purchases on that day, and the effect of having the polling on a Saturday would be to disfranchise a very large number of most respectable people—that is to say, the shopkeepers who supply the artizan classes. But I am not by any means certain that the artizan classes themselves would like it, because more and more it is becoming their habit to make a holiday of Saturday. They clear up their work on Saturday morning, and in the afternoon they go into the country—many of them on bicycles—especially in summer, in very large numbers, and do not return till late in the evening, and then they have got to make their purchases. Therefore, the proposal to make polling universal on Saturday would be, I believe, to disfranchise a very considerable number of persons. [Cries of "Oh!"] I will not put it in that way if hon. Members jeer at it. I will say I am certain. I am endeavouring to discuss this matter with all fairness and with absolute impartiality, and I confess I think this kind of interruption, the tone of the interruption, is extremely discourteous. There is one other point in regard to a Saturday polling day, and that applies to the counties, where, I think, it will be found that a very great number of markets are held upon Saturday; and, if that is so, the inconvenience in the county constituencies might be just as great as the inconvenience in the boroughs. I think this is a question which ought to receive very much more consideration than I think the Government have given to it up to the present time. Now I pass on to the qualifying period. That has been treated in a more contentious spirit by some hon. Members than I am prepared to treat it myself on the present occasion. What are the facts? As I understand the statement of the Chief Secretary and of other hon. Members, the qualifying period—that is to say, the period after which a man can get his vote—is at the present time 18 months as a minimum and two and a quarter years as a maximum. We are all agreed that
    388
    that is too long. By the Bill of 1893 this would have been reduced to nine months as a minimum and 21 months as a maximum. Under the present Bill it is nine months as a minimum and 15 months as a maximum. If we substituted a six months residence qualification, it would then be 12 months as a minimum and 18 months as a maximum. I prefer six months, and I do so because I think we are all agreed that a substantial period of residence, giving a man a local interest and local responsibilities, is really a good qualification, and even a fair condition to be imposed on the exercise of the franchise. But, at the same time, if I could accept the figures as I have just given them as regards the minimum term, it really does not matter very much in the case of a bouâ fide qualification whether the man's residence is nine months or 12 months. I should be disposed to say 12 months, but still I should be willing to admit that nine months would be a sufficient period. But I want to point out to my right hon. Friends that, although it is perfectly true that that is the minimum period in the case of what I have called the bonâ fide qualification—in the case of the man who takes up his qualification in a constituency intending to reside in the constituency—it is totally different in the case of the bogus qualification; and I want to ask the Chief Secretary whether the Government have considered this point? What is to prevent, say, a large manufacturer or a large contractor who has very strong political opinions from introducing into a borough or a county in which there is a very small Tarty majority 20, 30, or 50 men, paying their rent for three months, and giving them, therefore, a residential qualification, and immediately afterwards taking them out of the constituency into a neighbouring one, or into a distant one if you like, and only bringing them back when they are wanted to vote. What would be the effect of that? The cost to that contractor, supposing he paid it out of his own pocket, would not be more than £100. You could put 50 men into Birmingham for three months for £100. Having moved them in for three months there is no necessity for keeping them there, because, having got upon the Register, their vote is a good one until the next registration. Of course, that is

    389
    an operation which will only he performed when there is reason to expect an election very shortly. Take a time like the present. I think most people will suppose that an election is coming before the next 15 months. [An hon. MEMBER: "No, no!"] I did not say the hon. Member, I said most people; and most people hope for it, though probably not the hon. Member. In such a case it would be worth while for this operation to be performed, and I believe there is no doubt whatever that in this way it would be perfectly possible for a man to vote at an election for six months after he had received his qualification, and although be had only resided in the place three mouths and those three months 12 mouths before the election took place. In these circumstances, just consider what a temptation there is to carry out this very dubious operation. Consider what an opportunity it gives for manipulation of every kind, and consider also how much more easy it will make individual personation. It is difficult enough to detect personation now; it will be almost impossible to detect personation if the people who are voting are persons who are not known to their neighbours, and who have already at the time they vote disappeared for some period from the constituency. I hope the Government may be willing to give the matter further consideration, and, if I am right, I think we should be justified in asking that, at all events, a bonâ fide residence of six months should qualify a man for the exercise of the franchise. There is another question which must be treated as a controversial matter, and that is the question of the position of lodgers. The position of lodgers is most anomalous, and nobody doubts that lodgers have a grievance. A great deal was expected from the lodger franchise, and it has not fulfilled the expectations of its authors. Why not? Not because there are not plenty of lodgers who are well qualified to take their place with the electorate of the country, but because the Registration Laws put such difficulties in their way that they cannot get on the roll. That is precisely the case which the Bill in its main principle is intended to deal with. We have been told from the Government Bench its object is not to give the franchise, but to put those who are
    390
    entitled to the franchise upon the Register. Then why not put the lodgers on? That that is a fair and honest demand to make is shown by this fact: that in the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Halifax this provision did appear, and that Bill was supported by the Liberal Party. It appeared in the Bill of 1893. Why is it not in the Bill of 1891? Is it because they have not time? Is it because they cannot deal with the whole subject? Why, then, did they introduce a lot of other things which were not in the Bill of 1893? Why did they drop precisely that thing which everybody knows is likely on the whole to benefit the Unionist, Party, and why did they put in a whole number of new things which have not nearly so close a connection with the Bill, but which are certain to benefit the Party of the Government? One hon. Member the other day said this would enfranchise the sons of squires and of parsons and of fanners. [An hon. MEMBER: Who paid nothing.] That is absurd; if they paid nothing they would not get on. Well, suppose it does. Why not? Why should not the sons of squires, of parsons, and of farmers, if they are entitled to the vote, if they are qualified for the vote, if they are capable citizens, have the vote? I am only arguing against the hon. Member who has put forward this reason. I maintain that there are a great number of others besides these classes who ought to be put on as lodgers. Why should they not be enfranchised if they are entitled to be upon the Register? It is because, forsooth, their fathers pay for them. It is difficult to say whether they are in a position to pay for themselves. I can give an illustration. I have a son who gives me the pleasure of his company at my house. Is that any reason why he should be disfranchised? He is capable of being a Member of this House, and I should have thought he would be considered capable of voting for a Member of this House, and for the life of me I cannot find any reasonable or any impartial argument against the enfranchisement of the lodger class. Then I go on to consider a very important suggestion—namely, the abolition of the ratepaying condition. Again, I ask myself, why is that introduced, I think for the first time, by this Government? It is a very curious fact

