Sitting of 14 February 1878

MINUTES.
NEW WHIT ISSUED—For York, v. James Lowther, esquire, Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
PUBLIC BILLS —Ordered — First Reading — Matrimonial Causes Acts Amendment*[117]; Companies (Foreign Shareholders)* [118].
Second Reading? —? (£6,000,000) Consolidated Fund*; Exchequer Bonds, & c. * [107]; County Government [93], debate adjourned.
Committee — Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [44]—R.P.
Considered as amended—House Occupiers Disqualification Removal (Scotland) * [106].

QUESTIONS.
  LAW AND JUSTICE—JURORS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. J. COWENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention had been called to the "Times" newspaper report of the 4th instant of the trial of Regina v. Truelove; and, whether it be true that, one of the jury being unable to agree on a verdict with the majority, the Lord Chief Justice, after remonstrating with him, gave directions to the officer of the Court that the juror in question should not be put on a jury again?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that his attention had not been specially called to the case mentioned

    1617
    by the hon. Gentleman; he had, however, received a letter from the Lord Chief Justice in reference to the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and he should be glad to show the letter to the hon. Gentleman if he would like to see it. The Lord Chief Justice said that the report in the newspapers was incorrect as to what took place. He merely pointed out, in consequence of the observation of the foreman, what was the question at issue for the decision of the jury. He did say to the officer of the Court that he had better not put a certain man on the jury again, not at all because he had refused to concur with the jury in their verdict, but because he believed he had seen him on other juries, and had observed that he had taken a somewhat obstinate course.

  H.M.S."BEAGLE"— JUDICIAL POWERS OF NAVAL COMMANDERS.

    QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he was not in error in stating that the Reverend Mr. Neilson, the Presbyterian missionary, was a member of the Court which tried the native of Tanna who was executed at the yard-arm of her Majesty's ship "Beagle"; and whether Mr. Neilson, in consenting to perform the duties of interpreter, did not distinctly disclaim any further responsibility in the matter?
    MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, the statements received at the Admiralty would not warrant him in asserting positively that the Rev. Mr. Neilson was a member of the Court which tried and sentenced; but he was present throughout the whole procedure, and his services and assistance were cordially acknowledged by the officer in command. The Papers, however, for which the hon. Baronet had moved would give him all the information they possessed on the subject.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL FUND—NAVAL PENSIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether pensions granted to officers out of the Greenwich Hospital Fund since 1865 were at any time made contingent on their residing within the United Kingdom as in the case of the men?
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, prior to 1865 there were in existence certain pensions for officers called "Out Pensions of Greenwich Hospital," paid out of naval funds. In 1865 the name of these was changed to "Naval" Pensions, and, at the same time, their number was increased by other pensions, called "Greenwich Hospital" Pensions, being established, payable out of Greenwich Funds. Both sets of pensions were under the same regulations — the difference between them being only that one set was chargeable to Naval and the other set to Greenwich Funds. As there never was any restriction as to naval pensions being only enjoyable within the United Kingdom, no such restriction was imposed in the case of the additional pensions established in 1865. The case of the men was altogether different, and the age pensions given to them had no reference whatever to the regulations under which they might draw their naval pensions.

  THE HERRING FISHERY.—QUESTION.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can inform the House when the Report of the Herring Fishery Commission, which sat last year, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, the Report was completed, and was now in the printer's hands. It would, however, require revision, and some time would elapse before it could be laid upon the Table.

  ARMY—THE KAFFIR OUTBREAK—ARMY SURGEONS.—QUESTION.
  DR. WARDasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been directed to the following statement, which appeared in the "Globe" of February 12th, as to the dearth of medical officers at the Cape:—
  "We are at our wits' end for Army Surgeons. There are not even sufficient for all the Field Hospitals; and the General has authorised the employment of any Civil practitioners who can he got at an expense of from, I believe, two to five guineas a-day, so that the Government is put to an expense of about £7,000 a-year for the Surgeons in the field at present;"
  and, whether that statement is correct; and, if so, whether he will explain how

  1619
  such an emergency has been suffered to occur?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, I have made inquiries into this matter, and it appears that since the breaking out of hostilities at the Cape two medical officers, whose term of service in that command had expired, were detained there, and six others had been sent from England, some of whom probably had not arrived when the letter referred to was written. Twenty-seven non-commissioned officers and men of the Army Hospital Corps have been despatched as an addition to the existing establishment, and a considerable supply of medical and surgical equipment has been forwarded. The military medical officers are sufficient for the number of troops; but private medical practitioners, to the number of 12, are employed with the local volunteer force, and also at several of the base hospitals. The force is divided into so many small detachments that it is impossible to supply military medical officers to all, but the important appointments and the moveable field hospitals are in charge of military medical officers. With regard to the expense of the private medical practitioners, it is only temporary, and will cease with their temporary employment, and the rates of remuneration vary from 12 s. to 40 s. a-day, only one being paid at the rate of three guineas a-day. This expense is not greater than if military medical officers were employed, and is, as already stated, only temporary. The military authorities were lately referred to to know if any increase of medical officers or Army Hospital Corps had been asked for by the general officer commanding at the Cape, but the reply was in the negative.

  COUNTY GOVERNMENT IN IRELAND.

    QUESTION.
    MAJOR NOLANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he will be able to introduce and to print the Bill relating to County Government in Ireland prior to the Second Reading of the Bill on County Government in England?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I beg to be allowed to answer the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It was my intention to endeavour to find an opportunity to intro-
    1620
    duce the Bill to amend the Irish Grand Laws immediately after the close of the recent debates on foreign affairs, but some 10 days ago my attention was directed to other matters. It would be a great advantage to have the Bill before the House as early as possible, and I shall take the earliest opportunity of communicating with my Successor on the subject.

  CRIMINAL LAW—IMPRISONMENT OF A CHILD.—QUESTION.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Times" of January 31st, that a little girl only six or seven years of age has been committed to Newgate Prison on a charge of passing counterfeit coins at the instigation of her mother; and, if so, whether he can take any steps towards providing a more suitable place of custody for the said child of tender years than a criminal gaol?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, the girl was committed to Newgate in the ordinary way, and no blame can be attached to the magistrate. Objecting, as I do, to see children in a prison, I have taken upon myself to order that the child should at once be removed to a workhouse, where she will be detained until the time of her trial.

  ARMY RANK—CLERKS OF THE ROYAL ENGINEER DEPARTMENT.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOLDSMIDasked the Secretary of State for "War, If he would explain to the House why the advantages of relative Army rank, alluded to in Par. 142 of the Royal" Warrant on Army Retirement, dated August last, are alone refused to the Established Clerks, Royal Engineer Department?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, the case stands thus—Members of the Royal Engineer Civil Department have certain allowances under their own warrant; but in the pay warrants of 1866 and 1870 they were included among the officers with relative rank, because certain cases might possibly arise in which their own allowances could not be drawn, and they would then have those of their relative rank. On the 4th of June, 1868, Sir John Pakington declined in Parliament to grant them the military

  1621
  scale of allowances. They have since been refused by later Secretaries of State. In the recent Warrant of August 13, 1877, these gentlemen are included under relative rank for the same reasons as in 1866 and 1870; but there was not any intention of changing their position or emoluments. The technical difficulty will be removed in the "Corrigenda" Warrant, about to be issued.

  TURKEY—TRADE IN THE BLACK SEA, & c.—QUESTION.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he could state to the House the annual value of the trade between this Country and Constantinople, the Ports of the Black Sea, and the Danube?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the annual value, of course, varies every year, and I am afraid there will be considerable diminution this year. The information asked for is given in three several Returns. The amount and kinds of articles can be found in the annual statement of trade presented in June. The statistical abstract shows the principal figures for 15 years previous, presented in May. Monthly accounts state for the month just passed, together with the expired months of the same year. The value of imports in 1876–7 was—from Russia, Southern ports, £5,210,920; Wallachia and Moldavia, £1,238,091; and the whole of European Turkey—the returns from Constantinople only not being separate — £4,589,538; total, £11,038,549. And the exports for the same period were—to Russia, Southern ports, £1,544,271; Moldavia and Wallachia, £786,838; European Turkey, £3,731,278; total, £6,062,387.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—CONSTANTINOPLE — MOVEMENTS OF THE FLEET.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. E. JENKINSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there is any truth in the report, stated to have come from the Mediterranean Fleet, that orders sent to the Fleet on or about January 23rd were to the effect that if the Turks refused to allow the Fleet to pass, the Fleet were to "silence the forts and fight their way up;" whether it is true that ac-
  1622
  cordingly preparations were made by the Admiral and orders issued for that purpose; and, whether as a matter of fact any orders were sent to the Admiral commanding supplementary to those read by the Eight honourable Gentleman to the House on the 28th of January?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is the wish of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I should answer the Question, as it falls within my Department. I produced to the House the orders which were given to Admiral Hornby on the 23rd, and I trust I shall not be deemed guilty of discourtesy to the hon. Member or any Member of this House if I state that I do not think it to be consistent with my duty, under the present circumstances, to answer a Question of such a character as that which the hon. Member has addressed to me.
  MR. E. JENKINS: I beg to give Notice that in consequence of the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall repeat the Question to-morrow, with this addition—
  "To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, What construction is to he placed upon his statement made in this House on the 28th January before reading to the House the instructions sent to the Fleet?—' It has already been stated by the Prime Minister that the Government have ordered a communication to be made not only to the Russian Government, hut also to the other European Governments, as to the object for which the Fleet is to be sent. As to the manner in which the Fleet is to be employed, I will read the telegram sent to Admiral Hornby."
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is in his power to give any information to the House with reference to the movements of the Mediterranean Fleet, and also with reference to the negotiations with the Porte on the subject of the passage of the Fleet through the Dardanelles, which, I believe, he stated on Monday last were in progress?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I stated—I think, or, at all events, referred on Monday last to the fact—that communications had been made to the Porte to ascertain whether permission would be given, or a firman be granted, for the British Fleet to enter the Dardanelles. That permission was refused; but Her Majesty's Govern-

  1623
  ment thought it right to direct the ships to proceed, and they have proceeded accordingly. The Governor of the Straits protested against their passing; but, in compliance with their orders, the ships passed on. No material opposition was offered, and they are by this time, I presume, anchored in the neighbourhood of Constantinople. I may, perhaps, mention that a communication has been made by the Russian Government to the effect that, in view of the intended sending of the Meet by Her Majesty's Government to the neighbourhood of Constantinople, it would be a matter for the consideration of the Russian Government whether they should not themselves occupy the city. In answer to that Her Majesty's Government have sent a communication, which will be laid on the Table of the House to-night, in which they protest against that view, and state that they cannot acknowledge that in the case of the two countries the circumstances are parallel, or that the despatch of the British Meet for the purpose indicated justifies the Russian Government in the step which they announce it to be their intention to take.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government adhere to their repeated declarations to the effect that this country would not view with indifference even a temporary occupation of Constantinople by the Russian troops; and, whether Her Majesty's Government has given it to be distinctly understood by the Russian Government that they cannot admit in any way the validity of the alleged protest against the entry of the British Fleet into the Bosphorus as absolving the Russian Government from its promises and pledges on the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I think that the Answer I have just given to the noble Lord is practically a reply to the Question of the hon. Baronet. The Government, of course, adhere to the declarations they have made.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to state whether any other European Power has sent any ships to the neighbourhood of Constantinople; or if he is aware whether it is the intention of any other Power to do so?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No other Power has at present sent any of its ships. I am not in a position absolutely to state what the intentions of the other Powers are. It will be more convenient to state that to-morrow.
  MR. LOWE: The right hon. Gentle: man stated that no "material" opposition was offered to the Fleet passing through the Dardanelles. I wish he would, if it is convenient, explain the meaning of that phrase, and state what opposition was offered?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am sorry if I used a wrong epithet. What I meant was that nothing in the way of force was used, but that simply a protest was made—a verbal protest on the part of the Governor of the Dardanelles.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the lines of Gallipoli were included within the neutral zone?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, we have no information on the subject.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (£6,000,000) BILL.
  (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Colonel Stanley.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (£6,000,000) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that before the House was finally committed to the measure, he wished to say a few words upon the position in which the House found itself with regard to this Vote. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) the other night had emptied his mind, and out of it came things both bitter and sweet, and now he (Mr. E. Jenkins) proposed to empty his head, and possibly there would come out of it elements of strychnia and aloes. They had been brought into their present position—which was one both of danger and of deplorable humiliation to this country—by an invertebrate Government upon one side of the House, and upon the other a flabby and mollus-

    1625
    cous set of Gentlemen clinging like limpets to the rock of the front bench; but helping in no way to give anything like backbone to the policy of England. That might be a strong thing to be said by a young Member, but he was sure in saying it he was speaking the sentiments of a large number of people in this country. It would be a deplorable and mortifying thing to run over the history of the transactions of Her Majesty's Government during the last two years. ["No, no!"] He repeated it. At this moment the country was placed in a position of the greatest danger, because there was on one side of the House a Government who, having no backbone of their own, were subject to the pressure of a section of their Party, which was holding meetings and bringing the whole of its influence to bear in the direction of an act almost of lunacy in the foreign policy of this country. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), for whom he entertained great admiration —an admiration which was, however, tempered with discretion—went down the other night to that arena of humanity and philanthropy, Exeter Hall, and made a war speech—a speech against Russia —towards the close of which he said that he felt there "was a spirit rising within him." He did not state at what hour in the evening this embarrassing phenomenon had appeared; or whether it had visited his head, or his heart, or what other portion of his body. But the spirit to which he had given utterance on that occasion he (Mr. Jenkins) would venture to say was not a spirit of sound sense or a spirit of high policy in relation to the interests of this country. It seemed to him that what they saw, not only on that side of the House, but on the other, was, that men seemed incapable of looking at this question in the manner that befitted Englishmen, who, conscious of their own strength, felt that they might calmly observe great international passages of arms and great re-distributions of territory, because, whenever our interests were really attacked, they knew that we should be able to defend them. As for the right hon. Baronet
    "The spirit that he had seen might be a Devil, For the Devil hath power to assume a pleasing shape."
    1626
    It seemed to him, looking at the course of the movement which had taken place in this country with regard to the Eastern Question, that a spirit had taken possession of hon. Members, blinding them to the true interests of this country, and leading them to utter with respect to a friendly Power sentiments that could only excite the resentment of its people. Nor was it only among the Party of which the right hon. Member for Tamworth was an elevated type that such expressions of feeling were to be heard. There had also proceeded from the front bench expressions insulting to the dignity of the Emperor of Russia; and he asked whether at such a time as this, when delicate negotiations were going on, and questions of the utmost delicacy were arising, it was right that such speeches as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary or the Secretary for War should be telegraphed to St. Petersburg to be reported and discussed by the Russian Press? He had that evening put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question which the right hon. Gentleman had thought it not expedient to answer. He alluded to this now for the purpose of emphasizing the fact, of which he must try to speak in Parliamentary terms, that statements were made by statesmen in that House which were supposed to be, or which purported to be, statements of entire candour and frankness; but in regard to which they were afterwards obliged to admit that certain modifications and qualifications must be made. The case was this—The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day made a statement of great importance with respect to the movements of the Fleet, and read the secret instructions given to Admiral Hornby as to the manner in which the Fleet was to be employed. Well, a report had appeared in a Scotch newspaper that the Fleet had been ordered to be ready to force the passage of the Dardanelles if necessary; that the Admiral had received written instructions to do so; that the officers had been ordered to be ready for action, and had been furnished with plans of the Turkish forts and distinct directions as to the course they were to take if the passage of the Fleet were opposed. Yet anyone who had heard the words of the right hon. Gentleman must have supposed that he had stated

