Commons Sitting of 25 May 1894

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER EASINGWOLD RAILWAY, &c.) BILL (by Order).— (No. 206.)
SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. A. C. MORTONmoved, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He said, he hoped that some information would be given to the House by the replies of the Board of Trade with regard to the measure, and particularly whether it authorised the charging of the prohibitive rates on this railway which were charged on other railways. The Bill appeared to be a very innocent one in the guise in which it was presented to the House. Of course, if it were only a Bill affecting the Easingwold Railway, he did not suppose that he would have found occasion for interference, but as a matter of fact he found that the words "et cetera" indicated that the Bill applied to quite a number of railways in England, and Scotland, and Ireland. The House would remember that the Railway Rates and Charges Bill came into operation in 1893. Some of the charges were opposed by various Members of the House in 1892; but Parliament voted the revised rates in ignorance of what their effect would be, and there was a general increase of rates all through the country, to the very serious damage of the traders and agriculturists. Ever since that time efforts had been made with the intention of reducing the rates, and at length a Bill had been introduced into Parliament as the result of very much agitation which would prevent the continuance of such charges by railway monopolies as were
1258
injurious to trade. That Bill was now before the House. It proposed to do something for the relief of the classes to which he had referred. He did not know whether it would come to anything, or if it would he useful in any case. However, the Bill was intended to do good to the traders and agriculturists, and he must say that he was very much astonished that, at the moment it was before the House, the Board of Trade permitted another Bill to be brought forward which would confer upon half a dozen Railway Companies the very powers of making maximum charges to which so much objection was taken. He knew they would be told by the Board of Trade that the Companies had power to make these charges under the Act of 1891–92, but it appeared to him that in common decency they ought to ask that the particular Companies affected by this Bill should at least wait until they saw what was likely to become of the Public Bill promoted in that House. Surely no serious difficulty could arise from a delay of that kind. He was not going to labour this question. Probably the majority of hon. Members of that House had been asked by their constituents to do something with regard to this matter; and promises having been made that the traders and the agriculturalists should be relieved, he contended that the Government ought not to grant the Railway Companies any powers in excess of those which they possessed at present. They had a right to protest against the action of these monopolist railways; and in the interests of the public, and especially having regard to the fact that the Bill dealing with the public interests in the matter was to be brought before the House, he hoped that the House would reject the Motion.
MR. A. CROSSseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. A. C. Morton?)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BURT, Morpeth)said, that notices had been issued to the traders affected inquiring whether they had any objections to this Bill, and no such objec-

1259
tions had been received. He appreciated the efforts of his hon. Friend (Mr. Morton) in the protection of the interests of the traders and of the community at large, but he would point out to him, and assure him of the fact, that this Bill would reduce and not increase the powers of the Railway Companies in respect of their charges. He had no doubt that the opposition of his hon. Friend to the Bill would win the gratitude of the Railway Companies.
DR. HUNTERsaid, the railways affected by this Bill were very small ones, and it would be extremely inconvenient and objectionable if these lines, which formed part of the large systems, were treated differently to the general system of railways. The reason why no traders had objected to this Bill was that the measure was one that was advantageous to them.
SIR J. PEASEsaid, the Easingwold Railway was owned and kept up by the landlords and agriculturists of the district, and the North Eastern Company afforded them every facility, but the tolls and charges were in the hands of the proprietors of the district. The railway was a very useful one that ought to be encouraged in every possible manner.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 12.—(Division List, No. 57.)
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  VENEZUELAN IMPORT DUTIES.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government are taking any steps to counteract the loss to British trade, as much at Home as in the Colony of Trinidad, caused by the 30 per cent. Import Duty levied by Venezuela upon British goods from the West Indian Antilles, and the consequent gain to Germany whose exports are exempt from such surtax; and if he is aware that President Crespo has had absolutely in draft a Bill to abolish a custom differ-
  1260
  entiation as prejudicial to the Republic as to Great Britain, but has been prevented by German commercial influence at Caracas from bringing it before Congress?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,: An additional 30 per cent. on imports from the West Indies was imposed by Venezuela in 1881. In 1892 a Decree was issued abolishing the extra duties, but we have not heard that this Decree was ever confirmed by the Legislature, nor of any action on the part of Germany at Caracas with regard to it. Negotiations cannot be entered into till diplomatic relations are resumed.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Will the hon. Baronet take the opportunity to point out the effect of these extra duties on British goods?
  SIR E. GREY: The Venezuelan Government are fully aware of our views, but of course we can take no action until diplomatic relations have been resumed.

IRTSH POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION.
MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that under the late Government the Local Government Board in Ireland frequently overruled the decisions of Nationalist Boards of Guardians, even when those decisions were within the law; and whether he will direct the Local Government Board now to adopt the same course in dealing with the decision of the Edenderry Board of Guardians in the case of the labourer Macnamara?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The Local Government Board inform me that it is not clear to them to what cases the hon. Gentleman refers in the first paragraph of the question. Regarding the action of the Edenderry Board of Guardians in the case of Macnamara, I pointed out, in replying to a previous question on this subject on the 10th instant, that the course adopted by the Guardians was contrary to the spirit and intention of the Labourers' Act, and that the Local Government Board would so acquaint the Guardians. The Board, however, have no controlling power in connection with the selection of tenants

1261
for cottages under these Acts. I understand that at a meeting of the Guardians to be held to-morrow the Guardians will reconsider their determination to give the cottage in this particular case to the labourer who is at present in occupation.
MB. MACARTNEYinquired if the Local Government Board in Ireland had any rule which enabled them to distinguish in their treatment between Nationalist and other Boards of Guardians?
MR. J. MORLEYreplied in the negative.

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS.
MR. A. CROSS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, under "The Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893," every buyer of any parcel of fertilisers or feeding stuffs is entitled to have the parcel sampled and analysed under the provisions of that Act, and that quite irrespective of whether he be a farmer, a dealer, or a manufacturer, and at the rate of fees fixed under the Act by the public Local Authority?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I have no authority to decide any questions which may arise as to the interpretation of the Act in question; but I have no objection to say that I am advised that every bona fide buyer of a fertiliser or feeding stuff within the meaning of the Act is entitled, on payment of the fee sanctioned by the Local Authority, to have an analysis of the article under Section 5 of the Act, irrespective of any question of whether he be a farmer, manufacturer, or dealer.

MINERAL OILS.
MR. A. CROSS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of his Department has been directed to the serious dangers to which the public are exposed from the public sale and use of burning oils of low flash point, sanctioned by the legal flash limit of 73° Fah., especially in view of the experience of temperature during last summer, during which the shade temperature record shows (between April and September) 60 days on which 73° Fah. and upwards was registered, 20 days on which temperature was from 80 to 90°
1262
Fah., and three days when it was from 90 to 103° Fah., in London?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,)(who replied)said: The question of the flash point of mineral oil is, as I have said before on more than one occasion, an extremely disputable one; and, while representations have been made on the one side in favour of raising the flash point, other authorities are strongly opposed to any alteration to the same, this flash point having been adopted, after very careful experimental inquiry, as the equivalent in the closed test of the former flash point in the open test. The matter is one which would, no doubt, occupy the attention of any Committee of Inquiry which may hereafter be appointed on the subject of petroleum legislation.
MR. PAUL: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to appoint the Committee on the Petroleum Acts which he promised us some time ago?
MR. ASQUITH: I should be glad to appoint the Committee, but there has been some little difficulty in securing Members to serve on it and in deciding on the terms of Reference. The matter is, however, still having my careful consideration, and there shall be no avoidable delay.

COMMONERS' RIGHTS.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government will bring in a Bill for the purpose of removing any doubts as to whether commoners, who, in right of their holdings, turn cattle and sheep on the common lands of a parish, come under the Ground Game Act of 1881, and so enable the commoners to protect themselves from the damage done by the rabbits which eat or pollute the grass growing thereon to the prejudice of their flocks and herds, and from any interference by the lord of the manor or his keepers?
MR. ASQUITH: There are no "doubts" on the question. The Ground Game Act, 1880, expressly provides that—
"A person shall not be deemed an occupier of land for the purposes of this Act by reason of his having a right of common over such lands."
The Home Office has not heard of any

1263
cases of injury such as described by my hon. Friend's question. It is not a matter in which the Government propose legislation.

THE MISSING "HAVOCK" PLANS.
MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the plans of the Havock, which were stolen from Messrs. Yarrow and Co., have found their way into the Naval Intelligence Department of the United States?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): The Admiralty have no information on this subject.

ROYAL MARINE TRANSPORT SERVICE.
MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the transport service of the Royal Marines is so weak that a battalion of Marines, recently despatched from Portsmouth to Aldershot, had to requisition the Army Service Corps for horses and waggons, and even men; and whether, as in the event of war the Royal Marines are usually called on to furnish at least one battalion, he will take steps to provide an efficient transport service for that force?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The object for which the Royal Marines are maintained is service afloat. It is not considered desirable, therefore, to provide them with regimental transport similar to that of regiments of the Line. I am, however, informed that such a regiment, in marching from Portsmouth to Aldershot, would have to requisition transport in the same way as is necessary in the case of a battalion of Marines.

"INDULGENCE" PASSAGES FROM INDIA.
MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, as it has been the custom for officers proceeding from India or returning to their duties to occasionally be granted (when there was room) transport accommodation on one of Her Majesty's troopships, and as that service is about to be abolished, the Government, in making contracts for the transmission of troops to and from India by private firms, will take into their consideration the advisa-
1264
bility of making arrangements by which officers shall not (when space permits) be deprived of the privilege of obtaining passages on the ships to convey the troops which they have hitherto enjoyed?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): Indulgence passages will be granted when there is room in the transports taken up for the Indian Trooping Service of 1894-5 on the same conditions as in the past.

TRAINING SHIPS ON THE IRISH COAST.
MR. ROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty has his attention been called to a Memorial presented to the First Lord of the Admiralty by the Londonderry Chamber of Commerce praying for the establishment of a training ship in Lough Foyle, and pointing out the exceptional advantages likely to accrue from compliance with the prayer of the Memorial; and does he propose to take any steps in relation to the matter?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Memorial was received by the First Lord, and an answer was sent that the matter would receive the attention of the Admiralty in the event of an increase in the number of training ships being ever contemplated.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of a training ship being sent to Ireland, he does not consider Queenstown has stronger claims than any other part of Ireland?
MR. ROSS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is much more material for Admiralty purposes in Donegal and Londonderry than in any other part of Ireland?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: These are hypothetical questions which I cannot answer. If an additional training ship were added, the claims put forward would be carefully considered.

ALLEGED INTIMIDATION IN IRELAND.
MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the language of Mr. John M'Inerney, chairman of a

1265
meeting organised for the purpose of condemning Mr. Thomas Donnellan, calling on the people to boycott Mr. Donnellan, reported in The Limerick Leader, 7th May, and to a resolution passed to the same effect; and whether the Government propose to take any steps in the matter?
MR. J. MORLEY: My attention has been drawn to a newspaper report of the proceedings at the meeting referred to. It was originally contemplated to hold the meeting beside the farm now occupied by Mr. Dounellan; but the promoters having been informed that no meeting would be allowed there, it was held at a distance of two miles away in another county. There is no legal evidence of the speeches made at the meeting, and, apart from this, I am informed that there was no local sympathy whatever with the promoters of the meeting, and that it is not anticipated it will have any injurious effect upon Mr. Dounellan, who still retains the farm.
MR. ROSS: Was the meeting lawful or unlawful?
MR. J. MORLEY: If it had been held at the place originally chosen it would have been unlawful; but it was not held there. I may add that, in the opinion of those who are responsible for order in Ireland, much more harm than good is done to the persons concerned by calling attention to these cases, though, of course, when harm has been done, I perfectly agree that every Member of the House would be within his right to call attention to it. The proposition I submit is that, where no harm is done to anyone, it is better to leave the matter alone.
MR. MACARTNEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman cite any instance in which injury has been inflicted by questions of this nature?
MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot, but I have an opinion which is confirmed by experience and rational expectation alike.
MR. ROSSasked how the question of locality affected the legality of a meeting?
MR. J. MORLEY: I should think that the argument is pretty clear. If it was held in a certain place it might probably lead to violence, and would be illegal, whereas if held at a considerable distance there is less danger.
1266
In reply to a further observation by Mr. Ross
MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he should prefer to act on the advice of his legal advisers than upon that of the hon. Member.

SECONDARY EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND.
MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government expects to introduce any legislation dealing with the question of secondary education in Scot-laud during the present Session; and whether, failing such, he will move that an Address be addressed to Her Gracious Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission on Secondary Education in Scotland?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The County Committees appointed last year have already done much work, and are gaining additional experience by the operation of their schemes. I do not think it would be well at present to do anything to interfere with the work upon which they are engaged.

CORDITE AND THE MAXIM GUN.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the result of the experiments made at Aldershot and elsewhere since the 4th of September, 1893, with the view of ascertaining how many 303 cordite powder cartridges with nickel-covered bullets can be fired from the Maxim gun before the barrel becomes unfit for accurate shooting?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No experiments have been made with the barrels of the Service Maxim gun, but at recent experiments at Hythe two experimental barrels fired 10,000 rounds each of cordite ammunition with nickel-covered bullets. At the termination of the trial the accuracy was as good as when the barrels were new, and each barrel was reported to be fit to fire several thousand rounds more.
MR. WEIR: The Report issued last year stated that experiments were being carried out at Aldershot. Were they carried out?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; my information is that no such experiments have been made with the

1267
barrel of the Service gun. Only experimental barrels were used.

SCOTCH RETURNING OFFICERS' TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether Returning Officers in Scotland are entitled to charge 1s. per mile for travelling expenses of Presiding Officers in cases where these officers travel by rail at a cost of 3d. per mile first-class fare?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: By the Returning Officers (Scotland) Act, 1891, Section 3 and Schedule, a Returning Officer may make a maximum charge of Is. per mile for travelling expenses of Presiding Officers within the Sheriffdom, but it is provided that the charges are in no case to exceed the sums actually paid or payable. When 3d. per mile only, therefore, has been paid, it would seem illegal to allow any farther charge.

FREE BOOKS IN THE LESMAHAGOW SCHOOL.
MR. JACKS: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the report of a meeting of the Lesmahagow School Board, held in the Jubilee Hall, Lesma-hagow, on the 3rd instant, at which the Chairman is reported to have said that for the present year £123 13s. 1d. had been paid for the providing of books to save the reduction of the grant; if he is aware that it is currently denied that any scholars receive books free of charge at that school; and if he will say who received the books to the value stated?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: The circumstances to which the hon. Member refers have not been brought before the Department, and I have no means of knowing the special application of the amount named as spent upon books. There are 11 schools under the management of the Lesmabagow School Board, and it is not stated to which of the schools the question refers. Perhaps my hon. Friend will provide me with particulars.

THE CURRENCY OF BRITISH HONDURAS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the cause of the continuous delay in giving effect to the decision of Her Majesty's Government granting a
1268
gold standard of currency to the Colony of British Honduras; and, having regard to the fact that the trade of the colony is represented as being paralysed and the public finances in a deplorable state through the want of a stable currency, whether the necessary arrangements will now be pushed forward so as to bring the gold standard into operation at the earliest possible date?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The measures required for effecting a complete change of the currency of a colony involve many important questions which can only be decided after careful and deliberate consideration necessarily entailing delay. The Secretary of State is aware of the anxiety of the colonists of British Honduras for the introduction of the gold standard, and he will do all in his power to expedite the matter.

HORWICH NATIONAL SCHOOL.
MR. SNAPE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the assistant mistress of the Horwich National School recently received notice from the head mistress that she must immediately leave her lodgings or lose her situation, because upon her own admission she was lodging with a Unitarian, the head mistress stating that she was or would be supported by the vicar in the matter; and whether the Department will take action to reverse this requirement and to prevent its recurrence?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): The Department have no information as to the alleged occurrence. The responsibility with regard to appointment and dismissal of teachers rests, of course, with the managers of a school and not with the head teacher. If the managers of a school act in the manner described, the Department have at present no power to interfere. I am considering the question of bringing in a Bill at the first favourable opportunity, with the view of giving a reasonable degree of security of tenure to teachers, but I am not sure whether it would cover a case of this sort.

REGISTRY OF DEEDS (IRELAND) STAFF.
MR. FIELD: J. beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the salaries received by the Second Class of the old staff of the Registry of Deeds (Ireland) are, owing to the classification in force at the time of their appointment, less, service for service, than those enjoyed by members of any other equally important Department under the control of the Treasury, some improvement, personal to its existing members, might be made in the position of the Second Class, without permanently or materially increasing the Departmental Estimate?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY "(Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The duties of these clerks are duties proper to the Second Division, and will hereafter be performed by clerks of that Division. The scale of the Second Class is better than that of the Second Division, and, service for service, their salaries are higher. I cannot, therefore, admit the assumption on which this question rests, nor can I undertake to improve the position of existing members of the Second Class.

CURRAGH CAMP.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the building operations on the Curragh Camp are to be still further delayed; whether, in view of the want of employment in the locality, he would insist on the progress of the works, as previously promised by his Department; and whether the War Office intend to use Killaloe slates in Irish buildings?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Preparations for a further contract for works at the Curragh arc being made; but as the contract will be a very large one, the necessary plans and other documents will not be completed for some time to come. As regards the use of Killaloe slates, I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member for North Tipperary on the 26th ultimo.
MR. FIELD: When is it probable that the work will be commenced?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say; the specifications are now being prepared.
MR. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman press the work on?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I will do all I can.

COMPULSORY EDUCATION IN DUBLIN.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any Code of Regulations for carrying into effect the compulsory clauses of the Education Act of 1892 in the City of Dublin has been approved of by the Commissioners of National Education, or whether any such Code has yet been submitted by the Corporation of Dublin to the Commissioners of National Education, or by the Commissioners to the Corporation; and, if so, when?
MR. J. MORLEY: I called for a Report on this question yesterday, but have not yet received it, and must ask the hon. Gentleman, therefore, to defer the question until Monday next.

THE EVICTED TENANTS' BILL.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can insert a clause in the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill to meet such cases as that of John Mackey, of Penrath, Waterford, as otherwise it might possibly be held by the arbitrators that it was not an eviction within the ordinary acceptation of the term "evicted tenant," inasmuch as it was a question of disputed title and not for non-payment of rent the eviction was effected?
MR. J. MORLEY: I think the proper answer to this question is that it is impossible to consider detailed cases merely referred to by the name of the person, and then to ask me whether I consider such cases come within the purview of the Bill, and if they do not, whether I will alter the Bill so as to bring them within it. I do not think I can undertake to deal with the Bill in that spirit or from that point of view.

SURVEYORS' STATIONARY CLERKS.
MR. WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why, when the new establishment of surveyor's stationary clerks was created in August last, and three classes of stationary clerks appointed for England and Wales —namely, head stationary clerks, assistant head stationary clerks, and stationary clerks, no assistant head stationary clerks were appointed for either Scotland or Ireland; and whether he will take steps

1271
to place all these clerks, both in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, on a footing of equality?
MR. A. MORLEY: In Scotland and Ireland the amount of work devolving on the surveyor's stationary offices is much less than it is in England and Wales, and the stationary staff is correspondingly less. It is not considered necessary that in either Scotland or Ireland there should be, as in England and Wales, an assistant head stationary clerk.

MOUNT WISE BATHING PLACE. DEVONPORT.
MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the work necessary to prevent the pollution of the public bathing place at Mount Wise, Devonport, is not yet in hand; and whether he can state when it will be commenced, and also the length of time required for its completion?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The contract for this work has been accepted, and orders have been given for its immediate commencement. It is hoped that the service will be completed within six weeks.

THE CHARGES AGAINST DR. PENTLAND.
MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what has been the result of the promised inquiry into the charges made against Dr. Pentland respecting the conduct of his duties as dispensary medical officer at Dromod, Leitrim?
MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board inform me that their Medical Inspector visited Dromod on the 9th instant, and after careful inquiry satisfied himself that Dr. Pentland has a residence there which he has regularly occupied since June, 1893, and that such residence is within the dispensary district for which he acts as medical officer. The cases to which my attention was drawn on the 1st instant have been inquired into, and it has been found that no inconvenience was caused to the patient in either case, and that no blame attaches to the medical officer who was temporarily absent from home when called. In the case of John Farrell he
1272
is stated to have been a paying patient, and had no dispensary ticket.

EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOL CODE.
SIR C. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the additional subject—
"The services rendered by retail shopkeepers, merchants, manufacturers, and other persons engaged in distribution and protection,"
which has been introduced into the newly issued English Code for Evening Continuation Schools, page 17, to meet objections raised by traders as to the exclusive reference to the work of Co-operative Societies in the Code of last year; and whether he will meet the same objections raised by Scottish traders, on similar grounds, to the new Scotch Code, by inserting in it the same addition?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Evening School Code for Scotland does not now include the detailed schemes which were published last year as specimens. School managers may submit their own schemes, and it is open to them to include the additional subjects referred to in the hon. Member's question; and the Department will be ready to sanction it.

IMPORTS OF FOREIGN BOTTLES.
MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamship Cordelia, owned by Messrs. Kilner and Sons, of Portmadoe, has recently arrived in the Thames from Hamburg, and is now discharging into barges at Kings Stairs, Rotherhithe, several tons of bottles made by Lewn and Newmann of Hamburg, consigned to R. White, London; and that these bottles have no name or mark upon them indicating their foreign origin; and what steps do the Government propose taking to put a stop to this breach of the law?
MR. BURT (who replied)said: The Board of Trade are informed by the Commissioners of Customs that the bottles imported in the Cordelia did not bear marks coming within the operation of the Merchandise Marks Act. There has, therefore, been no breach of the law.
MR. MACDONA: I ought to have mentioned in the question that the name "R. White" is stamped on the bottles in

1273
addition to the words "one farthing deposit charged."
MR. BURTsaid, that he understood it would only be illegal to represent that the articles had been manufactured in England. If the hon. Member desired further information he could put another question on a future day.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire into the importation of these foreign bottles and the subsequent stamping of English words on them, conveying by implication that the bottles have been manufactured in England?
MR. BURT: That point is being inquired into.

UNEXPENDED BALANCES.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, if the whole of any sum voted by this House is not expended upon the particular object for which it was voted, there is any way in which the expenditure of the balance can be traced; and, if so, whether such a balance accrued in respect of money voted for works at Sheerness in 1892–3; and what has become of that balance?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The method of dealing with a balance of the kind referred to can be seen by study of the Appropriation Account for the year, always provided that the item is sufficiently important to be separately mentioned. The £3,000 voted for Sheerness under Sub-head 1 of Vote 10,' Part 1 of Navy Estimates, 1892–93, appears as a postponed item on pages 86, 87, of the Navy Appropriation Account, 1892–93. It formed part of £58,497 gross saving on works authorised by Vote in 1892–93. Of this £58,497 a sum of £17,813 was, with Treasury approval, expended on other urgent works unprovided for in Estimates. The balance, £40,684, was part of the total sum surrendered to the Exchequer at the end of the year.

RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.
SIR J. WHITEHEAD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now definitely fix a day on which the Second Reading of the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill will be taken?
MR. BURT (who replied)said: The Board of Trade are extremely anxious to make progress as rapidly as possible with the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill, but I understand from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the precise date for the Second Reading cannot be named.
SIR J. WHITEHEAD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are thousands of accounts between traders and Railway Companies outstanding pending the settlement of this question?
MR. BURT: Yes.
SIR J. WHITEHEAD: I will repeat the question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday next.
MR. A. C. MORTON: Seeing that the Government are extending these objectionable powers—as evidenced by their action on a Private Bill to-day—is there any reason for proceeding with this Bill?
MR. BURT: I do not think I should answer a question which merely involves an expression of opinion.
MR. A. C. MORTON: Did not the hon. Gentleman to-day support a Bill increasing the rates?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

ANGLO-BELGIAN AGREEMENT.
SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to the agreement with King Leopold, whether the strip leased to us between Tanganyika and the Albert Edward Nyanza has been explored; and whether the character and disposition of the tribes inhabiting or claiming it are known?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The country has not been explored, but the object of this part of the Agreement was to reserve a right to a route and means of communication whenever it should be desirable to make use of them.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS IN ESSEX.
MAJOR RASCH: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Dorset, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, seeing that the map accompanying Mr. Hunter Pringle's Report to the Royal Commis-

1275
sion on Agriculture is drawn from the Ordnance Survey maps, he will give instructions that the acreage of the area marked on that map in black may be ascertained; and whether he will endeavour to ascertain the extent of land, in addition to that marked in black, that has been thrown on the landlords' hands since 1879?
MR. H. GARDNER: The acreage of the area marked in black on the map to which the hon. Member refers is 28,222 acres and 28 poles, as will be seen by reference to the note on the subject at the foot of the map. I should be very glad if the information suggested in the second paragraph of the question were available, but I am very doubtful whether it would be possible to obtain it with any accuracy. The matter is one, however, which would naturally be considered by the Royal Commission, with whom, if necessary, I should be very happy to cooperate, in the event of its being found practicable to institute an inquiry.

MAIL CONTRACTS.
MR. M. AUSTIN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, I beg to ask the Postmaster General what steps, if any, have been taken in placing the contracts with the various Shipping Companies for the carriage of Her Majesty's mails to force the Fair Contract Clause, passed by the House of Commons, relating to Government contracts; and if he can state the names of the Companies with whom such contracts have been entered into, and the names of the vessels, also the rate of wages paid to sailors and firemen employed on board thereof?
MR. A. MORLEY: The Resolution referred to has not been considered, and I do not think can fairly be taken to apply to contracts in connection with the conveyance of mails with Steamship Companies, which, like Railway Companies, are primarily engaged in other large commercial operations. It is customary, however, to debar Mail Steamship Companies from sub-letting, and to stipulate that the ships should be properly equipped, manned, and officered. A Return of contracts with Shipping Companies is published every year in the Postmaster General's Annual Report.
MR. BODKIN: Then are we to understand that Ship-
1276
ping Companies are exempt from the operation of the Fair Contract Clause?
MR. A. MORLEY: Yes.

WINDSOR FOREST.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the £2 charged to each person to whom the privilege of keys to Windsor Forest are granted is paid into the Exchequer; to what sum the total amounts; and by whom this charge has been sanctioned?
SIR J. T. HIEBERT (who replied)said: The granting of keys to the gates in the Windsor Great Park, and adjoining woods, rests with His Royal Highness the Ranger. If the privilege of a key is granted, a charge is made of £1 1s. per annum therefor. This charge was first made in 1888, and has the approval of the Commissioners of Woods and the Treasury. The total sum received in 1892–93 amounted to £383 3s., which is included as part of the income of the Land Revenues accounted for by the Commissioners of Woods in the Accounts rendered with their Report to Parliament for that year.

POLO AT WINDSOR PARK.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that leave has been refused by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to the Officers of the Horse Guards to play polo on about six acres of Windsor Park, which a few years since was put in good condition for the game at the expense of the entire regiment; and, in view of the great pleasure which the sight of this game gives to many inhabitants of the locality, and its healthful character, he will use his influence with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to allow it to be played on these six acres?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am sorry that I am unable to relieve my hon. Friend's anxiety on this point, as the War Department has nothing whatever to do with it. Perhaps he will try how he may succeed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury can reply?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The giving or withholding of leave to play polo in the Windsor Great Park is a matter which

1277
rests with the Ranger, and not with the Commissioners of Woods. It is understood that, prior to 1889, polo was always played on a site known as the cavalry exercising ground; but in that year, in consequence of the Royal Agricultural Show being held on that ground, special permission was given to use another site known as the review ground. There is no desire to prohibit polo playing, but the cavalry exercising ground having been now restored, players are, it is believed, requested now to revert to the original ground, and in this request the Commissioner of Woods, who has been consulted, concurs.

THE TREATMENT OF WILD ANIMALS.
SIR D. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the decision of two of Her Majesty's Judges that lions kept in cages, not being domestic animals, are not protected against cruel treatment under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and whether, that being the law, it is in the power of anyone, for gain or otherwise, to inflict whatever torture they please upon such animals without liability to prosecution or punishment; and whether he proposes to introduce a Bill to amend the Act?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): The effeet of the decision appears to be in substance as stated in the question. The subject seems to be a very proper one for further legislation, but I cannot hope to deal with it this Session.
SIR D. MACFARLANE: Is it not a fact that any person for monetary or other reasons may inflict any amount of torture on animals which are not domestic, and need further legislation go beyond the omission of the word "domestic" in the Cruelty to Animals Act?
MR. ASQUITH: I cannot, without further consideration, give an opinion as to the amount of legislation that would be necessary to carry out the views of the hon. Member. Any legislation, however, will occupy time.

DERELICT LAND IN ESSEX.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will allow the map attached to the Report on
1278
Essex Agriculture, showing the extent of land derelict and out of tillage in that county, to be exhibited in the Tea Room of the House, for the information of hon. Members?
MR. H. GLADSTONE: There is no positive objection; but as the map in question has been circulated to all hon. Members, and is readily accessible in the Library, I do not think it necessary to exhibit it in the Tea Room.

WIMBLEDON RIFLE RANGE.
MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that John Ingram, whilst digging a grave in Putney Cemetery on Tuesday, the 22nd instant, was shot in the back by one of a squad of Volunteers practising at the Wimbledon rifle range, and died from the effects yesterday; and whether, in view of the great danger to the lives of people using the common or living in the neighbourhood, he will bring the matter under the notice of His Royal Highness the Ranger, with a view to the prohibition of any further firing in so dangerous a locality?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member is evidently not aware that Wimbledon Common is not Crown property, and that the Duke of Cambridge is, therefore, not the Ranger of it, nor does such an office, so far as I know, exist. The common is, I believe, the property of the ratepayers of a district within a certain area of it, under an Act of Parliament passed in 1871. In the same Act the rights of certain Volunteer corps who had ranges on it were preserved to them.

PLEURO-PNEUMONIA IN THE ISLE OF THANET.
MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is now in a position to state what were the circumstances connected with the recent outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in the Isle of Thanet; and to what sources of infection the Veterinary Department of the Board attribute the contraction of the disease?
MR. H. GARDNER: The outbreak in question occurred at a farm near Minster, in the Isle of Thanet. The usual measures were immediately taken to trace and slaughter the animals which

1279
had been exposed to infection, and upwards of 120 animals have thus been dealt with, of which seven have been found to be diseased. The inquiries are still proceeding, but as yet we have no reason to suppose that any of the animals which have been in contact with the disease have been removed out of the district. No further information has been elicited as to the origin of the outbreak, and I think there is not much room for doubt that the outbreak is due to the introduction of animals from the neighbourhood of London.
MR. CHAPLIN: Am I right in saying the right hon. Gentleman told us there had been no outbreak for some months previously?
MR. H. GARDNER: I believe the right hon. Gentleman is correct, but I have not the dates before me.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen the report of a second outbreak in the Isle of Thanet?
MR. II. GARDNER: I have seen no such report.

CANADIAN CATTLE.
MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, in reference to his statement, on 1st May instant, that cases had occurred of diseased cattle being imported from Canada under the administration of the Board of Agriculture in the late Government, if he can say what those cases were and when they occurred? At the same time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the special examination of the lungs of Canadian cattle, which he announced on the 24th of April, has commenced?
MR. II. GARDNER: The cases to which I referred in my answer of the 1st instant were those of five animals stated to have been imported from Montreal by the City of Lincoln in September, 1890. The right hon. Gentleman will find certain particulars of these cases on pages 96 and 97 of the Report of the Veterinary Department for 1890, the outbreaks being numbered 35, 53, 60, 68, and 69 respectively. The special examination of the lungs of Canadian cattle commenced on the 17th instant.
MR. CHAPLINasked whether it was not a fact that there was no evidence
1280
whatever in these cases that the animals came from Canada?
MR. H. GARDNER: My information is entirely opposed to that statement. The Papers distinctly point out that the animals came from Canada.

THE CHURCH IN WALES.
MR. D. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant the Return, standing on the Paper this day, relating to the revenues of the Church in Wales?
MR. ASQU1TH: I find that no modern information is available as to the ownership of impropriate tithe rent-charge, and that the collection of such information would be a very long and difficult task. I must point out that the proper allocation of ecclesiastical revenue, after the passing of the Bill for the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, could not be shown in the form of a Return at the present time, the settlement of such allocation being one of the functions of the Commissioners to be appointed under the Bill. In these circumstances, I cannot grant the Return for which the hon. Member asks. I have, however, ascertained that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will be able, "within a reasonable period, to furnish a Return, by parishes and counties, of the property of the Church in Wales in glebe, in tithe rent-charge, and from other sources; and if my hon. Friend will put on the Paper a Motion for a Return in that form, I shall be happy to assent to it, and it will be prepared with as little delay as possible.

NEWFOUNDLAND HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office have considered the possibility of an early Dissolution of the Newfoundland House of Assembly being asked for; and whether the Government will consider the advisability or recommending the Governor General of the Colony to refuse to consent to a Dissolution, at least until after all the Election Petitions have been dealt with by the Law Courts.
MR. S. BUXTON: The late Government in Newfoundland resigned because the Governor refused to grant them a

1281
Dissolution, but I cannot answer a hypothetical question.

MAGISTRATES' FEES.
MR. LEESE (Lancashire, N.E., Accrington): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has yet decided whether it is necessary that the writ of dedimus poteslatem heretofore accustomed to be taken out by Magistrates on their appointment to the County Bench in Lancashire should continue to be so taken out, or whether it may be discontinued and the cost of each appointment thereby reduced? The hon. Member, in putting the question, stated that by a printer's error the word "potestatem" had not inappropriately been printed "poteslatem."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. BRYCE,): I have come to the conclusion that there is no sufficient reason why the practice of taking out the writ of dedimus potestatem by County Magistrates upon their appointment should continue in Lancashire. The discontinuance of the practice will, no doubt, have the effect of reducing the expense to the persons appointed to be Justices. The question what is the proper fee to be fixed as payable upon appointment is now under my consideration.

MILITARY EXAMINATIONS.
MR. SETON-KARR (St. Helen's): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the system now coming into force of allowing candidates for the entrance examinations for Woolwich and Sandhurst to choose their own place of written examination from about 20 different centres in the United Kingdom can also be extended to the viva voce and medical examinations; if this extension cannot be made, whether he will state the reason for thus limiting the advantages of the proposed change; and whether he is aware that the above limitation practically prevents the proposed change from conferring any pecuniary advantage or benefit on candidates and their parents?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave as to viva voce examinations on the 30th of April last. As regards the medical examinations, which, I may observe, only the successful candidates have to
1282
attend, the experiment of holding them at the headquarters of the district has proved far from satisfactory, and 70 per cent. of the candidates prefer London as the place of examination.
MR. SETON-KARR: What was the substance of the answer of April 30?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It was to the effect that there must be uniformity of result in these examinations.
MR. SETON-KARR: Does the limitation have the effect suggested in the last paragraph of my question?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think it does.

THE LONDON CAB STRIKE.
MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken with reference to the grievances of the London cabmen, which were brought before him by a deputation last autumn and by various questions put in this House and privately since then; and whether, taking into consideration the public inconvenience caused by strikes, he is willing to appoint a Committee of this House to consider the relations of the industry to the Home Office, and to recommend such changes as may be necessary as to transferring the control to the London County Council, the limitation of drivers' licences, the amount and disposal of the cab plate revenue, the jurisdiction of the police courts, the relations with the Railway Companies, tariff, payments to owners, stands and shelters in the streets, regulations, and all other matters touching the conduct of the Metropolitan cab service?
MR. ASQUITH: The matter has engaged my attention, and I have had drawn, and hope to be able to introduce, a Bill which will remedy some of the evils connected with what is called "bilking" brought under my notice at the deputation referred to. All the Railway Companies have been communicated with on the subject of the complaints relating to the practice of the different companies made by the deputation. I am not, as at present advised, prepared to recommend the appointment of a Committee to consider the somewhat multifarious subjects referred to by my hon. Friend.
MR. WEBSTER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks it advisable to limit the number of licences granted for drivers and cabs, as it is practically apparent to everybody that there are too many cabs at the present time?
MR. ASQUITH: I think that is a suggestion well worthy of consideration. My own opinion is that there are too many cabs.

THE CONVICT DALY.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the sentence of 10 years penal servitude passed upon the Italian Anarchist, Polti, at the Central Criminal Court on the 4th instant; and whether, looking to the similarity of Polti's offence to that for which John Daly was condemned to penal servitude for life, and having regard to the fact that John Daly has now been over 10 years in prison, he will reconsider Daly's case with a view to his release?
MR. W. REDMOND: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether it is not a fact that, so far from Daly's offence being similar to that of Polti and his confederates, the latter were avowed Anarchists who did not disguise their intention to use explosives, while Daly, who was convicted of treason-felony, entirely repudiated any connection with dynamite offences, and alleged that the bombs found in his possession were planted on him. by the police, a statement borne out by the Chief Constable of Birmingham; and whether that fact is not an additional reason why Daly, who has already been in prison 10 years, should be released?
MR. ASQUITH: I can only repeat what I have said on previous occasions— that the offence of which Daly was properly convicted was at least equal in gravity to that of the other persons referred to. Comparisons of this kind between criminal cases are apt to be misleading. The hon. Member selects for comparison with Daly's case the case of Polti, whose sentence was for 10 years, and passes over that of Polti's accomplice, Ferrara, whose sentence was for 20 years. These persons were convicted of offences committed under widely different circumstances, and both were sentenced
1284
by the same Judge, one of the most experienced criminal lawyers on the English Bench. Daly's case has been repeatedly under my consideration, and I regret that I cannot consistently with my public duty add anything to my previous statements on the subject.
MR. J. O'CONNORasked whether the Englishmen convicted at Walsall of conspiracy got sentences ranges from 5 to 10 years, and whether the right hon. Gentleman would take that fact into account in considering Daly's case?
MR. ASQUITH: I am very familiar with that ease.
MR. W. REDMOND: Is it in the interest of good government that English dynamitards and Italian anarchists should get 10 years, while Irishmen like Daly should be sent to prison for the whole term of their natural life?
MR. ASQUITH: That is a very argumentative question, which could not possibly be answered without careful analysis of the facts of widely different cases. I cannot enter into that in answer to a question. I have only to repeat what I have said on previous occasions— that, in my opinion, the time has not come at which it would be proper for the Government to advise any interference with Daly's sentence.
MR. W. REDMOND: Was John Daly not convicted of treason-felony?
MR. ASQUITH: He was convicted of treason-felony.
MR. W. REDMOND: Is that not a reason why his case should be carefully considered by the Government with a view to his release?
MR. J. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask another question, and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for troubling him.
MR. W. REDMOND: I do not apologise for troubling him.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is it not a fact that every Irishman, except one, who was convicted in England of conspiracy or treason-felony within the last 10 years was sentenced to penal servitude for life?
MR. ASQUITH: No; that is not the case. Several of them got shorter sentences.
MR. W. REDMOND: Is it not a fact that before the last General Election

1285
the Irish people were led to understand' that amnesty was to be extended to Daly and the other prisoners?
[No answer was given.]
ME. W. REDMOND: I charge the Government with breach of faith in this matter. It is an outrage.

NAVY BOOT CONTRACTS.
MR. C. SHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he would explain why the contract for Navy boots has been removed from Stafford; and whether the Admiralty is aware that in the district where the contract is now placed no Trades Union exists to protect the employes; that the work is made and finished in the homes of the workmen; that there is no restriction as to the number of hours worked by men and boys; and that the wages are 3½d. per pair less than the wages which were paid in Stafford?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No contract for Navy boots has been removed from Stafford; but when recently tenders were invited for new contracts, the Stafford tender was the highest, and was, therefore, unsuccessful. The contracts, which contain the usual clause requiring the payment of the current wages of the district, were placed in several widely scattered districts of Great Britain, in some of which Trades Unions exist, though not in all. All the work is done in factories, except in Northamptonshire, where a small part of it is done in the workpeople's homes (free from restrictions as to hours, &c). This is in accordance with old local customs, which are dying out in consequence of the introduction of machinery. I am informed that as regards part of the Northamptonshire contracts—namely, at Raunds, the wages are 3½d. per pair less than at Stafford. Communications from the Trades Union and Trades Council of Stafford on this subject are now under consideration at the Admiralty.

RAILWAY RATES.
SIR J. WHITEHEAD: In consequence of the indefinite answer given to me to-day, and failing a satisfactory assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on Tuesday next I shall
1286
move the adjournment in order to bring the serious position of the railway rates question before the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1894–5 (SECOND VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,897,350, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895, viz.:—

    CIVIL SERVICES.

    CLASS I.