    391
    that the maintenance of the ratepaying condition was a Liberal principle, and actually, when a Conservative Government proposed to abolish it—at that time the majority of the freeholders were Liberals—Lord John Russell opposed the reform, and declared that it was contrary to the Liberal principle that taxation and representation should go together. Well, we have changed all that, and I am not certain whether that is a Liberal principle any longer. At all events, the answer of the Secretary of State for India was that the representation was national and the taxation was local, and that there was no more reason for making the payment of local taxation a condition than the payment of any other debt. I am surprised that with his great acuteness the right hon. Gentleman should not have seen the distinction. It is quite impossible to make national taxation the test of fitness, because the vast majority of the voters pay no direct national taxes. Local taxation is the only remaining test of a man's willingness to fulfil his civic obligations. Now, I want to appeal to my Radical friends. Is it really their pretension now that, without regard to fitness at all, every man is entitled to vote? Is manhood, without any condition of any kind, to he the one qualification?
    MR. STOREY: Yes.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend says "Yes." My hon. Friend goes much further than Radicals have been accustomed to do, because even in democratic States where you have absolute manhood suffrage I do not believe there is one where there are not many conditions, conditions either of an educational character, or conditions which have relation to the fulfilment of State and civic duties. But let me ask my hon. Friend below me another question. Is he in favour of placing the pauper on the register, a man who at the present moment is absolutely subsisting hon the bounty of the community, and of allowing him to vote in matters affecting the expenditure of the community? He does not answer.
    MR. STOREY: I do not want to he catechised. My right hon. Friend knows my views on that point, just as well as I know the views he used to hold.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not catechised my hon. Friend; I only asked him a civil question. I should not have catechised him, as he says, if I had known his views, but I am absolutely ignorant of what his views are on the matter, and therefore I asked him. But as regards my own views, I may say that I have always held the views, absolutely so, that I am now putting before the House. In no speech of mine—and there are many hon. Members who are better acquainted with my speeches than I am myself—will you find anything which lends itself to the idea that a pauper ought to be on the Register. I take it that the majority of Radicals still hold the doctrine that a man ought not to be on the Register who is upon the rates. If that is held to be a fair condition for the exercise of the franchise, â fortiori I say you ought to put off the Register a man who is not only a pauper but a defaulter. The defaulter may not be a pauper, in a technical sense, but in another sense he is a great deal worse than a pauper. The pauper may be a man who has fallen into that position entirely through misfortune; but a defaulter is a man who is perfectly well able to meet his obligations, but deliberately chooses not to do so, and evades them. In our large towns there are numbers of people who make it a regular practice to flit to other districts just before the tax collector comes, in order to evade their just obligations. What you are doing in this Bill is to encourage that class. It will not hold water even from the extreme Radical position. Granting that we may be in favour of absolute manhood suffrage, still we are bound and justified by every Liberal principle in imposing such a condition as we think necessary in order to show that a man is a capable citizen. That brings me to another point in reference to this huckstering of the franchise. Great alterations were made in the franchise in 1884. What was our object then? What was the claim which justified our action? It was that we intended to bring within the portals of the Constitution 2,000,000 capable citizens, and I say that a man is not a capable citizen who goes from place to place, who has no fixed domicile, who has no legal responsibility, who shirks the first duty of a citizen, and who refuses to bear his proper share of civic obligations.

    393
    I do not believe this proposal of the Government will be popular, and in saying that I mean that it will not be popular even with their own Party. I do not believe it will be popular with the masses of the working people. One thing which made a great impression on my mind in the Commission on Old Ago Pensions was to hear from the working men who came before us—one and all—the expression of their loathing for the wastrel, for the ne'er-do-well, the profligate, and the drunkard, the man who is a burden upon them and everybody else, and who never does his proper share of decent and honest work. Well, that is the class you are going especially to favour. That is the class for whose behoof you are going to abolish a condition which, for I do not know how many years, it was the principle of the Liberal Party to maintain. Sir, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, in replying to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bury, said this was an unimportant matter, because in all large towns it would not arise under the compounding clauses. I agree with him that in England, and in those places in which compounding is practised, the matter is of much less importance; but what does he say with regard to Scotland, or even Sheffield? To Scotland the matter is of great importance. The proposal of the Government will materially alter the electoral position of such cities as Edinburgh and Glasgow, and it is quite possible—I do not say it is absolutely certain—that in those cities the votes of industrious artizans will be swamped by the votes of those whom we may almost call professional defaulters. Sir, there is one other provision in the Hill with which I should like to deal. With regard to plural voting, that has been brought neck and crop into this Bill, with which it has no legitimate connection whatever. I maintain that in pretending to cure this anomaly the Government are creating another anomaly, which I think will be even greater. If you are going to deal with this plural vote, why not do so in a thorough and satisfactory manner? Why do you leave the bye-eleetions? Have you considered what extraordinary confusion you will produce? Here is a man who is allowed to hold his votes in a number of constituencies. He may vote in a bye-
    394
    election in any one of these constituencies. If another election occurs there or in any other constituency, or in the same constituency after the Register on which he votes has expired—that is, after six mouths—he may vote then in a different constituency, and he is not obliged to choose in which constituency he will vote until the day of election. I will not labour that point. It has been most admirably dealt with already by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth. But anyone can see that by introducing an anomaly of this kind you will raise the manipulation of political elections really into a fine art, and you will enormously increase the strength and importance of those persons who lend themselves t.6 this kind of work. Another point with regard to this is that I do not think the Government have attached all the weight that should have been attached to the distinction between the ownership voter and the occupation voter. I think, at all events, they will admit that there is more to be said against the plural voter, in the case of the absentee owner who may have created a faggot vote and has no real living interest in the constituency, than against the occupation voter who has residence or place of business in two contiguous constituencies, who has precisely the same interest, fulfils the same duties, and performs the same obligations in both places. But though I think it right to point out these objections to the proposal of the Government, I am not in a position to oppose it root and branch. Indeed, I do not hesitate to say that I have always felt that the existence of this double qualification is in itself an anomaly, and that it cannot permanently take its place in our electoral system. All I say is that it is Perfectly ridiculous and unfair to attempt to deal even with an acknowledged anomaly of this when it suits your purpose and to refuse to deal with a still greater anomaly, because it does not suit your purpose. What are the existing anomalies? I will point out one. The objection of my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench is a tremendously strong one as to the existence of two votes in one individual. But what about the two-Member constituencies? Let me take the case of Northampton and the case of West Birmingham and compare them. The two

    395
    constituencies have almost the same number of electors; but the elector of West Birmingham can only give one vote for a Member, but the elector for Northampton may give two votes. Now, will my right hon. Friends explain or defend that anomaly? For my own part, I can only give one explanation of that anomaly. It is an explanation which was given by a gentleman who was brought before the Courts for bigamy. When he was asked why he had taken two wives he said it was because he was trying to get a good one. I can only suppose that the two votes given to the electors at Northampton is in order that they might get at least one good Member. But this anomaly, although quite as striking as that with which the Government deals, pales its ineffectual fire before the gross anomaly of the present distribution of electoral power. I have gone carefully into the question on the basis of the existing population. I am not going into the statistics now; I will only say I have them here if they are wanted; but this I can say without fear of contradiction, that dealing with the subject on that basis alone, which many people think unfair because taxation ought to be taken into account, whether you take England, Ireland, Scotland, or Wales, or whether you take the case of the counties or the boroughs, I could find you the case of two constituencies in any of these places in which the proportion of political power shall be four, or five, or six, or even seven to one. When you come to make the same sort of comparison between countries, it appears on the basis of population that England has 27 Members less than her proper proportion. Why do not the Government deal with this? There is no other anomaly touched in the Bill which compares with it. The others are matters of small Party or personal gain. Here and there a grievance to an individual may be redressed, here and there the character of a constituency may he changed, but that is an infinitesimal matter compared with this great anomaly, under which it is determined, from time to time, and has been determined again and again, who shall form the Government of the county and what shall be the legislation passed through this House It goes to the very root of our Constitutional system, and yet the Government
    396
    pass it by almost without mention. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was good enough to quote a passage in which I explained the opinions of the Government of 1884, when it was proposed to couple redistribution with franchise. He appears to appeal to that as being a precedent which he and his friends are now entitled to follow. It is not a precedent at all for the action the Government are now taking. The Liberal Government at that time believed that it was the object of the Tory Party to put upon us the duty of dealing with redistribution, not in order that redistribution might be carried, but in order that the franchise might be swamped. That was our belief at that time, but subsequent events showed that we were wrong. Because when the controversy had assumed certain proportions, at a conference between the Leaders of the two Parties, the whole scheme of redistribution was agreed to by the Tory Party, and of course, under those circumstances, the whole difficulty disappeared, and both Bills were practically carried at the same time. That is the precedent which you have got to follow. You may think you are perfectly justified in expressing the same opinion of the present Opposition as we formed with regard to the Tory Opposition in 1884. You may consider, if you like, that we are animated not by the desire for redistribution, but by a desire to throw out this Bill. Test your opinion as we did in 1884. See whether the Leaders of the Unionist Party are not ready at this moment for a redistribution scheme. You have absolutely no excuse; the ground is cut from under your feet. You have the precedent of 1884. I ask you to fulfil the precedent of 1884, and unless you find that the Union Party are using redistribution now merely as a stalking-horse, you will be able to add redistribution to your proposals for electoral reform, and then, at all events, we shall no longer be able to accuse you of proposing a partial system intended entirely for the benefit of a particular Party. But if you will not do that, there is at least one thing which you might do. You might proceed by the process of natural selection. There is no doubt as to where natural selection would lead you, but in this case you know where there is a gross and glaring grievance, and you know