    1627
    the whole of the truth in regard to the instructions that were sent to the Fleet. The honour of our Ministers was a matter of the greatest consequence. He had seen a short time since in an Italian newspaper a quotation from one of the English journals—probably The Daily Telegraph — where the quotation was given under reserve, because it came from an English newspaper; but he trusted the day would never come when a statement would be so given under reserve because it came from an English Minister. The right hon. Gentleman told us at one time that the Cabinet was unanimous, although within 10 days we had proof that there was a grave diversity of opinion in it. He was not needlessly offering the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making explanations. He might tell the right hon. Gentleman that he had felt, and many people felt, that such statements as these from the front bench tended in no small degree to diminish the confidence of the people of this country in their Government, and naturally to damage and deteriorate the character of English statesmen. He came now more immediately to the important question which was before the House. The other night the Government succeeded in carrying by a large majority the Vote for the £6,000,000, and now they asked that the House should consummate that action. Had anything happened in the interval since the Vote was brought forward to increase our confidence in the policy of the Government? They were reticent; we did not know what they were doing; we only knew that they had taken a step of the utmost danger, and every step they took seemed to be taken under pressure, not from the brains of the Party, but from that part of the Party which was most light-headed—that part of the Party which had seemed least to have studied the question, which was most prejudiced, and which seemed least to care about what was really just and right with regard to it. From day to day he heard hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House, and also, he regretted to say, on his own side, reflecting on the action of the Russian Government simply because it was the action of the Russian Government, and as if it must therefore of necessity be unjust. For his own part, up to that moment he had felt no suspicion or jealousy of the Russian
    1628
    Government. Up to that moment the Russian Government had behaved with greater dignity, greater straightforwardness, and greater generosity than our own had done. ["Oh!"] Well, it was time that somebody should say that in that House. He did not say that he supported the policy of the Russian Government, but in his opinion the conduct of that Government had been more straightforward and generous than that of Her Majesty's Government. The more he considered their conduct the more he blushed for English statesmanship. It was either ungenerous, or it was inept — one thing or the other, whichever hon. Members liked. The way in which Her Majesty's Government were at this moment conducting their negotiations appeared to point to a most perilous result. Instead of striving to maintain friendship with Russia, which he believed was possible, we were only doing what must tend to excite her hostility. It could not be denied that we had. had most friendly assurances from Russia, and it was a point which yet remained to be cleared up why Her Majesty's Government had suppressed the important document which was forwarded to them by Colonel Wellesley, and which Lord Beaconsfield might have had in his pocket when he made that second warlike and insolent speech of his at the Guildhall. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get up and vindicate English statesmen from aspersions which must be injurious to their character. It appeared to him that the line now taken by Her Majesty's Government was dangerous and impolitic; that it was calculated to excite the Russian Government to hostilities. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in a speech he had listened to with admiration, and which was full of wisdom and far-seeing political sagacity, the other night pointed out to the Government what were the aims this country ought to keep in view, and said one great aim which the people of this country were determined to carry out was that of delivering the enslaved people—the subject-races of Turkey— from that bondage under which they had suffered for now nearly 400 years. The people of this country were resolved that on no account whatever should we contribute, in connection with

    1629
    Austria or otherwise, to limit the designs of Russia in regard to the liberation of those enslaved races. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say—"That is not our policy;" but he (Mr. Jenkins) would, ask, how could they be allied to Austria without agreeing to carry out the designs of Austria, which were necessarily to clip and curb the efforts that were being made for the liberation of those peoples? But, on the other hand, hon. Members opposite, honestly and sincerely jealous of Russia, said of the design of Russia that it was simply to bring these people under her own control, and use them as her tools. Might he give the views of one Englishman at least upon that view. He did not hesitate to say—"Better for that part of the world that it should be entirely Russian, and that all the Slav races should be united, than that it should fall back under the horrible rule under which it had hitherto existed." His hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), in a speech of rare eloquence, talked the other day of the policy of Russia towards Poland. He knew that there was a very deep sympathy with Poland in this country. He thought it had been more sentimental than wise; but his opinion, from reading history, was that Poland was the greatest nuisance that ever existed in the centre of Europe, and that no better thing was ever done than the abolition of the Polish Government. It was an oligarchic despotism of the worst and lowest type. Of course, one felt, when one read that history, some pity with regard to it; one admitted the partition was a great crime; but his conclusion was that, after all, it was simply the very best thing that could have happened for Poland. ["Oh!"] Of course, he was only stating his own opinion, and hon. Members were entitled to theirs; but he ventured to say, at all events, whatever might be the feelings in this country with regard to Poland, Richard Cobden, in a pamphlet published in 1835 or 1836, had pointed out, that while in Poland there were no chances whatever, and no possibility whatever of reformation from a terrible system of despotism, in Russia there were even then hopes in that direction. Prom that time Russia had been improving; the Slavs were improving; and,
    1630
    depend upon it, whatever this country might strive to do, when the energies of 80,000,000 of people were directed to unite themselves with 20,000,000 of others who were fellow-Slavs, and who ought to be free, one might as well endeavour to stop the Thames at London Bridge with his little finger as to prevent them. If this country were to lend itself, in conjunction with Austria, to a policy which tended to check that great movement, we might depend upon it, whatever might happen in the next few years, and however successful we might be in our military or naval enterprizes the British race and Empire would have to stand face to face with those against whom we had fought, but who would not be subdued, and who would be our enemies for generation after generation. He appealed to the House whether it was worth while, because British honour had been flouted by this or that act of Russia, that they should spend £100,000,000 sterling for such a result. If the policy of Her Majesty's Government were not to join with Austria in endeavouring to limit the action of Russia in freeing the enslaved peoples of Turkey, then what did they mean to do? A very significant article, which appeared to be inspired—God knew how leading articles in the newspapers were inspired now-a-days!—in The Standard, gave notice to Europe that henceforth our Government were not going to be the cat's-paw of Europe, but were going to act simply and solely for the protection of British interests. If that were really the policy of the British Government, one would feel some satisfaction; but one would like to know what it meant. Was it possible that Her Majesty's Government had in view some great surprise for Europe—that she was going to occupy Egypt or Mytilene, or to take possession of Constantinople? Was it likely that these things would be permitted by the Mediterranean Powers without some protest? The Government were going to carry off the £6,000,000; but the House was entitled, before absolutely parting with it, to have some indication of the line of policy which they intended to carry out; and, for his own part, he was prepared to divide the House unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to give the assurance that in no case would the money be used in any way to limit the

    1631
    amount of liberty which was to be conferred on those subject-peoples under the arrangements made between Russia and Turkey. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not feel that he had exceeded the proper limits of criticism in the remarks he had felt bound to make on the action of Her Majesty's Government. He trusted that the time had come when Her Majesty's Government had abandoned all idea of Turkish independence and integrity, all thought of setting Turkey on her legs again, and had resolved to leave her to be treated as she deserved by the Power which had succeeded in crushing her. He also asked the Government to appeal to the country to place on the acts of Russia a more generous construction. Do not let it be said that everything done by that Power was necessarily unjust. An hon. Member came and told him yesterday, as if it were a very flagitious act, that the Russians had threatened to occupy Constantinople in the event of the English Fleet entering the Dardanelles. His reply was that they were quite right in doing so. Russia was perfectly right in doing whatever she could to secure and defend herself against the action of Her Majesty's Government, for whatever they might say about their friendship, their words had been hostile and menacing. Again and again had the kindly words of some Ministers been counteracted by the speeches of other Ministers, and by the language both of their newspapers and of hon. Members opposite. If they could only hope that the Government would not be carried away by any fear, that they would feel that Britain was strong and able to resent any hostile action that could betaken against her interests, that they might calmly await the solution of this matter, whether by a Conference or the issues of war; if they could believe that in any case England was strong to maintain her dignity and interests when really attacked, then he believed they would be able calmly to contemplate the perturbations around them, and the Government would be free to take that generous course, which was the only course which befitted the Government of England. In conclusion, he begged to thank the House for listening to his remarks, which were almost wholly unpremeditated.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I do not know whether the House would desire on this occasion to renew the general debate on this question; but, although the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee has made certain observations which might tempt one to follow him, I do not desire to do so. I only rise for the purpose of making a single observation upon that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech which seemed to bring a charge of want of candour against the Government in general, and myself in particular, with regard to the orders that were given to the Fleet. That is the sort of charge which I think should not remain unanswered. I entirely dispute the right of the hon. Gentleman to make such a charge. What happened, I think, was this—that in the course of a general speech or of remarks made in answer to a Question, I forget which, I stated what the orders were that had been sent out to Admiral Hornby with regard to the movements of the Fleet; and as to the use that it was to be put to, I stated that it was for the purpose of protecting life and property and keeping the waterway open, and I read the telegram in which those orders were given. Of course I did not attempt to give specific and detailed instructions as to how Admiral Hornby was to carry out those general orders, but I should think that the terms "keep the waterway open" would show pretty clearly that these would be instructions necessary as to what would have to be done in the event of any obstacles arising. I do not see that there is ground for saying there has been the slightest unnecessary reserve on the part of the Government in this matter, or that I omitted anything which ought to have been said. Our desire has been to treat the House with the utmost candour, and I put it to the House whether they would expect that detailed orders as to the precise course to be adopted by Admiral Hornby should have been stated.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) in his speech dropped an observation which leads me to make an appeal to him. He referred to a matter which I, for one, hold to be of the very greatest consequence—namely, the relations in which this country may stand to Austria with regard to the course of these negotia-

    1633
    tions. I know no larger or deeper question connected with the settlement of the whole of the Eastern affairs of Europe. It is one which I look upon with great anxiety, and upon which I, for one, am determined, health being spared me, to do my duty in this House if occasion arise. The hon. Member has expressed an aversion, in which I entirely and absolutely share, to any combination whatever with Austria or any other Power for the purpose of limiting the freedom to be granted to the Slavs. That is an issue, upon which, if it became necessary to raise it, we may boldly make our appeal to all classes and descriptions of Englishmen. I own that I do not feel that it would be fair to ask the Government at this moment to make a conclusive declaration upon the subject. The time has not come, so far as we know, when any considerable progress has been made between Russia and Turkey in describing and formulating fully the provisions of the Treaty as between these two Powers; and until considerable progress has been made in that opera-ration, I do not know that we should be justified in asking Her Majesty's Government for any conclusive declaration upon that subject; and, therefore, I hope my hon. Friend may be disposed to re-consider the announcement that he made, that unless he obtained such a declaration from the Government tonight he would divide the House. "We have been fairly heard upon the subject of the present Vote." We have fully laid before the country our views, and I own I am in the entire belief that our views are those of the great majority of this nation. [Ironical cheers, and cries of "No, no!"] These are my views. It is not necessary to argue in support of them at length, but I feel myself not less competent to form an opinion than some of those hon. Gentlemen opposite whose derisive cheers I have just listened to. I do not want to enter into the matter at all. I am only using it as an argument with my hon. Friend why I do not think it necessary to challenge the judgment of the House at the present time, nor will I enter upon the subject of the recent orders for the Fleet to proceed to Constantinople, nor the quasi-hostile proceeding in the face of the protest of the Porte. There will be opportunities for discussion on that subject; but there is one point on which I shall
    1634
    be very glad if—I do not say to-day, but on to-morrow, or on a very early day— the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give us a little information. It has been publicly stated in The Times newspaper of yesterday, and in a communication from St. Petersburg, that the Austrian Government, on or about the 30th January, had made a formal communication to Prince Gortchakoff which was in the nature of a definition of the special Austrian interests which they considered to be involved in the present negotiations. Of course it is only the statement of a newspaper correspondent, but still it is a positive statement telegraphed from St. Petersburg to The Times of yesterday. I could certainly have understood the setting forth of especial Austrian interests on many questions connected with the Black Sea, and particularly with questions as to the absolute freedom of the Danube, who is to be its custodian, and everything connected with the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. These, however, according to the statement, were not the matters put forward as special Austrian interests. The words used are these—
    "The matters especially affecting Austrian interests were the situation in Bosnia and the Herzegovina, the territorial aggrandizement of Servia and Montenegro, and the temporary occupation of Bulgaria by the Russian troops."
    I would not think of asking now, independently of the fact that my right hon. Friend has spoken, for any answer on this subject; but I will venture to ask to-morrow, if that be convenient, whether my right hon. Friend is able to give to Parliament any communication on the subject of such communication from Austria to the Russian Government? I venture to hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his Resolution.
    SIR ROBERT PEEL: Sir, I wish to make one or two remarks on the speech of the hon. Member who opened the debate. The hon. Member went over the whole question in a speech which he informed the House was wholly unprepared. If that were the case, what must his prepared speeches be, for his language and diction were perfectly splendid? The hon. Member paid me the compliment of passing considerable eulogiums on me; but the hon. Gentleman made use of expressions for which, if his speech had been prepared, I should

    1635
    have called him seriously to account. I do not wish now to enter into the policy of the Government, I only wish to say a few words with respect to what has fallen from the hon. Member. I certainly did not expect to hear it laid to the charge of Ministers on the Treasury bench, by a Member of any Party in the House, that they had not considered the dignity of Russia. What they have to consider is the dignity of this country. That is their sole and only duty—while being just and fair towards other States, to consider, not the dignity of this or that Power, but the dignity of England. But when I heard the hon. Member make other remarks, I confess I was not surprised to notice the expressions with which he was greeted. Did not the House listen with shame to what has fallen from the hon. Member with regard to Poland? I venture to say there is not one man in the House who concurs with the hon. Member in thinking that Poland has been a nuisance. Sir, if the hon. Member knew anything of Poland, if he had lived, as I have lived, for two years of his life in the closest intimacy with illustrious exiles of that unhappy country, he would not have dared to make use of such an expression. The hon. Member then alluded personally to me, and to some remarks I made in Exeter Hall. Now, it is perfectly true that I did speak in Exeter Hall, and I must confess that I spoke as I thought to the enthusiastic gratification of not a packed meeting, but a meeting of several thousand persons who seemed desirous to express their confidence in the Government. The hon. Member has said that I made a very warlike speech. That is a charge often thrown out against hon. Members sitting on this side of the House. Nothing can be more unfair than to charge hon. Members sitting here with a desire for a war policy; and nothing, I am sure, can be further from the desire of the Government than to be thought to favour such a policy. I must admit, however, in common with everyone who has witnessed the proceedings of the last seven days, that I have felt considerable anxiety and alarm. Not that we wish to see this country drifting into war—on the contrary, we wish to have some certain sound of policy which may guide the Government and the country. I think the statement which has now been made by the Government, not-
    1636
    withstanding the hesitation of the few days, that they will consider British interests only, and that the Fleet has proceeded to the Sea of Marmora to protect the lives and interests of British subjects, shows a determination and a policy which will be hailed with satisfaction by the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich has said that it will be very dangerous for the Government if they join in a certain course of action with Austria, and the hon. Member for Dundee, in his wholly unprepared speech, has made the same remark. I must admit that I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have watched the policy of Austria for many years, and I recollect her conduct during the Crimean War—how she planned solely with a view to preserving and conserving her own interests. She is not perhaps to be blamed for this; but nevertheless her policy requires to be watched. History tells us how in the earliest period of this century Austria has invariably played a false game towards those States which placed confidence in her. And even so recently as during the Franco-German War, we all know how the promises by Austria to Louis Napoleon proved illusory. No one denies all this, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that great discretion must be shown in forming any connection with Austria on this question. But I believe the danger comes from another quarter—that the real root and origin of all this trouble in Europe springs from Germany. If, in the beginning, Germany had acted with a straightforward policy towards Europe, this war might have been stopped, and I am not sure that even now, if the Chancellor of the German Empire were to tell Russia that if she were to offer any further outrage to the feelings of Europe, Germany would not regard it with indifference, all difficulty would be at an end. Therefore, while agreeing with my right hon. Friend in a feeling of distrust towards Austria, I confess to even a greater distrust of the policy of Germany. I do hope, from the statements we have heard from the Government to-night, that we are not drifting into war, but that we are proceeding upon a policy based solely and only upon British interests; and I also hope from what we have heard to-night, there will be no longer that feeling of hesitation as re-