    £

    Harbours, &c, under Board of Trade, and Lighthouses Abroad

    2,000

    Peterhead Harbou

    2,000

    Rates on Government Property

    15,000

    Public Works and Buildings. Ireland

    30,000

    Railways, Ireland

    7,000

    CLASS II.

    United Kingdom and England:—

    House of Lords. Offices

    8,000

    House of Commons, Offices

    12,000

    Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    14,000

    Home Office and Subordinate Departments

    18,000

    Foreign Office

    14,000

    Colonial Office

    6,500

    Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

    3,000

    Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

    30,000

    Mercantile Marine Fund, Grant in
    Aid

    15,000

    Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

    —

    Board of Agriculture

    5,000

    Charity Commission

    7,000

    Civil Service Commission

    7,000

    Exchequer and Audit Department

    10,000

    Friendly Societies, Registry

    700

    Local Government Board

    30,000

    Lunacy Commission

    2,500

    Mint (including Coinage)

    —

    National Debt Office

    2,500

    Public Record Office

    3,000

    Public Works Loan Commission

    2,000

    Registrar General's Office

    7,000

    Stationery Office and Printing

    100,000

    Woods, Forests, &c., Office of

    4,000

    Works and Public Buildings, Office of

    9,000

    Secret Service

    9,000

    1287

    Scotland:—

    £

    Secretary for Scotland

    2,000

    Fishery Board

    4,000

    Lunacy Commission

    1,000

    Registrar General's Office

    500

    Board of Supervision

    1,500

    Ireland:—

    Lord Lieutenant's Household

    1,000

    Chief Secretary and Subordinate Departments

    7,000

    Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

    300

    Local Government Board

    15,000

    Public Record Office

    1,000

    Public Works Office

    6,000

    Registrar General's Office

    2,000

    Valuation and Boundary Survey

    3,000

    CLASS III.

    United Kingdom and England:—

    Law Charges

    18,000

    Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

    10,000

    Supreme Court of Judicature

    65,000

    Land Registry

    1,300

    County Courts

    4,000

    Police Courts (London and Sheer-ness)

    500

    Police, England and Wales

    5,000

    Prisons, England and the Colonies

    90,000

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

    66.000

    Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    4,000

    Scotland:—

    Law Charges and Courts of Law

    17,000

    Register House, Edinburgh

    6,500

    Crofters' Commission

    1,000

    Prisons, Scotland

    15,000

    Ireland:—

    Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

    12,000

    Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

    18.000

    Land Commission

    11,000

    County Court Officers, &c.

    21,000

    Dublin Metropolitan Police, &c.

    10,000

    Constabulary

    270,000

    Prisons, Ireland

    20,000

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools

    25,000

    Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    1,000

    CLASS IV.

    United Kingdom and England:—

    Public Education, England and Wales

    1,360,000

    Science and Art Department, United Kingdom

    115,000

    British Museum

    37,000

    National Gallery

    4,000

    National Portrait Gallery

    500

    Scientific Investigations, &c., United Kingdom

    5,000

    Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

    22,000

    London University

    —

    Scotland:—

    Public Education

    275,000

    National Gallery

    1,000

    Ireland:—

    Public Education

    300,000

    Endowed Schools Commissioners

    150

    1288

    £

    National Gallery

    500

    Queen's Colleges

    1,500

    CLASS V.

    Diplomatic Services and Consular
    Services

    90,000

    Slave Trade Services

    1,500

    Colonial Services, including South
    Africa

    15,000

    Subsidies to Telegraph Companies,&c.

    15,500

    CLASS VI.

    Superannuation and Retired Allowances

    100,000

    Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.

    1.300

    Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiency

    —

    Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

    600

    Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

    40,000

    Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

    5,000

    CLASS VII.

    Temporary Commissions

    9,000

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    1,000

    Diseases of Animals

    10,000

    Highlands and Islands of Scotland

    5,000

    Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

    —

    Hobart (Tasmania) Exhibition, 1894–5

    1,000

    Total for Civil Services

    £3,527,350

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    Customs

    40,000

    Inland Revenue

    60,000

    Post Office

    650,000

    Post Office Packet Service

    170,000

    Post Office Telegraphs

    450,000

    Total for Revenue Departments

    £1,370,000

    Grand Total

    £4,897,350"

    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had given notice to reduce this Vote by £2,000 in order to obtain some explanation. The strong objection he had with regard to the Vote of £2,000, as put in the present Estimates, for the Kitchen Committee was that, as far as he was aware, the Committee had refused to give them any balance-sheet or particulars with regard to the expenditure of money; and he thought, therefore, he was right in asking the Committee of the House to refuse to grant money unless under the conditions that they had proper accounts submitted to them in the ordinary way. As far as he understood the finances of this country,

    1289
    they had properly-audited accounts and full details given them with reference to every item of the £90,000,000 of money expended by the Government except the Secret Service Fund. If the details furnished were not sufficient, the Government were always willing to give them further details. lie wanted to know why the Kitchen Committee, this one small authority in connection with their finances, should refuse to give particulars? Was it because they were ashamed or afraid of something that might appear in the accounts to the detriment of somebody? He did not say that that was the case; but when this House had ordered inquiries with regard to particular accounts, it had generally been because the parties were ashamed of their own accounts being seen. He knew that some Members of it claimed that the Kitchen Committee was a close corporation, and need not give any accounts to anybody; and he believed they claimed that, as they were an unpaid Committee, they ought not to be asked to present their accounts. Other Committees doing a great deal more work than the Kitchen Committee had no objection to furnishing accounts, so that the House and the country generally might know what they were doing. It would be no trouble to the Kitchen Committee to present these accounts. With regard to the contention that it was not a public matter, he would point out that they did a great deal of public business. They had their bars up- and down-stairs, and all about the place; they sold as much whisky and other refreshments as they could, and made as much money as they could. There were great complaints with regard to the somewhat extravagant charges made to the British public in connection with the supply of refreshments; there must be a great deal of profit made, and on that, if on no other ground, they had a right to see what this Committee were doing. A great many of the public asked why should they be called upon to pay £2,000 per annum in connection with a business on which there ought to be a large amount of profit, considering the prices that were charged. They had got to bear in mind that the Kitchen Committee had no rent to pay; the House supplied coal and light and a number of other things in connec-
    1290
    tion with these services, and made no charge. There were no licences to be paid for, and consequently there ought to be a very large amount of profit instead of the Kitchen Committee asking for this £2,000. He had been told that he could have a private view of the accounts, but he refused any such thing. What he wanted was to have a balance-sheet presented in a proper and straightforward manner, so that all Members of the House, as well as the public—who had to pay in connection with the Public Purse— might judge if this business was carried on in a proper and efficient manner. Although they were asked to vote £2,000, he noticed it had been stated in the public Press that they did not pay their waiters properly. They had been told that this extra £1,000 a year was asked for for the purpose of paying the waiters; but as they did not see the accounts, they did not know how the money was expended. Unless he got a satisfactory assurance that in future the accounts would be presented in a proper and business-like way, he should press this matter to a Division, and, with the view of showing that he wanted to know something about it, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £2,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £12,000, House of Commons Offices, be reduced by £2,000."—(Mr. A. C. Morton.)
    MR. HERBERTsaid, he noticed that the hon. Member for Peterborough had not taken any exception in the remarks he had made to the increased grant which now, for the first time, was £2,000 instead of £1,000, but he had arraigned the action of the Kitchen Committee all round on the general ground that with regard to every account or every sum put down in the Estimates the House was entitled to have full particulars. He should say, to begin with, as the House of Commons very well knew, this Committee was formed year after year from all Parties in the House, almost every section being represented in order that the representation of that Committee might be representative of the whole House, and he imagined that the very object of having the Committee appointed at all was to relieve the House from the very great and responsible duty

    1291
    of looking after a very big business. It was more convenient that a big business of this sort should be conducted by a Committee sitting upstairs rather than that the business should be carried on in the House.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I am not asking for that.
    MR. HERBERTsaid, he would remind the House that the accounts were submitted not yearly but quarterly to the Auditor General, and the Committee had a quarterly balance-sheet presented to them and a close eye was kept by the Committee on all the accounts presented to them. In justice to the management, he must say that the Committee had received no complaints, but a large amount of praise from the experts in the Auditor General's office as to the way in which the accounts were kept. The Committee had discussed the question of publishing their accounts, and bad come to the conclusion that, in the interest of the working of the Committee, it would be extremely unadvisable that they should be published to the House.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: Has a vote been taken upon it?
    MR. HERBERTdid not think a vote had been taken upon it, but during all the previous years up to this, although they had taken no actual vote upon it, that had been the unanimous opinion of the Committee up to this year, and he hoped soon to be able to say that it was the opinion of the present Committee. In running a business of this sort there were a great many things they were not the least ashamed of; but which, in the course of trade, it would not be advisable to have published in all the newspapers. Anybody who had experience in a large business concern would bear him out in what he said. The hon. Member also said that either he considered, or the public considered, or the gentlemen of the Press considered, that in a big business of this sort very large profits must be made. He would so far break the rule which the Committee had laid down in this instance as to inform hon. Members what had been the large profits made by the Kitchen Committee during the years 1887 to 1893 inclusive. In the year 1887 the net profit was £46 12s. l0d.; in 1888, £4 2s. l1d.; in 1889 there was a net loss of £25 14s. 9d. In 1890, a record
    1292
    year, the nett profits were £323 4s. 3d. In 1891 the net loss was £93 3s. 10d., and, in 1892, £141 5s. l1d. In 1893, up to June 30, the nett profit was £359 l1s. l1d., but the fatal results of an Autumn Session brought them down to £6 14s. 5d. on December 31. These figures would show that the alleged large profits was rather a case of imagination on the part of the writers. Everybody knew, who had watched the business in this House, that, however carefully they might work the business, it was so uncertain, and the. Committee had such difficulties to contend with—having in many instances to prepare meals for several hundreds, when perhaps only 60 or 70 might sit down—that they could not secure anything like the profits which might be secured by a restaurant or a club, because the business was not a continuous one. There was a further difficulty which did not take place either in a club or a restaurant—namely, that the House did not sit on Saturday or Sunday, so that at the end of the week they had two days on which there was no business at all, whilst there was a considerable amount of expense to bear. Again, during the Recess they had also a considerable amount of expense whilst they had no business. The Committee had asked for this extra £1,000 because they found there had been considerable complaints upon a subject which the hon. Member had referred to—that was, the wages of the servants. A great deal of misrepresentation had been going on about this subject, and in justice to the demand of the Committee for this extra £1,000 he should like to state that whilst under the system which had prevailed up to the present year the Kitchen Committee only received £1,000 a year towards the wages of the servants, the wages paid last year amounted to £3,957. The result was, that in order to make up the deficit they had to make a profit on what they sold. The extra £1,000 asked for would be devoted to the payment of higher wages. The wages of the waiters on the permanent Sessional staff averaged about 30s. a week, a rate which was sufficiently high to attract good men. In addition to that the food they received was valued at 12s. 6d. a week. As to the waiters who came in on the job, the Committee came to the conclusion that if the regulation with regard to the

    1293
    abolition of gratuities was enforced it was only fair that the men should receive some increase in wages, and an increase of 1s. an evening had been given. The Committee had now settled to give them 3s. 6d., instead of 2s. 6d. an evening as formerly. These men came in about 6 o'clock or a little later. He thought that was fair remuneration, and, so far as he knew, the men did not object to it. Of course, they could not be paid 5s. a day—which were the wages of a skilled artizan—and the 3s. 6d. for the short time they were employed was considered very fair remuneration. Returning once more to the question of the accounts, he would add that they were audited quarterly and were very carefully looked after. He would be perfectly willing to show them to the hon. Member if he desired to go through them, provided that he did not utilise the information for publication in the Press or otherwise. He hoped the House would grant the extra £1,000, because if the Kitchen Committee got it they would be able to do more for the comfort of Members who dine in the House.
    MR. A. C. MORTONasked whether the hon. Gentleman would take the opinion of the Kitchen Committee with regard to the Returns?
    MR. HERBERTsaid, the only reason why he did not ask the House to come to a decision with regard to the Returns, when the question came up a short time previously, was that he could not then speak on behalf of the Committee on the matter, as it had not been considered by (he Committee. Since then, however, the question had come before the Kitchen Committee.
    MR. ROBYsaid, he desired to thank the Kitchen Committee for the great trouble they must necessarily take in discharging their duties. Some improvements might be made in the kitchen service; but as one who dined in the House very frequently, he thought, on the whole, considering the difficulties of the service, that the dinners were very fairly done. But he could not understand why there should be any objection to the publication of an abstract of the accounts of the Kitchen Committee. What was wanted was a Return, such as was issued by all clubs, of the expenditure of the year, showing to Members in what directions there ap-
    1294
    peared to be a little parsimony, or a little extravagance, or a little bad management on the part of the Kitchen Committee; and when they came to consider that this money voted by the House was in addition to coals, gas, plant necessary for the cooking operations for the convenience of Members, they would see it was a matter in which, to some extent, the public had a legitimate interest. This subsidy might not be the best way of paying Members—he thought Members, if paid at all, should be paid in the proper way, and then pay themselves the full cost of their luncheons and dinners in the House; but so long as this contribution was made towards the luncheons and dinners of Members, some account— he did not say a detailed account—should be given to the public of the expenditure of the money. In saying that, he should be very sorry if he were understood to convey that there was even the slightest doubt or suspicion of the Kitchen Committee in the minds of any Members; for no feeling of the kind existed in any part of the House.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he would be quite satisfied with what was called a club return. In fact, he sent the Kitchen Committee a copy of the balance-sheet of the National Liberal Club as an idea of the sort of thing he wanted. He did that because the National Liberal Club was the biggest and best club in London. *MR. HERBERT said, the cases were hardly analogous. The balance-sheet of a club was distributed amongst the members of the club at the general meeting, and as a rule did not go beyond the members. But the balance-sheet of the Kitchen Committee, if published, would be made public, which would be extremely inadvisable.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that, after the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, it seemed to him that unless the accounts were published there would be an idea abroad that they were in the habit of feasting in a grandiose sort of way at the expense of the public. His hon. Friend said they were getting cheap dinners as a sort of payment for their services. He did not understand the thing in that way. He understood they paid the real prices for their dinners; but it often happened, owing to changes in the business of the House, that dinners were

    1295
    provided which were not consumed, and this £2,000 went to cover the waste. He had not the slightest desire himself to see the accounts; but when he heard the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee say that there were some reasons why the public should not see the details of this expenditure of public money, he could not help thinking that the only possible objection was that there was so much liquor drunk by Members, and by gentlemen who come down to the House on business, that the public would be perfectly horrified when they heard the amount of liquor that was consumed there. Under the circumstances, he thought some sort of a Return, such as that given by clubs, should be submitted to the House.
    MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrews, &c.)said, as a Member of the Kitchen Committee, that Members were wrong if they thought the whole of the money expended by the Committee was public money, and that therefore it came under the same category as other moneys voted by the House. So far from that being the case, a considerably larger sum was paid out by the Committee in wages alone than the amount of the annual grant received on account of wages. He would have no objection to the publication of a club balance-sheet; and he should be glad to hear whether the Secretary to the Treasury had any advice to give to the Committee on the subject. Ho would like to point out to the Committee that if this grant was withdrawn, or even if it were retained at the old rate of £1,000 a a year, the Kitchen Committee would be obliged to charge considerably higher prices for provisions and liquors supplied to Members or to charge table money.
    MR. POWERsaid, as a Member of the Kitchen Committee, that he believed there was nothing to conceal in the accounts of the Committee; and he had always thought—though in this he was in a minority on the Committee—that there should be published some sort of balance-sheet such as was supplied to members of clubs. He would remind those Members who seemed to think that the Kitchen Committee were making large profits that when the catering was done by outside firms, prices were much higher, and very little profit was made by the caterers. He succeeded on the Committee, as the re-
    1296
    presentative of the Irish Party, his-old friend and colleague, the late Mr. Joseph Biggar. The Irish Party had endeavoured to obtain representation on the Committee to the extent of two Members, which they thought they were entitled to, because of their numbers; and, failing in that, the Party nominated Mr. Biggar as their representative. Mr. Biggar had not been on the Committee very long, when the Irish Party were informed that if they only withdrew Mr. Biggar they could nominate any two Members they pleased; but this they refused to do, with the result that Members generally had benefited by Mr. Biggar's labours.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,)said, he desired to say a few words in response to the invitation of the hon. Member for St. Andrews. His own personal feeling was trust in the Kitchen Committee. The Kitchen Committee had considered the question and had come to the conclusion that it would be indiscreet and unwise to publish the accounts; and having full confidence in the Committee, he would give way to their wishes in the matter. But, at the same time, he thought a case had to some extent been made out for the publication of the accounts. He did not suppose there were many Members who wished to look into the accounts, but perhaps the Kitchen Committee might see their way to give some information which would satisfy the hon. Member for Peterborough and any other Member of the House who was anxious to be informed on the subject. He thought the House generally was very much indebted to the Kitchen Committee for the great trouble they took in the matter, though he was quite sure this work was anything but pleasant.
    MR. HERBERTsaid, he could not make any pledge without consulting the Committee, but he would sec whether the Committee had any objection to publish some sort of accounts, which, without going fully into details, would satisfy the Resolution the hon. Member for Peterborough had placed on the Paper.
    MAJOR RASCH: I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether the Committee have been using Canadian mutton and Australian lamb, and that

    1297
    they refuse to give these details in order that they may not hurt the feelings of Members representing agricultural constituencies?
    DR. CLARKsaid, they were told the extra £1,000 now asked for was to increase the wages of the waiters. Last year the House of Commons was charged with sweating its waiters. It was said they were paid only half what waiters received in other places. The defence of the manager of the Kitchen Department and the Kitchen Committee was that the men were paid 2s. 6d. and that they made another 2s. 6d. in tips. Many Members complained of had attendance in the dining-room because they did not give tips. But it was time to stop this grant altogether. He thought Members ought to pay the full value of their dinners, and not to "sponge" on the nation in this way in order to get 2d. or 3d. off the price. He hoped they would have a strong Chancellor of the Exchequer who would refuse to give the money.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, the subject was very important, for unless Members could digest their dinners they would not be able to digest the affairs of the nation. He denied that Members were "sponging" on the nation. They did not get as good or as cheap a dinner as they could get in a club notwithstanding the grant, while 40 per cent. was added to the price of wines by the Kitchen Committee. He thought the waiters should be paid better wages, because it was not pleasant to be looked at during dinner by men who were badly paid or badly fed.
    MR. DARLINGsaid, he was entirely in favour of stopping the subvention for dinners in the House of Commons. No one on his side of the House stayed to dine there except on exceptional occasions, so that they had nothing to lose by the stoppage of the subvention. If the money were stopped the dinners would be reduced to the level of the National Liberal Club, and if that were done he was sure that even hon. Members opposite would dine elsewhere.
    MR. BARTLEY: I must protest in the strongest manner against two hours of the House of Commons being wasted in discussing tips, when we have no time to discuss the great Imperial matters of the nation.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that in the first place the discussion had not taken two hours, and in the second place—
    Colonel LOCKWOODrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I wanted to withdraw the Motion.
    Question, "That the Question be now put," put. and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, be regretted the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present, but the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to answer the point he wished to raise. On Monday they were discussing building on vacant sites, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissoner of Works had said they could do nothing without the consent of the Treasury. Everyone would admit that these sites ought to be utilised—
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, it was not in Order to go into the question of vacant sites on a Vote on Account.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was out of Order, and called upon Mr. Lough.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I want to move a reduction.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot do so now.