    397
    how to remedy it, because you have done it already. You have got all the materials to your hand. All you have to do is to insert a provision in this Bill that 23 Members shall be taken from Ireland. Insert that in any redistribution scheme, and then, although you will not have given us complete redistribution such as everyone would desire to see, at all events you would, as you have done in other parts of this Bill, have removed one of the most pressing and most crying inequalities. Why will you not do it? It is hardly necessary to answer the question. Because you would commit suicide. Because these inequalities are the very foundation of the Government, because the Government subsists upon them, and because it would not exist one single day if these grievances were redressed. Of course, the Government will not do that, but we must consider the Bill with that knowledge. Sir, I have taken some opportunity of ascertaining the opinions of my constituents, and I have no hesitation in saying that, so far as they represent the feelings of the "predominant partner," they will have nothing to say to a Bill which they consider so evidently unfair and unjust. Without attributing any motives to the Government, I only say that the result of their policy is so manifest, so self-evident, that I do not believe any fair or impartial man will justify their proceedings. We are looking forward to the time, at no very great distance, when the Government will have to appeal to the country. They will have to go and ask for a mandate from the country, and ask for the approval of the country to the policy which they have pursued, especially upon that great Home Rule policy, in regard to which we have, and the constituencies have, fortunately, the details at our disposal. That is what is going to happen very shortly. We object to this Bill because, in anticipation of that election, it is an attempt to pack the jury of the nation before taking the verdict, and on that account I hope no impartial man will support this Bill.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): My right hon. Friend has, on the whole, fulfilled the promise with which he began; he has endeavoured to present to the House a criticism more or less upon the merits of the Bill. He has,
    398
    however, in conclusion, applied to it the same criticism, and he attacks us in the same way as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury did yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham says this is an attempt to pack the jury. Well, that is only saying in another way what the Member for Bury said yesterday, more fully, with greater iteration, and with much larger moral pretence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bury is a man who commands great and deserved authority in this House. He never speaks without interesting the House, and seldom without instructing it; but he has a mood which does not instruct the House, and I do not think it much edifies the House, and that mood my right hon. Friend indulged to an extent, so far as I know, unprecedented in his Parliamentary career yesterday—a mood which is marked by a combination of manner and tone and language, though I do not call it a felicitous combination, of the bar, the stage, and the pulpit. My right hon. and learned Friend thought it worthy of himself to say that we have put forward this measure for the purpose of weakening our political foes. He said we were concerned in a registration agents plot. He rose to a higher pitch still of pharisaical exaltation, when he said we were acting in a way which was contrary to all the accepted traditions and rules of public honour, and that we were turning statesmanship into chicanery. Let us look a little at this. If I thought we had spent the time we have spent in framing this Bill with the special object of Party advantage, I confess that my observation of the history of Parties in this country in modern times would lead me to suppose that we had been entirely wasting our time, because it is impossible for any Government or for any House of Commons to forecast—I do not say what the effect of a particular reform may be in carrying out certain principles—but to forecast the effect of a change such as we propose upon Party fortunes. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth said we had crowded the Register because we hoped that would be the best means of promoting the fortunes of our Party. There is a remarkable assumption in that statement that implies that the sooner the voice of the country is heard the more certain it

    399
    is to he to our advantage. But it is absurd to pretend that it is possible to forecast with accuracy or with probability what will be the ultimate consequence of a measure of Parliamentary reform when you remember what happened in the year 1832. It is untrue to state that the crowding of the Register has uniformly resulted in favour of the Liberal Party. Rather the contrary. The first alteration of the franchise was in 1867. From 1867 to 1894 the tenure of Office by the Conservative Party was not less but greater than the tenure of Office by that Party in the previous 27 years from 1840 to 1867. That is an illustration of the folly of which we should have been guilty, if we had brought forward this Bill solely with the view of promoting our own Party ends.
    SIR H. JAMES: Sir Charles Russell said that.
    MR. J. MORLEY: There are enthusiastic partisans, I dare say, who think this measure will tend to the advantage of our Party. In my mind, at all events, there is no such motive, and there is not even a very confident expectation that the changes we are now making must necessarily work in our favour, though I have a confident expectation for other reasons. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, though ironical at our expense, was much more good-natured in his irony than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury. Upon these points I will follow him shortly and rapidly through the various objections he has made to the Bill. My right hon. Friend began by criticising our action in not codifying and simplifying registration. He said, "Why do you not simplify registration?" The answer is very simple, and it applies particularly to the case of the lodgers. You cannot simplify registration without simplifying the franchise. What is the first step to simplying registration? You can only do it effectually in one way, and that is by manhood suffrage. If my right hon. Friend is going to make the simplification of registration the end-all and be-all of reform at this stage, he must revert to the opinion which he used to hold, that manhood suffrage was the proper system of electoral franchise in this country. My right hon. Friend talked about the
    400
    double revision, and he made various criticisms upon it from the point of view of expense. We are perfectly alive to all that can be said on that subject, but I want the House to realise what the situation is. In every quarter of the House you agree that the qualifying period of residence is too long. My right hon. Friend says that you would be content if that period were made six months; but, however that may be, you all agree that the present period is too long. Well, this method of a double registration is one of the means by which you make that shortening of the period effective. It is no use whatever to shorten the period to three mouths unless you give the men whose period of qualification you shorten the opportunity of getting on to the Register in a shorter time than that which the right hon. Gentleman opposite last year described as a scandal and an outrage. Last year we endeavoured to meet the difficulty by a system of transferring votes. You would not have that. You rejected it, and if you do not have that, or if you do not have a second revision as proposed in the present Bill, what is the good of doing that which you all admit to be a desirable thing to do—namely, shortening the period of qualification? As to having an official Registrar, that was suggested last year, and I still think it would be highly desirable to have a public officer who should be responsible for placing upon the Register the name of every man who has a right to be there; but last year it was found, not on one side of the House only, but in every quarter of the House, that there was no chance of our coming to any agreement upon that proposal. There was the difficulty as to who should appoint that officer, whether he should be appointed by a local body or by a branch of the Government, and these difficulties so weighed in the minds of hon. Members in all parts of the House that it would have been absurd to renew that proposal this year. We, therefore, make this proposal for a second revision. As my right hon. Friend very truly says, it is not a point which should be made a Party question, and, of course, it is one of those questions which the House, when we get into Committee, will have to decide. The next proposal that my right hon. Friend dealt with was the proposal that the elections