    1637
    gards the action of the Government which certainly and undoubtedly has pervaded the minds of very many during the past few days, that if we are not drifting into war, we are actually on the brink of war. I shall, therefore, be glad if some Member of the Government can get up and give us still fuller explanations than we have hitherto received. I think the House of Commons is entitled to it. At this most critical juncture of affairs, the Government are bound to take the House of Commons into its confidence, and to let it know really what weight may be attached to the conflicting and harassing rumours which daily obtain currency and unhinge the public mind. I trust there is no danger of our being on the brink of war; but if we are not, let us be told so. The country, I believe, is with the Government; the House of Commons is with them; all we want is that we may know at this critical juncture where we stand. No one knows better than Her Majesty's Government that the spirit of the British nation is certainly never hostile to a straightforward and honourable policy, when that policy is carried out solely and only to assert, if necessary, British interests, and to vindicate, if necessary, national honour.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Sir, I rise to call attention to a fallacy which has just been propounded by the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone). He generally does come down to the House with some new fallacy which, if not astute, is at least likely to beguile and mislead. He has just said that "he entirely and absolutely shares the aversion of the hon. Member for Dundee from any combination whatever with Austria," and that we should guard against "limiting the freedom of the Christian populations of the East." Sir, I am as anxious for the liberty, the real liberty, of the Christian, and of every other population of the East, as the right hon. Member himself can be. I am a lover of liberty, and desire that mental condition, not for our own country alone, but for all other nations also. But, Sir, the right hon. Member, in order to prove his case, must start from the assumption—although he does not express it—that the Turk is a tyrant, and that the Christian populations of the East have been oppressed by the Porte. To this I demur. On what evi-
    1638
    dence does that proposition rest? On the venal reports concerning atrocities, which have been written by newspaper correspondents, who afterwards boasted that they had invented those stories of atrocities in order "to write down" the Turks; reports which were speedily disproved and contradicted by our diplomatic agents in the East. I do not, therefore, accept the dictum that the Turks are intolerant or tyrannical. Yet, for argument's sake, I will grant it to the right hon. Member, so as to take him on his own ground. Now, I ask him what it is that he has all along desired? To drive out one tyrant in order to bring in a greater tyrant? That, Sir, would be the greatest possible "limitation on the freedom of the Christian populations of the East!" I need not go over the history of Russia, which, during the last 100 years, has been written in blood, and uttered in the shrieks and groans of the oppressed. I need not go back to Poland and her partition in 1772; nor to her wrongs in 1831, and in 1863. It is enough to point to the Blue Book of last year, concerning the heartrending and horrible persecutions of the United Greeks in Chelm. A brutal soldiery quartered on the inhabitants; a free use of the Cossack whip; women, and children even, flogged almost to death. Men and women and children driven by Cossacks over the snow, and through a river, up to their necks in water, and to a neighbouring church, where they were bidden, at the point of the Cossack's lance, to sign a memorial praying for admission to the Russo-Greek Church. Those who refused were martyred. One old woman received 100 blows of the heavy Cossack whip. A number were driven away from their homes, and from religious ministrations, to a distant and desolate country. The fact must ever be borne in mind that the Russo-Greek Church, with the Czar at its head, bears as bitter a hatred to the Greek Church —whose head is the Patriarch of Constantinople—as it does to the Catholic Church and to Islam. The Greek Church regards the Czar as Anti-Christ, because he claims adoration as a semi-Deity, and calls himself the infallible and omnipotent head of the Christian Church. We have all, doubtless, read in a recent Blue Book, the vehement protest, or Encyclical, of the Patriarch of the Greek

    1639
    Church against the invasion of the Ottoman Empire by the Czar. In that Encyclical he proclaimed, in the name of the whole Greek Church, that they would all prefer to live under the tolerant sway of the Turk rather than under the grinding oppression of Russia. In a despatch of our Ambassador at Constantinople, dated last May, the same was stated on behalf of the Armenian Christians; they prefer the Turkish sway to Russian tyranny. Yet you are content to leave Russia, in those countries, to "limit the freedom of the Christian populations of the East." You desire to see them ground to powder under the iron heel of a ruthless oppressor. You have allowed the Turk to be driven out and replaced by the Czar, who is a bloody tyrant; and this is applauded by hypocritical lovers of liberty in this House. I am indignant—
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I rise to Order. I heard the word "tyrant," as applied to a Ruler who is in alliance with us, and on friendly terms with this country. I wish to know whether the noble Lord is in Order in using such an expression?
    MR. GLADSTONE: It appears to me, Sir, that it must have been from an involuntary deviation from the Rules of this House that the noble Lord has spoken of Members of this House as "hypocritical lovers of liberty."' I wish to know whether that term is in Order?
    MR. SPEAKER: The language employed by the noble Lord was not respectful to a Sovereign who is an Ally, and friendly to this country. It is also out of Order to attribute motives to Members of this House, by calling them "hypocritical." The noble Lord will doubtless think it advisable to withdraw the expressions complained of, and I call upon him to do so.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I am quite ready to do your bidding, Sir. As to the Czar, I will withdraw the word "tyrant," and substitute any synonymous term which you may designate.
    MR. SPEAEHR: The noble Lord should withdraw the assertion altogether.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Very well, Sir, I will do so, and not say anything, in substitution, about the Czar. In using the terms "hypocritical lovers of liberty," I will not apply it to Members of this House, but only to persons
    1640
    who have spoken outside the House, who have pretended to desire liberty, and yet favour the despotism—there can be no objection to that word—the grinding despotism, religious and civil, of the Czar.
    MR. JOHN BRIGHT: But you did use the term in regard to Members; you said "hypocritical lovers of liberty in this House."
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Did I? Then I am very sorry that I mentioned Members of this House. I thought I had used the term generally, without pointing at any individuals. Well; but if you do not desire that the Russian power should remain in European Turkey and in Armenia, why do you cast dirt at Austria, and warn the Government to turn from "every combination whatever with Austria," for fear of "limiting the liberties of the Christian population of the East?" Austria alone protested against the partition of Poland in 1772. On January 3, 1815, Austria signed a Treaty with France and England, and combined with Turkey, with the intention of re-constituting Poland. When we were preparing to enter upon the Crimean War, I believe that Austria refused to join us except on condition that we should undertake to restore the liberties of Poland, and give them that Constitution which the Czar had contracted by the Treaty of 1815, and sworn to maintain. "The loss of Russia's western frontier territory," which Prince Albert spoke of in his Memorandum of March 8, 1855, seems to allude to it. Why, then, do you say that Austria is so averse to the liberties of Christians in the Ottoman Empire? Without Austria, how can you now do anything? Before this you might have done so; but you have let the time and opportunity slip away. Now, you can do nothing without Austria, and everything with her. Your Fleets are at Constantinople. Of what use are they there? If they are to do anything, the Black Sea is the only place for them. They are even in great danger where they are. The Straits have forts on each side, and the waters may soon be filled with torpedoes, so that your ships will be unable either to advance or to return. The Russians have been collecting a number of torpedoes and torpedo boats, and have brought thousands of sailors to the South. So you will not be able to do anything, as

    1641
    you cannot advance to the Black Sea. Nor will you find it easy to get back through the Dardanelles; and so you will be starved out where you are. Whether there exists a Treaty of Alliance, offensive and defensive, between the Czar and Sultan, or not, matters not now. You have allowed the Sultan to fall completely under the power of the Czar, and he must do whatever the Czar wants him to do, or else be crushed to powder, and yield his dominions to Russia. It is now either Russia, or a Russian vassal at Constantinople. Therefore, if Russia wants the Straits to be plugged with torpedoes, it will be done. Because Russia wished it, you have got your Fleet up now into the mouse-trap. Yet, whatever you do, must be done in the Black Sea. If you mean war, you must stop supplies from coming to the Russian armies, from Odessa, Sebastopol, Asia, or even across the Bosphorus and Sea of Marmora. You must stop all supplies by water. What then? You cannot land 300,000 men to cut off the Russian communications, so you must have recourse to Austria's aid, or do nothing. On the other hand, if you mean peace, then you want a Conference. Every Conference I fear. Every Conference has always ended in a limitation of the liberties of peoples. Moreover, you are always outdone in diplomacy. Yet you wish to go to a Conference, and be "strong in the voice of England." How can you be strong in Conference and in voice, when every Power in Europe knows that you are weak and helpless now, and can do nothing? How, then, can you in Conference insist on the liberties of the Christian populations of the East? How can you alone free them from a grim tyrant's grip? You can do so only if you have the help of Austria, which you repudiate; but with the help of Austria, whom you vilify, you may do all that you desire in the cause of real liberty. The same exactly may be said of Austria. Without your Fleet to stop supplies, Austria can do nothing. With your Fleet she can do everything. But if nothing is done, Austria will directly fall to pieces and be undermined by treachery; and the turn of England will come directly after.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he did not wish to prolong the debate, and did not propose to attack any foreign country. He had heard with regret the speech
    1642
    of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins). In saying that the Russians were entitled to enter Constantinople, he believed the hon. Gentleman had not expressed the feeling of any considerable number of persons in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer correctly expressed the feeling of the country in stating that the action taken by our Fleet—as to the wisdom of which he would not express any opinion — would not in any way justify the Russian troops in entering the Turkish capital. At the same time, they must all feel that this moment was a most critical one, and nothing ought to be done without the greatest consideration. The hon. Member for Dundee proceeded to attack Austria. There had been times, no doubt, in her history, when she had not done what she ought to have done; but the same might be said of other countries. She had now a Constitutional Government. He thought we ought not to assume that the policy of Austria would be to restrict the liberties of the Christians of Turkey; but if she should hereafter adopt such a policy, then we need not join her in pursuing it. He also regretted the attack which had been made by the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) on Germany, after what he had said in defence of Austria. Our best hope of maintaining the peace of Europe and arriving at a happy settlement of that great question rested on a cordial cooperation between Germany, Austria, and England.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he could not vote for this Bill, because, after the declarations made that night, it seemed to him that the movement of our Fleet meant war or a very great risk of war. In fact, we had already committed an act of war by forcing the Dardanelles. We had thrown down the gauntlet and it only remained to see whether others would take it up. He would not now attempt fully to discuss the policy of the Government; but he did wish to record his deliberate opinion that our interests in Constantinople were not sufficient to justify us in taking that isolated action which might lead to war; because our interests there were not the only interests, or even the greatest interests, as compared to other European nations. We had broken the European pact, and had entered the

    1643
    waters which by the Treaty of 1856 were to be shut to ships of war. By this act we had imperilled the greatest of all British interests—peace—and our interests in the East were not sufficient, he contended, to justify our entering into an act of war alone without concert with the other Powers.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, he had taken no part in the long debates upon the Vote, nor did he intend to do so now; but as the situation had been referred to, he would say a few words upon it. He would not attempt to define the situation. They all knew what it was, and they all felt it. Certainly, during the 37 years he had been in Parliament, he had never had occasion to feel as he and the nation had felt during the past few days. He did not wish to point out by whose action this situation had been brought about—whether it was the result of the action of Ministers or ex-Ministers, or persons within this House or out of it—but simply to say that our position was most critical, more critical than it had been for the past 30 or 40 years. Now, although there was a denial of the fact by some hon. Members on the other side of the House, there had been an expression of feeling throughout the country within the last 10 days or a fortnight, which manifestly showed that the common sense of the English people—of a people jealous and proud of its history, its traditions, and its Empire—had at length asserted itself, and that it was prepared to support Her Majesty's Government in whatever policy they might deem necessary to maintain the honour and interests of this Empire, and likewise to uphold good faith and public law and morality as between nations, as well as to vindicate our Treaty rights. On the other hand, he thought the nation had a right to expect on the part of the Government that, while they were as cautious and as prudent as the occasion demanded, they should not be wanting at the same time in firmness, determination, and courage; but would be in deed as well as in name the Representatives of a high-hearted, sensitive, and courageous race. In doing so, they would have the support of the great majority of the nation. If this great crisis passed away and the country went into a Conference, he hoped the Government would not have their hands too much tied, and would not sit on the
    1644
    Congress merely to register the ukases of the Russian Emperor. The Protocol to the Treaty of 1871 admitted that no one nation had a right to set itself free from a Treaty without the assent of the other nations who were parties to it; and in asking, at that time, for an alteration of the Treaty of 1856, the Representative of Russia affirmed, on the part of the Emperor, that it was his intention to maintain intact the conditions of the Treaty defining the position of Turkey in Europe. It appeared to him that the question of Treaties and Treaty rights had been too much overlooked and merged in that of British interests. British rights existed in those Treaties in which British interests were embraced, and it would be better, in the interests of the public and of international morality, that they should hear as much of Treaty rights as of British interests.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member for Klirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) seemed to have expressed his intention to force a division.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should say "No" when the Question was put; but, so far as he was concerned, he did not know that he would press for a division.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEhoped that no other hon. Gentleman would take a division; for it was clear that in voting against the Bill, which affirmed a decision already arrived at with regard to a certain grant of money, they should in no sense be giving an opinion on the question raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins). Their objections to the sending of the Fleet through the Dardanelles, and to the intimation to Russia as to a possible occupation of Constantinople, were not dealt with in the question before the House; and therefore he hoped there would not be a division. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), and the noble Lord who had just spoken, said that the country had shown its confidence in the Government. It was true that the public had been appealed to in many meetings. Two had been held in London, at which resolutions professing confidence in the Government had been moved or supported by Members on the other side of the House. He wished to point out that the right hon. Baronet, in the speech which he had made that

    1645
    evening, had expressed suspicion and distrust of the policy of the Government.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he must protest against this statement. He merely said that within the last seven days there had been certain indications of indecision which had caused him and many others great pain and anxiety.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The words of the right hon. Baronet, which he took down at the time, were "distrust and alarm," caused, he understood, by want of any indication of a clearly defined policy. A meeting was held at Cremorne Gardens on Saturday which was attended by some hon. Members opposite, who protested that it was the duty of everyone to show absolute confidence in the policy of the Government; but he observed by a paragraph in a morning newspaper, which had not been contradicted by hon. Members whose names were mentioned, that many hon. Gentlemen who had been at that meeting had, within three days later, been engaged in attempting to oust the Foreign Minister from the Cabinet. Surely there was some inconsistency here. He only wished to point to that to show that hon. Members on the Liberal side had some right to say that within these few days past they had shown as much disposition, at all events, as was shown on the other side to trust Her Majesty's Government.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, it would be remembered that, in the early part of the debate on the Vote of £6,000,000, he had expressed his opinion that it would be the right and the duty of hon. Members on the Liberal side to oppose that Vote by all the Forms of the House. But, to use the words of the Prime Minister on another occasion, a great many things had happened since then, and the most important was that it had come to their knowledge that Turkey was virtually and finally crushed. He thought they could not carry on that debate without remembering that such was the case. Therefore, the danger which he apprehended at an early period of the discussion—that this country might be led into a war for Turkey— seemed not as great now as it was then; because, if there was any intention of carrying out a warlike policy, it was clear that the war must be carried on against Turkey and Russia united; and he had too much regard for his hon. Friends on
    1646
    the other side to attribute to them such lunacy as would lead them to pursue a policy like that. They were all now very peaceful. When the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) rose, he expected to hear from him a warlike declaration, but was delighted to hear the peaceful strain in which he spoke. He thought the right hon. Baronet was a little wrong about the feeling of the country and the meetings. He doubted very much whether the meetings represented the true feeling of the country. If they did, it was a bad feeling. His hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. M'Arthur) attended one of those patriotic meetings in his own borough, and some of the patriots robbed the hon. Member of his watch and other things. He did not think that was a proceeding which showed much respect for British interests. Before finally voting that money, he wished to say that he agreed with the right hon. Baronet in thinking that the country and the House were entitled to some more definite statement, even now, of the proceedings of the Government than they had yet heard. In his opinion, the whole thing, after all, lay in a nutshell. If the Russians got possession of Constantinople, did the Government mean to fight them or did they not? Let them give a straightforward answer to that question, and they would allay a great deal of excitement and bad feeling which prevailed. Let them not commit the error committed 25 years ago, and drift into war from any want of straightforwardness on the part of the Government. He did not believe that anybody who thought over this matter wanted to fight. His hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) made one of the most eloquent speeches ever made in that House; but he felt sure, even though the speech was a most warlike one, that he was not prepared to support Her Majesty's Government if they should really adopt a warlike policy. Perhaps the Government might be very glad that speakers on the Opposition side should get up to do them good rather than harm, for a man's foes were often those of his own household. He felt some concern when he read yesterday, in an influential morning paper, a statement respecting the proceedings of certain hon. Gentlemen opposite, which he would read. It was this—

    1647
    "It may be taken, nevertheless, as an accomplished fact that the large body of Conservatives are bent on bringing a certain force to bear on the policy of the Government, and there is some reason to fear that the action has already taken effect in an invigorating sense. The gentleman who has been elected as chairman is Sir Lawrence Palk, a county Member, of good family, and great possessions."
    This statement threw a light on the policy of the Government. He had wished in vain to find out from the other side of the House what was the object of the £6,000,000. He saw now, however, that the Government were determined to have that large sum in hand in order to counteract the great possessions of the chairman of that committee. Hon. Members on the Liberal side would cordially support the Government against the rebels who had risen up under the hon. Member for East Devon. Again, he asked the Government to be bold, to throw aside all equivocation, and say plainly whether they meant to fight Russia out of Constantinople or whether they did not. If they said they did mean to fight, he for one, and he thought other hon. Members also, would use every means in their power to prevent them getting a penny to carry out that policy until they had put it fairly and distinctly before the country. If, on the other hand, the Government declared they did not intend to go to war, they would greatly calm the present mischievous excitement in the country, and secure the support of the Liberal Party; and he was sure that by so doing they would act much more in accordance with British interests than by adopting a warlike policy.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought it quite unnecessary that a direct answer should be given to the question which had just been put by the hon. Baronet. Everyone who saw the dispirited and broken attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that night, so utterly different from what he had exhibited during the previous stages of the measure, and the altered demeanour of his supporters, must have perceived that all intention of carrying out their threats towards Russia had been definitively and decidedly abandoned. He did not think there was any necessity for the hon. Member (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) to be the first to initiate a policy of obstruction on this subject in—dependently of
    1648
    the fact that the Speaker would probably order him into the custody of the Ser-geant-at-Arms as a wilful obstructionist —the necessity for obstruction had passed away. He would, therefore, advise the hon. Baronet to reserve his powers for some fitter opportunity. The Government had got their way in one respect. The Russians had beaten them, but they had beaten the Opposition. They had got their £6,000,000 and their Vote of Confidence, and, to a certain extent, had saved their Parliamentary credit in the House of Commons.
    MR. MONKsaid, that when the Fleet was in the Sea of Marmora, it was time the Government stated explicitly what was the object they had in view. It was true that in the statement of last year the Emperor of Russia had declared that he would not occupy Constantinople merely for the sake of military honour, but only if it were rendered necessary by the march of events. The march of events had probably rendered it expedient, from a Russian point of view, to occupy Constantinople; and, before voting the £6,000,000, he thought they had a right to ask the Government whether they had received communications from our Ambassador, to which reference had been made that evening. He believed they were drifting hopelessly and helplessly into war, and the question was, for what purpose were they going to war? Why, against the will of Turkey, were the Government sending the Fleet into the Dardanelles? There had been no explanation of that manœuvre, but they were told they must have confidence in the policy of the Government. For his part, he mistrusted their policy, because he felt sure that it was at present undeveloped and unmatured. He sincerely trusted some Member of the Government would tell them what their policy was, and why the Fleet had been sent to Constantinople.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was of opinion that the open-air meeting at Cremorne on Saturday, which was only attended by 5,000 people, showed only a small amount of interest on the part of the people of London. We were now in a very strange position, for England had committed an act of war against Turkey, and, as a consequence against Russia, as those Powers were now Allies. He would not be surprised if the British Fleet,