    THE CAB STRIKE.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I have put down a reduction of £10. I have not yet said anything about it. If I am not in Order, I can soon put myself in Order. However, I do not wish to delay the Committee. At the same time, I do not wish to be snuffed out by the Treasury.
    MR. LOUGHsaid, that the next Vote was for the Home Office, and on that he wanted to call attention to the cab strike. The control of the Loudon cabs was entirely in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. After the very unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. Gentleman that afternoon with reference to the strike which was now proceeding in the Metropolis, he would move to reduce the salary of the right hon. Gentleman by £500 in order to claim his sympathy for the men who were struggling with such great difficulties. The control of the cab

    1299
    industry in London was in the hands of a Government Department, and all in terested in it thought that it had been very badly controlled. He appealed, therefore, to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to use their influence with the Home Office in order to get that Department to take a just and favourable view of the present strike and the difficulties connected with it. This strike differed from most labour contests of which they had had experience. It was not a case of working men struggling; to get a higher wage, or for employment, but it was a case of a number of people trying to buy something more cheaply than they were able to do at present. For some reason, there did not appear to be much sympathy with the men, but he thought that if hon. Members would give a little consideration to the matter they would take a more generous view of their difficulties. There was no ill-feeling between the drivers and the cab proprietors, notwithstanding the strike, one reason being that one-half the cabs in London were owned by small proprietors, for 5,000 belonged to 3,000 owners; and the other half were in the hands of larger owners.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman would not be in Order in discussing a proposal to alter the law. He could, however, refer to the conduct of the Home Secretary.
    MR. LOUGHsaid, the whole thing that was wrong was the control of this important industry by the Home Office. If the representatives of that Department took a wise and broad view of their responsibility in this matter there would be an end to the strike, and to all the difficulties that arose with respect to the management of the cab business of London. He would point out that the present control was an antiquated one, inasmuch as the Rules were framed 30 years ago, when there were no tramways, no penny fares on omnibuses, and no underground railways. The conditions under which the cab industry was carried on had been altered to the detriment of 10,000 cabmen, representing probably a population of 100,000. All these changes had taken place, but there had been no alteration in the conditions under which the men worked, and the Home Secretary ought to give the matter his consideration in order to see whether new
    1300
    and better arrangements could not be made. The industry at present laboured under three heavy taxes. There were taxes of 5s., 15s., and 40s. on each cab, and these amounted to 1s. 2d. a week. This was the first charge that must be met; it was an unjust one, which made a serious difference to the drivers; and it could not be dealt with except by an alteration of the law. The £2 plates produced £35,000 a year, and that was paid into the Police Fund, which was completely under the control of the Home Office. Last year that fund went up from £358,000 to"£387,000, an increment of £30,000, almost equal to the amount of the cab licences. The money was not required by the Police Fund, because the rate supplied all that was necessary. Then, the freedom with which licences were granted created another great difficulty in the trade. The Home Office granted a driver's licence to every applicant who paid 5s. and fulfilled certain conditions; and there were 15,000 holders of these licences, which showed that the trade was overcrowded. There were only 4,000 cabs working now, and the experience of that state of things indicated that 15,000 cabs was twice too many, and suggested that the issue of licences should stop when the total number reached 10,000 or 11,000. The Home Secretary issued a Schedule of fares which the cabmen had to charge the public, and made other Regulations controlling the drivers, but he did not provide any protection for the cabman in respect of the price which he might have to pay for his vehicle. As to the admission of cabs to railway stations, it would be satisfactory if some impartial authority was invited to discuss the matter with the Railway Companies and the drivers, to see if some arrangement satisfactory to both could not be arrived at. The worst grievance which the cabmen had to labour under was the very unsatisfactory Criminal Code to which they were subjected. The cabmen were placed entirely under the power of the police, and the existing law was entirely against the driver and in favour of the public. If one of the public made a bargain with a cabman to drive him under the legal fare he could enforce that bargain against the cabman, but if a cabman made a bargain to charge more than the legal fare he could not enforce

    1301
    it. The chief evil under which the men laboured was the absolute tyranny which the police exercised over them, which was carried out in a way detrimental to the interests of the citizens. For example, there were not enough cabstands, and those which existed were too. often an appendage to some public-house. The cab stood on the rank outside while the cabman was inside drinking. He could quote one case where certain benevolent people, at a cost of about £200, provided a cab shelter to be placed in the Cromwell Road; but, though an appeal was made to the police to authorise the placing of the shelter there, no support was given to it, and the objection was urged that it would take away the custom from a public-house which the cabmen were in the habit of using. The police brought charges of every kind against the drivers, and at one police court as many as 20 or 25 were disposed of in a single afternoon. The cases came on on Tuesday and Friday afternoons at 4 o'clock, and as many as 80 had been decided in a day, cabmen being fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. each for loafing, because of the want of stands. The police court was a very unsatisfactory court to which to refer small grievances affecting cabmen, and he submitted that some civil court should be provided to deal with such cases.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out that the Home Secretary had nothing to do with the matters with which the hon. Gentleman was dealing.
    MR, LOUGH: The Home Secretary controls the Magistrates.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Magistrates act under the sanction of the law. The Home Secretary is responsible only for his administrative acts, and not for the acts of the Magistrates.
    MR. LOUGHsuggested that the right hon. Gentleman should grant an inquiry into the whole subject, either by a Committee of the House or by a Departmental Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had done himself a great deal of credit by the way in which he had dealt with labour struggles all over the country, but example was better than precept, and the position of the 10,000 cabmen who were directly under his control was a disgrace to the Home Office. He moved the reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary by £500.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Item of £6,500, for the Home Office, be reduced by £500, in respect of the Salary of the Home Secretary."—(Mr. Lough.")
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT(Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): I cannot complain of the tone of my hon. Friend's remarks as far as they relate to myself, but I must express my regret that he should have made the Vote for my salary the occasion for ventilating a number of grievances affecting the cab industry, with which I have no more to do in my character as Home Secretary than has my hon. Friend himself. Whether or not the law is in a satisfactory state, or whether it should be altered on some of the points to which reference has been made, is a question well worthy of consideration. I should, however, be transgressing the ruling of the Chair, and making unjustifiable demands on the time of the Committee, if I were to take this opportunity to criticise or to comment upon the law. Take only one instance out of a number mentioned by my hon. Friend. The question whether or not the sum charged for the plates affixed to every cab is excessive, and whether the best means of applying the sums so raised is to put it in the Police Fund, is worthy of discussion. But, as the law now stands, the Home Secretary has no more discretion in the matter than has any clerk in the Civil Service. The law requires the plates to be taken out and directs the application of the money. As to licences, my hon. Friend has touched a point on which I agree, that the Home Secretary has a certain amount of administrative control. I have already expressed the opinion that, as far as I have the means of forming a judgment, there is an excess in the number of licences granted to drivers. One, at any rate, of the morals of the unfortunate dispute at present prevailing in the streets of the Metropolis is that we are over supplied with cabs, and still more over supplied with drivers. The House must remember that it is a very great hardship to the individual who has taken out a licence, which only lasts 12 months, to be refused a renewal of that which is practically his working capital; and although we may hold abstractly the opinion that there is an excessive supply of drivers, still, when we

    1303
    come to apply that opinion to concrete cases by refusing to particular individuals the means of continuing to earn their livelihood, the House will perceive that the jurisdiction should he exercised with the greatest delicacy and indulgence. I have already taken steps, and will take steps, to see whether the granting of new licences may not be subjected to greater restrictions. My hon. Friend says that if I regulate the fares to be paid by the public, I ought equally to regulate the price to be paid by the driver to the proprietor of the cab. No such power exists in the law, and I think that the House would think twice, or thrice, before it entrusted any Government Department with the responsibility of saying, as between the persons supplying cabs on the one side and the persons demanding cabs as drivers on the other, what shall regulate the price other than the state of the market. I should be sorry to be intrusted with any such responsibility. The question of the admission of privileged cabs into railway yards is a matter on which I have not been idle. I issued a Circular more than a year ago to the Companies having termini in London asking a number of questions. I received replies from all of them, and the result of my consideration is that I am not prepared to say that a strong case has been made out in favour of the abandonment or of the substantial modification of the existing system. Both systems have prevailed. At some railway termini—I think Waterloo, for example—the Railway Company admit unprivileged cabs on payment of 1d. or some other small sum. The other Railway Companies have the cabs more or less under their own control, because they think that in that way they can better meet the necessities and convenience of those who travel by their trains. This is one of the matters on which experience is the best guide. The convenience of the public is, after all, the main thing we have to consider, and so far as the public are concerned I have never heard any complaint from any quarter as to the system that prevails. I am sorry that my hon. Friend should have spoken of the tyranny of the police in the regulation of cabmen and the regulation of traffic. I must, as the person responsible for the regulation of traffic, enter my strong protest.
    MR. LOUGH: I did not say the regulation of traffic. I said that the conduct of the police towards the cabbies was tyrannous.
    MR. ASQUITH: That is a charge that ought not to be made without some attempt to substantiate it. It is the first time I have ever heard such a charge inside or outside the House levelled against the police. Members of the House have an intimate knowledge of the cabmen of London, and are as good judges as anyone of the conduct of the police in the regulation of traffic. They will agree with me that the conduct of the Metropolitan Police in dealing with the cab and omnibus drivers is a model to the police of any country. I very much regret that my hon. Friend should have made such a grave and ill-considered charge. The question whether or not there is a sufficient number of cab-stands is one of a difficult character. I do not think it is fair to say that those cab-stands in existence are appendages to public-houses. In this part of the town, at any rate, that is not the case. With regard to the subject as a whole, the Committee will agree with me that this is a very difficult and delicate industry to regulate, and that it is very difficult to draw a line as to what the State may or may not do in this matter. I deeply regret the unfortunate dispute, and cannot help hoping that by reasonable counsels the comparatively small points of difference may be accommodated. At the same time, as far as I am able to judge—and my opinion is not worth more than that of any intelligent observer—the root of the difficulty is that we have an over-supply of cabs and of drivers, and that the economic conditions correspond with what, in other instances, we would call over-production. It is probably only by a reduction in the number of cabs and of drivers that demand and supply will be equalised, and reasonable terms as regards a livelihood of those engaged in the industry can be secured. Whatever efforts can reasonably be made by the Home Office, or those under its control, for the purpose of bringing about a better understanding between the cabdrivers and their employers shall certainly be made, and so far as the point raised by my hon. Friend — which represented the real

    1305
    grievance—can be dealt with, I can assure him that I shall not relax my attention, but will endeavour so far as I can to bring about a more satisfactory state of things. I think that I cannot usefully occupy the time of the House longer, for, after all, the main ground of the hon. Member's contention was, that the law as it stands is defective, and not the administration of the law.
    MR. LOUGHsaid, that he could not withdraw his Amendment unless the Home Secretary promised something more. Would he appoint a Committee to consider the subject? Cab strikes were occurring every three years, and some means ought to be taken to prevent their recurrence. The promises of the right hon. Gentleman, as far as related to licences, were so far satisfactory, but he thought that some method of dealing with the whole subject in a humane and generous way as between employers and employed might be arrived at. Unless some more satisfactory statement 'were made on behalf of the Goverment, he should feel bound to press the Motion to a Division.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, that he was exceedingly sorry to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that he was not disposed to grant an inquiry into the incidents of the cab-driving trade by a Committee of that House. But if the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to the appointment of such Committee, he ought to consider seriously whether he could not concede to the fully unanimous request of the men that the control of the vehicular traffic of the streets should be transferred from the Home Office to some more Representative Body. It required greater care than the Home Secretary or the police could possibly hope to give it. The Home Secretary started by saying that it was exceedingly difficult to exercise control in such a way as to minimise to any appreciable extent the over-supply of cabs. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would exercise his control in such a manner as to prevent the indiscriminate granting of licences to youths —inexperienced drivers. One saw inexperienced men every day in charge of hansom cabs, and occasionally four-wheelers. On this subject he did not take the altogether narrow view of the cabman themselves, but asked the House
    1306
    to view the question from the point of view of the ordinary foot passenger. Some means ought to be devised of preventing the difficulties and dangers which were caused by this excess of vehicles. The excessive number of cabmen plying for hire was a danger not only to the public generally, but to the fares whom they all rushed to secure, and steps ought to be taken to abate the nuisance. The present strike proved that there were 15,000 licences issued to cabdrivers, many of whom had to be in the streets from 14 to 18 hours a day, and sometimes cruelly overworked their horses in search of fares that never came, in consequence of their being too many cabs on the stands. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was some difficulty in interfering with the freedom of contract between cabdrivers and their employers; but in the case of omnibuses, where the employed were paid a fixed daily or weekly wage, the matter settled itself, because both parties were equally interested in preventing too many omnibuses being sent out. In the case of cabs, however, it was different, because the cabowner let his cab out for a fixed sum, and the cabdriver had to remain in the streets many hours in order to pay his employer's charge and to make a living for himself. Why should not the cabdriver have some immunity from Imposition by the cabowner, which the law afforded to the public against a cabdriver or an omnibus driver? The present precarious system of remuneration to the cabdrivers was unfair, and he did not see why, as the outcome of the Committee of Inquiry, there should not be some daily fixed wage, as in Berlin and other places on the Continent.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Home Secretary is only responsible on this Vote for his own acts. The hon. Member is now digressing.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, he was surprised that the Home Secretary had not received complaints as to the question of privileged cabs in railway stations. The Home Secretary affected a simplicity as to the treatment of cabmen by the London police that some Judges affected in relation to horses which they frequently backed and ballet dancers whom they frequently went to see. [Cries of "Oh, oh !"] It was a standing joke at Marlborough Street, Bow Street, and

    1307
    every other London Police Court that if there were 40 cabmen charged with obstruction or—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out again that the Home Secretary is not responsible for that, but only for his own administration.
    ME. JOHN BURNSsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was certainly reponsible for the conduct of the police, and if he were to visit a police court in which 40 cases against cabmen were heard he would find that not one of them escaped fine or imprisonment. The policemen were always listened to, and the poor cabman was always put away. Cabmen ought to be taken, not before a Criminal Court, where the cabmen and the police were continually at loggerheads, but should be subject to a Civil Court. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Committee of Inquiry, which might bring about such a result? The Home Secretary was quite aware that there existed in Loudon a body which ought to undertake the settlement and satisfactory management not only of the vehicular traffic of the streets of London, but could be constituted a Civil Court of Appeal, by means of which cabmen and the police would be prevented from being at loggerheads. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman grant the request of the cabmen, and put the whole of the vehicular traffic under the management of the London County Council? [Cries of "Oh!"] If the London County Council had the management of more public vehicles they would cease to be centres of contagion, and the perfunctory way in which they were now controlled would be brought to an end. He appealed to the Home Secretary to grant a Committee of Inquiry so that, among other things, the London streets might be saved from overcrowding by cabs, which were one-third toe many in number; and from a system by which cabmen were starved and had to resort to intimidation because their earnings did not average all the year round the wages of a scavenger. There were one-third more cabs in London than could earn a living for masters and men; and when an appeal was made to Parliament for assistance in the matter it seemed like the very essence of incompetence, not to say ignorance, helplessness, and hopelessness,
    1308
    for a public official to admit that he had no power to do anything for cabby in his distress. If that was the only answer the Home Secretary had to give the cabmen who appealed to him, the sooner he got rid of a difficulty he would not attempt to grapple with, and letLondon's Municipal Council do what every other Municipality was doing, the better it would be for the cabman and the public he served.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought that the present system connected with cabs in London was thoroughly bad, and the House was clearly responsible for it. Considering the strike that was going on, his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Lough) was justified in asking for the appointment of a Committee. But why were they called upon to take up the time of the House in a discussion on the question of cabs? In Northampton the cabs were managed under the supervision of the inhabitants of the town.[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed; but was it, or was it not, a local matter, this question of cabs in London? If it was, surely the Imperial Parliament ought not to be occupied with a subject which should be relegated to the Count}' Council. He trusted that his hon. Friend would go to a Division if the Home Secretary would not consent to send the matter to a Committee.
    MR. FENWICKsaid, he thought that the subject did not require a Committee, but that the Home Secretary was competent to deal with it. If a Division were taken, there ought to be a very distinct understanding as to what the functions of the proposed Committee were to be. He gathered that the Home Secretary was quite willing to deal with the matter of regulating the number of cabstands and shelters in London; but the question of licences stood in a totally different position. He, for one, was strongly opposed to the creation of monopolies either in the interests of the workmen or employers, and he should protest against any attempt on the part of the Home Secretary or any private Member to create a monopoly for the benefit of one class or another. It might be a very fair question for the Home Secretary to consider whether any new licences should be granted for some time or otherwise, but he did not see how, when a workman had passed his examination, so to speak, and had

    1309
    proved his competency to manage a cab in the streets of London, the Home Secretary could in justice refuse the renewal of his licence. He hoped that if they divided on the question some clear statement would be made as to the issue upon which the Division was to take place. If it was to be a Division on the appointment of a Committee to have the power of considering the points in dispute between the cabdriver and the cabowner in the present strike, then he protested against it. He was wholly opposed to Parliament interfering in any way in industrial disputes between employers and employed. He as a workman thought that the workmen were quite competent to protect themselves. If they were permitted the freedom of combination, if no restrictions were placed in the way of their fairly combining and organising for the protection of their labour, he strongly reprobated any interference on the part of Parliament between capital and labour in any industrial conflicts. Therefore, he said that, if the Committee was going to a Division on the point, there ought to be a clear understanding as to the issue on which such a Division was to be taken.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, North Beds.)said, he did not think it would be necessary to go to a Division. His hon. Friend (Mr. Fenwick) had made very clear to the House the difficulties that might arise from a too wide extension of the scope of an inquiry on the subject; but if those hon. Members who were interested in the subject would be satisfied with an inquiry by a small Departmental Committee to be presided over by himself—as this was a subject in which he took some interest—and containing one or two advisers from outside, he thought such a Committee might come to a decision on many of the points which had been referred to.
    MR. LOUGHsaid, he would be happy to accept his hon. Friend's proposal, provided that the proposed Committee was strengthened as much as possible from outside.
    MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, the Committee would not be confined to members of the Home Office.
    MR. WEBSTER (St. Paucras, E.)said, it was not the cabdrivers and the
    1310
    cabowners who were alone interested in this matter. The public were very much interested in it also. It was a great inconvenience to the public to have too many cabs, as they restricted other traffic, and wore the roads unnecessarily. He desired to see the drivers have a living wage. They were a very hard-working and a very honest class of men. Those who happened to leave things in cabs were pretty safe if they went to Scotland Yard next morning to find the lost article deposited there. He thought that in the interest of the public it was desirable that an inquiry should take place. He did not wish to see licences taken away from any of the existing drivers, but he thought it would be wise that when licences were issued the authorities should take into account the interests of the public.
    CAPTAIN BOWLESsaid, he hoped that the Committee of Inquiry would consider the interests of the large area outside the Loudon County Council district as well as the area within the district.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.