    401
    should all be taken on one day. He argued that America furnished no precedent at all. So far as the Presidential election is concerned, I quite agree with him. We do not find in that any precedent for taking the elections on one day; but more important elections are those for the election of State offices affecting the Government. These elections, affecting sometimes 15 or 20 offices, take place on one day, and all are decided by one electoral operation. We are entitled to whatever advantage the practice in America gives us. I wonder if my right hon. Friend has realised the number of days that an election now takes. I have the figures for four Elections—1880, 1885, 1886, and 1892. These are the actual number of days between the first and last Election—in 1880, 27 days; in 1885,24; in 1886, 29; and in 1892, 25 days. Surely, the whole House must feel that to leave the country in all the fever and confusion of an election for a period of 29 days, or even 24 days, is not an arrangement which can be reconciled with practical common sense and convenience. When it is said that our proposal would lead to an enormously increased expenditure of money, I ask the House to consider what the saving to the country would be. It would be counted not by tens or hundreds or thousands of pounds, but by millions, if you can shorten the electoral period as we propose. My right hon. Friend asked why aday should be named in the Bill. I will tell my right hon. Friend the reason for it. What would happen if we did not name a day in the Bill? The Government of the day who would have to dissolve Parliament and issue the Proclamation would have to fix the day on which the polls should be taken. By inserting a day in the Bill you are relieving the Government of the day from what the experience of 1892 gave us some reason to feel is a most invidious responsibility. For my own part, if I were a Member of the Government who had to name the day of the week on which the elections should take place, I should be extremely sorry for it, and* I would much rather that it should be done by Act of Parliament. Then said my right hon. Friend, "Even if that be so, you have chosen the very worst day in the week." Well, Sir, my own experience is that there is a vast
    402
    deal of superstition among election agents about which is the most convenient day. No doubt there are some places, irrespective of Party, where Monday, for instance, is more convenient than Saturday, and in some other places Thursday, but we have fixed on Saturday as, on the whole, most convenient and least open to objection. I admit that there are objections in the case of the Jews, but I understand that they would not be prevented from registering their votes. Then my right hon. Friend mentioned the small shopkeepers. I do not believe that the fact that Saturday is market day would make it a burden to the small shopkeepers to go to the poll. This is a matter of experience, and what we find is that the small shopkeeper goes to the poll the first thing in the morning. My right hon. Friend then talked about the three months' qualifying period, and drew a curious picture, very like one we had last night, of some ardent capitalist or contractor bringing 30 or 50 labourers into a constituency with a view to turning the scale. Of course, there is no end to these hypothetical cases; but this contractor was going to take his men into Birmingham. I wonder what good he would do there?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I was bound to name some place. I might have used the expression X. Of course, in all the separate constituencies in Birmingham we have a majority of 2,000 or 3,000.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Does it not occur to my right hon. Friend that it would cost the contractor a great deal less to turn each one of these gentlemen into 40s. freeholders? He would not have the trouble of moving them then. But there is no end to these combinations. My right hon. Friend said, "Why have you not dealt with the question of the lodger?" Well, the question of the lodger is, in my judgment, a very difficult one, and I believe that you will never solve it until you adopt the solution which my right hon. Friend and I used to think the right solution. The Party opposite say, "You object to deal effectively with the lodger franchise because you are afraid that the sons of squires and parsons will get votes," and then they ask, "Why should not the sons of squires and parsons be capable citizens?" But let me point

    403
    out that equality is desirable. If the sons of the squire and the parson have a right to perform the function of citizenship, why is not the son of the labourer to have the same right? [Cries of "He has it now."] Now, as to the question of the payment of rates. My right hon. Friend says that the payment of rates is the only remaining test of civil obligation. He seems to suppose that it is a good thing that a vote should be a screw for collecting the rate. He described very energetically the class whom we will call for shortness "wastrels," and said that the abrogation of the rating qualification, the exemption from the necessity of paying rates, would have the effect of benefiting this class. But a little reflection upon what we propose exactly to do will show my right hon. Friend that this is the very class whom we do not touch by the proposal of the Bill, because the rates in small houses are compounded for.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Not in Scotland.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I am talking of England and Ireland, where the rates are largely compounded for; and here is a monstrous thing—if the landlord fails to pay the rates the occupying tenant loses his franchise. That, at all events, is an anomaly that we shall get rid of. The small defaulting wastrel class is therefore not the class that this clause will affect. It will affect, in fact, the more highly-rated houses. I should like to give an illustration from Irish experience of what may happen even when the rates are tendered for payment. A claim for a vote came before a Revising Barrister. The claimant's wife had tendered the poor rate collector 2s. 6d., the amount due, and the latter had refused to take the money, on the ground that he had not his rate-collector's book with him at the time. The Revising Barrister, on these facts, decided that as the rates had not, in fact, been paid, he could not allow the claim. That is the kind of disability people suffer under in the present state of the law. Now, about plural voting. My right hon. Friend knows quite well that he himself, in the old days of Parliamentary reform, 10 years ago, used to say that there were two things which were pressing—one was the payment of Members, and the other was the abolition of the plural vote.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I never said that either of these questions was more pressing than such subjects as redistribution.
    MR. J. MORLEY: My right hon Friend has forgotten.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not deny that I have advocated both the abolition of plural voting and the payment of Members, but I never put either forward as the first duty of the Government.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I do not refer to this for purposes of recrimination, but my right hon. Friend did say what he now has forgotten. On January 29, 1885, when he was in the Cabinet, he said—
    "In the meantime, two other points are now urgent, which I hope will receive early consideration."
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is absolutely consistent with what I have just stated. I said then that two other points were urgent, meaning two points besides redistribution and other important electoral reforms.
    MR. J. MORLEY: If the two points were urgent in January, 1885, I should think that they are still more urgent in May, 1894. My right hon. Friend said—
    "I am in favour of the principle of 'One Man One Vote,' and I object altogether to the plural representation of property. I will take my own case—I have six votes. I usually vote on the right side; but I consider this an anomaly altogether inconsistent with the principle on which we stand, that principle being that every householder, at all events, has an equal stake in the good government of the country, his life, happiness, and property all depending upon legislation which he is as much entitled to assist in framing as any one else."
    I am fascinated by another sentence in this speech, which I shall therefore read—
    "If we are to make a distinction, I am not sure that it is not the poor man's interests that ought to be regarded first, for if you have bad legislation it may lessen the income of the rich man, but it may destroy altogether the means of subsistence of the poor man."
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Where is the inconsistency? I have said nothing different from that to-day.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I hope the House will understand that I am not taxing the right hon. Gentleman with inconsistency upon the merits of the proposal. What