    1649
    after going into the Dardanelles, surrendered to Russia and Turkey; because he had never heard of an iron-clad being built that a cannon-ball had not got through.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he rose for the purpose of appealing to the hon. Member for Dundee not to put the House to the trouble of a division at that stage of the proceedings. He, like other hon. Members, felt an intense anxiety with regard to the present position of affairs, and all of them felt the responsibility that belonged to a Member of Parliament at such a time; but he was of opinion that every English interest, and certainly the interests of peace, would be better served by not continuing the debate. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and should be very glad if the Government were able to give more information as to their actual policy; but if they felt that they could not say more at that moment, he did not think that Members ought to interpret, or that the country would interpret, that refusal to mean that they were going to hasten the country into war. He was one of those who believed that, notwithstanding the excitement of the last two or three days, there was as yet no ground on which the country ought to go to war. And he felt persuaded that the Government, like any other Government, would not bring on the country such an incalculable calamity and commit them to a policy which, if not necessary, was wicked, without letting the country know why they took such a course. Therefore, he relied upon it that the Government would not take any such step without informing the House. He, of course, had his opinion; and, although he should be very sorry to see the Russians enter Constantinople, and though he agreed with the Government that the step which they had taken, with regard to the Fleet, whether it was right or wrong, was not in itself a justification for the Russians to enter that city, he could not allow it to be supposed that he was one of those who thought that the temporary occupation of Constantinople by the Russians was a sufficient ground for war. Upon that point, however, he did not wish to enter into a fruitless discussion. He would again strongly appeal to the hon. Member for Dundee, in the interests which he him-
    1650
    self had at heart, not to force the House to a division; but he must say that if the hon. Member did insist upon a division, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) should find it impossible to avoid voting for the Government, and for this reason—they had not the policy of the Government now before them, and they had not before them the question whether the Vote of Credit should have been originally asked for or not. It had, by a very large majority, been declared that the Government ought to have the money, and after that it appeared to him the logical result was that they must find ways and means of carrying out that decision. He should feel himself under a logical necessity to vote for the Government; but it must not be supposed from that that he had in the slightest degree changed his opinion as to the impolicy of the Government and their want of grounds in first asking for the Vote.
    MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONsaid, there appeared to be a strong opinion that a continuation of this discussion must be very injurious to public interests. Hon. Members opposite had on various occasions endeavoured to provoke sharp retorts; but he was not going to seize the opportunity which now presented itself, as others would arise hereafter. As Turkey was no longer a free agent, and was not an Ally of Russia, he denied that Her Majesty's Government had committed an act of war under those circumstances.
    MR. DILLWYNwas of opinion that an act of war had been committed, but said he could understand the difficulty of the Government in answering at the present crisis questions as to their policy. He therefore asked the hon. Member for Dundee not to go to a division, as there would be an opportunity to take a vote on the subject when the House went into Committee or when the Bill was read a third time, and the Government might, at a later stage, be in a position to give fuller information. In deference, however, to the feelings of hon. Members, he hoped the Government would not take the Committee stage to-morrow.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  COUNTY GOVERNMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Assheton Gross, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  COUNTY GOVERNMENT BILL.

    [BILL 93.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that having trespassed at some length on the indulgence of the House on a recent occasion, when he asked leave to introduce the Bill, it was not his intention to occupy its attention now for more than a few minutes. He would not enter into the motives or the policy of the Government, which he then indicated at sufficient length, nor would he again refer to the new powers which they considered necessary to be entrusted to a county authority. Those powers seemed to be generally acceptable to the House, and he should have an opportunity by-and-bye, if occasion should require, to enter into them more fully. He wished now to explain more clearly than he had hitherto done, some of the provisions of the Bill, as to which some little misapprehension appeared to have arisen. First of all, there was the selection of the petty sessional area as the area upon which the new county body was to be constructed. So far as it was to be of an elective character, it must not be supposed that the Government had any rooted objection to the Union area as a basis of local administration, and still less that there was any d priori desire to select the petty sessional area on account of any motive which was not apparent on the face of the Bill, or in the speech with which he introduced it. There was no such motive or intention. Indeed, when he first began to endeavour to construct a Bill on this subject, his desire was to adopt the Union area as the unit, and he only gave up the idea, just as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) gave it up eight years ago, because of the extreme difficulty and complexity which he found to exist in connection with it in pursuing it to a final issue. The Government had therefore adopted the petty sessional area as the unit most convenient and ready to hand, and which seemed to present, on the whole, the fewest objections and the greatest advantages. All the objections he had heard against the adoption
    1652
    of the petty sessional unit applied equally to the Unions, while the recommendations in their favour far outnumbered those who attached to the Union as the unit, besides which, they would have the effect of encouraging county feeling, which, were it not for the Parliamentary Elections, would have long since died out. One objection to the adoption of the Union area was, that out of 650 Unions—in round numbers—in England and Wales, 180 overlapped county boundaries, and some of the Unions overlapped the boundaries of two and three counties. Therefore, in laying down the regulations for the election of a county board, it would be necessary to provide special arrangements for the exercise' of their duties by the Guardians of such outlying parishes. That alone was a very serious difficulty. He would not here dwell upon the question as to whether it would be possible to bring the Poor Law business within the county boundaries, as that would lead him to prolong his remarks to too great length. He would only say that although, in some instances, that no doubt might be effected in the course of time; yet, generally, he should say that the operation was impossible so long as the Poor Law administration remained as it was. The extent to which Unions overlapped county boundaries varied very much; but, however large or small the overlapping portion might be, that portion must, of course, be represented on the county board. Another objection to the Union areas was, that in many cases they comprised quarter sessions boroughs, which were omitted from the action of the present Bill. That objection was entirely removed by adopting the petty sessional area, which in no case included quarter sessions boroughs. Then the petty sessional divisions, when combined together, formed a complete county, and the centre of each petty sessional area would generally be a more convenient place for the Guardians to go to than the workhouse of the Union. Further, there was the incidental advantage that the clerk to the justices was a convenient person to exercise the functions of a returning officer for the purpose of conducting the elections under the Bill. It was a postulate of his that these petty sessional areas must, as a rule, be convenient. It might be said, however, that they varied

    1653
    very much, in size. No doubt there was a good deal to comment upon as regarded their inequality; but did it really matter if inequality existed as regarded population? He should argue that the great object was to get the county represented as a whole in a convenient and equal manner; and taking the average of the counties of England, the petty sessional areas were sufficiently numerous to form a fair basis for constructing a county authority. They had no separate rating powers, and no separate interests, which would make them rivals of one another, and that appeared to him to be a very great advantage. It should be remembered, too, that there was not a large proportion of very small petty sessional divisions. Out of 750, only about 50 contained a population of less than 10,000; there were 33 with a population under 6,000, and 21 with a population of more than 6,000 and under 10,000. One great advantage of the arrangement he proposed would be that the county boards would be framed with a view to the interest of county ratepayers as a body. It not being a rating area, the members would attend the county board in the interest of the county rate as a whole, and they would have for the first time to look at the county as that which was to be the special object of their attention. There could be little doubt that advantage would arise from making the counties the real administrative areas; although, without doubt, something could be said in favour of the adoption of Unions as the units. The natural effect of the Bill, moreover, would be to give to the largest populations the major part of the voting power. As regarded the county rate, the working of county boards would not necessarily involve any great addition to the expenditure. He had already shown that when the Prison Act came into operation, the county rate would not exceed 1½d. in the pound, and there was no indication that under the Bill any large expenditure would be incurred. Whether, as time went on, any further powers would be assigned to the county board was a point on which he would not enter. There might certainly be some small addition, but the main function of the boards would be to carry on the work which had previously devolved upon the magistrates sitting at quarter sessions. It had been supposed that under Clause 19 the elected mem-
    1654
    bers of the boards would have nothing to do with the administration of the county road fund. That was a misapprehension of the objects of the clause. The only elected members who would be debarred from the administration of the fund in question would be those from the towns, who contributed nothing towards it; the other elected members would, of course, take part in it. It had been suggested that the three Bills which stood in his name on the Paper—the County Government Bill, the Highways Bill, and the Valuation of Property Bill —might in some particulars have been amalgamated; but he could assure the House that, having carefully studied the whole question, he had only included in each measure the principles which belonged exclusively to the particular subjects with which they proposed to deal. At the same time, he had endeavoured to arrange the provisions of these Bills so that they would work into each other. The Highway Bill, he hoped, might be read a second time at the same time as this Bill. Its great object was to facilitate the formation of highway boards. With regard to the Valuation Bill, it proceeded on the same lines as the Bill of last year, and the system was one which was familiar to the Assessment Committee. It was no new scheme; indeed, much of the difficulty had arisen from attempting to separate in the public mind what was old from what was new. He might mention that he had inserted in the Valuation of Property Bill a provision which set out very clearly the duties and functions of the county board with respect to valuation business. If, hereafter, when the county boards should have secured their position in the country, they should become dissatisfied with the operation of the proposed measure, they might endeavour to construct a new system of valuation upon the principles of the Scotch Act. In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman moved the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
    MR. STANSFELD,on rising to move as an Amendment—
    "That, with a view to simplify and strengthen local self-government, it is desirable, with as

    1655
    little delay as possible, to bring each sanitary-district and Poor Law Union within the area of one county, and to give to the ratepayers in and of such districts the power of directly electing members to the county board exceeding in number the representatives of justices,"
    said, that he had no intention of defeating the Bill, and did not wish to press his Amendment to a division; it was not framed to catch votes. If he received assurances from the Government that they would go into Committee with the view of making this really a House of Commons' measure, he would not divide. There would, however, he believed, be a division on the Bill; because some hon. Members were so strongly impressed with the conviction that the Bill was insufficient to meet the exigencies, that they would vote against its second reading. Such was not his view. He wished to compare the Bill, as explained by his right hon. Friend, with the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper, avoiding entirely the question of the functions of the county boards, and dealing only with their construction. The modern art of drafting a Bill had become quite a strategical and diplomatic matter—indeed, he might say a fine art—and it would seem that the present Bill was no exception. It was usual now to place at the commencement of a measure some clause which would define and express in some few words the policy of the whole Bill. That clause was called a dominant clause, and he had found that all inconsistent clauses which followed it either disappeared in the course of discussion, or became inoperative. In the Bill now before them, the 3rd and 4th clauses were the dominant clauses. They provided that the court of quarter sessions, when transacting administrative business, should constitute the county board. The board was to be a quarter sessions board—a justices board, with the addition of some elected representatives. They were to be chosen in a division which was a justices division, and not within the administrative area. But he held that the question of the consolidation of a system of local government in our counties was so important that the best way was not necessarily the easiest way. They should look difficulties in the face and adopt the best, although it might not be the easiest, course. The 25th clause of the Bill proposed to confer upon the new county
    1656
    board very important functions, and enabled it to undertake a difficult and, it might be, an invidious task. The county board would be entitled to prepare schemes for the approval of the Local Government Board and the confirmation of Parliament for the re-arrangement of areas and boundary lines. That was an admission that such re-arrangement was desirable. He would go further, and say it was not only desirable, but absolutely essential. His right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Selater-Booth) had said—and it had been made almost an argument in favour of the Bill—that the elected members of county boards, not being so as representatives of administrative areas, would represent the county at large, instead of any particular district. Instead of that being a virtue, he (Mr. Stansfeld) considered it as a radical fault, a fatal provision of the Bill. He failed to see in the composition of the county board the motive power or the authority necessary for the carrying out of the policy of the 25th clause. The members of the board would be chosen by Guardians, it was true, but by Guardians of the petty sessional division. There would be, in fact, no relations between the board and the subordinate sanitary authorities, either in the functions or in the constitution of the board. The power to be conferred was permissive, but there was an entire absence of motive to exercise it. There was no obligation placed on the board to undertake the difficult and, as it would sometimes be, invidious work of dealing with areas and boundaries. If there was failure as to motive, there was failure also in the matter of authority. It would no doubt be said— and there was some truth in it—that gentlemen chosen to represent districts would be the most difficult to convince of the necessity for a re-arrangement. Although it would be very difficult, the true way to go about the matter and get the work done—work which was admitted to be desirable and which he regarded as absolutely necessary—would be to put upon the districts concerned the duty of re-arranging the boundaries. With the permission of the House, he should now pass from the Bill to the Amendment. It involved three propositions, and they were large ones. The first was that, in order to ensure a sufficient reform of the organization of local

    1657
    government, all subordinate areas should be brought within the county, and that the members of the county board should be chosen in and for those areas. The second proposition was that the members of the board should be chosen by the direct election of the ratepayers; and the third proposition was that the elected members should be the majority of the board. The first proposition was, in his mind, the most important, though the others were also important. Let them inquire what it was they wanted when they proposed, as hon. Members had been urging, the institution of county boards. If their sole object was to create some body partly representative and partly consisting of the justices of the county, if their views were confined to that question, then the Bill was a very good one. He should undoubtedly have certain criticisms on clauses to offer; but, if that were the limit of his hope and vision, he should not have placed an Amendment on the Paper to the second reading. But he did not think that was the problem in the minds of local government reformers. He thought it was a very much larger problem. It was the simplification and consolidation and strengthening of local government within the counties, and he hoped that the simplification and consolidation could be effected in connection with the institution of county boards. That was, he held, a very much larger proposition. There were certain principles which he thought should be kept in view. In the first place, they ought, according to his opinion, to begin and build up from the smallest administrative units, and every large area in a county ought to be a multiple of those smaller units. The relation of the county to the smaller bodies, in his opinion, ought to be that the county should be a federation of the whole. In the second place, all the functions in a given area ought to be exercised by one governing body. If they wanted to get the best men, they must not be afraid to place responsibilities on the boards, and they must avoid small and petty areas. In the third place, let all the electoral areas be administrative; because, he believed, by that process they could best consolidate the local government of a county into one whole, and thereby enable it, in these difficult, centralizing days, to hold its own. He maintained
    1658
    that the principles he had laid down were the principles contained in the Re-port of the Sanitary Commission. It laid down a proposition which the Public Health Act of 1872 was drawn to carry out, and since it was passed the whole country had been divided into sanitary districts, with only one sanitary authority in each. In framing that measure, he was not restricted to this object, but he had in view the proposal now before the House. The passages in the Report of the Sanitary Commission relating to the waste of power in local government from the variety of areas, and the desirability of making the larger areas exact multiples of the smaller, showed that he was not original in the views he laid down; but that he was entitled to endorse them with the authority of the Sanitary Commission. There were two lines, either of which the House might adopt; but it could not devise a compromise which would secure the advantages of both. It might adopt what he would without offence call the quarter sessions point of view; it might recognize the fact that the justices, as the existing authority, held the county administration, and might constitute a board by adding to the court certain representative members. That was the easiest plan, if we did not look further than the construction of a board to do the present work of the justices. The other view was that which he had endeavoured to embody in his Amendment —that of local government reform, of building up from units an administrative whole, and thus constituting an authority which should have vitality, cohesion, adaptability, and strength enough to resist the centralizing tendencies of the day. That was an advantage they would never get out of a board standing by itself. He did not much care about its present functions; he was content, when it was founded, to give it enough business to begin with, and to let it have time to grow. But it was essential, when they undertook re-construction, that they should construct upon true lines, and should constitute a board the best calculated to accomplish the objects for which it was founded, and the best able to hold its own. If, however, they once adopted the plan now proposed, it would stand in the way of a more eligible scheme. Any mistake in respect to function or the mode of electing members