    SIAM.
    MR. CURZON (Lancashire, South-port)said, he wished to raise once more the question of Siam. He thought that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir E. Grey) would admit that he had no desire whatever, in raising the question again, to do anything to embarrass the Government or to impede the course of any negotiations that might be passing between the Government of this country and the French Government. He thought, however, that where so much was at stake, and where the interests of this country, both commercial and political, were as large as they were in the case of Siam, the House had a right to press for information from the Executive Government. If the interest that was felt in Siam in this country was not very great or absorbing it must be remembered that in the distant regions of the far East the prestige of Great Britain and the action of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the question were matters of the most vital concern, and that the Siamese question, which could scarcely draw

    1311
    together a decent audience in the House of Commons, affected not merely the livelihood of thousands of British citizens, but even the prestige of the Empire. In that part of the world an impression undoubtedly prevailed that the interests of Great Britain had been somewhat imperfectly safeguarded, and that France had been permitted with too little protest to pursue a very high-handed policy of aggression towards a feeble State; and unless some statement were made to that country by Her Majesty's Government indicating what British interests were and the point beyond which those interests would not permit of any further advance, he could not help entertaining the fear that the appetite which, in the French proverb, grew by eating might not be satisfied until it had acquired some further spoil in that part of the world. He did not desire to re-open on this occasion any of the aspects of the question which might be considered past and over, but would only call the attention of the House to those portions of it still remaining unsettled. First came the question of the Papers which had been promised to the House, connected with which was the continued occupation of Chantaboon by the French. The House had waited now for some eight or ten months for those Papers, and was still without any information as to the communications which had passed between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the French Government, although extracts from the Despatches were read out nearly a year ago by French Ministers in the Chamber. No information had been afforded as to the proceedings of the French at Bangkok, the blockade, or the State on the Upper Mekong; and, lastly, no Papers had been produced as to any negotiations with other Governments as to future guarantees in reference to Siam. In that state of matters, Members on both sides of the House were anxious to know how Her Majesty's Government had been protecting the interests and conducting the affairs of this country in that part of the East. They were quite willing to believe that the interests of the country were safe in the hands of the Government, and that they had conducted the negotiations with firmness and credit; but surely the time had arrived when the House could legitimately ask for some justification of that
    1312
    popular feeling in their favour. Of course, he could quite appreciate the reasons given by the Under Secretary of State to the House for not producing the Papers. He had told them the Papers were being withheld until the one outstanding point between the French and Siamese Governments had been disposed of, that point being the trial of a Siamese official, Pra Yot, who was accused of being concerned in the alleged massacre of a French Inspector of Militia and his Annamite escort in a district east of the Mekong River. They had been told more than once by the hon. Gentleman that on the completion of that trial they might expect the immediate evacuation of Chantaboon by the French troops. The first trial had taken place, and the case against the alleged culprit had completely broken down, since it had turned out that the alleged massacre was a collision which had occurred under easily intelligible circumstances, that the firing had initiated with the French, and that Pra Yot had only acted in self-defence. It was not surprising, therefore, that the Court at Bangkok had found him free from blame on all counts of the indictment brought against him. But under the terms of the Convention, the French seemed to have contemplated such an issue, and had reserved to themselves the right of judging whether the sentences were adequate, and of demanding a second trial before a mixed Court, the composition of which they should themselves fix. He would only say, as the matter was pending before the second tribunal, that they would await its proceedings and verdict with considerable interest. Next, turning to the occupation of Chantaboon, which was closely connected with this question, hon. Members were aware, no doubt, that that place was a port on one of the principal rivers of Siam and the means of communication between the provinces of Angkor and Battambong and the foreign world. That port was occupied by the French in the course of their aggretessive proceedings last year, and he had then pointed out to his right hon. Friend the serious character of that occupation without avail. But he thought the right hon. Gentleman had since seen reason to change his opinion in the matter. The French occupation of Chantaboon had continued ever since; they had fortified their posi-

    1313
    tion, and had maintained there Franco-Annamite troops. But in the Convention their continued occupation of the place had distinctly been made contingent on the fulfilment of two conditions—namely, the complete and peaceable evacuation by Siam of the territory beyond the Mekong, of the famous 16 miles strip on the banks of that river, and of the above - named inland provinces; and, secondly, the completion of the trial of Pra Yot. Those conditions had been faithfully carried out by the Siamese Government—nobody, even the strongest partisans of the French, could say the contrary. That had been recognised on several occasions by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and only one interpretation could be placed on the language which had been held. Without drawing any inferences, he would quote the statement made by the hon. Gentleman in that House on the 16th of February last, that—
    "Most explicit assurances had been received from the French that they were most desirous of leaving Chantaboon at the earliest opportunity and that they would not remain there a day after the engagements of Siam had been performed."
    On two occasions since the hon. Gentleman had repeated those statements, and they had been supported by the authority of the Prime Minister himself. He called attention to the clearness of those words, because in a few days' or weeks' time the second trial would be completed, when he hoped that the French, being mindful of the pledge they had given, would voluntarily terminate an occupation which was a menace to Siam as long as it lasted. It was well to recall those statements, lest there should be any tardiness on the part of the French Government to remember the obligations imposed upon them, according to the repeated statements in both Houses of Parliament. He would next refer to the terms of the Commercial Treaty to be negotiated between France and Siam. In the 5th Article of the Treaty which was concluded last October it was stipulated that within six months of that time negotiations should be opened between the Siamese and French Governments, with a view to the regulation of the Customs and the commercial regime to be established for traders in the Provinces of Battambong and Angkor, and in the 16 miles
    1314
    strip on the Mekong. Negotiations apparently had taken place in Paris; but, of course, he would not press for information which either it was not in the power of the Government to give, or which it would be inopportune to give at the present stage; but the House had a right to demand that when this new Commercial Treaty had been concluded between France and Siam they should be informed that it contained no differential provisions—that no advantages would be conceded to French subjects or traders in Provinces which were admitted by France to remain still an integral portion of the Siamese dominions and where British trade had at least an equal right. In accordance with the Most Favoured Nation Clause in the existing Treaty between England and Siam, it should be distinctly stated in the agreements about to be entered into that no advantage would accrue to French traders or subjects under the new Convention which would not be equally enjoyed by British subjects and traders. It would indeed be an intolerable thing if Siam, having already been compelled under the pressure of superior force to sign away so large a portion of her political integrity and independence, were now a year afterwards to be cozened into a still further surrender of her commercial rights, and still more so if she were compelled to take that course in the interest of a Power which, in spite of its contiguity and its geographical advantages, had never succeeded in building up any solid trade with Siam at all, and to the detriment of another Power— Great Britain—the integrity and industry of whose merchants had already obtained for them 90 per cent. of the total trade in the chief ports. Another point in connection with this matter was that under Clause 8 of the same Treaty the French Government reserved to itself the right to establish Consulates at Korat and Nan. The former place was the terminus of a railway at present being constructed by English engineers for about 160 miles from Bangkok, and was the centre of a considerable trade. Nan was a good deal further north, and was a place where the foreign trade was entirely British or Indian. Neither at Korat nor at Nan would a single article of French manufacture be found. In those centres and districts, the foreign supply was ex-

    1315
    clusively English and Anglo-Indian. He failed to understand, in those circumstances, what particular purpose French Consuls were to serve when they got there. He did not wish to discuss that matter, but merely to point out that the French had obtained those advantages, and that in fact Consuls had already started for Korat and Nan. On a previous occasion he had asked whether, as French Consuls had been appointed to places where there was no French trade, English Consuls should not also be appointed, but had received no answer. He would again, therefore, ask whether it was not desirable that we should have representatives in those places. The next question was with regard to the so-called "buffer State." At an early stage it was agreed that to avoid friction and the danger of personal collision which might arise from the geographical contact of two such Powers as France and Great Britain in those remote parts of the world, it would be desirable to constitute an intermediate or buffer State between them. The Protocol signed on the subject by Lord Dufferin and the French Minister had been already presented to the House. The Under Secretary had informed them that climatic obstacles (which anyone acquainted with the country would appreciate) had hitherto prevented the despatch of a British Commission to examine topographically the territory in question. It had therefore been postponed until the autumn. A little more information, however, was required on that point. The French Commission had been appointed, and had started, and the names of the Commissioners were known, among them being M. Paris, the energetic representative of France at Bangkok. The Committee ought to know when our Commissioners were to start, and the instructions upon which they were to act. Were they to appear in the Papers which the hon. Gentleman had promised to present? For his own part, he did not attach so much importance to this so-called "buffer State" on the Upper Mekong as some people were disposed to give to it. The French Chauvinist feeling had been worked up to a great state of excitement and apprehension in regard to it; but, in his opinion, a vindication of the indisputable British territorial rights— which were incapable of dispute by
    1316
    the French Government — on both banks of the Upper Mekong River would be of more advantage to British interests, and a greater safeguard for the transit of commerce with the Southwestern Provinces of China than any buffer-State which could be constituted by diplomatic arrangement. The Government, of course, knew better than anyone else whether such a buffer State was advisable or necessary; but they should at least see that it was what it pretended to be. It must not be a "neutral zone," but a neutral State. A neutral zone would become merely an Alsatia into which all the dacoits, thieves, and brigands from the surrounding States would flock; but the very name neutral "State" postulated the exercise of some executive authority. Ex hypothesi such a State could not be either French or English, because it would separate the two Powers; neither could it be Siamese, because Siam had given up the whole of her territory on the left bank of the river. Her Majesty's Government should see, therefore, that the discharge of the elementary duties of administration in this State was placed in competent hands. Perhaps the Government were in a position to give the Committee information on a subject germane to this—the Anglo-Chinese Convention which had been concluded relating to the frontiers of Burmah. Its main features had appeared in the Press; but he had been told, in answer to a question, that until the Despatches arrived at Pekin, Her Majesty's Government were not in a position to give any information upon the subject. He believed the Convention included the cession to China of the important State of Kiang Hung; and, inasmuch as that abutted on the Mekong River, where the buffer State would have to be carved out, this was a matter obviously which was closely allied with the question now under discussion, and the Committee was entitled to be informed by Her Majesty's Government what quid pro quo they had received for so important a concession. Therefore, he would ask whether the Papers to be presented would relate to the Convention in regard to the Burmese frontiers as well as to affairs in Siam? He next desired to state what was the real danger that lay before Siam. He had no desire to wound the susceptibilities of Frenchmen,

    1317
    and hoped he had never spoken or written in the course of this controversy a word transgressing the limits of respect for a great neighbouring Power or going beyond the bounds of fair criticism. But it could not be gainsaid that the French Colonial eye (and he was speaking of what he had himself seen) was directed upon the Menam Valley and territories at present belonging to Siam with a glance in which there was more of longing than of love. They had already made the Mekong Valley their wash pot. Over the rest of Siam they wanted to cast out their shoe. He did not say that any such aggressive views were encouraged on the Quai d'Orsay, and indeed they were frankly inconsistent with the pledges given by the French Government. But a long course of Eastern experience had taught us that a central Govermnent,however honourable its intentions and desires, was not always capable of exercising perfect control over imperious pro-Consuls at a distance from headquarters or even of restraining over-active subordinates operating upon an out-of-the-way frontier. The realisation of any such scheme as a French occupation of the Meinam Valley was a prospect which no British Government could tolerate for a moment. Whatever guarantees might be given it would involve the total extinction of an important branch of British trade upon which the wealth and commerce of Singapore largely depended. Further, it would constitute a serious political danger to our Indian Fmpire to have a foreign Power established in the Meinam Valley adjoining our territories and the Provinces of Lower and Upper Burmah. Such a result would impose distressing burdens upon our Indian finances and would constitute a very serious peril to our Indian Empire. Unless some clear warning were given by Her Majesty's Government to the French of the great and legitimate interest which this country took in the matter it was quite possible we might wake up any day to find that such a consummation had taken place and that Siam had been compelled or persuaded by a Power which she could not resist to sign away the last shreds of her political and territorial autonomy. There was only one way by which that issue could be averted. Over and over again the French Government had protested its desire to respect the
    1318
    integrity of Siam, and had explained its recent aggression as the vindication of historic claims, and as being divorced from any ambitions of ulterior absorption. For our part, he imagined that the desire of the British Government to respect the independence of Siam was absolutely beyond cavil or suspicion. That being so, one was tempted to inquire what objection there could possibly be to the British Government inviting and the French Government giving a guarantee of the future integrity of Siam. Such a guarantee, he should say, the respective Governments ought not only to be willing to reciprocate, but to initiate. If there should be any disinclination on the part of the French Government to enter into such an arrangement, colour would be at once given to those suggestions and suspicions as to their ultimate aims and objects and intentions, in regard to which such great indignation was expressed when they were hinted at. He was convinced that only by such a guarantee could the future independence of Siam be assured. If she were protected by her two great neighbours on the east and west, and so rendered free from the danger of further territorial loss, she would then be free to develop the stability which the country now lacked. Siam was a country which possessed very considerable resources. The country had a patient and intelligent population, and there was a public spirit in its Sovereign and its leading men; and it was quite possible, under favourable conditions, for Siam to gain a creditable position among independent nations. But without the protection of such a guarantee as he had described, it was to be feared that Siam would be too apprehensive of the disasters that might await her to work out her own salvation, that she would be swayed first in one direction and then in another, and would be likely to yield to the temptation of purchasing support by granting still further concessions to whichever she might conceive to be the stronger party. It could not be too strongly impressed upon the Committee that the real buffer State between Great Britain and France in the far East could not be an artificial strip of jungle which was to be carved out from a comparatively unknown and desolate country in a remote angle of the Upper Mekong. Siam itself must remain the real buffer State. It was no good

    1319
    making a sham buffer State in the northeast whilst the real buffer State in (he south-east was being sapped and undermined. It would be far better that the sham buffer State in the north-east should be a failure than that the genuine buffer State in the south-east should be a phantom. They waited with great interest for any information that could be given to them on this subject. He hoped that the Government were thoroughly alive to the great Imperial importance of this question, and ho should be glad to know whether, in their negotiations with France, they had included proposals for a guarantee of the future independence of Siam, for such a guarantee was of the highest importance as being likely to ensure good relations in the future between France and Great Britain in the Fast.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,)said that, with regard to the Anglo-Chinese Convention, he was still not sure that it had reached Pekin. Therefore, although there possibly might be no harm in making some statement with reference to the matter, he thought, on the whole, it would be safer to defer any observations which he might have to make until the time when they would be quite certain that the actual terms of the Convention were in the hands of the Chinese Government. He found no fault with the hon. Member for having raised the Siamese question, and of course he did not wish to detract from the importance of the question to the Imperial interests of this country. The hon. Member had a great deal of knowledge on this subject, which nobody could dispute, and felt strongly upon it, and there was a clearness and attractiveness in his way of presenting his case which anyone might envy. But, of course, in discussing this question the hon. Member had exercised a freedom which could hardly be exercised to the same extent by a Member of the Government. He would, however, deal with the points raised by the hon. Member as far as he could, and, first of all, he had to say that the whole question of the relations between Siam and France remained not absolutely, but practically, in much the same state as it was in when he last discussed it in the House. It was, therefore, not possible for him to add much to what he had
    1320
    previously stated. The question of the buffer State was one which it was arranged from the beginning could not be decided until the delimitation of the frontiers should have been finished. He saw no reason to suppose that the names of the British Commissioners or their instructions would be withheld from Parliament. Even if the French Commissioners had been named and even if they had started, the arrangement that had been made was a bilateral arrangement, and it was not possible for the question of the constitution of the buffer State to make any real progress until the delimitation of the frontiers should have been undertaken on the one side as well as on the other. As to the reported appointment of French Consuls in Siam, he had to say that he was not certain that there had been two appointments. One Consul, however, had been appointed to serve at Korat, but had not yet arrived there. The Government had in view the appointment of a British Consul at Korat and would not lose sight of the matter. With regard to the Commercial Treaty, he would only observe that so far as the Government knew, no commercial provisions had yet been agreed upon between France and Siam. This country, of course, disliked intensely having differential duties imposed against its trade in any part of the world. In making Treaties with other countries it had not been our policy to ask for special trade advantages, but we strongly objected to arrangements between other countries under which our trade could not have fair play in foreign markets. Under the treaty with Siam we had a Most Favoured Nation Clause, and not only this Government, but any Government, would be quite certain to make use of its right under that clause should any advantages be given by Siam to any third country which could in any way conflict with British interests. Turning now to the larger and more general question, he would recall the Committee's attention to the exact state of things. There was not long ago a dispute between France and Siam, which at one period assumed a very threatening aspect, and the result was that a Convention was signed between France and Siam, and certain stipulations were made between them. The position taken up by the French Government had always been that it was

    1321
    their desire to have the stipulations of that Convention fully carried out on both sides. The Siamese Government had taken up the same position, and the French Government had declared from the beginning that it was necessary that the stipulations of that Convention should be carried out on both sides before they could enter upon any fresh discussion. He would not discuss the merits of the Convention and the events that preceded it, but it was obvious that, having arrived at that point, the thing which the Government had a right to look forward to was the fulfilment by Siam and France of the stipulations which they had respectively agreed to under the Convention. But those stipulations had not yet all been fulfilled, though the larger part of them bad been fulfilled on the Siamese side. There still remained the question of the trial. One stage had been completed, but under the Convention the right was expressly reserved to the French Government to have a new trial should the first trial not be satisfactory. That right they were determined to exercise; and Papers had been withheld from the House because the desire of the British Government had been that the stipulations on both sides of the Convention should be carried out in a friendly and satisfactory spirit. It might be that Papers might now be published without endangering the chance of a satisfactory settlement, but the Government thought that having waited so long, and as only a small point now remained to be settled, it would be a pity to do anything to prejudice a satisfactory issue. He admitted that Papers could not be withheld from the House very much longer. If the proceedings in connection with what remained of the Convention were unexpectedly to be prolonged it would not be fair to the House to withhold the Papers that had been promised. Although the Government had borne that in mind, and had already begun to consider whether they ought not to place the House in a position to review the facts of the case by publishing Papers, the present moment was not one in which he could make any definite statement to the House upon the matter. He would remind the House that there had been a change of Government in France, and it would be most unreasonable that any step towards the publication of Papers should be taken until
    1322
    there had been some friendly communication between the Governments of the two countries. It was not yet known what the new French Government would be, but the Government relied upon it that, in accordance with the traditions of the past of that great country, whatever the new French Government might be, it would take up the thread of the negotiations where they had been left in a friendly spirit. Her Majesty's Government had already demonstrated freely during the last year or more that they were most ready to reciprocate any friendly spirit shown on the other side, and that being so, he hoped the Committee would understand that, although the publication of the Papers had been inconveniently long delayed, it was not possible for him to make any definite statement with regard to them while political affairs in France remained in their present state of uncertainty. He could only give his hon. Friend the assurance that the matter should not be left much longer in its present state. The Government were anxious to see the stipulations of the Convention carried out on both sides, and that there should be a clear understanding arrived at between all parties which would prevent not only the risk of any danger or serious damage to the interests of any of the parties concerned, but might also avert for many future years the risk of any friction between them.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, so much had transpired that afternoon to justify the pressure he had repeatedly put on Her Majesty's Government, that he hoped he might be allowed to add a few observations to the remarkably able statement they had heard from the hon. Member for Southport. The Committee would recollect that just two months had elapsed since he urged the production of Papers, but no step had yet been taken by the Government to publish the Blue Book, while the French Yellow Book had been published some time without regard to the arguments of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. This was not as it should be, seeing that the people of Great Britain had far greater interest in the matter, commercial and material, than had the people of France, and they should not be left without information by the Government. He assured the Government that until the Papers were pro-

    1323
    duced and Members saw what the proceedings on the British side had been, there would be reasonable apprehension that British interests, material and commercial, had not been safeguarded. He earnestly commended to the Committee what had been said by the Member for Southport. A small buffer State in the north-east corner of Siam might be of some value. He did not dispute that, but the true buffer State in south-eastern Asia between France and England was Siam itself. That the French had cast longing eyes of cupidity not only on Bangkok, but also on the Valley of the Mekong and the Valley of the Menam, had been known for the last 10 or 20 years to every Anglo-Indian statesman, and unless measures were taken we would wake up to find that besides having a Russian frontier on the west of India we had a French frontier on the east. That would be a most dangerous thing for the people of India. The true and only remedy was that pointed out by the hon. Member for Southport— namely, that France should come to an understanding with England to preserve the independence of what remained of Siam after the outrageous spoliation to which the country had recently been subjected. The time had come when we must speak out in these matters. He maintained that if the British Government was firm and the French Government was honest, a joint guarantee of the independence of Siam would be arrived at. He was bound in charity as well as in policy to assume that the French Government was honest, and he hoped he might assume that the British Government, even in the hands of Her Majesty's present Ministers, would be firm.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,)said, he rose to point out that it was necessary that the Government should get the Vote to-night, and he hoped hon. Members would have that fact in view during the short time that still remained to the House.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he did not quite understand the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made. At 20 minutes past 6 o'clock he coolly got up and told them that this money must be granted tonight without producing a single reason to support it. He (Mr. Chaplin) had been informed by hon. Friends who had
    1324
    experience in the matter that there was no reason whatever why the Vote should be obtained to-night. But if the necessity existed the fault rested with the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues, who had had the whole Session before them, and who might have put the Vote down on any day during the week. He doubted whether this attempt to hurry the Vote through without necessary discussion would be successful. He said "attempt," because he questioned whether, under the circumstances, the Closure would be allowed. ["Oh, oh !"] Hon. Members forgot that there were distinct Rules regulating the application of the Closure. The rights of the minority were not to be infringed, and though he did not presume to say what course the Chairman would take, it was at least open to doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman would be justified in saying that the Debate should be stopped to-night. That would be a very strong order indeed. The fault rested entirely with the Government, of whom the House had had the same unfortunate experience on more than one occasion. Last Session they had announced that they would close the discussion of a Vote on Account at a few hours' notice, and this Session they were depriving Members of one of their oldest privileges in order that they might prosecute other business to which, no doubt, they attached great importance, but to which they could not expect the House of Commons to attach similar importance. He (Mr. Chaplin) desired to call attention to a most important subject in regard to which a Notice had been put on the Paper on the previous night.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had two Notices on the Paper before that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, with regard to Newfoundland. He wished to ask whether Her Majesty's Government would see that a. proper opportunity of deciding Election Petitions was afforded in Newfoundland before any appeal to the country was made? because, so far as he could make out, he believed the late Government of that colony desired to whitewash themselves by a new election. There was a feeling in the colony that a Dissolution might yet be rushed by the Party in power if the Governor General gave way, and did not stop it until after the Law Courts had decided on the Election Petitions. He also wished to know