    405
    I say is that if my right hon. Friend thought it urgent to remove this anomaly in 1885, why not remove it now? My right, hon. Friend suggests that we ought to select certain anomalies to deal with, and asks why we do not touch the greatest evil of all—namely, the over-representation of Ireland. He says that we admitted by what we did last year in the Home Rule Bill that there was a case for reducing the Irish representation. Yes, we admit that there was a case for reducing that representation when we were going to make up in other ways for the loss which Ireland would thereby suffer here. But we are not bound by anything which we did last year to admit that the Irish representation ought to be reduced before you alter the whole system of Irish Government. Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh at the Treaty-of-Dnion argument. I should like to remind them what view was taken of this argument by one of the greatest men who have sat in this House in our generation—I mean Mr. Bright. He said—
    "Nothing on earth will ever persuade me—unless I see it done—that this Imperial Parliament, which is representative of the people of Great Britain, will lessen the just, the Act-of-Union-settled representation of Ireland in this House."
    When the Church point was raised he said—
    "You were free to alter the Church provision of the Act of Union, because there you were making a concession to Ireland; but you have no right, as the stronger party to a treaty dealing with the weaker, to weaken that party and to impose upon them a disadvantage."
    As we have heard so much about the question of redistribution in Ireland, let me thus remind gentlemen belonging to the Unionist Party that one of the greatest Unionists himself held that this Imperial Parliament was incapable of reducing the treaty-settled representation of Ireland. But we have not heard in this Debate so much about redistribution generally as we might have expected, having regard to the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member opposite. The reason, I think, is pretty clear. The hon. and learned Member was followed by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, who showed what the effect of redistribution would be upon the Party to which the hon. and learned Member belongs. I have been informed that the hon. Gentlemen
    406
    opposite who have interested the House by the speeches they have made during the course of this Debate do not want redistribution. If, therefore, we are to have anything like a redistribution of seats we certainly must have the new scheme done thoroughly. The hon. Member for Dover said, if we were to have redistribution thoroughly carried out, 9,350 would then be about the figures of an average constituency. We were favoured by a speech by the hon. Member for Hereford, who has 3,416 electors; the hon. Member for Dover has 5,156, and the hon. Member for Plymouth has half of 12,431. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury has only 7,831, and the late Solicitor General for Scotland 3,195. Therefore, when I reflect on these facts, I see why redistribution has not played a very large part in the Debate. The right hon. Member for Bury drew a terrible picture of bogus voting, but he has forgotten that this rather fantastic means for manipulating constituencies would be just as possible now. The hon. Member for Southport took the case of a man who had a house in Derbyshire, another in London, and perhaps a mine in Cornwall, and he said in impassioned tones, "Has he not got a local interest in Derbyshire and in the Metropolis and in Cornwall?" I must say—and I hope that my saying this will not give offence—that this seems to me to be a, most nonsensical argument to bring forward for the purpose of making out a case for the right to a plural vote on Imperial matters. It might be, on the other hand, a very good argument to bring forward in support of his right to vote for the County Councils of Derbyshire, London, and Cornwall. But the case here stands on an entirely different footing, and I do not admit for one moment that the mere fact of possessing property gives a man a special right to vote on Imperial as distinguished from local affairs. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment, overflowing with Christian charity, said that the Government had introduced this Bill because they felt that the education and intelligence of the country were against them. This kind of broad proposition may be well enough for a platform speaker to use, but it forms but a futile argument when delivered in this

    407
    House. I ask you, moreover, Is Scotland less educated than England? Certainly not; and yet Scotland is not hostile to the Government, Is East Manchester to be considered different in education and intelligence from South Manchester and Eccles because the one sends a Conservative and the others Liberals to Parliament? I submit that there is no substance in that argument, and that it is purely an artificial assertion which your Press choose to make, but which cannot be supported in anyway whatever. The right hon. Gentleman made use of some language of Mr. Mill's about plural voting. Here is a passage in Mr. Mill's Autobiography in which, referring to his bringing forward this particular proposal, he cuts himself off by anticipation from the ideas of the hon. and learned Member by saying that, so far as he could observe,
    "this proposal of dual voting had found favour with no one, because all who desired plural voting desired it to be in favour of property, but not of intelligence."
    SIR E. CLARKE: The proposal to which Mr. Mill then referred was the proposal of Mr. Disraeli to constitute a dual vote by what are called fancy franchises, and he draws a distinction between that and the dual vote which he had advocated.
    MR. J. MORLEY: At all events, Mr. Mill makes it clear that what he was looking to was not a special facility derived from the representation of property, but from a representation of intelligence and education. The hon. and learned Member's whole argument was that by these proposals we were damaging the influence of education. I hope I shall be the very last man in the House to disparage education or literary or scientific acquisitions. I do not think I should be ever guilty of such baseness as that. At the same time, however, I do think that you could have no worse Government for this country or for any other country than a Government composed of Masters of Arts. If you take the history of the last 50 or 60 years, I say that for political foresight and political insight the successive bands and generations of Radical cobblers in this House have beaten the University of Oxford over and over again. The proposals which have been made in spite of all that hat, been said are of a very modest character,
    408
    and they are, moreover, of a perfectly straightforward character. We have not gone nearly so far as we should have liked if time had sufficed to bring forward a more complete measure, but we have made proposals which, we believe, will facilitate the access of those to political power whom Parliament, by its legislation, intends to have political power, and that the proposals which we now ask you to accept will do something to bring about that equality of citizenship which is the foundation of the freedom and the prosperity of this country.
    MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N. E.)said, the Bill of the Government had not met the desire of a great number of their supporters with regard to the double Register and consequent additional expense. The effect of the Bill— and it was well that the Government should know it—would be to render it more difficult than even now for a poor man to enter Parliament, and pay his way while there. The Independent Labour Party must look out for themselves, but it was admitted that there were a number of men in the House who desired loyally to stand by their Party, who found it difficult to bear the expense of registration year by year. The expense of elections was as nothing compared with the expense of keeping up the registration. Keeping up the Registers twice a year instead of only once would make it extremely difficult for a poor man to keep up his position in Parliament. He would ask the Government carefully to consider the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Sir E. Clarke), both of whom had urged that the expense of the double Register, if double Register they were to have, should be borne either by the constituencies or by the Consolidated Fund. The cost of the Revising Barristers was £30,000 a year, and to that in the future would have to be added another £20,000. Hitherto the Revising Barrister had had a good deal of legal work to do; but so far as the Register was concerned, all there would be to decide in future would be whether or not a man had lived in a certain house and had Jived there for a certain time. This work could be done by the registration officer, the expense of the

    409
    Revising Barrister's Court being done away with. With regard to the lodger franchise, it was more important in London than in any other part of the country, and there ought to be a distinctive lodger clause in the Bill dealing with Loudon. The only chance a large number of electors in the Metropolis had of getting on the Register as voters was under the lodger qualification. He said cither disfranchise them altogether or else give them a fair chance of getting upon the Register. Whilst he felt bound to support the Second Reading of the Bill, particularly in view of the form of the Amendment, he held himself free to vote on the points to which he had referred when the measure got into Committee. The time had come, he thought, when they should deal with this subject, not in a piecemeal fashion, but in a great consolidated Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was, apparently, not aware that a consolidated Bill dealing with every point had been before the House for nine years. It was only the Bill of a private Member, and consequently did not, perhaps, even reach those who sat on the two Front Benches. At any rate, there had been no attempt to deal with it. His ambition was to see all properly qualified men put on the Register, and kept there, leaving it to their own consciences how they should vote.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 292; Noes 278.—(Division List, No. 40.)
    MR. P. J. O'BRIEN (Tipperary, N.): I beg to intimate to you, Mr. Speaker, that I voted in the "No" Lobby through an error.
    MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry I cannot help the hon. Member.
    Main Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL. (No. 192.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PRO VISIONAL ORDER (No. 8) BILL. (No. 193.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
  That they have agreed to,—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 8) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Walter Foster, Bill to con-firm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the urban sanitary districts of Gosport and Alverstoke, Harrow, Ilfracombe, Norwich, Ramsgate, and Redruth, ordered to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster and Mr. Shaw Lefevre.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 220.]