    1659
    might easily be remedied; but, if county boards were once built up from petty sessional divisions instead of administrative areas, the difficulty of abandoning those lines 'would increase with the necessity for doing it, and he believed they would have to abandon it if they were going to effect any real reform. There were between 30 and 40 urban sanitary districts which crossed county boundaries, and 11 of these were boroughs; and of Unions which did so there were about 180. The difficulties presented by these cases ought to be faced, not only for the sake of improved administration, but also for the sake of certain reforms which their solution would facilitate, and which he had long had in his own mind. For that reason, he was anxious that the first part of his Amendment should be adopted. It was now universally admitted that the great test of a good administration of the Poor Law was the rigid administration of out-door relief, and that it was not only best for the ratepayers, but for the poor man himself; and the process would be assisted by enlarging the area of charges for in-door relief. That had been the experience of the metropolis, and it would probably be that of the country. Union of administration would also facilitate the classification of poor-houses and of pauper inmates, and that in itself would be an immense administrative reform. It was evident the transitions incidental to these changes might render it less difficult to deal with outlying parts of Unions beyond county boundaries. There were two other propositions on which he would touch very briefly. The first was the question of election. He was in favour of direct election by the ratepayers. If the members of county boards were elected in that way, they would speak with greater authority. He thought that the Metropolitan Board of Works had gained neither in dignity nor in authority by the process of indirect election. The objection to direct election was the very natural one of trouble and expense. But that objection might be completely met by the adoption of the American system of simultaneous election throughout the country of all kinds of local boards on the one day, the one hour, and by the same process. According to the Bill, in only 12 out of 60 counties would the elected members be in a majority upon the boards. He proposed
    1660
    in his last proposition, however, that the justices should be in a minority of one-third upon the boards, and not on an equality; as, according to the provisions of the Bill, they would be, in 48 counties out of 60. He believed, even from the justices' point of view, it would be far better that the justices should be in a minority of one-third. He had not the slightest feeling of jealousy towards the justices. They belonged to a class which had the utmost capacity for county work, and it would be their own fault if they did not become supreme in the management of the county board, however that board might be constituted. But they had better be in a minority, because, if they were half, a question of parties would arise, and there would be a Guardians' party and a justices' party; whereas, if they were put in a minority of one-third, they would be put in a position in which they would seek to lead. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "with a view to simplify and strengthen local self-government, it is desirable, with as little delay as possible, to bring each sanitary district and poor law union within the area of one county, and to give to the ratepayers in and of such districts the power of directly electing members to the county board exceeding in number the representatives of justices,"— (Mr. Stansfeld,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. E. YORKEsaid, he had listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stansfeld), which was characterized by great clearness of statement and philosophical breadth, and was a valuable contribution to the literature of this question. With the exception of that part of it which related to direct election, he agreed with all the propositions laid down in the Amendment, and if the right hon. Gentleman would only consent to leave out that little question, he (Mr. Yorke) would be willing to enrol himself as one of his disciples. In the construction of the higher local authority we ought to consider the position in which it would

    1661
    stand towards the intermediate authorities -which at present dealt with so many different functions, and in the future would probably have to deal with more. He believed, therefore, it would be the wiser course in the long run for his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman and make the rural and sanitary district the administrative unit. He had listened with great pleasure to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the Poor Law reforms likely to result. He (Mr. Yorke) was a member of the Board of Guardians of St. George's Union, Hanover Square, and he had been much struck by the superiority of the work done in London for the education of the young and for making provision for the aged and infirm over what could be done in rural districts, where the inmates were comparatively few and the workhouses scattered. A large number of officials might be abolished altogether, while the different classes of paupers were better attended to than they were at present. He agreed, also, with the right hon. Gentleman as to the propriety of extending the area of contribution towards the expense of in-door paupers. It would, in his view, be very fortunate if they could add to the already powerful inducements to restrict out-door relief, especially if, in more prosperous times, they could get help for these purposes from Imperial sources. The right hon. Gentleman had every right to speak with authority on this subject, for he was the first to divide the areas into urban and sanitary districts, and the first effect of the measure they were now called upon to consider would be not only to strengthen local government as opposed to the advance of centralization; but also to promote the simplification of the extraordinary complexity and difficulty of intermediate areas and jurisdictions. As to the number of magistrates as compared with the elected members of the future board, he said that he was willing to believe that the majority of the elected members would be magistrates, and he agreed that it was better they should be so; because they not only had more leisure, but, from the advantages of the position they occupied, were particularly qualified for the office. If they were magistrates, it was better
    1662
    that they should appear there as elected members rather than as ex-officio members. He had always considered it a great anomaly that the nominees of the Crown should appear to deal with rates not as ratepayers, but in their official capacity; and he thought they would occupy a stronger position, and be less likely to excite jealousy, if they appeared not as nominees of the Crown but as elected ratepayers. The only other point between himself and the right hon. Gentleman was that of direct election, and here he thought he saw, he was sorry to say, a little of the cloven foot of political feeling. There was a talk of household suffrage in counties, placing everything on the same footing as in boroughs. This Bill had even been called a measure for erecting county municipalities. Now municipalities were very good in their way; but there were many drawbacks associated with them. There were contests which led to carnivals of intoxication and riot, which often lasted some days, and the best men were not always appointed. Then there was the objection of expense, which was one of the questions which the Local Taxation Committees had set their faces against, believing that they had sufficient in the way of expenses already; the school-board elections had produced a considerable amount of dissatisfaction on account of the expense involved, and he would be unwilling to see any further steps in that direction. He believed if his right hon. Friend having charge of this Bill would consent to substitute the area proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite for the petty sessional area which he sought to introduce, and would grapple boldly with the question, he would have a better chance of effecting a great and satisfactory change than if, from alarm at difficulties as to the question which were rather on the surface than real, he were to pursue a different course. At any rate, if the right hon. Gentleman withdrew from his Resolution the part he (Mr. Yorke) had indicated, he should be prepared to give him his support.
    MR. HUTCHINSONsaid, it was his intention to support the Amendment. When the Bill was introduced, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) expressed his satisfaction that the Government had redeemed the pledge given by them last Session, and there

    1663
    could be no doubt that great interest was generally felt on the subject. He approved of the proposals which tended to make the office of Guardian of the poor more important by investing it with new powers. The 19th clause, as it stood, would be most objectionable, and should be struck out, as it included justices as well as elected members, the latter being assumed to be unworthy or incompetent. [Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH said, he had already explained that that clause had been wrongly drawn.] The questions of direct and indirect representation, and of the proportion in which magistrates and elected members sat at the board, were of vital importance; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) could only make a system of indirect election acceptable by increasing the proportion of the elected members. The public might accept indirect election, provided there was a majority of two-thirds of nominated elected responsible members. The propriety of giving in-door or out-door relief depended entirely on different social conditions, and there were cases in which it would be a great cruelty and a great error to force a family into a poor-house when a little out-door relief would enable them to avoid it. It was an omission that there was no provision in the Bill for the publicity of the proceedings of county boards and for the periodical publication of accounts of the expenditure of the rates. In view of the large sums of money which these bodies would have at their disposal, their accounts should be periodically published, and should be forwarded to each contributing body. He should vote for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld), and, should it not be carried, for the second reading of the Bill, on the ground that it was the beginning of a better state of things. The public once being accustomed by it to a system of local self-government, would desire to extend what must now be looked upon as an experiment.
    MR. W. STANHOPEthanked his right hon. Friend for producing this Bill. He thought, in doing so, that the Government had worthily, so far as opportunities had been presented to them, fulfilled those pledges which they gave when they came into office, inasmuch as they had redressed the grievances of ratepayers who had been paying taxes
    1664
    which ought to be transferred from local to Imperial account. The Government now proceeded with a steady step in the same direction, and he thought it very necessary that a large and powerful body should be interposed between the Unions and the Local Government Board. There were continually new duties which had to be cast, on account of fresh legislation, upon Unions, such as sanitary and educational measures. Many of these duties were not such as could be properly performed by the quarter sessions; and, therefore, there should be a direct authority established by a fresh modification of the quarter sessions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had remarked that the dominant clause in the Bill was the 3rd clause, and it was to that clause he took the greatest exception, and wanted to fill up the county board from the areas of the rural and urban sanitary authority. He (Mr. Stanhope) differed from him on this point, because there existed so large a number of urban authorities, composed of small isolated parishes, where the Local Government Act had been adopted. Twelve or 13 years ago he proposed that this authority should be built upon the authority of the quarter sessions, and that proposition had been favourably received by the Guardians and by the ratepayers generally, by whom he thought it would be considered more of an honour to be themselves received as members of quarter sessions for all purposes except those for the administration of justice than that the magistrates, on their side, should be elected to a county board which sprang from a lower division of the people of the county. But it was necessary that a large and fair portion of that body should be elected, though not by the direct system approved by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. If the right hon. Gentleman was unwilling to have one-half magistrates, he (Mr. Stanhope) was willing to accept a smaller proportion than that. The great object with respect to this board was, that it should comprise men of all classes who were best acquainted with the subject, who had time to give to the work, and who were likely to form a good working county board. Then, it should do its work by committee; and, being composed of a large number, it should comprise some of the first people in the county—Members of Parliament, gen-

    1665
    tlemen who had been chairmen of committees on county business, and of Chairmen of Boards of Guardians who were not magistrates. On the question of boundaries, the county boundaries should be inviolate; parish boundaries should not be altered further than they could be altered by existing laws; and the question was, what would be the best representative area? He had always advocated Unions, and he thought the best and most direct representation could be secured in that way. With respect to the petty sessional divisions, although they might be useful in bringing the Guardians together for the purposes of election, still that gave too much of a magisterial complexion to the popular part of the Bill. By the law of England, if two magistrates met together they could hold a petty session. He thought the suggestions about direct election to the boards most objectionable —in the first place, because of the expense which they would involve; and, in the second, because he did not believe there was any real popular feeling on the matter. Good men would not like to subject themselves to the excitement of having to secure an election for a wider district than their own parish. He regarded the provision of the Bill that the members of the board were to remain in office for one year only as objectionable; but he had nothing to say against the proposed constitution of the board, although it had been generally admitted, and, indeed, could not be disputed, that the administration of county funds by the magistrates had been very economical. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), who was opposed to the Bill, in speaking of the Corporation over which he had presided, stated, in the last Session of Parliament, that they had incurred a debt of no less than £5,000,000. Well, that was not the kind of administration they desired to see prevailing in the counties. Their debt in the West Biding only amounted to £140,000; but perhaps some gentlemen, if popularly elected, might think that a very poor affair indeed. He, therefore, hoped that when the new county boards were constituted, they would go on the lines of those who had hitherto managed county finance. It seemed to him that the Bill did not clearly enough distinguish between what belonged to its principle and what were
    1666
    matters of detail for consideration in Committee. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would, no doubt, explain; but to him (Mr. Stanhope) it appeared as if the Highway Bill were included in the County Government Bill, and that the former was merely a kind of enabling measure directing how the highway provisions in the latter were to be carried out. He, however, looked upon this Bill as providing a new starting-point in county government, and he should be glad to support the second reading.
    MR. MUNTZobserved that if his hon. Colleague (Mr. Chamberlain), to whom the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Stanhope) had referred, were in his place, he could have explained that the debt to which allusion was made had been incurred under the authority of an Act of Parliament in the purchase of gas and water works. He regretted to oppose any measure brought forward to meet the wants of society; but with respect to the present Bill, he was opposed to it, because he believed that to adopt it would simply be getting out of the frying-pan into the fire. He admitted that the present position of county affairs was anomalous; but still the existing system of county government worked well; it was the most economical and most orderly of any that he had known in any part of the world. They must, therefore, go in for something better or leave well alone. This Bill was neither one thing nor the other. It offered what was to him always repulsive, a divided responsibility, and under its provisions the responsibility of a high-minded body of men would be taken away. He would ask, however, whether the magistrates did not represent the great mass of the property in a county? He had worked on town councils and on quarter sessions, and he knew which was the more economical of the two. The existing county government was to be displaced by a sort of hybrid body, composed of county magistrates and men elected by Boards of Guardians, who belonged to different classes and were not likely to work well together. In the place of those whose administration was efficient and economical they would have 15 or 20 men of one class and 15 or 20 men of another, and if everything did not run smoothly the responsibility would be thrown from one to the other. County boards should

    1667
    embrace such important duties or responsibilities so as really to encourage the most competent men—not the highest in position, not the moneyed men, but those who would humbly and unostentatiously do so—to come forward and discharge the various important duties connected with county administration. As now proposed, there would be a series of boards all making and levying and collecting rates at enormous expense and with no little difficulty. He had considerable doubts whether these county boards would ever be properly worked by single counties. He doubted whether they would ever get the class of men they desired to work on these boards if they had simply single counties. It appeared to him that it would be better— and that the Bill furnished an opportunity—whereby if they could have two or three counties together, so that something like Provincial Councils might be formed. They would thus have something on a larger scale than that proposed in the Bill, and local legislation could be achieved under favourable conditions. Work which now to a large extent came to London could be done in the counties, and they would not have men coming up to London from long distances for the purpose of getting little matters arranged which might be arranged in their localities. If the Bill were carried, he hoped the Government would adopt the Union instead of the petty sessional district as the electoral area.
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Muntz) that the present system of managing county business was satisfactory, and would contrast favourably with the manner in which Business was conducted in that House or by Boards of Guardians. It was not, however, a matter of much surprise to him that it should be so; because those now entrusted with the management of these local affairs were the first men in the country, and the system on which they acted had been laid down by such men as the late Speaker, Lord Eversley, Sir William Heathcote, and Mr. Charles Buller. He thought they must first agree upon the object they wished to effect, and from what stand-point they viewed it. If the object was the good government of the counties, he believed that could not be
    1668
    better arrived at than by leaving things as they were. If they were to satisfy a feeling which it was said was growing, but which he believed was exaggerated, that representative government should be carried out fully—they must adopt a scheme much more stringent than that before the House. But he was content to leave the scheme before them as it was, and contrast it with the proposition of the right hon. Member for Halifax. He understood the right hon. Gentleman adopted a via media between the two. He did not himself see, however, what was the use of retaining so small a number of magistrates as one-third. He preferred the scheme of his right hon. Friend to that shadowed forth from the other side of the House. He hoped, however, with regard to rivers, that it was not intended that the county board should usurp the power of conservancy boards. As to the elections, it was suggested on the other side of the House that there should be elections for all the county officers on the one and the same day; but he believed if this were carried out, and if they had elections for all the objects covered by the Bill in the same day, in Cumberland, at least, and, probably, in most other places the elections would be turned into a political question, and people would vote blue and yellow as the case might be, instead of centring their attention in the one object for which the person was elected.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that though prepared to vote for the Bill, he was not prepared to give a silent vote. If the Bill were founded on a grievance at all it was founded, to a great extent, on a sentimental grievance. The grievance was that the taxation and government of counties by magistrates at the quarter sessions was a violation of the principle of popular representation, that taxation and representation should be co-extensive. But those things never could be co-extensive. There must always be people who were not represented. The county magistrates did not tax by virtue of the commission of the peace—they taxed by virtue of the power given by Parliament, which had thought fit to delegate to magistrates the power of taxing counties. Therefore, the powers which magistrates exercised for the levying of rates were practically the powers of Parliament, which represented the nation. It had not been shown that the