    1325
    whether the Colonial Office were attempting to move the Foreign Office to get the question affecting the French shore settled by the French Government? He moved to reduce the vote by £10 in order to emphasise the questions he had raised.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not necessary to move in order to draw attention to these matters.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I am aware of that, but I do move.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £6,500, for the Colonial Office, be reduced by £10."— {Mr. A. C. Morton.)
    SIR F. EVANSsaid, he was sorry that attacks should be made in the House against gentlemen who were not able to reply for themselves. The hon. Member (Mr. Morton) said the late Government of Newfoundland asked for a Dissolution in order that they might get themselves whitewashed. He (Sir F. Evans) demurred to that statement. There was nothing to prove what the motives of these gentlemen in asking for a Dissolution were. Everyone acquainted with Newfoundland must know that the present state of affairs had no precedent in the history of the colony. The peculiar circumstances under which the demand for a Dissolution occurred would not allow of an explanation in the brief space of time at the disposal of the Government in the present Sitting. The position he held in regard to Newfoundland was such that it might be his duty at a later stage to bring the whole question under the notice of the House, but it was impossible to do that in the few moments now at his disposal. He, therefore, contented himself with asking the House not to accept the statement in which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) attributed mala fides to the late Government of Newfoundland. As to the other question raised by the hon. Member, it was not possible to settle it until the Colonial Government had come to a decision as to the legislation to be passed by the Colonial Parliament.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): I wish to reply to the two points raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. A. C. Morton). As regards the French Treaty shore, that is
    1326
    a matter to which already a great deal of attention has been given, and it has always been the object of the English Government to come to some arrangement with the French Government in order that this very intricate question may be settled. No effort will certainly be spared by the English Government to put an end to any difficulties that may occur. I should like to say this with regard to the Treaty shore, that very great forbearance has been shown on both sides, on the part of the French naval officers especially, and on the part of our officers, and I think it very creditable to both parties that so few disputes have arisen. As to the magisterial work, all the information I have been able to obtain is that, as far as they have acted as Newfoundland Magistrates, their conduct has given the utmost satisfaction. With reference to the Constitutional crisis which unfortunately is now going on in Newfoundland, it is quite impossible for me to give an answer to a hypothetical question. My hon. Friend wants to know what we are going to do under certain suppositious circumstances. Though, of course, we have to consider carefully all the different points of view, and although to a certain extent we have made up our minds as to what we propose to do, it is impossible to state what we shall do in circumstances which have not arisen. I think my hon. Friend behind me (Sir F. Evans) was justified in entering his protest against the assumption of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton), that the action of the late Government in Newfoundland was founded on bad motives. Apart altogether from escaping the results of the corruption that may have taken place at the election, there are many reasons which may have made a Dissolution at that time an advantage instead of a disadvantage. At the same time, the Governor, acting in the exercise of his discretion, refused a Dissolution, accepted the resignation of the late Government, and has now a new Government in Office. If a question respecting Dissolution arises he will, no doubt, communicate with us, but he will also act under the power which is given to him by the Constitution.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he was obliged to the Under Secretary for his statement, but he did not withdraw a word

    1327
    he had said about the late Newfoundland Government.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CHANNINGsaid, that on Vote 8 he wished to ask a question respecting the very important point of the appointment of practical men as Railway Sub-Inspectors.
    ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, be had given notice of his intention to call attention to a very important matter on the Colonial Vote.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Then I call upon the hon. and gallant Member.
    ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he wished to draw attention to the subsidies paid by some of the Crown Colonies to foreign mail steamers for carrying British mails. He had received a very unsatisfactory answer to a question he had put to the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. S. Buxton) on the subject. The hon. Gentleman had admitted that it was the case that the Crown Colony of Mauritius paid a subsidy of something like £6,000 a year to the French Messageries Maritimes for carrying mails to and from the colony, but had said that Her Majesty's Government were practically powerless to interfere with this very objectionable arrangement. He (Admiral Field) thought it was time to speak out against this subsidising of foreign mail steamers with British money. Our shipping interests were seriously interfered with now by the bounty-fed shipping of France. Another foreign steamship company—a German line—was also subsidised to carry the mails to the Falkland Islands. It was monstrous that this state of things should continue. When he had appealed to the Under Secretary (Mr. S.Buxton) for any instance in which a foreign Government subsidised a British Company for carrying mails, the hon. Gentleman had replied that the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company were subsidised for carrying mails from Calais. The hon. Gentleman's answer was not very candid, because the conditions imposed by the French Government in granting that subsidy was that the steamers should carry the French flag, be commanded by French officers, and be manned by French crews
    MR. S. BUXTONwas understood to explain that he had given an incorrect
    1328
    answer in consequence of a pure misunderstanding as to the question. He had had no intention of deceiving the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he, of course, accepted the hon. Gentleman's statement, but he wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government would impose similar conditions in reference to the contract with the Messageries Maritimes as the French Government imposed with regard to the contract with the London, Chatham, and Dover Company—namely, that the French Company's ships should fly the English flag; that they should be commanded by English officers, and be manned by English crews?
    MR. CHANNINGsaid, he wished to ask a question about the inquiries respecting fatal accidents to railway servants. It was well-known that railway men had again and again demanded that they should be treated in the same way as miners, and have men who were acquainted with the daily details of their work to carry out inquiries for them. During the last four years no fewer than 2,000 railway servants had lost then-lives in other than train accidents, and in only one or two of these instances had there been any inquiry whatever. He thought it most important that men who were acquainted with the daily work of railway servants should look into such cases and make recommendations which would enable the Board of Trade to deal with the real causes of the fatalities.
    Mr. CHAPLINrose to continue the Debate—
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move,' That the Question be now put."
    THE CHAIRMAN: After the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a short time ago, I must leave this matter to the judgment of the Committee.
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 221; Noes 116.—(Division List, No. 58.)
    Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
    It being Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House at Nine of the clock.

  EVENING SITTING.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  SUPPLY.
  Resolved, That this House will again resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (EXPENSES).

  RESOLUTION.
  MB. J. ROWLANDSrose to move the following Resolution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Returning Officers' Expenses and all other Official Charges in connection with Parliamentary Elections should be defrayed out of public funds, and that a material reduction is possible in the present scale of charges allowed under 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) Act, 1875.'"
  An hon. MEMBER: Take the Division at once.
  MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, he was afraid he could not fall in with that view of the hon. Member, though he thought there would be very little doubt of the result if the House were to divide now. He did not think any apology was necessary for bringing a question like this before the House at the present time. For a long period of years they had been broadening out their institutions, and the one ideal of most persons bad been that this House should be as thoroughly representative of all sections of the community as it was possible by a popular election to make it. They had broadened out the whole question of the franchise; they had gone further, and thought it necessary to re-adjust their electoral areas. But there was one thing they had not done at present, and that was, they had not liberated candidates for Parliamentary honours from the official charges which, in his opinion, should belong to the community in some way or other, and not the individual who sought to do the work of the nation. Those who had read the Resolution would notice that it contained two distinct propositions. The first was—
  1330
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Returning Officers' Expenses and all other Official Charges in connection with Parliamentary Elections should be defrayed out of public funds."
  That in itself was a self-contained proposition, and anyone could support that without supporting the latter part of the Resolution he had placed on the Paper. But before he had done, he thought he should give such evidence in the way of figures as to show it was quite possible not only to support the first part of the Resolution, but also the latter part, and that he should be able to prove that the Returning Officers' charges could be materially reduced. He had put into his Resolution a particular form of words thad had given rise to some amount of discussion. Instead of using the words "the rates or Consolidated Fund," he had purposely put in that these charges "should be defrayed out of public funds." His reason for doing so was that upon this occasion they wanted to get a definite expression of the opinion of the House as to whether the community should bear these expenses or whether they should still remain a charge upon the candidate. There was, undoubtedly, much difference of opinion amongst Members of this House as to whether candidates should be exonerated from these charges, much difference of opinion as to where the charges should be placed, and he proposed to-night to get as strong an expression of opinion as possible from those who believed candidates should be liberated from these expenses. If they went as far as that tonight it would be quite possible, when the practical suggestion was made in the House, either by Amendment to a Bill before the House or by a separate measure, for the House to express an opinion whether the expense should be put on the Consolidated Fund or the rates. That could be done in the form of an Amendment to a Bill or a separate measure, and if the Consolidated Fund were included in the measure the House would have the power of saying in what quarter the charge should be placed. So far as he was concerned to-night, what he desired was that he should have the support of the House in definitely stating—he hoped by no small majority—that the person who was charged by his fellows, whatever his social position might be, to represent them in this House should not have a burden put upon him or his friends in the

  1331
  way of penal charges. The second portion of his Resolution was—
  "That a material reduction is possible in the present scale of charges allowed under 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) Act, 1875.'"
  When he came to deal with this part of the Resolution he would be able to show that the scale of charges was far too high. Dealing with the first part of the Resolution they would find that for a considerable period of time there was no very definite notion as to what the distinct charges were that could be inflicted upon the candidates, or what was the distinct opinion of the Returning Officer. But after the Ballot Act it was found necessary to move in the direction of fixing these charges, and the task was taken in hand by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James). While he might have to criticise the Act of 1875 he wished to pay his tribute of praise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the good work he then did; and though he differed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the result, he still thought it was a useful work to bring the charges within a definite scope. The principle, even then, of the official expenses being removed from the candidate and placed on the back of the community was advocated in this House, when the right hon. Gentleman—who at that time represented one of the boroughs of London—the late Mr. Fawcett challenged the position he (Mr. Rowlands) was challenging to-night, and on going into Committee on the 6th of April, 1875, moved—
  "That no measure dealing with the expenses of Returning Officers is likely to reduce those expenses which does not interest the constituencies in economy by relieving the candidates of the charge."
  That, so far as he could ascertain, was the last definite discussion on this question raised as a distinct issue, and it was very interesting to turn back to the De-hate that took place on Mr. Fawcett's Amendment and see the line of argument taken by the opponents of the proposition, and from that they could judge whether during the last 20 years they had made any advance towards the settlement of the proposition contained in his Resolution. He found there was a very wide difference of opinion in the House with regard to the proposition of Mr. Fawcett. One interesting fact
  1332
  was that at that time the support which Mr. Fawcett received did not come entirely from the side of the House on which he sat, but from various portions of the House. But possibly the most interesting kind of argument used against Mr. Fawcett was that used by Mr. Yorke, then Member for Gloucester, who said—
  "He did not attribute much importance to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney with reference to the increasing difficulty of obtaining candidates for seats in that House, as there was always a sufficient number hovering about the gates of that paradise who, whenever the opportunity occurred, were ready to go down and pay a handsome sum for the chance of obtaining the privilege."
  That was a very fair statement of the plutocrat position, as though the whole thing to be considered was not whether a Representative had the ability to represent his constituents with honour to himself and credit to the constituency, but whether he happily possessed a banking account sufficiently large to allow him to have a little sport when he thought he would like to contest a constituency. He did not think they would hear much of that sort of argument to-night. If they were to have any, he wished to say at once that those of them who supported this Resolution to-night did not specially support it because they thought that perhaps those who were known as working class candidates should be increased in the House. They believed that would be good, but they also admitted there were many men who could do credit to the nation whose means were comparatively limited, who were able to give their time, energy, and intelligence to conducting the work of the nation, but still they ought not to be charged with one halfpenny more than was necessary. He did not know that it was necessary to deal any further with the criticisms of the other side. The then Solicitor General, Sir John Holker, was afraid someone might be inflicted with a share of the charge without having the chance of voting for the identical man he would prefer as his Representative. Until every elector could have a Member for himself they must vote for the one nearest to their own standard. But the real position was put in 1875 by Mr. Fawcett in as strong a light as it was possible for anyone to put it. Mr. Fawcett said—

  1333
  "Nothing would be more likely to weaken or destroy the efficiency of Representative Institutions in this country than if an impression were to gain currency that the House maintained laws which placed obstacles in the way of poor men obtaining a seat in Parliament."
  And Mr. Fawcett used those words in their very widest sense. The result of that Motion was that it was defeated by a majority of 104—ayes 150, noes 46. He did not think they would meet with that result to-night. He thought they should pay a tribute of praise to Mr. Fawcett as one of the pioneers who raised this question 20 years ago in this House. It was not generally known, excepting by those who had taken the trouble to look up the records on this question, that the House had given its consent to the principle contained in his Resolution. In 1886 a Bill was brought into this House, he believed by the hon. Member for Westimeath as representing his Party, and it had, peculiarly enough, the object of breaking down the official expenses, which looked in the direction of the second part of his proposition. Before that Bill was passed it was amended, and it was so amended that the candidates were relieved of their official expenses so far as Ireland was concerned. That Bill went to another place, and like many other Bills that had left this House and gone to another place, it was not in its entirety—in regard to those provisions—upon the Statute Book of the country at the present time. Another feature of this Bill was one he supposed he was expected to make some remarks upon to-night. The Bill dealt with what were known as bogus candidates; that was, gentlemen who were supposed to put up for constituencies, not with the object of being returned, but for the purpose of annoying those who were undoubtedly the representatives of the feeling of the constituency. It might be said, "Supposing this Motion is carried this evening, what do you propose with regard to bogus candidates? Are you going to allow that state of things to exist under the new conditions, that any person can go just for amusement, or advertisement or otherwise, and put himself up for a Party candidate without expense, and get that cheap notoriety they desire?" He admitted that was a question that ought to be very frankly met, and he was prepared to meet it very frankly indeed. Personally, it did not exhibit any difficulties to himself because
  1334
  he was a believer in second ballots, and with a second ballot he thought the atmosphere would be very much cleared. There might, if necessary, be this further provision: that no person should be accepted as an official candidate unless requisitioned by a certain percentage of the electors, or they might introduce the drastic proposal of the Nationalist Member who brought in the Bill of 1886— namely, that if a candidate did not poll a certain percentage of the electorate he should be mulcted in the expenses that were caused thereby. Personally, he preferred the second ballot to any other method, and he thought that would meet the difficulty. The real position with regard to Parliamentary candidates came to this, and he threw the onus of proof on anyone who might oppose his Resolution. Why should any candidate for Parliamentary honours be placed in an exceptional condition to the candidates for all municipal or local honours? At the present time the candidates for the County Council, the Municipal Couucil, the School Board, or any other of the local offices, were not asked to defray the official expenses in connection with the election; and in 1888, when they were passing the Local Government measure for England and Wales, no one thought of raising the question as to whether or not the candidates under this new system of government should pay the official expenses. It was at once assumed as a matter of course that these expenses would be defrayed by the community. The same thing applied to the measure at the end of last year and the beginning of this, which extended this local life to rural England. No one then thought of raising the point that the candidate should be mulcted in the expenses, and he therefore said that any person who opposed this Motion should give definite and distinct reasons for so doing. A person who was elected to Parliament was elected not simply to satisfy his own vanity or his own ambition, but to do something for the benefit of his fellows. He hoped and believed a person was elected for the good of the common weal, and for taking that position he ought to be exonerated from these charges. Let them consider the position of affairs. He happened to sit for the division of East Finsbury, and he had to pay his own official expenses. For the County Council he had as a col-

  1335
  league the Prime Minister of the country, who sat for East Finsbury. He (Mr. Rowlands) was elected as a Member of Parliament in July, the Prime Minister was elected in March, and he paid his own official expenses, whilst the Prime Minister did not have to pay his. As a Loudon County Councillor they had the Duke of Norfolk, whose official expenses were paid. Then, on the London County Council they had as a Member the right hon. Gentleman who sat for the London University (Sir J. Lubbock), and he (Mr. Rowlands) would like to know if anyone could demonstrate what was the difference in the right hon. Gentleman's position when he sat in this House and when he sat in Spring Gardens? For his seat in Parliament the right hon. Gentleman had to pay his official expenses, but as a London County Councillor he did not have to pay them; and he should like to know if some psychological change took place, so that the right hon. Gentleman was not as good a man at Spring Gardens as he was in this House? Many other hon. Members had dual positions in London, and he did not know that they were worse at Spring Gardens than they were in this House, because in the one case they had paid their official expenses, and in the other case they had not. In London be thought they illustrated the utter absurdity of the present position of things. Before passing from this phase of the question it would not be right to ignore the remarks of the Prime Minister at Birmingham two days ago, and he was pleased to quote them. On that occasion his Lordship informed his audience—
  "I may say, on behalf of the Government, that we will welcome any opportunity of giving effect to that provision, whenever and by whomsoever it may be proposed, with all its necessary consequences."
  He was pleased that the noble Lord anticipated his Motion in the way he did. He wished only to detain the House for a short time on the second portion of the Resolution, and he thought he should be able to demonstrate that here it was possible to reduce these expenses very materially. Let him draw attention to the gross cost of the official expenses of the Returning Officers in the United Kingdom respectively in the years 1885, 1886, and 1892. He merely "wished to trouble the House with these figures, because a very important lesson might be drawn from them. The total charges
  1336
  for England and Wales in 1885 were £175,014; in 1886 they were £109,052; and in 1892 they were £154,165. In Scotland, during the same periods, they were respectively £30,160, £16,896, and £17,855. In Ireland in the same years they were £30,731, £12,988, and £25,520. He proposed to leave 1886 out of the comparison, because then the election was fought under exceptional circumstances, and there were a large number of non-contested seats. Taking the years 1885 and 1892, they found that the expenses which, in England and Wales in 1885 were £175,000, swung back to £154,000 in 1892. In Scotland the expenses, which were £30,000 in 1885, went down to £16,000 in 1886, and went back to over £17,000 in 1892. The moral of that was, so far as he could ascertain, that the Scotch people availed themselves of the advantages they had of taxing the Returning Officers' expenses. They did it so effectually that the result was that in 1892 it was possible to fight a General Election in Scotland upon almost half the cost of the fight that took place in 1885, whereas in England and Wales they got almost back to the old figures of 1885. And in Ireland they got back to £25,000 in 1892. He had taken the trouble to go still further with regard to these figures, and had taken out some of the divisions of Scotland. He would not trouble the House with the list he had prepared; but after going carefully through them he found that in Scotland, if they went through the detailed expenses allowed, they showed in the constituencies in Scotland the charge under each particular head was vastly different in 1892 to what it was in 1885. He would take one or two cases at random, for the same thing went through them all. In East Aberdeen the cost in 1885 was £700, in 1892 it was £556. In West Aberdeen there was a still greater discrepancy, for in 1885 the cost was £697, whilst in 1892 it was £393. So he could go on through the whole list, which was taken at random from the Parliamentary Return. It might be said possibly there were more uncontested elections in Scotland in 1892 than there were in 1885. Peculiarly enough it was just the reverse, because while there were five uncontested seats in Scotland in 1885 the two Universities were the only constituencies that were uncontested in 1892. That was a practical illustration

  1337
  of what could be done in regard to the reduction of official expenses, and without interfering with the proper conduct of the election. Turning to the two elections in the Metropolis in 1892—in March that for the County Council and in July the Parliamentary—and comparing the cost, he found it was as follows: In 1892 there were in the Metropolis County Council and Parliamentary elections. The County Council elections cost in official expenses £8,940 and the Parliamentary elections £14,055, a difference of £5,115 for identically the same work. The polling stations, the Presiding Officers, and the polling clerks were the same in both; and the Registers were practically the same, the lodgers in one counterbalancing the women voters in the other. There were five County Council elections uncontested and four Parliamentary elections, the same Returning Officer being employed with regard to each set of circumstances. In the City the items were—County Council election, £364; Parliamentary, £732; difference £368, or, roughly, double in the one case what it was in the other. In Dulwich, County Council, £215; Parliamentary, £331; difference £116; in Poplar County Council election, £160; Parliamentary, £265; difference £105. Here they had no mere theoretical statement that it was possible to reduce materially the Returning Officers' expenses, but they had the actual evidence that it was done in the same year in London, with the same Returning Officers and upon the same Register. In face of such circumstances how could the existing Schedule be justified? In the Schedule of 1875 the first item was, "Preparing and publishing notice of election (county and boroughs), £2 2s." He was informed that Judge Collier, of the Liverpool County Court in 1885, on the taxation of costs of several divisions, allowed 2s. 6d., and stated that that was good payment for filling such a form, and he was at first only inclined to allow 1s. And yet there was a maximum for doing this work of two guineas. The word "maximum" was a blessed word in the ears of the Returning Officers. When they had fixed a maximum the mercury soon began to rise until it got very near it. Again, turning to the Schedule, there was a notice of election for which one guinea was allowed. He held in his hand a printed list of all the docu-
  1338
  ments supplied by Knight & Co., and he found they could buy these very notices at the rate of 6s. per 100 ! Nomination papers they could buy at the rate of 3s. per quire, and so on with item after item. With reference to ballot boxes, he would mention that in 1885, when the Parliamentary elections came on, they had in his division just had the School Board elections, and he went to see if they could not get hold of the same ballot boxes as had been used for the latter elections and hire them for the Parliamentary elections at a maximum charge of 5s. each. The Returning Officer, however, said they had disappeared and could not be found, so that they had to buy new ballot boxes, and every candidate knew he had a right to take them home with him if he liked. Then, again, they had to pay for "stations," and hon. Members knew at what a trifling cost stations were made in some parts of the country. Besides the price list he had got from Messrs. Knight, he had also taken the trouble to obtain an estimate from a leading firm of printers of what they would print ballot papers for. In the Schedule the Returning Officer was allowed 30s. per 1,000, but this leading firm of printers—a "Society" house—estimated to supply them at the rate of 10,000 for £3 5s. That was, by illustration, the whole position with regard to the charges in the Schedule. He did not criticise that Schedule except in so far as he thought the charges could be reduced in the direction he had indicated. He thought the time had come when they should have a practical system of conducting elections. They had increased the number of elections throughout the country by their Parliamentary action within the last few months, and why should they not now deal with this question in a rational manner? Let there be some central authority—say the rate collecting authority—which should supply itself with a proper set of machinery for conducting elections, keep this machinery in repair, and hold it until it was required for the purpose of some election, when a moderate sum could be paid for the user of such machinery. He thought he had proved that there was ground for a material alteration and reduction in the present scale of expenses. These charges, he contended, ought to be placed on the public and not on the candidates. He