  INDUSTRIAL ANT) PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BiLL.
  On Motion of Mr. Lambert, Bill to give facilities to Industrial and Provident Societies for the Purchase of the Fee Simple of their Holdings, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lambert, Mr. James Rowlands. Mr. Bartley, Mr. ('banning, Mr. Henry J. Wilson, Mr. David Thomas, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Crilly, and Mr. Cameron Corbett.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 221.]
  It being after Seven of the clock, Mr. Speaker suspended the Sitting until Nine of the clock.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  SIR W. LAWSONmoved—
  "That an bumble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that whenever She bestows any title or honour on any of Her subjects She will be graciously pleased to issue a statement of the services for which such honours are bestowed, in the same manner as is done when the Victoria Cross is granted."
  He said, he thought that this was a short, unassuming, unpretentious, and practical Amendment. It had nothing to do with hereditary titles. He was not going to argue about that to-night, because he thought they were too absurd to be argued about at any time. It had

  411
  nothing to do with the House of Lords in its political capacity or functions. They would have plenty of opportunity of discussing that within the next few months or years. It had nothing to do with appointments involving the discharge of duties, or in reference to which certain services had to be performed. It had solely to do with marks of honour and distinction—such as peerages, knighthoods, baronetcies, stars, garters, and thistles. [Laughter.] The House laughed, but these decorations were much valued. It gave a man a pull to have some sort of handle to his name. Why it should be so he had no idea, except that he saw a good many things going on in this world which went to prove Carlyle's saying that there were 35,000,000 people in this country, mostly fools. They must have regard to the people amongst whom they lived. Take a baronetcy; he did not see any value in it; he had heard a baronet described as one who was not a nobleman and had ceased to be a gentleman. Notwithstanding this, they knew that titles and honours were sought after by the majority of mankind. In fact, all snobs wanted to be nobs; all asses sought thistles, and all Radicals wanted to be Peers. His Amendment, of course, was in the form of an Address to I lei-Majesty, and equally, of course, that was a matter of form. But, in his opinion, the Sovereign had nothing to do with the matter. The Sovereign was, as they all knew by the Constitution, the fountain of honour; but when the Sovereign distributed these honours the Sovereign acted for the Ministry of the day; the Ministry was responsible to that House, and the House was responsible to the country. Therefore, he said that these titles and honours belonged to the public. They talked now of Gladstone's Peers and Salisbury's Peers; and if they lived a little while longer, they would, no doubt, be speaking of Rosebery's Peers. Now, he wanted to make the Prime Minister more responsible to that House and to the country than he had hitherto been. The late Prime Minister said, in a memorable speech, that the time of that House was the property of the nation, and ho (Sir W. Lawson) said that these honours and titles were the property of the nation. If, therefore, they were not given for national purposes they were clearly misapplied. Mind, he was not censuring
  412
  anything that had been done in the past-He was not saying that the titles and honours and ribands and stars and garters and thistles conferred during the century had not been given for the very best of reasons to the very best and most deserving of people. In that respect he made no charge against anybody. What he wanted was that in the future it should be made more clear why these titles and honours were bestowed. He had sometimes thought that a Court of Revision in these matters, something like the Irish Land Court, would be rather a good thing, and that when a man had enjoyed a title or honour for two or three years he would be taken into Court and examined in order to see whether he was still worthy of it, and whether the man had ennobled the title in the same way that the title had ennobled the man. He thought there was something to be said for a tribunal of that kind. He remembered that when Lord Dudley was made a Peer it was proposed to admit him to the Council, but one of the Councillors got up and said he thought it was better that they should wait two or three years to see how he went on. That would be a very good principle to introduce in this matter. They might wait two or three years to see how the holders of titles and honours went on, and if they wont on the honour or title could be confirmed. But they need not go so far as that. Let them have the means of knowing which public honours wore given. By his Amendment it was proposed that the information should be given in the same way as when the Victoria Cross was conferred. The Victoria Cross was given for some heroic deed, such as saving a wounded man on the battlefield or rescuing a person from death by fire or water, and the recipient of the Victoria Cross considered it an honour to have the deed recorded on account of which it was conferred. He was sure that all those who were ennobled or who were made baronets or knights, or invested with stars, garters, or thistles, would be very glad that it should be recorded why they had got these honours and decorations. In the case of the soldier it should be recorded how many people he had killed; when a great politician got an honour it ought to be made known how many constituencies he had corrupted; and if he was a brewer it ought to be recorded how many barrels

  413
  of beer he had browed. Or when a man was removed to the Peerage because he was useless in the House of Commons it ought to be stated in his patent how self-sacrificing he was in consenting to be ennobled, inasmuch that being no good there he had gone to another place where he possibly could do some good. Such a record would be a very useful one, not only to the public, but to other people who wanted to get honours, as it would show them how to proceed. Above all things, an arrangement of this kind would make the whole proceeding open and above board, and remove them from the suspicion of favouritism and jobbery. Beyond all that, he thought it was a real onward step in a democratic direction that it should be made quite clear that public honours would be bestowed alone for public services rendered. Holding these views, he begged to move his Amendment.
  MR. LAMBERTsaid, he felt at a great disadvantage, after his witty friend had been addressing the House, in rising to second the Amendment, but he had much pleasure in doing so; and he wished it to be understood that he meant no disparagement of what had been done in the past. No doubt what had taken place was suitable to the times, but the proceedings of that period did not come up to the requirements of the present. They wanted to know now why titles were conferred? The Victoria Cross was instituted in 1856, and was conferred on those who had done deeds of gallantry. The Victoria Cross was none the less valued because the deed of valour had been specified so that the country knew why it had been granted. On the contrary, he believed it was all the more valued. The Victoria Cross honour only lasted for life, whereas others were hereditary, and certainly, if it was thought desirable to record the service rendered in respect of an honour which only lasted for life, it was all the more desirable that where the honour was hereditary a full statement should be given as to why it had been granted. Many of them would like to know how it was that the transference of a man from that
  414
  House to another House should so ennoble him and invigorate his blood that his sous were afterwards qualified to legislate for the country? It would be a great advantage to the successors of noblemen if they were able to specify, to use a Yankeeism, what their ancestors had done to gain the title and honour which should "reverberate through the corridors of eternity." He noticed that a Bill was introduced into the House the other day which would relieve Peers from being immured in "that living sepulchre" the House of Lords. He should think it would be a considerable gratification to them, and their grief might be assuaged if, instead of having to earn the Biblical formula of "Well done, thou good and faithful servant, go up higher," they might, as good sons of good and faithful fathers, go up higher by virtue of the published merits of their predecessors. This Amendment should be supported in the interests of the history of the country, for how many illustrious pages might be added to the country's history if there was a, record of the deeds of valour or other deeds which ennobled the recipients of honours and gave them a place in the hereditary Peerage. There was, so far as he could see, no objection whatever to this Amendment, especially as it was not compulsorily retrospective. The proposal would tend to inculcate respect for a title. There were irreverent people who had no respect for titles, and he was not surprised at it, for he himself had heard of one person who seceded to one Party in order to be made a Baronet, and then returned to his own to be made a Peer. If rewards were to be given for political apostasy, let them know it, so that people could see what were the qualifications necessary to unlock the golden gate of nobility. Where there was a good reason for conferring a title there was all the more reason why the particulars should be made known. Although this Motion was not retrospective, he believed that if it passed into law many of the members of "our old nobility" would take steps to register the record of their titles, and thereby justify, or endeavour to justify, the honours which they enjoyed. He saw no reason why the Government should not, but every reason why they should, accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words
  "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that whenever She bestows any title or honour on any of Her subjects She will be graciously pleased to issue a statement of the services for which such honours are bestowed, in the same manner as is done when the Victoria Cross is granted."—(Sir W. Lawson,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OK THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): Suppose it is expected that I should give my hon. Friend some information on this subject; but I am sorry to say I am not in a position to do so, as I have never been in a position to dispense honours. It seems to me there is a difficulty in the proposal of my hon. Friend. The truth is, that in old days this practice used to obtain. I have seen a great many of the old patents of nobility, very long documents, which contained all the styles and titles and all the merits and virtues of their recipients. They corresponded very much to epitaphs. They detailed a great many virtues which nobody ever suspected their owners possessed. It is said De mortuis nil nisi, bonum. I will say De honoratis nil nisi optimum. It would be an invidious task, I am quite sure, to attribute to the recipients of honours a great number of merits which nobody ever believed them to possess. If, for instance, I had to ascribe the hereditary honours which my hon. Friend (Sir W. Lawson) possesses, I should attribute to him every virtue under the sun, except that which I observe he attributed to the Victoria Cross, that of having saved some people from water. If, on the other hand, my hon. Friend had to give me a character for the more trausient honour which I hold, I am quite sure he would extol me far beyond my merits. On occasions when these honour are bestowed, you see in the daily organs of the Press extraordinary enlogiums upon the recipients of these honours. I hope my hon. Friend will admit that, whatever crimes may be attributed to the two Front Benches, they have not been guilty of indulging themselves in decorations.
  416
  When we have, Mr. Speaker, the honour of dining at your hospitable board, we very seldom display a decoration. But there are people who attach enormous value to these distinctions. I do not know why it is. Lord Melbourne observed that there was only one Order in the world worth having, and that was the Garter, because there was no merit attached to it at all, and it was that which made it the first Order in Europe. I do not think to go into these matters in this extremely solemn, serious, and improving manner is the best method of dealing with them. I have always thought that in works of romance the romances which have a moral object are among the dullest and the poorest and the worst; and if you have decorations, and in the same way endeavour to attach a moral value to them, you destroy their interest very much. There is a good deal of amusing speculation in these decorations—first, as to why in the world the person desired to have them, and in the next place why he obtained them. It would spoil very much indeed this interesting speculation if we descended to details. I am reminded of the flies in amber—
  "We know they're neither rich nor rare;
  We wonder how, in the name of fortune, they got there."
  I think there are in this world a great many people who get a great deal more than they deserve. On the other hand, there are a great many people who, perhaps, get a great deal less than they deserve. That reminds me of the story of Lord Erskine at the Bar. Somebody said it must be a great disappointment to him when he failed to obtain a verdict. His reply was—
  "Well, I lose a good many verdicts I ought to have won, but, on the other hand, I win a great many verdicts I ought to have lost, and so, on an average, justice is done."
  That is very much the same in this respect. A great many people get distinctions they do not deserve, and a great many people deserve distinctions and do not get them; but, on an average, justice is done. Under those circumstances, I hope my hon. Friend will not disturb a state of things which, on the whole, may not be ideally perfect, but which accommodates itself very much to the weakness of human nature. "After all," as a great writer observed, "there is a good