    1669
    magistrates of counties had been extravagant in the expenditure of county money. Many of the magistrates were owners of three-fourths of the land of the country; and seeing that the land bore the burden of the rates, it was clear that the rates were paid more by the magistrates than by anyone else. It was therefore very unlikely they would be extravagant; and he must say he had always observed the most minute care taken with regard to the details of the finances of counties. Turning to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he found it exceedingly difficult to understand it. As far as he could make out its scope, however, it did not propose to remove the magistrates altogether, but to constitute a Governing Body, on which there should be a majority of elected representatives of the ratepayers. The effect of the Amendment would be to create a sort of Home Rule government in each county; and whatever he might think of Home Rule for another country, he did not think it would work well in each county. He objected to anything that was likely to turn the elections for these county boards into trials of strength between political Parties. In the case of Town Councils many men were elected, not because they were capable administrators, and therefore best fitted for the office, but because their election served Party ends. This evil would be greatly intensified if it were extended to the elections for county boards, which would then become hotbeds of corruption and jobbery. He thought, therefore, that the proportion of the magistrates on these boards should not be diminished, inasmuch as they were naturally averse from spending money, part of which must necessarily come out of their own pockets, unnecessarily. Popular representation, on the other hand, would be unable to resist local pressure, and would, therefore, be unable to exercise a prudent control over the expenditure. It should be borne in mind that once this power of electing the members of the board was given over to the ratepayers it would be impossible to resume it, and therefore it should not be bestowed without full consideration of the consequences the gift would entail. He thought the plan proposed by the Bill—providing for the election by the Unions of a certain number of representatives on the county
    1670
    board—preferable to that proposed by the right hon. Member for Halifax, and far less dangerous. He objected to the proposal to hand over the conservancy of the rivers to the county boards, inasmuch as he thought that the only bodies which could properly deal with the rivers were those which had control of them from their sources to their mouths. He had been a Member of two Committees of that House which inquired into the Thames Conservancy, and of one Committee of that House which had inquired into the conservancy of the River Lea; and from his experience of those Committees he thought that if they entrusted that duty to the county boards they would necessarily, in cases where a river ran through several counties, have a divided jurisdiction, and he therefore hoped the point would be reserved for further consideration. He also doubted the propriety of placing the control of sanitary matters in the hands of these boards; but, in any case, he hoped that some steps would be taken to prevent the sanitary officers from being a nuisance and a source of annoyance to all the landowners of the district.
    MR. RATHBONE: Sir, this Bill has been a great disappointment to those who desire a thorough reform of our local administration. I have always felt that a Conservative Government possessed great advantages for dealing with this question, and had hoped that they would deal with it, as far as they dealt with it at all, effectually, and so as to prepare the way for a gradual systematic improvement of our local institutions. But this Bill, it seems to me, deals very incompletely with many of the points that it attempts to deal with, and I fear that it will actually make the real reform of our local institutions, where most needed, more difficult than ever. A Bill introduced by Government to deal with county management can only be considered as part of a great plan for that reform of the local government of the country which is generally admitted to be necessary. Such a Bill must evidently contemplate the adjustment between the country and the different administrative districts within it of the various functions of local government. It should provide for the joint performance of some of the most important of those functions. This is, in fact, admitted by this Bill, on the face of it, in that im-

    1671
    portant part dealing with highways. The principle on which it deals with some parts of the country is admirable. But it leaves altogether out of the application of that principle the largest proportion of the population of the country. The urban sanitary districts, though included for other purposes, are left untouched; and yet the most aggravated cases of hardship, as regards highways, occur in many of those urban sanitary districts. This is a Bill which we have all been expecting so anxiously, and which professes to deal with this question of highways; and yet I do not see how it deals, or how it is to be made to deal, with this question with regard to so large a proportion of the districts in which the hardship is so seriously felt. I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) will explain this point. This is an instance of sins of omission of one class which, in my opinion, renders the Bill defective. But the sins of commission chargeable against the measure appear to me to be still more serious, for it not only omits to introduce simplification and improvement into our primary areas of local government, but, by constituting a new area, it actually makes it more difficult to introduce improvement in the future. I have never said or intimated, as the right hon. Gentleman once inferred, that I expected, in the establishment of county boards, a panacea for the present widespread disorder and inconvenience which prevail in our primary areas of local government. On the contrary, I have rather advocated that it would be well to begin by establishing good primary areas of local government, and, on that foundation, proceed to build a system of county administration. But, as it has been decided to begin with county government, the multiplicity and confusion of our areas, and consequent weakness of our system of local government, ought not to be aggravated by such a Bill as this, when a wisely-drawn measure might be made the means of greatly improving those areas. I will leave others to deal with the question of the choice of the petty sessional division as the unit of representation for the members of the board who are justices; but so far as the petty sessional division is made a unit for representation for the elected members, the proposals of the Bill appear to me to be unwise, contrary
    1672
    to the recommendation of the Sanitary Commission, and contrary to the course of recent legislation. One of the recognized evils of the present system of local government is the multiplicity of areas; another is the overlapping of areas. The Bill proposes to create a new electoral area for administrative purposes, and one which overlaps and differs from every other area. It ought to be a principle in legislation— and it has in recent years been adopted as a principle—that the unit of local government should be strengthened. The Union, or sanitary district, has now been adopted for most purposes, and it is desirable to consolidate and strengthen it; but the Bill proposes wholly to disregard the Union. It is an admitted principle that electoral units ought to be based on community of interest. How is this Bill consistent with this principle? The chief local interests are sanitary, highways, poor, rating, and education. All these are common to the Union or sanitary district in a more or less complete degree. No one of them is usually common to the petty sessional division, which most often disregards the sanitary area, the highway board area, the area of poor relief, the area of rating, and the area of the educational powers recently given to the Union. The petty sessional division has no community of interests, and is unfit to be an electoral unit. Even on its own merits, the petty sessional division is an inconvenient area. They are very unequal in size and population. In Bedfordshire, four divisions with less than 40,000 aggregate population will have 12 elective members; and four other divisions will have only the same number of elective members for 90,000 aggregate population. In Berkshire, divisions of less than 3,000 population will have the same representation as divisions of 20,000. In Durham, 70,000 persons in one large division will elect two members; while 66,000 persons in six small divisions will elect six times as many. While in the West Biding of Yorkshire, Kirkby Mal-zeard, with a population of 3,000, will send the same number of representatives as East Morley with a population of 108,000, and West Morley with a population of 110,000. In other words, divisions 36 times as populous as Kirkby Malzeard will have to be content with the same number of representatives.

    1673
    This question of area appears to me to be the most important of all, because it is the very foundation of local government. Now, as to the constitution of the county board. In the first place, it seems to me a very great mistake to have so excessive a proportion of members who sit there as justices. It will be a constant source of discontent, and a loss of real influence. We must all wish that men of culture and wide experience and leisure should have great influence on these boards. This would best be secured by taking care that you do not require that a greater number of justices should be elected to sit on the county board than you can find men who will attend regularly and do their fair share of work, and who will not come down only when an appointment has to be made, or a particular point carried. Men of position and ability in this country always have their full share of influence on such bodies if they have to rely on convincing and carrying their colleagues with them, and do not excite jealousy by what may seem to the other members an unfair share in the representation. If the Bill really made an equality between the justices and elected members, still that would have the unfortunate effect, as it has had in such cases, of arranging them into two separate parties, as it were. Now, I do not care so much for direct representation as some others on this side of the House. It has some very great advantages; but there is considerable uncertainty whether people will take sufficient interest in the elections to realise all those advantages. But the plan proposed in the Bill, while not obtaining the advantages of direct representation, throws away all the advantages which are secured by the ordinary approved form of indirect representation. If the Board of Guardians, as the rural sanitary authority, were empowered to send their best men to sit upon the county board, they would send men whose work they had seen, and could judge of; whereas, voting in the petty sessional division, they will be called upon to vote for men of whom they have no such experience; and again, the knowledge that the Guardians were to choose the county board would increase the interest taken in the election of Guardians, and be an inducement to men who thought they might be useful on a county board to obtain that honour
    1674
    by seeking election as Guardians, and doing good service on the Board. There is another omission in this Bill to which I must draw attention. It is surely very unjust that all those boroughs with separate courts of quarter sessions, which are compelled to contribute largely to county expenditure, should have no representation whatever. For instance, Liverpool contributes from £12,000 to £16,000 a-year towards general county expenditure, and yet would, under this Bill, have no representation whatever. I am sorry to have had to find so much fault with the Bill, and glad to find some points on which I can speak with unhesitating praise. I am glad that, with regard to the payment for roads, the right hon. Gentleman has adopted the principle of dividing the cost between owners and occupiers. It is just that the whole of a charge of this sort, liable to fluctuations, should not be thrown primarily upon the weaker party; but to my mind it is of the greatest importance to the owners of property that their attention should be called to the rise and fall of these charges, and that they should be led to watch and control them before, having become permanent, they have to pay a considerable share of them. Another admirable provision of the Bill is that which requires the county board to classify its work, so as to divide it among committees, and gives it authority to delegate all its powers, except that of borrowing, to such committees. The power of providing county asylums for imbeciles will also, I expect, be found very valuable. I am not without hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consent to modify his Bill to meet objections which I observe have been raised very generally, from the rural as well as from the urban point of view. I think I understood him to infer that he considered this petty sessional division a provisional area, and that it might subsequently be exchanged for a more convenient one. I hope he will consent to grapple with the difficulty at once, and that he will adopt the sanitary district as the primary area. No one knows better than he does, that with every increase of rates or charge, it becomes more difficult to re-adjust our areas; and, at the same time, no one knows better than he does that there is no insuperable difficulty in doing this, for he is constantly making such re-adjustment in the case of sanitary districts.

    1675
    Suggestions have been made in several quarters for rendering more equitable the incidence of certain of our local burdens. These, if adopted, would still more facilitate this re-adjustment; and I am inclined to believe they are not looked upon with disfavour by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. One suggestion, which I know has the concurrence of many hon. Members opposite, though I do not know the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman thereon, is that, for purposes of in-door relief, counties should be substituted for the present Unions. Such a measure would produce great economy, and make possible great improvements in the administration of poor relief; and if it were adopted, a contribution towards the necessary cost of in-door relief might be one of the best forms of public grants in aid of local expenditure, because it would give a direct and powerful stimulus to the general enforcement of the recognized principles on which poor relief ought to be given. I must just point out that a Paper which has been recently issued by the Local Government Department would, if read casually, give a, very exaggerated idea of the amount of change necessary to bring the boundaries of Unions within the borders of counties. Anyone looking at that Return of Unions and Petty Sessional Divisions would suppose that there were no fewer than 862 Unions in England and Wales, and that out of those 862 Unions, 403 distinct Unions were partly in one county and partly in another. Now, in this enumeration, a number of Unions are made to play the part of soldiers in a pantomime, in which the same body of men march round and round, appearing several times, in order to make an impression by their numbers. Some of these Unions are made to do duty in this way as many as four times. But what are the real facts? In 1876 there were only 646 Unions in England and Wales. I cannot place this matter before the House so shortly and clearly as it has been put in a paper by Mr. R. S. Wright, a short extract of which I will read—
    "Out of about 650 Unions, about 60 are wholly urban; of the remainder, about 410 are" wholly comprised each in one county. Out of the 180 Unions which remain, and which extend into several counties, the parts which extend into a different county from that in which the bulk of the population is situate have in 100
    1676
    cases a population of less than 2,000, and in 54 other cases less than 5,000, and might probably be merged in other Unions. In the 63 other cases the population of the outlying part exceeds 6,000. In some of these cases there will, no doubt, be some inconvenience in disturbing the existing Unions. But even if it should be thought expedient in certain of these cases to preserve the existing Unions, with special provisions for representation on the county boards of the several counties into which they respectively extend, this does not appear to furnish a valid argument against simplification of areas and authorities in that great majority of cases in which no such special difficulties exist."
    I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consent to modify the Bill so far as regards the choice of the electoral area and the number of elected members of the county board. Unless this is done, it appears to me that the Bill will only make a real reform unlikely, and I should be sorry to see it pass.
    MR. PELLsaid, that if the thanks of the country were due to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) who had brought forward the Bill, they were also due to his Predecessor in the office of the Local Government Board, the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), for the speech and the propositions he had made. He (Mr. Pell) would say at once that he entirely concurred with the greater part of his Amendment—namely, with so much of it as related to the electoral area. He thought they would get with greater readiness a better selection of representatives upon the board if they voted in the Unions. No doubt, such a change as the permanent re-arrangement of Unions would impose upon the Department a vast amount of inconvenience, labour, thought, care, and time and patience; but, after all, these made up the best part of human life, and he would not, on the strength of such considerations, abandon the idea of reform, but would rather face every difficulty. But although the area which the right hon. Gentleman opposite proposed for electoral purposes might perhaps be the best, his method of election was decidedly the worst. It was the unhappy conjunction in the Amendment of two propositions that made it difficult for hon. Members to know how to vote. He suggested, then, that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw the latter part of the Amendment—namely, that which came after the word "county," relating to the mode of election; and that if he did so he

    1677
    would probably receive an overwhelming amount of support from both sides of the House. With regard to the Bill, he was quite sure that the House would do its best to make it a good Bill. As to the composition of the board, it was not quite clear to him; but he supposed it would be possible for the Guardians to elect a magistrate, if they liked, over the heads of other persons who were qualified to serve on the board, but who were not magistrates. If that was so, and knowing the sort of feeling there was in the country to elect the big man of a district, he thought the Bill would be none the worse, and probably more acceptable to the counties, if, with such limitation — not more than one-third magistrates—the electors were free to select whom they chose, whether he was a magistrate or not. The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer), crossing the House from the other side, where he was naturally to be found— ["No, no!"]—as much so as a salmon in a river when it was not visiting the sea—in order to speak on this side, had propounded the most extreme Tory doctrines. Whatever might be the case in Ireland, rates fell upon occupiers in England. The hon. and learned Baronet said he had been a conservator of two rivers, including the Lea, which was contaminated by indiarubber works and gasworks, and in other ways between Hertford and London; and, as one who once drank the water, he remembered that you could tell by the sickness in a street the side that was supplied with the water and the side that was not. For his own part, he (Mr. Pell) thought that the transfer of the conservancy of such rivers as the Lea from special to county boards would prove a very beneficial change. As to the second portion of the Bill, with regard to roads, he considered that it had better be omitted altogether, for the less the Bill was loaded with details, the more likely was it to get the assent of Parliament this Session. It was undesirable to give the new boards too many functions at first, and the questions concerning the highways might very well have stood over for the present, to be dealt with by the Highways Bill now before the House. The change proposed in the manner of electing coroners, by transferring the franchise from the freeholders
    1678
    to the county board, was a very desirable one; but he had indulged the hope that the county rate would be relieved of that official, and he still wished the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench would take him under their charge, appoint him, and pay him—everything, in fact, except let him sit upon them. The most valuable portion of the Bill seemed to be that relating to the re-adjustment of areas, comprising, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Halifax, the re-arrangement of Poor Law Unions. If the House would not sanction the new electoral area suggested in the Amendment, he hoped nothing would be done by the Bill which would put the office of Guardian, or the area in which he worked, into an inferior position to that in which a country gentleman performed his public duties. By making the Union the electoral area they would get men who had been accustomed to act together in reference to the most important of questions — the administration of the Poor Law. It was possible that in future the administration of justice might be more or less intrusted to stipendiary magistrates; but the Poor Law could not be administered by paid officers; the duty must devolve upon those volunteers who were willing and able to discharge it. It would rather raise the position of Guardians and encourage them to cherish noble aspirations if representatives of the petty sessional divisions were sent to work with the Guardians in their Unions. Perhaps one of the first questions dealt with by county boards would be in-door relief. The contrast was most marked between the provision made in London by means of combination and that furnished by isolated Unions in the country. The advantages of combination were seen, not only in dealing with the sick and aged and mentally diseased, but also in matters of education as regarded pauper children. The economy of combination was as well accompanied with better teachers, better buildings, better apparatus, better results. They did not get so good a class of teachers for the Union schools in the country as they had in towns, and there was little hope of any improvement in that matter. It was also impossible to do justice to a few children in a small establishment; and in his district they had disposed of the question by passing

    1679
    the children into the village school with great advantage, especially to the children themselves. He hoped to see two of their almost empty workhouses transformed, where it was possible, one into a district school and the other into an infirmary for imbecile patients. He believed that by that means the rates would be greatly diminished; that the unfortunate creatures referred to would be better treated; and that their friends would be more likely to send them into an infirmary than into the workhouse, to the very name of which they had a strong objection. The country ladies, with time to spare and an aptitude for such duties, would visit them and look after their comforts, as they did in the Metropolis. In that way, and by mixing up men of higher education with the Guardians, the Bill would unite individuals of the highest position and education with those who belonged to a class below them in the management of county establishments in a way in which they had never been united before, which would, he thought, be productive of the best results.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYER,in reference to a remark from the last speaker (Mr. Pell), explained that he had never stated that he had been a Conservator of the Thames and of the River Lea. What he did say was that he had been a Member of two Committees of that House which inquired into the Thames Conservancy, and of one Committee of that House which had inquired into the conservancy of the River Lea.
    MR. DODSONaccepted the Bill with satisfaction, because it was a step in the right direction—in the direction of a board that would conduce to local centralization, which he regarded as a great and much-needed safeguard against the tendency to Government centralization. Further, he held the Bill to be a stepping-stone from which they could go forward at no distant period towards a more popular and more powerful institution. He was sorry to hear the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), who was so conversant with subjects of this kind, express a wish that the functions given to the board might be diminished by the withdrawal of the clauses relating to roads. Instead of that, he should like to increase the importance of the board by giving to it more functions than were
    1680
    named in the Bill; such, for instance, as the duty of deciding appeals with regard to assessments, and. questions relating to arterial drainage and the storage of water. Having accepted the Bill as embodying a sound principle, he should not be prepared to vote for the Amendment, if he thought that Amendment was in any way calculated to defeat the Bill. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth), however, must be aware that, technically 'and literally, the Amendment did not defeat the Bill, but only deferred the second reading to another day. He (Mr. Dodson) thought the Amendment might be advantageously incorporated with the Bill. Indeed, two of its principles were not resisted by most of the speakers who represented the landed interest; and as to the third— the principle of direct election, as to which objection had been taken by several hon. Members opposite—it was more in accordance with the custom and habits of the people than indirect legislation, which was quite a novel institution. There were only three instances of it to be found in the country—the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and Aldermen. He would further make a few remarks upon the point. Indirect election might be valuable as a check against democratic excitement. County boards would arouse no passions. Indirect election almost necessarily involved one of two evils. Either the elected elector became a mere delegate—a sort of telephone through whom the original elector conveyed his own voice to a remote point, or else the original elector lost sight altogether of the purpose for which he was entrusted with a vote. In the present case, he thought the original elector would remember that he was electing a person to discharge the duties of a Guardian, and he would not attach much weight to the fact that this Guardian was to hold a power of attorney, as it were, to elect on his behalf members of the county board. This would be the least of the two evils, as otherwise, instead of choosing the man who was best fitted to discharge the duties of Guardian, the original elector would select the man whom he could reckon upon to vote for a friend or a patron whom he might wish to see introduced to the county board. One of the advantages of direct election was this—the