  1339
  felt very strongly that in broadening their Representative Institutions they ought to continue their work until they had made it perfect. They ought to have the doors of this House open to any man who won the confidence of his fellows; the only credential he ought to have for entering that House was that he had won the suffrage of those who believed he had come there to do their work according to his conscience and to devote his time and energy to their good and well-being. He begged to move his Resolution.
  MR. HOWELLseconded the Motion. It was, he said, by no means a Party Motion. It was a Motion in which men holding very different political views might join if they thought it right that the State of the country should pay the expenses of these elections. The condition of things in this House had very much changed within the last few years. Hon. Members had to be in much closer attendance in Committees and in other ways than in former times, and therefore it became more or less a tax upon every Member in this House which was not so much felt some years ago. This very condition of things rendered it necessary to be in constant attendance daily, and consequently the poorer a man might be the less would he be able to bear the strain that was thus thrust upon him. He echoed the words of his hon. Friend, that they were not there for private ends. They were there to do the work of the public, and it did seem a strange thing they should be taxed from beginning to end in order to be permitted to do it. Of course, it was all very well for a certain type of politician, with which they were tolerably familiar—those who were aspirants for place and office—needy lawyers seeking work and emoluments, and that other class whose political services were rendered to Party with the off chance of a baronetcy or peerage. But the majority of Members of this House could not rightfully aspire to either of these positions, but must be the working bees. Recently there had been expressed a sentiment all over the country and also in this House that there should be more working men in Parliament, and in order that there should be a larger number of working men in Parliament, the majority outside seemed to him to advocate the payment of Members, and many in this
  1340
  House seemed to hold the same opinion. But payment of Members was a very small thing compared with the tax by the election expenses on every candidate who aspired to enter this House. He had heard some hon. Members say that, even supposing there were payment of Members, it would only enable them to spend a little more in the constituency, and under such circumstances the poor man would be at a greater disadvantage still. But, without going into the matter, there was the fact that they were met with the initial difficulty that, before a man could come into the House of Commons, he must pay the election expenses when he had been selected as candidate by a constituency. It had been his fortune, good or bad, to fight many elections. He began his in 1868, when he had to fight two of the wealthiest men in England, and even with all their wealth he came very near to being second on the poll, being kept out only by the Tories and Liberals coalescing and dividing the votes. That was obviated now, but from that day to this there had always been before one's eyes the difficulty for a poor man of finding the necessary expenses for an election. They were still further handicapped not only by the election expenses, but by having to keep up the Register from year to year. flow hon. Members could oppose this Motion and yet say they were in favour of labour representation he could not conceive. Although the property qualification for Members of Parliament, in the old sense, had been abolished, the election expenses constituted a property qualification just as much as the old property qualification by law. He thought the time had come when the majority of the nation had got rid of the notion that mere money—mere wealth— should be a qualification for a seat in the House. But although in sentiment they believed that money ought not to prevail over every other qualification, nevertheless they went on in the same old way, welcoming the "money-bag," however made, whether by Company promoting or Company rigging, or anything of that sort. Never mind how it was made; so long as a man had money it was "Open, Sesame!" to him in many of their constituencies, and so into this House. If they were honest in their belief that there should be room for more working men,

  1341
  let them at once remove the difficulty in their path, in order that merit, capacity, ability for work and industry should find its proper place in this House. The Resolution expressed no opinion as to whether the payment for the election expenses should come out of the local rates or out of the Consolidated Fund, and he, for his part, was quite willing to leave it to the Government to take the best course they could in framing a measure for the purpose. He agreed with his hon. Friend, that the necessary machinery for these various elections should be obtained and handed over to some Central Authority, and once purchased there would be very little expense in keeping it up, the only cost that would have to be borne being the necessary printing, which would be very trifling indeed. He hoped hon. Members would unite in urging the Government to accept the Motion, and that at an early day they might find election expenses put upon the proper shoulders and the candidates relieved as they ought to be.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words-—
  "In the opinion of this House, the Returning Officers' expenses and all other Official Charges in connection with Parliamentary Elections should be defrayed out of public funds, and that a material reduction is possible in the present scale of charges allowed under 'The Parliamentary Election (Returning Officers') Expenses Act, 1875.' "—(Mr. J. Rowlands.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CAINEsaid that, as far as he was personally concerned, the question was whether at the next Election he should have to pay £150 to a Returning Officer or whether each elector of East Bradford should pay l½d. On the whole, he preferred that each elector should pay l½d. He was certain that if there were a ballot taken in a full House upon the question there would not be a single "No" against it. During a pretty well-assorted experience of electioneering he had had to pay about £2,500 to different Returning Officers in the nine contested elections he had gone through. His experience of boroughs was very much better than that of coun-
  1342
  ties, for he had little hesitation in saying that the average Returning Officer or Under Sheriff in a county constituency was little better than a harpy. In 1885 he contested the Tottenham Division of Middlesex—one of the largest divisions in the United Kingdom. He did not know who the Sheriff was, but he had a lively recollection of the Under Sheriff—Mr. Wynne E. Baxter—who had charge of the three divisions of Tottenham, Enfield, and Hornsey. According to law this gentleman was bound to do the very best he could for the candidates to whom he was responsible; to expend the smallest amount of money practicable in providing what was necessary for the machinery of the election. The Act, unfortunately, laid down a maximum, and this gentleman ingeniously charged each division the full maximum allowed by law, using the same machinery in each case, with, of course, the exception of printing. He charged him (Mr. Caine) and his opponent a good round sum for ballot boxes; then he sold the same boxes to Hornsey, and afterwards resold them again to Enfield, making a handsome profit in each instance. In one case he hired from the Guildhall a set of fittings kept in stock for all kinds of elections. He paid one guinea for the use of those fittings and charged him, as Liberal candidate, £52 10s. But this gentleman was not content with that, for, having made all these various charges, he took care to send in his account just the day before that on which the account of the election expenses had to be returned. The consequence was, that only three courses were open—to pay and say nothing, to return the account as disputed, or else to have it taxed. Having, after some difficulty, persuaded his opponent to take the matter into the County Court in order to have the account taxed, they asked for vouchers, and the only voucher Mr. Baxter produced was a voucher signed for the full amount by a firm called Baxter & Co., advertising agents. Investigation showed that Baxter & Co. was nothing but Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, who had created himself into a firm for the purpose of supplying the Sheriff with the necessary machinery of the elections. He produced a receipt for the full amount "as agreed," giving no details whatever, and this he had the impudence to tender in Court as a complete voucher for the enormous amount of money which he had

  1343
  overcharged the candidates. On being pressed he was compelled to admit that "Baxter & Co." was no other than himself. The fact was brought out that Mr. Baxter, as Under Sheriff and solicitor, must have advised the Sheriff to make an agreement to pay Baxter, as advertising agent, double the legal maximum. There was a charge of £48 for professional services. On inquiry it was brought out that these professional services were for "advising the Sheriff in the conduct of the election." So that the House would see that he as candidate was called upon to pay his share of the £48 to this person for advising the Sheriff to enter into a contract with Baxter himself, on the pretext of his being an advertising agent. The Registrar of the County Court before whom the matter came characterised the document as a bogus voucher, and the result was that the Returning Officer's charges were cut down by some £670, and he was made to pay the costs besides. He could assure the House that the cheque he received in respect of the over-payments he had been compelled to make to the Returning Officer was the sweetest bit of money he had ever put into his pocket. All that he could say was that he now regretted that when he was asked to pay such outrageous charges he had not proceeded against the Under Sheriff and sued him for the penalty of £500 for extortion. In his opinion, it was quite time that the House should decide that it was the duty of the constituencies to find the money for the necessary expenses for sending their Representatives to the House, as well as they had to defray the expenses of returning Members of County Councils, School Boards, and other Representative Bodies. With regard to the charge that would be thrown upon the country if this proposal were carried into effect, it would not amount to more than five-eighths of a penny per elector per annum. He hoped that the House would carry the proposal by an overwhelming majority, or even without a Division, and he was satisfied that if that were the case the Government would be heartily supported by all sections of the House if they brought in a measure dealing with the subject during the present Session.
  SIR H. JAMESsaid, he thought that the House would not deem it unnatural for him to take
  1344
  some interest in the question raised by the Amendment. The hon. Member for East Finsbury had said that, speaking generally, the efforts made in 1875 to mitigate an existing grievance had not proceeded far enough. If his hon. Friend was aware of the feelings and prejudices that had to be combated in 1875 he would not disparage the efforts made on that occasion. In those old days very heavy charges were made against a candidate, as the right of the Returning Officer to make such charges was almost unlimited. No matter how preposterous the charges might be, the candidate was always advised to pay them, as otherwise he would make himself extremely unpopular in the constituency. He recollected well that in 1875 there was a strong feeling in the House in favour of those over charges. Members who supported the Bill were subjected even to personal abuse, and it was charged against them that they were men of narrow spirit, who were trying to deprive the Returning Officers of their vested interests in elections. But time had progressed since then in many ways, and they had learned a great deal. He was not about to oppose the proposal that had been made for revision of the Act of 1875; on the contrary, he welcomed and supported it. He would remind the House that the Motion involved two questions. The first, and far the more important one, was on whom in the future would the charges of the Returning Officers fall? When the subject of the payment of election expenses out of the rates was brought forward in 1872 he, with his right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—they were young politicians then—opposed that proposal, and told in the Division which resulted in its defeat. But times had changed, and he had altered his opinion. He did not say he was wrong in 1875, but he thought he was right now in thinking that the Returning Officer's expenses should be paid by some Public Body instead of by the individual candidate. It was objected in 1872 that if this were done a great number of bogus candidates would come forward; but, in his opinion, the enlightened public feeling of the present day would easily put down bogus candidatures. The question, however, was upon whom the burden paying these expenses was to fall. His hon. Friend spoke of putting the

  1345
  burden upon the Consolidated Fund, but he protested against that. If the burden were to be removed it ought to be cast upon the locality, and not upon the Consolidated Fund. Where were they to find the public opinion that would be a check against bogus candidates and excessive expenditure if they once threw the burden upon the Consolidated Fund? If the expenses came out of the Consolidated Fund, a great many people would welcome a contested election. There would be a large number of people always willing that the expenditure should be incurred if they could throw the burden upon the general taxpayers, who would know nothing and care nothing about it. Such people would say—"We will get the benefit of the expenditure in the constituency of money which will be provided by general taxpayers. "If, however, Parliament were to say to the locality," You will have to pay the expenses of a contested election, "then the ratepayers, while not objecting to a fair, healthy contest, would not tolerate a sham election. If they removed the burden from candidates, they would be, to a certain extent, opening the ports into which any candidates could enter. But, if they made the constituencies responsible for the costs, the constituents would themselves look after those who sought to enter by the ports, and an impostor would have no chance of success if he became a candidate in a constituency. In making the constituencies bear the cost of their elections would lie the real check against false candidates. He thought he was right in saying that both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian and the late Mr. Fawcett had expressed the opinion that if a change were made— and they thought it ought to be made— the burden of election expenses should be cast upon the local and not upon Imperial taxation. If the Consolidated Fund were made to bear the burden, there would be no one to care about economy. If, on the other hand, each locality were made to pay its own election expenses, everybody in the locality would take an interest in the expenditure and would protest against any excess, and would demand that the election expenses be kept within narrow limits. His hon. Friend the Member for Bradford had referred to charges for professional advice. He would point out that if the cost of
  1346
  the election expenses were thrown upon the local rates, the locality would prevent any undue sum being paid to any legal adviser. The ratepayers would say to the Town Clerk—"You must advise the Mayor as the Returning Officer at elections just as you advise him at other times. "But they would not say that if the burden were thrown on the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, while he hoped the Resolution would be carried, the arrangement should be to throw the burden upon the localities themselves. The matter was governed by the common-sense view that those who were in a position to check and were interested in checking the expenditure should bear the burden. If this were done, he did not think they need much mind what charges were set out in the Schedule. If the locality had to pay, the people of the locality would take care that they did not pay too much; and the Returning Officer would not dare to go to the ratepayers and charge them more than he ought to charge them. The Member for Bradford had given the House his reminiscences of a Returning Officer, and he was bound to say that he thought the hon. Member had carried Parliamentary criticism to its utmost limits in the charges which he brought again the Returning Officer in question. If those charges were accurately stated, they did not fairly represent the general state of affairs throughout the country. Still, however, he was of opinion that heavy burdens were cast upon candidates, and that those burdens ought to be and could be lessened. Twenty years ago it was necessary to go by steps and to make concessions in order to carry any Bill at all; but he was satisfied that the maximum charges allowed gave a substantial profit on the expenditure to the Returning Officers. This was a state of things that ought not be allowed to exist. If the House took the course of throwing the expenses on the localities it need not care about the items; but so long as they were to be paid by candidates the items were of importance. If the present arrangement was to be continued, a Bill ought to be introduced and referred to a Select Committee to settle what would be deemed fair charges with our present knowledge and experience; and it was probable that 30 per cent. could safely be taken off the present maximum charge. He thanked the hon. Member

  1347
  behind him for having introduced the matter to the House.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): Perhaps it would be as well if at this comparatively early stage of the Debate I state the views of Her Majesty's Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bury has perhaps a greater right than any other Member to speak upon the subject, because he has by persistent action from 1875 onwards identified himself in a peculiar way with the purification of the various methods by which seats are obtained in this House; and I rejoice that my right hon. Friend has taken the view he has just expressed. The Mover of the Amendment stated his case with great moderation, temperance, and force, though one would wish that he had dealt more with the main objection to throwing the expenses on the public funds— namely, that it would multiply candidates, as to which I will say a few words before I sit down. The important part of the Amendment is the proposal that the official expenses of Parliamentary elections should be cast, as are the expenses of municipal and School Board elections, upon public funds. The question is upon what public funds the charges should be cast; and the view of the Government is that they should be cast upon the locality. Of course, if one thought merely of a popular cry, there is a great deal to be said for casting them upon the Consolidated Fund, because I am afraid that the popular idea of the Consolidated Fund is that it is fed Heaven only knows how, and it is not recognised that it is fed by taxpayers. The extravagance that would result from throwing these charges upon an Imperial fund has been well described by my right hon. Friend, and that is the view of the difficulty taken by Her Majesty's Government. We think it might be no improvement, but possibly a move in the wrong direction, to cast these charges upon that abstraction, the Consolidated Fund. The arguments against that cause are surely conclusive. It is not probable that expenses would be reduced unless the locality is interested in economy; and what those expenses mean has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Bradford in his vigorous and spirited speech, with its illustrations, privileged and otherwise. Then the argument that the payment of
  1348
  the expenses out of a public fund would lead to a multiplication of candidates is more effectually answered if it is the locality itself that has to bear the burden. In the opinion of the Government, the Resolution does not say any more than the truth when it asks the House to affirm that a material reduction of the charges is possible; but in our view that reduction is only possible upon the condition that the localities are interested by having to bear the burden of their own extravagance, and by having the supervision of the whole expenditure. The apprehended evil of a possible multiplication of candidates is no doubt a possible evil. If no expenses are thrown upon candidates it. may be that bogus candidates will spring up. The Mover of the Amendment seemed to be in favour of checking that danger by not exempting a candidate from a share of the expenses unless he stood upon a requisition signed by a certain number or proportion of electors.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I only put that forward as one of the suggested means; but I did not particularly endorse it.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I know. The second ballot has also been mentioned. There is something to be said for requiring a requisition with a certain number of names upon it, but there is much more to be said against it. What does this requisition mean? It means that the voters must place their names on the paper, so that the secrecy of the Ballot would be violated, and the independence of the voters at an end. I think that the preparation of these requisitions will be by no means an inexpensive process, and that there are other objections which do not render this plan a very effective one in order to gain the end sought. A much preferable plan would be that every candidate who did not poll a certain proportion of votes at the election should not be exempt from some portion of the charges. The question of a second ballot is one that assumes more and more importance every day. I must remind the House that in 1882 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean brought in and carried a Bill to amend the law relating to Parliamentary elections by providing for a second election in certain cases.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: In what year was that?
  MR. J. MORLEY: That was in 1882. That Bill was carried, I find, by a majority of two—there being 87 votes against 85—with the assent of the Government of the day. The House assented by a small majority to the proposal to throw the expenses on the rates, but I must admit that there was some difference of opinion as to whether a second election was or was not necessary. The noble Lord voted against the Bill. But the question of the second ballot is, as I have said, one of growing importance. I used, for my own part, to believe that there was a formidable danger that under the operation of a second ballot this House would be split up into groups and sections instead of retaining the two or three broad lines which distinguish the Parties of which it is composed, and I must admit that it is in the case of foreign Parliaments where the second ballot obtains that this system of groups and sections has arisen; but in spite of what happens under foreign constitutional systems, the introduction of the second ballot would not, I think, produce the same results here under our different conditions. I would like to point out what the amount of the charge is which would fall upon the rates if the system were adopted. I know that some hon. Members are alarmed at the idea that there should be any material addition to the rates. No doubt much of the old aversion to and alarm at increased Imperial taxation has been transferred to local rates. My answer to that is that you should look at the maximum of the rate. That sum has been stated earlier in the Debate to be likely to amount to one-eighth of a farthing in the £1 of rateable value in each year. Some hon. Gentleman who has spoken to-night has said that we have an election upon an average once in four years. Since 1885 that average has been reduced, but, taking the average annual rate at one-eighth of a farthing in the £1, if an election occurred once in four years this would mean a charge of half a farthing for the year of the election. The hon. Member for Bradford said that in his case the amount would be five-eighths of a penny. I believe that would be correct, but I would adhere to the statement that generally it would not exceed half a farthing in the £1 on the rates.
  MR. CAINE: I meant per head, not in the £1.
  MR. J. MORLEY: My figure, which I believe to be a sound one, is half a farthing in the £1 of rateable value. It would be absurd surely for hon. Members to entertain any fears as to what would be the views of constituents on a matter sound in principle at a cost to them of half a farthing in the £1 on the year of election. We all want to see that Chamber as widely representative as possible of all classes and interests. We all believe that it is in the highest degree desirable that there should be a large infusion of direct labour representation in that House. The proposal before us will not only open the doors of the House to workmen, but will facilitate the entrance of men of moderate means of all classes. The easier it becomes for Members to enter this House on their merits, and on the strength of the principles which they profess, the more lofty will become the authority of Parliament and the greater the chance of its counsels being prudent and wise. The feeling of the House is, in my opinion, pretty evident, and I do not believe that there is any material difference of opinion among us. For my part, I shall cheerfully support the proposal.
  LORD R. CHURCHILLsaid, if ever there was a charge for which, in his opinion, there was much to be said, it was in connection with the expenses of returning Members at General Elections to the Imperial Parliament. It was the greatest object the State could achieve to get a complete representation of all classes in Parliament, whether they were Labour Representatives, Representatives of the middle classes, Representatives of literature, or science, or art, or law, or even of the landed interest; and therefore it was right that to achieve that end there should be a contribution from the Consolidated Fund. The contribution need not amount to a very large sum. With the proposal that the money should come from the rates he could not agree. The rates were already enormous. Were the Party opposite prepared to throw upon the rates of Loudon, in addition to the expenses of a double registration, the expenses of Returning Officers and other officials? What would those electors of Bury say if the right hon. and learned Gentleman who represented them were to obtain payment of his Returning Officer's expenses out of the rates? Did his right hon. and learned Friend