  417
  deal of human nature about man," and that being so I do not think that we had better endeavour to reach these counsels of perfection, and under those circumstances I am afraid I cannot support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 34.—(Division List, No. 40.)
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  THE GOLD AND SILVER QUESTION.
  MR. S. SMITHsaid, he feared that he could not promise the House as interesting a discussion as that which had just taken place, but the subject he wished to bring before the House was at least as important as the former one. He believed that, according to the Rules of the House, he could not move the Resolution of which he had given notice, but he could, of course, draw attention to the subject with which it dealt. The Notice he had placed on the Paper was as follows:—
  "To attention to the Gold and Silver questio and to move. 'That, in view of the continued depression in Trade and Agriculture, and the dislocation of exchanges between Gold and Silver using countries, it is desirable that a stable par of exchange between Silver and Gold should be established by International agreement.'"
  It might be thought by some too soon to raise this question after it was disposed of last year; but the House would remember that most important events had happened since then. The Mints of India and the United States had both been closed to silver, and the effect had been to drive down the price of silver from 38d. to 29d.; indeed, it touched 27d. not long ago, and all the evils caused by the demonetisation of silver had been gravely aggravated. He regretted that he could not take the judgment of the House on this question. A great change in public opinion had taken place since last year, and he was not without hopes that if it were possible to move this Resolution, and the Government were to leave the House free to exercise its judgment, a majority would affirm the bimetallic principle. Anyone who was present at the great Conference held during the last two days in the City must have felt that the question had at last
  418
  taken hold of the financial classes. It was no longer viewed as it used to be, but was being very seriously discussed by the heads of some of the great financial houses. He had had great pleasure in hearing a letter read in Mr. Lidderdale's presence, stating that that gentleman might now be regarded as in large sympathy with the views of the bimetallists. Mr. Lidderdale was probably the most prominent man in the City of London at the present time, and he was only one of many who had been slowly coming round to the bimetallic view. He (Mr. Smith) did not think that the Government were in the least aware of the extent to which this question had gained ground in the country. He wished, in the first place, to call attention to the great depression in trade, which ho believed was mainly the result of the phenomenal fall of prices caused by the demonetisation of silver. He spoke as one who had had 40 years' experience of the cotton trade of Lancashire, and he said it had never been in so desperate a condition before as it had been in the last few years. Profits had almost vanished, and the trade was slowly leaving the country and being transferred to the silver-using countries of Asia. He would give the House two or three figures which would place the matter in the clearest light. He would give the comparative increase of consumption of cotton in the last 20 years in England, on the Continent, in the United States, and in India. The increase in England had been only 17 per cent., or less than 1 per cent. per annum, whilst during the last three years there had been a steady decrease—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. S. SMITHwent on to say that, whilst the increase of the consumption of cotton in England during the last 20 years had been 17 per cent., the increase on the Continent had been 123 per cent.; in the United States it had been 125 per cent.; and in India it had been 680 per cent. To put it another way, 20 years ago England consumed 46 per cent. of all the cotton in the world, while last year she only consumed 29 per cent. He would only trouble the House with one more reference to figures—namely, those relating to the shipment of yarns from

  419
  this country to the far East as compared with the shipments from India. In 1876 the shipments of yarns from this country to the far East amounted to 30,000,000 lbs., while last year they were rather less than 28,000,000"lbs.,"showing a declining trade. But let the House mark the difference in India. In 1876 the shipments were only 6,000,000 lbs., while last year they were 132,000,000 lbs., or more than four times as much as they were from England. He asserted that the main cause of this transference of trade was the enormous fall in the price of silver, which acted as a huge bounty on Indian manufactures. The English manufacturer got paid 40 per cent. less in gold from all Asiatic markets than he did 20 years ago, but he had to pay about the same wages and fixed charges; and as a result he found himself almost ground to death, while his competitor in India, China, and Japan sold his goods and paid his wages in the same standard as before—a standard that had scarcely varied in 20 years—and ho reaped such large profits that his trade developed by leaps and bounds at our expense. As a matter of fact, profit had almost gone out of the Lancashire cotton trade. The Oldham Joint Stock Mills, a vast industry employing £6,000,000 of capital, had only averaged 2½ per cent. dividend for the past 10 years, and the capital value of the stock had fallen to something like a third of what it was. From what ho knew of the trade, the bulk of private concerns were no bettor off. The fact was, if matters did not improve, they were threatened with a catastrophe in Lancashire. On the other hand, the profits in India were very large up till last year, when the Mints were closed and the rupee was forced up. The profits in Japan were so large that last year 40 cotton mills divided from 10 to 25 per cent., and they were in consequence running new mills up like mushrooms, and taking away the trade by which the people of Lancashire lived. This state; of things opened up a dreary vista, of endless labour disputes, as employers, to avoid bankruptcy, were forced to bring down wages, which the Trade Unionists were equally determined to resist. He could not speak with the same knowledge of other textile industries, but he understood that the state of the woollen industry was very bad. The iron trade was pro-
  420
  bably as bad as the cotton trade. The make of pig-iron had fallen from 8,250,000 tons to 6,750,000 in four years; indeed, this great trade seemed to be leaving the country. They were all familiar with the depressed condition of the coal trade, and another labour war seemed looming in the near future. On agriculture he need not say a word; the facts were so notorious. The painful feature of the situation was the decay of the great producing industries by which the masses of the people lived. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) would no doubt point to the elasticity of the Income Tax Returns. He quite admitted that he was himself puzzled by this fact, as it did not in the least correspond with the condition of trade. The marvellous way in which the Income Tax keeps up was, he believed, owing to the extraordinary profits of the distributing trades, which bought goods wholesale at 40 per cent. decline as compared with 20 years ago whereas retail prices were relatively much higher. The great cause of the depression of the producing industries was the almost continuous decline of prices since 1873. when silver demonetisation commenced, being over 40 per cent. It was hopeless to attempt to carry on business profitably with such a decline; it crippled all enterprise, led to constant loss, and reduced trade to stagnation. No surer sign of this existed than the extraordinarily low rate of interest for discounting first-class bills. The inevitable result of this state of things was increasing friction in the relations of employer and employed. There had been more violent labour wars and more misery among the working classes last year than in any year since the Chartist riots. If the decline went on labour wars would become more and more disastrous, and a great increase of Socialism would be the inevitable result. We now hear every winter the wail of the unemployed, and if this process went on it would become worse and worse. The same state of things existed on the Continent and in the United States. In all those countries the same great depression existed with bitter labour wars and the great growth of anarchy. One common cause accounted for it all; they were all suffering from the extraordinary decline of prices, which paralysed trade and practically confiscated the capital of the