    1681
    men who would be directly elected by their constituents would sit with the magistrates on the county board with a keener sense of the importance and responsibility of their position than they would otherwise have. Another advantage would follow; one rural ratepayer becoming accustomed to elect representatives for different purposes and with distinct functions would be prepared for political enfranchisement. He objected to the multiplication of elections; but this might, in the present case, be easily avoided, inasmuch as the ratepayer might be called upon to elect a member of the county board at the same time that he was electing his Guardian. If these elections were held at the same time, a good opportunity would be afforded of getting rid of plurality voting and substituting for it single or cumulative voting. And now as to the proportion of justices to elected members. For his own part, he would not have the least objection to make the whole board elective, and he thought eventually the whole of the members would be elected directly by the ratepayers. He had no fear that the justices, if they cared to be elected, would not be elected in sufficient proportions. But he was not willing to risk the passing of this Bill by pressing an Amendment of that description. It was essential to the good constitution of the board that there should be on it a considerable proportion of gentlemen in the position of magistrates or, at all events, of owners of property. The interests of owners and occupiers were, he would not say antagonistic, but different. The owner had a permanent, the occupier a transitory, interest, and it was important that both should be duly represented on the board. He was quite sure that gentlemen in the position of magistrates would be quite able to make their influence felt, though in a minority. Magistrates would be men of larger knowledge and wider experience than the elected members, and it would be well for them and for the character of the board that they should feel the necessity of relying for their influence on their knowledge and experience, and not on their numbers or social position, He did not wish to go at length into the important question what was the best area to constitute the unit out of which these boards were to be selected. Simplification of areas was no doubt the one
    1682
    thing specially needed, because many areas meant many authorities, many authorities meant insignificant authorities, more elections, more officers, more expense, waste of power, and less unity of interest. Wherever it was possible the area ought to be the same. There were 649 Unions, between 700 and 750 petty sessional divisions, 640 local boards, about 70 improvement districts, 400 highway districts, and 6,000 highway parishes. In that multiplicity of areas there was scope for immensely reducing their number. It ought to be our aim to assimilate the petty sessional divisions and the highway districts to the Unions. That would get rid of a great many of those divisions. The difficulty was as to the rectification of Unions. There were 181 or 182 Unions which ran into different counties—not only into two, but into three or four counties. It was easy to say, Rectify the boundaries, lop off that part of the Union which projects into another county; but there was this difficulty to be got over—a change of area meant in many cases a shifting of burdens. It might be said that a Valuation Bill would equalize the assessments throughout the country, and no doubt such a scheme would remove some difficulties, but it could not equalize rates. It appeared to him, therefore, that, however desirable it might be to rectify the boundaries of areas and to diminish their number, the task was a difficult one, and would take a considerable length of time. If that could be effected at once, he was prepared to give it his hearty support; but if that could not be done, he would rather accept the disadvantages attending petty sessional areas. He cordially gave his adherence to the principles embodied in the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, and if all three or any of them could be introduced into the Bill in Committee, he thought it would be an effective improvement of the measure.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he might congratulate his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) upon the reception which his measure had met with, because the right hon. Gentleman opposite who moved the Amendment (Mr. Stansfeld) distinctly stated that he did not wish to vote against the principle of the Bill, although he set up a directly opposite principle in the programme he laid before the House. He gathered

    1683
    from the right hon. Gentleman that rather than imperil the passing of the measure, he would cordially support its second reading. No doubt some objections had been made to the Bill, and they had broadly to consider what was the best thing to be done under very difficult circumstances. They had got to constitute a new board from the commencement, and to take the best materials they could find at hand. He believed his hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), while objecting to the number of magistrates upon the board, had stated, and would state again, that so far as magistrates were concerned they had administered most fairly, most economically, and most justly all those matters confided to their charge. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would go a step further. He was speaking before men who thoroughly understood the question; and while he agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) that it was of the utmost importance that they should take not those who were highest in position, not the moneyed men, but those who were determined to do their duty humbly and unostentatiously, none could be got more likely to act in that way than the magistrates of this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) called this a Court of Quarter Sessions Board; but there was nothing which had so much kept the counties together as the quarter sessions and assizes held in them. The right hon. Gentleman had said before doing anything with regard to an elected board they should rectify all the anomalies which now existed.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, he did not say "before" doing anything.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTconsidered that to be the very pivot of his speech; but what the right hon. Gentleman wanted—the altering of the boundaries of Unions—was the most difficult of all things to do. How were those Unions usually formed? They were formed so that they should be nearest to the largest towns in the district to enable members of the Boards of Guardians to attend at what was known to be the most convenient place. It would be a downright revolution to change all these Unions, and the Committee which had investigated the subject, over which the right hon. Gentleman himself (Mr.
    1684
    Stansfeld) presided, distinctly laid down that no alteration of boundaries of counties should take place except where portions of a county were situated within another county, and they did not feel themselves justified in making any alteration in the boundaries of Unions. They did recommend outlying portions of parishes should be annexed to the parishes they joined. Yet all these alterations were to be made before any board was established.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, that what he had said upon the matter was in directly the contrary direction. His argument was that the board which he proposed would be an efficient instrument in preparing a scheme for the purpose.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked what the board was which the right hon. Gentleman proposed. He proposed that one-third should be magistrates, and that the remainder should be elected by the Unions; but those Unions had not always the interest of the county at heart, because they were situated in different counties. They must consider that. But his right hon. Friend said, Take what you have got—petty sessional divisions which did not overlap other counties and parishes—let them elect representatives. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was not going further than that. He considered that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was right in adopting the petty sessional district as the electoral area. It was the best scheme that came to hand, would be more easily carried out than any other, and would give an efficient body of men. Then, as to direct representation, the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) wanted a scheme which would teach these men to vote for county representation. But that, of all things, was not wanted.
    MR. DODSONhad only said that incidentally that would be the effect.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwanted to have these boards kept absolutely free from politics. They did not want talking, officious men, but members who would discharge their duty in the best interest of their county, totally irrespective of politics. He was, therefore, entirely opposed to direct election. Considering the importance of these boards, and the number of duties that would be imposed on them, he thought they ought to be elected, not for

    1685
    one year but for three, if not for five years. If they were to have control with regard to turnpikes, rivers, the building of schools, asylums, &c., time must be given to them to mature their plans. The duties which they had once undertaken they would like to carry to a successful termination. With regard to turnpikes, which were being destroyed as fast as possible, his right hon. Friend proposed that they should be handed over to these county boards, and he proposed that in certain cases they should be enabled to erect a toll. Now he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), for one, totally dissented from the proposition to give them the power of erecting tolls. If it had been thought wise to do away with tolls, he was certain it would be unwise and impolitic to erect tolls. There should be some way of getting out of the difficulty. Surely those on the other side who represented towns must see that the main traffic was between town and town. Take Leeds and Bradford, take Manchester and Oldham, or Sheffield and Rotherham, or any other towns you wished to name, and then see whether the putting of tolls just outside those large towns would not be very detrimental to them. Surely some arrangement could be arrived at by which the towns, for the benefit of which more or less these turnkike roads were made, should pay a small proportion of the county rate. Considering the enormous omnibus traffic in towns like Manchester, he thought that traffic might fairly be charged by itself. There were few people who knew anything about rivers or Commissions of Sewers who would not like to learn from his right hon. Friend how far he meant the control over matters of that kind to be undertaken by a county board. In all our counties where there were tidal and other rivers there were Commissions of Sewers. Did his right hon. Friend mean to sweep away those Commissions and to give to the county board authority in such matters? Those who lived on the spot knew more about those matters than persons who lived at a distance. With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) as to workhouses and schools, there could be no doubt that it was a most important thing to curtail out-door relief. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had said that for years. He had pressed upon Guardians that a
    1686
    lavish expenditure in out-door relief was one of the most mischievous things as far as the people of this country were concerned, and in order to make an improvement in the system, in more than one rural district they might combine the Unions together; while the workhouse children might be educated outside. The schools in the workhouses were not to be compared with those outside, and if the children could be brought up in a different atmosphere a good work would be done. He had also always been in favour of imbecile and harmless lunatics being kept in proper and certified workhouses, instead of being sent to the costly lunatic asylums; and he hoped this would now, should this Bill become an Act of Parliament, be carried out. Looking at the whole matter before the House, their great object ought to be to have such a board as should not only carry out all the matters which would be entrusted to it to its own satisfaction, but to the satisfaction of the counties as well and of the country generally.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he thoroughly agreed in what had been said by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) as to the way in which magistrates had discharged their duties with regard to the finances of counties. No body of men could have managed matters more better or economically than the magistrates. Neither did he think there would be any great jealousy between Guardians as a class and magistrates as a class. In fact, a feeling of mutual confidence was often manifested between the two classes. He could not agree with the observations of the hon. and gallant Baronet as to the making of the petty sessional district a unit for the purposes of this Bill. He thought there were many reasons against the petty sessional system, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider that part of the Bill. The most important question brought forward was the area, because when it had been decided upon in the Bill it would remain the area for all time to come. But as to the mode of election, whether direct or indirect, and the tenure of office, that could be altered in the future. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there were 180 Unions that overlapped counties, and that arrangements would have to be provided for 400 different Unions. He

    1687
    (Mr. Hibbert) was quite prepared to admit that special arrangements would have to be provided, although his right hon. Friend looked forward to the time when the boundaries would be so altered as to be coterminous with the counties. On the other hand, there were so many reasons against fixing upon petty sessional districts as areas that he was hopeful his right hon. Friend would not persevere with that part of his Bill. What he would advise was, that they should be satisfied with leaving the clause to be considered by the county boards when elected, and that they should at present accept the Union for their unit. Until the question of boundaries was considered by the county boards there would be no difficulty in accepting his (Mr. Hibbert's) own proposal, providing that Guardians of Unions which overlapped counties should vote in the counties in which they resided. The change would certainly be no greater than that proposed in the Bill. As between Unions and petty sessional districts, the adoption of the Union as the unit would slightly reduce the number of persons to be elected, but would give a fairer representation. Another point in the Bill to which he thought it right to call attention was that in petty sessional districts the towns which had a court of quarter sessions would not be represented. While in some parts of the country towns with courts of quarter sessions did not contribute to the county rates, Liverpool, Manchester, Bolton, and Wigan contributed to the general purposes account, for Militia storehouses, and to the asylums no less than £8,000. If a board was to be a real county board, he did not see how the boroughs, which contributed to the county finances for a variety of purposes, could be left without the representation which the Bill did not propose to give them. [Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH said, he believed those arrangements were peculiar to Lancashire.] Perhaps that was so; but there were, or would be, reasons why all boroughs should have representatives; and one reason would be furnished by the proposal to make the boards courts of appeal in matters of assessment, instead of the courts of quarter sessions. He objected to the petty sessional districts being the areas of election, because it would be introducing another new electoral district,
    1688
    another anomaly into local government, and adding to the chaos which at present existed. As to direct or double election, there was much to be said on both sides; and while, on the one hand, there were good men who did not like to go through a contest for office, yet, on the other, direct election was more in accordance with the present system. He could state that there was a growing feeling in favour of Guardians being elected for three years, instead of as now for one year only. He would further suggest, that as it was a tentative Bill it might only be passed for a limited period, say, for three or six years, and then reconsidered. They were all anxious to get the best boards possible, and in the meantime it might be ascertained how far the proposals contained in the measure, when adopted, had answered the purpose they had in view. He was, however, very anxious not to add to the difficulties and anomalies of the present system; and therefore he hoped that the Union would be taken as the unit for the elections, that being the unit for all administrative purposes. In conclusion, he thought the questions raised by the Bill were so important that they might well occupy the attention of the House not for one night only, but for several nights.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, on the occasion of the first introduction of the Bill a hope was expressed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) that no political or Party feeling would be imported into the discussion, and he (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) ventured humbly and longo intervalio to re-echo that hope. Perhaps, therefore, he might be allowed to observe that at least up to this point the discussion had been singularly free from any Party bias, and he trusted it might so continue if they were to get a real practical measure. He should hardly venture to take an active or prominent part in such an important discussion, had he not for some time past taken an active share in the administration of a county and also of a Poor Law Union that had been looked upon as very favourable examples of local administration and government; and, with the practical experience of those localities before him, he came to the conclusion that the Bill was singularly well adapted for carrying out the principles which it undertook—namely, the

    1689
    self-government in the counties. To-day they were, of course, discussing the principles. At the proper time there would be Amendments in detail to be submitted; but the points chiefly objected to on principle were, he thought, the mode of election and the area of election. In a lesser degree also the term of office touched on a principle. Now as regarded the mode of election— that was the principle of double election herein embodied—a broad distinction might be drawn between legislative bodies, which might or might not be constituted by direct popular election, and administrative bodies, which should not, in his opinion, be so constituted. Indeed, he would go so far as to say that if it were proposed to constitute these boards by direct election this measure, which had his hearty support, would have his strenuous opposition; the best men would decline to come forward, and our whole local government would be ruined. There was another principle contained in this mode of election which he would designate "local election." A Guardian was elected by the ratepayers of his parish who knew him, and the elective member of the board would be, under this Bill, elected by his brother Guardians, who also knew him personally. But if he were to present himself to the whole Union there would be an end of that personal or local election, and the worst candidate, not the best, would generally be elected. Then, as to the area, he confessed he was himself taken by surprise at the proposal to adopt petty sessional districts. Also, he entirely agreed with hon. Members opposite and on the Liberal side that ceteris paribus the Union would be the best, as the most important, local body, to send representatives. Further, he agreed that a better selection might be made by men with whom the elective representative should have transacted business; but the difficulty of reducing the Unions to the dimensions of the counties, which applied also to sanitary and highway districts, was for the present insurmountable. It would cause a delay of three years to create a Boundary Commission to correct the overlapping and to act on it, causing at the same time endless local difficulties and heart-burnings. Therefore, he came to the conclusion that the petty
    1690
    sessional division, the only one conterminous with the county, was, at least for the present, the right one to adopt —it was the only practical solution of the difficulty. Then as to term of office, it might be thought by some hon. Gentlemen opposite that the one year of office would be more democratic than a longer term; but, in fact, the contrary was the case, as a man would have no weight or influence until he had learnt the business, which he could not learn in one year; he would altogether be a more useful member of the board if he remained three years or more in office; and they had likewise the precedent of the school boards. But there was another class of objections, of which they had heard very little that night—in fact, not enough— except a few words from the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). It was a feeling held by many out of that House, as well as some within the House—and, if he did not share their conclusion entirely, he quite sympathized with their reasoning. It was the argument—"Let well alone." The county business was almost a pattern of how public business should be managed; it was administered as efficiently and economically, on the whole, as it well could be by the magistrates. Why seek to interfere with them? That was a very-strong argument to one who looked at the question from the practical point of view that he took; but he submitted also those other considerations to those who offered that objection. The magistrates who now managed the business so well would in every case be associated still to the Board of Management of the county, and be, he trusted, supported by the elective members as much as by the magistrates heretofore. Then there was a not unnatural aspiration among the ratepayers to take a more active share through their elected representatives in the business. Then, again, they would have many larger functions thrown upon those boards, and it was well to strengthen the foundation to carry a heavier weight; and, lastly, those boards would, he trusted, become sufficiently important to counteract the centralizing tendency of the day. To sum up the general results, if the Bill became law, he believed that where a county strengthening and popularizing of local