  1351
  think that in those circumstances he would have the large and overwhelming support which he had enjoyed up to this date? If there was one thing that touched a constituency more than another it was putting charges upon the rates. There was not a Member on his side of the House, he thought, who would not contemplate with a certain friendliness the idea of an Imperial contribution, but he doubted whether any Member on the same side would agree with the plan advocated by the right hon. and learned Member. Coming to the question of the amount of the rate, they found that the Chief Secretary for Ireland placed it at the fourth of a farthing in the £1.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I said half a farthing in the £1 would cover it.
  LORD R. CHURCHILLsaid, the calculation of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was based on the gratuitous assumption that there was an election only once in four years. There were elections that came like thieves in the night—for example, the elections of 1874 and 1886—and no doubt in the future they would be more and more likely to come when least expected. How could a constituency be prepared to pay out of the rates a very considerable sum for which no provision had been made in their annual Estimate? He wondered whether the Secretary of State for India would be prepared to throw upon the local rates this extra expense. He protested as strongly as he could against the proposal to burden the rates with electoral charges. Let the candidate bear his fair burdens. Labour candidates, he hoped, were materially assisted by their friends in bearing the registration charges. It had been said that if this proposal were agreed to there would be bogus candidates, but that was the regular bogey that was always invoked when this subject was brought forward. In his opinion, there would not be bogus candidatures. If the proposal were car-Tied out desirable candidates would come forward, and that House would be far more representative than it was at the present time. The expenses of the Returning Officer, however, ought to be borne by the State and not thrown upon the rates. One mischievous proposal of which they had heard was that of proportional representation. He affirmed that the proposal for a second ballot was a far more mischievous one.
  1352
  He asked the House whether they were going to take their Constitution from France, or from Belgium, or from Hungary? His own answer was, no; never. But that was not a sufficient argument. He did not think that the House of Commons would adopt this plan, which was a foreign importation, to which he objected, and which would be entirely unworkable if the proposal were adopted for holding all elections on one day. He protested alike against second ballots, payment of Members, and proportional representation; but he gave his support to the suggestion that there should be a contribution out of Imperial funds towards the expenses of Returning Officers.
  ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he was rather unwilling to intrude himself into the Debate, but, at the same time, he thought that the arguments of those who were opposed to this proposal ought to be laid before the House. Both the right hon. and learned Member for Bury and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were of opinion that the expenses of the Returning Officer ought not to be thrown upon the Consolidated Fund, while the noble Lord who had last spoken was of opinion that they ought not to be thrown upon the rates. In these circumstances, the matter ought to rest where it was. He admitted that, inasmuch as the election expenses of members of the County Council, of the Parish Council, of the Guardians, and of other Local Bodies were paid out of the rates, it was impossible logically to oppose this proposal. At the same time, he was in that House for the purpose of protecting the interests of his constituents, and if he voted for this proposal he should be voting in his own interests. What did Lord Derby say? That when a man entered the field of politics and sought a seat in this House, the first object he should aim at was self-sacrifice for the common good. He subscribed to that sentiment, and, acting in the spirit of it, his duty was to vote against the Motion, and to pay out of his own pocket what he was called upon to pay for Returning Officers' charges rather than that they should be placed upon the rates. If he studied himself alone, he should vote for the Motion; but, as it was his duty to study his constituents, he should vote against it. The Chief Secretary said that the

  1353
  rednction of expenses was only possible if the locality was called upon to bear the expense. He did not see the logic of that. The right hon. Gentleman was supposed to be master of all the logical sophistries which politicians could bring to bear in support of their views, but he did not sec how his statement could be justified when they came to analyse it. If they said reduction was only possible if the locality was called upon to bear the cost, how was it they had had no reform of these charges at the instance of the right hon. Member for Bury? The Chief Secretary said there should be an open door to men of all classes and moderate means to enter that House. They were all agreed as to that. They ought certainly to remove all obstacles to the entry of all classes of men of moderate means. The Member for Bury made an admirable speech, which pleased him very much. The right hon. Gentleman spoke against certain charges they hud all had to smart under for professional advice, but he did not tell them the reasons for putting on the particular charge for mileage under which many Members had smarted. In his Schedule the right hon. Gentleman charged 1s. per mile for travelling in county elections, the object being to pay the cost of mileage where persons had to hire horses to carry ballot boxes. He was quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman meant that where a railway admirably served the situation first-class railway fare would have been adequate, but Returning Officers charged 1s. a mile by railway although the distance was much longer by rail than by road. He knew cases where mileage had been charged to the extent of 24 miles by rail when the distance by road was only nine miles. Not only was this the case, but they had had instances of 1s. per mile being charged for the ballot box, as if it could walk, as well as 1s. to the man who carried it. Whilst he was utterly opposed to these election charges being placed on the public funds, he was in favour of the last part of the Resolution of the hon. Member for Finsbury, which stated that a material reduction was possible in the present scale of charges allowed under the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Expenses Act, 1875. Why did not the hon. Member and his friends try to get the Government to support a Bill to reform the charges under this
  1354
  Schedule? He objected altogether to any further charge at present being thrown upon the rates. The House, he contended, had no moral right to put a new charge on the rates until the taxpayers had been consulted upon this question, and as the question had never yet been before the constituencies it was their duty to oppose it until the electorate had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. Whatever the future might have in store for them public opinion at present was not ripe for the change; therefore, they as practical and sensible politicians were in duty bound to vote against the proposal. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green spoke of needy lawyers and others ambitious of office, but it never seemed to occur to the hon. Member that some people entered this House without ambition at all, except to spend their lives in performing useful work. He should be the last in the world to suggest that the hon. Member himself and his friends entered this House with ulterior aims, and they, on their part, should give the same credit to others. He (Admiral Field) had no ambitious aim. Oh, dear, no! his ambition had been killed long ago, thanks to the legislation of past Radical Governments. Had it not been for that legislation he should not have been there, but on salt water, performing a duty he valued much higher than this. If they passed this Motion they were practically opening the way to the payment of Members. He knew it was said that some of the Colonics had gone in for relieving candidates from all expenses and had substituted payment of Members. But he had it on good authority that the Prime Minister of New South Wales saw the error of his ways and proposed to bring in a Bill to abolish the system of payment of Members, and with the abolition of the payment of Members would go the abolition of the payment of Returning Officers' expenses. If this Motion was passed the charge must fall on the rates, and it was their duty, as moral and not immoral politicians, to vote against what would no doubt be for their own interests, but which would be detrimental to the interests of the taxpayers. He denied that wealth was considered a qualification for Members. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green had said that labour representation ought to have a larger

  1355
  share in that House, and he, therefore, claimed the vote of the hon. Member against the Registration Bill of the present Government, as containing proposals which would greatly increase the expenses candidates would have to pay when they stood for elections, and so bar the way to working men.
  MR. NAOROJIsaid, that the elections for Municipalities were for the local purposes of the Municipalities, and the election of Members to this House was for national purposes. Everyone in that House was a national servant in that respect; he worked for the nation, and the nation ought to pay. He supposed that the payment of these election expenses must be made from the rates or public funds, but he understood from the Mover that his Resolution did not involve a decision on that point at all, but simply put it on the public funds, and what public funds they should be must be determined hereafter. If that was understood he was entirely in favour of the Amendment, but if it was understood that the charge was to be on the local rates be should vote against it.
  MR. NEWDIGATEwould not have ventured to speak in this Debate but for the statement that had been made that there was practically no opposition to the Resolution. He ventured to think that among the Conservative Members there was a very strong opposition to it. He thought that if the expenses of Returning Officers were to be paid by the nation many bogus candidates would spring up, and as a county Member he protested most strongly against the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bury and of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that the expenses should fall upon the local rates. Hon. Members on the other side seemed to forget the enormous number of rates which land had to bear at the present time—such as the poor, highway, School Board, sanitary and police rates, Income Tax, Land Tax, tithes, and Inhabited House Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to impose fresh burdens upon land, and he (Mr. Newdigate) must protest strongly against the action of those Members of the House of Commons who would support a Resolution to make the expenses of Returning
  1356
  Officers in connection with Parliamentary elections fall upon the local rates.
  MR. PROVANDsaid, that notwithstanding the remarks that had been made from the other side of the House, there had been a consensus of opinion in favour of these charges being paid by the rates, for the simple reason that if the Local Authorities had to pay them they would look closely after them, while, on the other hand, if they fell on the Imperial funds there would be no adequate supervision of the expenses. At the last General Election the cost of Returning Officers' expenses in England and Wales was £154,000, in Ireland £25,000, and in Scotland £17,000, or a total outlay for the United Kingdom of £ 196,000. There had been four General Elections during the last 14 years, equal to one every three and a-half years, making the average expenses on this head £56,000 per annum. If the Local Authorities had to meet these charges, he was not overstating the case when he said that the £56,000 would be very probably reduced to £25,000 or £30,000, say to little more than one-half that was now paid by the candidates. If it came down to the amount he indicated that would mean an annual average of £45 per constituency, and he was sure that if the whole people could be polled on the question not one in 50 would object to meet that outlay. The hon. Member alluded to the case of Scot-land, and as a few facts were worth a great deal of theory, he might mention the result of the last local and Parliamentary elections which took place in Glasgow, the two comparing exactly. For the Glasgow municipal election there were seven contested seats, and there were seven Members of Parliament for Glasgow, therefore the same number contested each election. The whole cost of the official expenses in the case of the seven Members of the Municipal Council was £893, paid by the Local Authorities, whereas the expenses of the seven Members of Parliament was £1,621, which fell on the Members. Did anyone suppose that if the Municipal Council of Glasgow had also to meet the official expenses of the Members for that city that their expenses would have been more than they were in the case of the Municipal Council? The outlay in such case would have been almost exactly the same. They had an illustra-

  1357
  tion of that in London. The first year the cost of the London County Council election amounted to somewhere about £14,000, but since they had fixed the scale allowed for official expenses the expenses had decreased to between £8,000 and £9,000. This was not a Party question at all, and he was glad to find from the speeches that had been delivered that evening how unanimously in favour Members on both sides of the House were of the proposal that the official expenses should in future be paid out of public funds instead of by the candidates themselves. In 1886 there was a Bill introduced by the Government to settle this question with reference to Scotland, and in Committee an Instruction was carried by three to one in favour of the rates paying these expenses. That was not included in the Bill, and when the measure came back from another place the Schedule put in in the House of Commons had been taken from it. Notwithstanding that, the Sheriff's said they would only charge the rates in the Schedule of the Bill of 1886, although it was not attached to the Bill when it became an Act, and for that reason they had since then had a reduction of the official costs of Parliamentary elections in Scotland to something like one-half what they wore before. He hoped that the House would agree to the Motion without a Division, this question not being in any sense a Party one.
  MR. W. LONGsaid, he entirely disagreed with the Resolution in whatever light it might be read—whether in the light the proposer had placed upon it or in that of the Chief Secretary. He entirely agreed that increased facilities should be given working men to enter this House, that the possession of wealth pure and simple should not be in itself in any way a special assistance to enter Parliament, and he also agreed that the official costs attendant on election ought to be, and he believed might be, considerably reduced. But he objected to the Motion, because they were only dealing with an infinitesimal portion of the costs attendant on election or the work of getting into this House. If their real object was to facilitate getting into this House on the part of those not well off they should do it by facing the question boldly, and not merely by charging on the Imperial Exchequer or local rates a portion
  1358
  of the expenditure, but by freeing candidates altogether from expenditure except with regard to personal expenditure. He submitted with confidence it was a mere farce to suggest they were going to facilitate working men becoming Members of this House by casting on the Imperial Exchequer or the local rates the Returning Officers' expenditure when the very Minister who had responded for the Government that night was himself responsible for a Bill which would unquestionably have this effect— that those men who were anxious to see that their constituencies were properly looked after would have to spend much more money in the future than they had done in the past therefore, ho said that to advance the Resolution on the score that they were helping working men to become Members of Parliament was to put the fact in by no means the light in which it ought to be presented. But he asked the House, before coming to any decision, to make up their minds what it was they were going to vote upon. The main part of the Resolution said that these expenses of the Returning Officers should be paid out of some fund other than those possessed by the candidate himself. The Resolution said distinctly that they should be defrayed out of public funds. What he wanted to ask the House was, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, did they regard local rates as public funds? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] They did. Then he submitted that if the proposer of the Resolution meant that these expenses should be paid out of the local rates he should have said so, and put it plainly in the Resolution. When he saw the Resolution, he inquired what were the proposals in this regard, and he was informed—not by the Mover, but by another hon. Member—that the proposal was to throw it upon the public funds. For his part, he believed that was only trifling with the question, but against it he had not the same objection as he had to any proposal to throw these expenses of Imperial elections upon local rates. He submitted that the average of the General Election was not a fair test to apply if the cost were to be thrown on the local rates. In the Cirencester Division of the County of Gloucester, for instance, his constituency had been put to the trouble of three elections in as many months, for no reasons which they

  1359
  could control. Was it fair that a constituency should be exposed to the risk of having to pay all those expenses? The House had a right to know whether the Government was definitely of opinion that these election expenses ought to be thrown on the local rates or paid out of Imperial funds, or whether they left the question open. He objected to the expenditure being thrown on Imperial funds, and did not believe that there was any demand for it. He did not think that even if the Imperial funds were made liable the deficiency would be made or the risks would be obviated; but that plan was not open to the same objections as the plan of making the rates liable. Hon. Members seemed to forget the professions they had made so loudly outside the Ho use in favour of the ratepayers, to whom they extended so much sympathy. This was not a question whether the amount of the charges would be large or small, but whether the ratepayers were in a condition at the present time to bear extra burdens. After hon. Members had just been made acquainted with the deplorable condition of Essex, could they believe that that or any other agricultural county was in a position to bear any additional burden, however slight? He should certainly vote against any proposal which would still further increase the local rates.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, the Mover of the Resolution had put the matter before the House in a very frank spirit. He had told them what was intended was to reduce the burden of expenses in connection with Parliamentary elections, and to place the Returning Officer's expenses on Public Funds, but he was willing to leave the question of the fund to be charged with election expenses open. Personally, he did not consider himself in any way pledged by anything said by the right hon. Member for Bury or by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He believed that the expenses ought to come out of Imperial funds, because Parliamentary elections were national elections, and the nation had as much obligation to bear the cost of them as boroughs had to defray the cost of municipal elections. Each ward of a borough had not to bear the cost of an election in that ward, but it was borne by the borough as a whole. Again, why should a constituency bear the cost of a re-election forced upon it by its Member accept-
  1360
  ing office in the Government? That was a strong point. At the same time, he could not get over the speech of the right hon. Member for Bury, and he wished to preserve an entirely open mind as to the fund out of which the expenses should ultimately come.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONsaid, the Mover of the Resolution, like himself, represented an East End constituency. East End constituencies differed from others in this respect: they did not contain wealthy politicians who gave subscriptions to defray or reduce a candidate's expenses; and Members for East End constituencies knew that they dare not face their constituents with the proposal that their election expenses should be paid out of the rates. He felt it his duty, as representing an East London constituency, to protest against an increase of taxation in these poor localities, whose burdens were already so heavy by reason of County Council and School Board rates. ["Oh, oh !"] It was all very well for hon. Members to jeer at poor people, but the increased taxation that would be imposed upon them if these expenses were thrown upon the rates was more than they could possibly bear. He should have had no objection if the hon. Member for Finsbury had worded his Resolution that Parliamentary expenses should come out of the Consolidated Fund, but he had unfortunately left it an open question whether the expenditure must be met from that source or out of the ratepayers' pockets. He maintained that every Member of that House should do all in his power to prevent an increase of the rates by any such proposal; and, as representing an East End constituency, he must enter his emphatic protest against it. He should certainly vote against any proposition that the expenses of Parliamentary candidates should be thrown upon the rates. Would the hon. Member answer the plain question, whether he intended those expenses to come out of the rates or out of the Consolidated Fund?
  MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, the hon. Member would have heard it all if he had been present earlier, for it had all been distinctly stated in his opening speech.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONcould only say that if the hon. Member stated

  1361
  frankly that he intended the expenses to be borne by the Consolidated Fund, he had no objection whatever, and would vote with him. If the Resolution were to be construed otherwise he should vote against it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 166.—(Division List, No. 59.)
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the Returning Officers' Expenses and all other Official Charges in connection with Parliamentary Elections should be defrayed out of public funds, and that a material reduction is possible in the present scale of charges allowed under "The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) Act, 1875."

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL. (No. 191.)
  Read the third time, and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 8) BILL. (No. 193.)
  Read the third time, and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.—(No. 194.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 163.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 203.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) (ABERDARE, &C, CANALS) BILL.—(No. 215.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.—(No. 226.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 227.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.—(No. 228.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. II) BILL.—(No. 229.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.—(No. 230.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.—(No. 232.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
  SIR H. JAMESreported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Stansfeld to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in the place of Mr. Arthur O'Connor: and that they had appointed Mr. Arthur O'Connor to act as Chairman for the consideration of Rills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures: and that they had appointed Sir Matthew White Ridley to act as Chairman for the consideration of Bills committed to the Standing Committee (Scotland).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  SCOTLAND.
  SIR J. MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Scotland:—

  1363
  Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and Mr. Henry Hobhouse; and had appointed in substitution: Major Darwin and Mr. T. W. Russell.

  TRADE, &C.
  SIR J. MOWBRAYfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Notice of Accidents Bill:—Sir John Aird, Mr. Albert Bright, Mr. Bryce, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Condon, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. Keir-Hardie, Sir Alfred Hickman, Mr. Mather, Mr. D. R. Plunket, Mr. George Russell, Mr. T. H. Sidebottom, Mr. Wolff, Mr. Woods, and Mr. Wrightson.
  LAW, &c;
  SIR J. MOWBRAYfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr. Bryce and Mr. Attorney General; and had appointed in substitution: Sir John Rigby and Mr. Hunter.

  TRADE, &c.
  SIR J. MOWBRAYfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures: Mr. Solicitor General; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Robert Reid.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Resolution of the House of. the 8th day of May relative to Canal Rates. Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order Bills, which was ordered to be communicated to the Lords, and the Message from the Lords of the 10th day of May, signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution, read;
  Ordered, That the following Bills be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, nominated by the Committee of Selection, to be joined with a Committee of Five Lords:—?

  Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (No. 1) (Canals of Great Northern and other Railway Companies) Bill.

  Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order (No. 2) (Bridgwater, &C, Canals) Bill.

  Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (No. 3) (Aberdare, &c, Canals) Bill.

  1364
  Ordered, That all Petitions in favour of or against the Bills or Orders scheduled thereto presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard in favour of or against the Bills, and Counsel heard in support of the Bills.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint their Lordships that the said Bills have been committed to Five Members of this House, to be joined with a Committee of Five Lords, pursuant to the Resolution of the House relative to Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order Bills of the 8th day of May, and to the Message from the Lords of the 10th day of May signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution.—(MR. Burt.)

  MOTIONS

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 17) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir W. Foster, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the County of Dorset ordered to be brought in by Sir W. Foster and Mr. Shaw-Lefevre.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 248.]

    POLITICAL OFFICES PENSION ACT (1869) REPEAL BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. A. C. Morton, Bill to repeal "The Political Offices Pension Act, 1869." ordered to be brought in by Mr. A. C. Morton, Mr. William Allan, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Molloy, and Mr. Stewart Wallace.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 249.]

    WINE AND BEERHOUSE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Herbert Lewis, Bill to amend the Law relating to the licensing of Beerhouses and places for the sale of cider and wine by retail in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Herbert Lewis. Mr. Courtney, Colonel Bridgeman, Mr. Crosfield. Mr. Snape, and Mr. Herbert Roberts.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 250."]

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Chanuing, Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Agricultural Holdings in England and Wales; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charming, Mr. Cobb, Mr. Halley Stewart, Mr. Francis Stevenson, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Hugh Hoare, Mr. Billson, and Mr. Luttrell.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 251.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.