  421
  active industrial class for the benefit of the money-lending and mortgage-holding class. No competent economist except Mr. Griffen doubted that the main cause of this trouble was the demonetisation of silver and the consequent appreciation of gold. The history of this century showed the enormous influence of monetary causes. The dreariest time in our country was the period from 1815 to 1848, when prices fell 50 per cent. after the resumption of cash payments, which practically doubled the weight of the huge national debt. Then came the wonderful revival caused very largely by the gold discoveries in Australia and California, when prices rose 40 per cent. in 20 years, and that, too, in spite of an immense increase in production, and the introduction of railways, steamers, and telegraphs. That was the most buoyant period we ever had, and the last 20 years had been just the opposite. The demonetisation of silver had practically undone the effect of the gold discoveries, and prices were now considerably lower than in 1848, or any time, in this country. Let the House contrast the two periods—the one all hopefulness, with trade advancing by leaps and bounds, and the other marked by almost continued depression. In the first period our exports rose from £63,000,000 in 1849 to £255,000,000 in 1873; while they fell back last year to £218,500,000. If we had to choose between an appreciating and a depreciating standard, surely it was much better to have the latter. Many people held a strong opinion that cheap prices were good things. His opinion was, that cheap prices which were due to an appreciating standard were an evil, and nothing but an evil. The great fall in prices bad been the result not of the economising of production, but of the appreciation of the standard. The economising of production was in full force during the previous 20 years without producing a similar result. No explanation could be given of the enormous fall of the last 20 years except that by the closing of the Mints against silver one-half of the money supply of the world had been prevented from doing its proper work. The beneficial effect of a large supply of money was well put by the economist Jevons, who said—
  "I cannot but agree with M' Culloch that. putting out of sight individual causes of hard-
  422
  ship, if such exist, a fall in the value of gold must have a most powerfully beneficial effect. It loosens the country, as nothing else could, from its old bonds of debt and habit. ft throws increased rewards before all who are making and acquiring wealth somewhat at the expense of those who are enjoying acquired wealth. It excites the active and skilful classes of the community to new exertions, and is to some extent like a discharge from his debts is to the bankrupt, long struggling with his burdens."
  The period 1850–73 had the benefit of this influence, so well expounded by Jevons. The period since then, thanks to the demonetisation of silver, had had just the opposite, and prices were now lower than at any time within this century. The fall of 40 per cent. since 1873 brought them to a considerably lower scale of prices than in 1848, for the House would observe that a fall of 40 per cent. being calculated on a higher figure was much more than the rise of 40 per cent. Take 100 as the average price of 1848, a rise of 40 per cent. took it to 140, but a fall of 40 per cent. on this figure took it to 84, or 16 per cent. under the prices of 1848. A common feature marked these periods of a great fall of prices. It was the virtual transference to the mortgagee of much of the property of the nation. Land, houses, factories, industrial plant that wore burdened to 50 per cent. of their value 20 years ago, were now, through the fall of prices, burdened to 80 or 90 per cent. of their value, and in vast numbers of cases the mortgagee had foreclosed. This was felt just as much in the United States, and in France and Germany, as in England. The small farmers in those countries were crushed to death by the money-lenders, and immense social bitterness was the result. Another inevitable result was the growth of protection. All producers in those countries sought to keep up prices by constantly adding to their tariff's, and no country had suffered so much as ours from this process. Most wonderfully had the prediction of the far-sighted man, Ernest Seyd, been fulfilled. Writing in 1871, when the crusade against silver was just beginning, he said—
  "The strong doctrinism existing in England as regards the gold valuation was so blind that when the time of depression set in there would be this especial feature—the economical authorities of the country would refuse to listen to the cause here foreshadowed. Every possible attempt would be made to prove that the

  423
  decline of commerce was due to all sorts of causes and irreconcilable matters. The workman and his strikes would be the first convenient target, then speculation and over-trading would have their turn. Later on, foreign' nations, unable to pay in silver, would have recourse to Protection. When a number of other secondary causes developed themselves, then many would-be wise men would have the opportunity of pointing to specific reasons which, in their eyes, accounted for the falling off in every branch of trade. Many other allegations would be made, totally irrelevant to the real issue, but satisfactory to the moralising tendency of financial writers. The great danger of the time would then be that among all this confusion and strife England's supremacy in commerce and manufactures might go backwards to an extent which could not be redressed when the real cause became recognised and the natural remedy was applied."
  These were just the explanations they heard nowadays from many would-be wise men. The City articles written in the interest of the financial class in London—and the same was true of Paris, Berlin, and New York—had tried for a long time to throw dust in the eyes of the democracy, but the time was near at hand when this conspiracy would be unmasked, and he ventured to predict that some statesmen who were now opposing this movement would experience sudden conversions. The time was far too short for him to go into other aspects of this great question. It would not be fair to subsequent speakers, but it might be expected that he should say a word or two about the crux of the question—namely the ratio to be established. He only spoke for himself, but he did not believe it was either possible or expedient to go back to 15½ to 1. His own leaning was to 22 or 24 to 1, which was about the present position of the respective yield of the metals measured by weight. This would correspond with the rupee at about 1s. 3d. As to the possibility of maintaining that rate by international agreement, he would only say that a Royal Commission of the ablest and most competent men were practically unanimous that it could be done. That opinion was expressed by Lord Herschell, who still adhered to it, and he asserted that no other opinion was possible upon the evidence submitted to them. They simply asserted that what was done in the past could be done again, and done better, because it could be done in a much more scientific manner. He
  424
  strongly suspected that this country would repeat the story of the Roman King and the Cumæan sibyl. Twice the sibyl brought her books to the King, big with the fate of Rome; twice he refused to give her the price, and each time she burned a portion and raised the price. The third time she came with the remaining volumes, and he was glad to give the enhanced price she asked. Twice this country had been asked by some of the greatest Rowers in the world to aid them in setting up the old bimetallic system, and twice she refused. The time might come before long when she would go cap in hand to ask them to join her, and find the bargain a much harder one to drive than would have been the case had she been wise in time.
  MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)said, he had much pleasure in supporting the Motion. He could not profess to follow the hon. Member, who had such an intimate knowledge of the subject, into the wide aspects of the bimetallic question, but he proposed to deal with the question from the point of view of the Irish peasant farmer, and, therefore, of the whole of the Irish people. The Irish peasant farmer was a man who had to pay every year certain sums to the landlord or to the State, and that sum had been increasing year by year. Of course, be knew there were some people who still denied that there had been any appreciation of gold. The argument seemed a strange one. On the one hand, they were told that the precious metals, like everything else, were governed by the laws of supply and demand. If they were, would it not be the greatest breach of the laws of supply and demand ever known for gold not to have appreciated? Everything had been done that could be done to produce the appreciation of gold. The supply of gold had very slightly increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an exclamation of surprise at that statement. The increase in the supply of gold—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present:—
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Ten o'clock till Monday next.