    1691
    had been well and efficiently managed, like his own county, there would be little or no perceptible difference; in some there might be room for improvement; in some—very few, be trusted— there might be a slight change for the worse; that was in the expenditure; but even that would be cheaply purchased at the strengthening of local self-government. He believed there were men scattered up and down in the country in every county of England, as there were in every community of this Anglo-Saxon nation, willing and able to undertake the work of local government, who would bring their best abilities to the work for the benefit of their neighbours and the public; and, if he might venture to go one step further, he would say that should that great House ever come by faction, obstruction, or corruption, to lose something of its old renown—or by adhering too closely to the theories of foreign States rather than to the practical teaching of their own stately history, that Assembly should come to lessen its great influence in the councils of the State—then, perhaps, those rural municipalities, those local parliaments they were to-day calling into existence, might serve to maintain in the country the principles of good government and purity of administration, which were the essence of practical progress and of civilization.
    LORD EDMOND FLTZMAURICEmoved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion agreed, to.
    Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  LICENSING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Heath.)
  LICENSING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 82.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Staveley Bill.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he hoped they would have some expression of opinion from the Government before they proceeded with this Bill. A Committee had been sitting on the subject in the House of Lords, and he believed there was an understanding that no measure of this description should be
    1692
    proceeded with in that House until a Report had been received from the House of Lords.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that although he would have no objection to postponing the Committee until Monday, it must not be taken that he consented to an adjournment of the Bill until the Committee of the House of Lords had reported. They had the whole of the evidence; but as it seemed to be the opinion of the House that it was not advisable to proceed with the Bill at that hour—10 minutes to 12—he would consent that it should be taken for Monday.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, he hoped that the Government would give some expression of opinion on the subject. The Bill would affect a very important class of trade, and he thought that, considering the very many thousands of people who were connected with this Bill, and would be seriously affected, and seeing that the Bill was introduced without a word, and the second reading was agreed to without a word, that the Government were bound to state their views upon it. If this were not done, he should take the earliest opportunity of moving the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.
  (The O'Conor Don, Mr. Richard Smyth, Mr. Charles lewis, Mr. James Carry, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Dease, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Redmond.)
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 44.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. O'SULLIYANtrusted at that hour of the night the Bill would not be proceeded with. There were very many Amendments, some of which would take a day to discuss, and therefore he should move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)
    THE O'CONOR DONthought his hon. Friend was not very reasonable in moving immediately after going into Committee to report Progress. The hon. Member knew the difficulties which a private Member had to contend with in bringing forward a measure of this sort. He thought they might make some progress in the Bill before adjourning, and he did not see why at that early hour of the night the Chairman should report Progress. The hon. Member had stated that there were very many Amendments. That being so, he regarded it as a greater necessity for proceeding with them until they came to the usual hour.
    MR. O'SULLIVANremarked that many of the Members who were opposed to the Bill were under the impression that it would not come on that night, and had consequently left the House. The first Amendment was one of the most important Amendments to the Bill, and would occupy, at least, half a day; therefore, he considered it would be impossible to proceed with it at that time of the night.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYreminded hon. Members that Government assistance to obtain them a day had been promised, and under those circumstances he saw no occasion for proceeding with the Bill at that time. It was a very serious question. There had been a very important Bill before the House, which was expected to last all the evening, and it had lasted all the evening; and now this important Bill came on when many Members interested had left. He trusted that the Bill would not be proceeded with.
    MR. STACPOOLEhoped the Bill would not be proceeded with now.
    MR. CORRYpointed out that the House frequently considered important questions at a later hour than that.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that if his hon. Friend postponed going on with the debate they should have some promise that they would do what they really could to allow this question to come on for consideration. We were told early in the Session that the Government would give facilities for the passing of this measure. Nothing special, however, had been done; and if the Government would state what they would really do it would satisfy all parties.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved that all he had to say on the part of the Government was that they would do whatever was convenient to the Irish Members. They did not want to interfere one way or the other, and the question was for the Irish Members to say whether they should begin or not.
    THE O'CONOR DONwished to say a word or two as to the position in which he stood in regard to the conduct of this measure. The Bill had come on at an hour at which they usually transacted Public Business, and it would not be unreasonable to make what progress they could. He was perfectly aware that the Government had given a pledge that they would give facilities for the passing of this Bill. They had not, however, distinctly told them that they would give up Government time day after day until the Bill was passed; and therefore it would not be reasonable to expect that private Members, at an hour at which they usually transacted Public Business, should agree to give up the opportunities which they had of going on with this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state to them that he would undertake, on behalf of the Government, to give them day after day until the Bill was passed, then he should feel free from responsibility, and would certainly consent to reporting Progress on the present occasion.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was desirable that there should be no mistake as to the position of the Government in regard to this Bill. They agreed to support the second reading of the Bill, on the understanding that they would propose certain Amendments in Committee. If these Amendments should be substantially adopted, the Government would be prepared to do what reasonably lay in their power to facilitate the passing of the Bill; but if the Amendments were rejected, the Government would be in a different position. With regard to the present discussion, he supposed it had been quite a chance that the Bill had been reached this evening; and it was for those who were interested in the discussion to decide whether they would or would not proceed with it to-night. That was a matter on which the Government expressed no opinion; but he could

    1695
    give no promise now, before the discussion of the Amendments, that he would give Government days for the Bill.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it would be impossible for him to give his consent to reporting Progress, without endeavouring, at least, to obtain the opinion of the Committee on the subject.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONhoped the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) would withdraw his Motion. After the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was important that they should get through with the Amendments, and they were now' in a position to discuss them.
    MR. O'SULLIVANthought that it was really unreasonable to ask them to go on with the Bill to-night.
    MR. WHITWORTHthought it was most unreasonable that hon. Members should prevent the progress of a Bill which was so strongly desired by the people of Ireland.
    MR. M. BROOKShoped the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) would persevere with his Motion. Several hon. Members interested in this Bill were not present. His hon. Colleague the Member for Dublin was not here; the hon. Member for the county Cork was not here; and he trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) would not persist in taking advantage of that which was really a surprise.
    MR. PARNELLwished to point out to the promoters of the Bill the difficulty in which they would place those who, like himself, had always supported it. He represented a county—Meath— which was in favour of the Sunday Closing Bill, and nearly all the Irish counties appeared to take the same view. He had always himself felt considerable doubts as to the principles of the Bill; but he had never felt himself sufficiently justified in going against the declared wishes of his constituents in regard to a matter which concerned only themselves. He had, therefore, always felt it right to support this Bill in its previous stages. He understood from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would give every facility to the passing of this Bill, provided certain Go-
    1696
    vernment Amendments were agreed to by the House. The principles of the Government Amendments, he believed, did not affect the counties. They related to certain towns in Ireland with a certain population; and therefore, representing the wishes of a county, he felt absolved from any opposition to these Amendments. The proposition which the Government had made was that, if these Amendments were adopted, they would facilitate the passing of the Bill; and if its promoters insisted in opposing the Motion to report Progress, he would feel compelled to walk out of the House.
    THE O'CONOR DONthought it necessary to say a few words in reply to his hon. Friend. He seemed to be under the impression that, in the remarks which he (the O'Conor Don) had made, he refused to accept the Amendments of the Government. He certainly never intended to convey any such idea. The Government Amendments had not been proposed; they had had no opportunity of discussing them; but when they were proposed, if there was any strong expression of opinion in their favour, he thought it was very likely that the promoters of the Bill would accept them. It was out of his power to answer for others, or to give any pledge that the Government Amendments would be agreed to; but his own opinion was, that they should accept the Amendments of the Government, upon the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman had stated—namely, that the Government would give every opportunity for passing the Bill. He himself could give no pledge for others; but he did not want it to be supposed, that he declined to accept the Government Amendments.
    MR. PAGETsaid, that this important measure affected the interests of Ireland, and it had come on as a surprise, and that it would be quite unreasonable to ask them to proceed with it to-night.
    DR. WARDsaid, that the assertion that this was a matter of surprise astonished him. This Bill had passed the House several times, and he regarded the attempt to obstruct it now as an attempt to prevent effect being given to the public opinion of Ireland. ["No, no!"] Well, the enormous majority of the Irish Members had voted in favour of this Bill. It had been most amply

    1697
    discussed, and the efforts which had been made to defeat it had proceeded from, a very small number of Members. To tell the House that this was a matter of surprise was, to him, a most extraordinary statement, the more particularly as the hon. Member for Eos-common (the O'Conor Don) had not pressed the advantage which he possessed when this Bill went into Committee a few days ago. The reward which the hon. Member received for his moderation was the attempt now made to resist the progress of the Bill. The House had time after time approved of the principle of the Bill, and it was most extraordinary that they should be asked to give up the advantage which they had obtained.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, it was abundantly clear that there was a mistake somewhere, and it was a very easy matter to find out and explain it. The error was one of words merely—the fact remained. So far as this matter being on the Paper was concerned, it was not, and could not be, any surprise to anybody; but it was unusual, and therefore not only a surprise but a great surprise that this—the 10th Order of the Day—an Order, moreover, 'so important as it was, should, by the merest accident in the world, have been reached, and should, therefore, have come on for discussion when a very large number of the Members for Irish constituencies had left for the night, never expecting the Order would, or could, be reached. That was the only mistake. Let them look at the empty benches at this moment, and could anybody believe that the opinion given by so few Members would be taken as the general views of the House on a question of such magnitude and importance. Really, to discuss the matter under such circumstances was little short of an insult to Ireland itself. It was well known that this Bill did not affect the interests of those who were promoting it; but it applied exclusively to those who, comparatively speaking, were unable to make themselves heard in that House. It would be most unfair, unwise, and unjust, to proceed at this hour of the night with even one stage of this Bill. It was a measure which involved one of the greatest principles of Imperial legislation, and it ought not to be advanced a single step at such a time. It was only right to say that he was not one of those who cared about excluding or ex-
    1698
    empting certain places from the operations of the measure. He objected to the Bill altogether as an attempt to carry into effect the very worst and most objectionable form of class legislation. It was useless to deny, by those who would, no doubt, very willingly do so if they could, that it was a Bill brought in at the instance of a certain number of irresponsible people—teetotallers and Sabbatarians—both in England and Ireland, and they all knew who were the wirepullers who worked behind the scenes. In a matter of this kind they were not there to legislate for the "Upper Ten Thousand." Much as he respected some of them on other subjects, on this he did not care a single straw for the Bishops, nor did he value the opinions of the aristocratic element. What he wanted to arrive at was the uncontrolled and free view of the peasant. Those who had signed and professed to desire the passing of this measure not only had their own cellars, but knew how to use them. In fact, there was not a single thing which they denied themselves. Why, then, should they seek legislatively, as in truth they were now doing, to coerce the peasant class of Ireland? Why should he be asked to help that class which was not affected by the measure, at the expense of those classes who were? If these persons wished to avoid going into public-houses, nobody asked or compelled them to enter one, and by all means let them keep away; but they had no right to deny to a whole people, as it was thus sought to do, their common food and sustenance, and that mainly to support a crotchet.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, there was a very strong argument in favour of the Motion. Only a short time ago one of the cities which it was proposed to exempt from the operation of the Bill presented a Petition, signed by 2,700 persons, against the measure. He believed that about the same number had petitioned in favour of the Bill; but he had also reason to believe that within the next few days another Petition would be presented against the Bill which would be signed by upwards of 4,000 persons, as well as several very large Petitions in its favour. That Petition came, he was told, principally from artizans, and it showed that it was only at this stage of the agitation that public opinion was becoming directed towards the measure among persons of one set of opi-

    1699
    nions. Under these circumstances, with a long Session before them and the Government pledged to give proper facilities for the discussion of the Bill, he could not understand what the motive was for pressing it forward at 12 o'clock at night, except that it was desired to pass into its details without full discussion and before the various Petitions could reach. He asked the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) to treat the Bill as he would treat a Government Bill if an important public measure were endeavoured to be forced on at that late hour of the night. If such a course were attempted by the Government it would be resisted by the House, and the Government would be compelled to postpone the Bill, and to fix a reasonable day and hour for resuming it. He could not conceive how the hon. Member could suffer any injury by postponing the Bill. If the hon. Member was perfectly sure of his case, and believed it to be in accordance with the feeling of the Irish people, the only result of postponing it would be to secure in its favour a still stronger expression of opinion, and to ensure that the issue would be fairly tried.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he should certainly vote for the adjournment of the discussion, and he asked hon. Gentlemen to recollect how it was that so early in the Session they had arrived at this stage of the Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), on the Monday after the meeting of Parliament, put this Bill down upon the Paper for a second reading. It was expected that the Government would move the postponement of the Orders of the Day, so that the Government Business might be brought on; and very few hon. Members had any idea that this Bill would come on upon that particular day. It did, however, come on, and passed a second reading, few only being present to oppose it, and it was thought unwise to challenge a division. On the following Wednesday it was put down again for Committee, and a curious thing-—one that was almost unprecedented—happened. The House adjourned at 10 minutes to 1 o'clock; but, before doing so, the hon. Member for Roscommon moved the House into Committee on the Bill. Nobody had expected that the Bill would come on, as an important Scotch Bill was on the Notice Paper
    1700
    before it; but owing to an informality when the second reading was moved, the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair ruled that the Bill could not be proceeded with. He (Mr. Onslow) thought the measure was one of very great importance. He might be told that the minority against it was comparatively small. He did not care how small the minority was, but he should always give his vote so as to prevent the Bill from passing if possible. At the same time, he did not wish to be an obstructionist. He wanted to ensure for the Bill a full, fair, and free discussion. A Session or two ago, he believed, the Bill passed a second reading by a majority of 50; but he thought that many hon. Members who voted for the second reading then were very sorry that they did so, considering the way in which the Bill had been brought before them since. He sincerely hoped the hon. Member for Roscommon would agree to the adjournment of the discussion, and that he would not attempt to force on so important a Bill in such a thin House. There was another reason why he objected to that stage of the Bill being taken. Judging from the cheers which came from both sides of the House that evening, when a New Writ was moved for the City of York, he gathered that they now had a very popular Chief Secretary for Ireland; but the hon. Gentleman who had recently accepted that appointment (Mr. J. Lowther) had not yet had time to go into the details of this measure. It was, therefore, only fair to that hon. Gentleman that he should have an opportunity of considering the Bill, and of saying whether he approved of the measure or not. For these reasons he (Mr. Onslow) hoped the House would not, on the present occasion, proceed further with the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last, the hon. Member for the city of Limerick, had told them that further Petitions were coming in. Let them wait, then, and see the nature of these Petitions, and ascertain what the real feeling of the people of Ireland was. Probably it would have changed, now that they saw there was a chance of the Bill being rushed through the House. It was quite certain that the people of Ireland were more excited now in regard to the measure than they had been up to this time. He did not care what some unfortunate people among his constituents

    1701
    might have to say upon the question. He had certainly been very much blamed by a certain section among them for having opposed this Bill. All he could say, in his place in the House, was that he did not care what any particular section of his constituents might say; but he would still endeavour to oppose the Bill, in every possible way. He opposed it, in the first place, because he believed it to be a restriction upon the liberties of the people; secondly, because he feared that, if it were passed, it would only lead to an increase of drunkenness; and thirdly, because he believed it was exceptional legislation, that was not in accordance with the wishes of the Irish people; and because, if it were passed for Ireland, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), or some other hon. Member, would bring in a similar Bill next Session for England. Under circumstances almost unique, he was precluded at this stage of the Bill from entering into any lengthened discussion on its merits or demerits—undue haste, as he thought, having been exercised in bringing it to its present forward stage. For these reasons, he should certainly vote for the adjournment of the debate; and he trusted the Committee would see that there was really no necessity for passing the Bill hastily.
    MR. O'CLERYpointed out that for three Sessions the question involved in this Bill had been discussed over and over again. No measure had ever received a fuller and fairer discussion. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had made some reference to Petitions being got up against the passing of the Bill. Now a Petition was presented not long ago, or rather two Petitions, purporting to be signed by 14,000 inhabitants of the town of Naas, in Ireland, against the Bill. It was a most singular fact that such a Petition should have been procured, seeing there were not 2,000 inhabitants which could be reckoned in the population of that town. He believed it was a well-known fact that the men most opposed to the Bill in that House were men who had a direct interest in the liquor traffic in Ireland. They were the men who were determined to obstruct the measure in every possible way. ["Order!"]
    MR. STACPOOLErose to Order. The hon. Gentleman had made a charge that
    1702
    the opponents of the Bill were in the liquor trade. He (Mr. Stacpoole) was opposed to the Bill, but he was not in the liquor trade.
    The CHAIRMANdid not think anything had fallen from the hon. Member which called for the intervention of the Chair.
    MR. O'CLERYwas quite willing to say at once that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stacpoole) was not directly interested in the liquor trade. But he was sure that those who were interested in that trade were to be found among the most persistent opponents of this measure, and they manifested the interest which they took in the welfare of the people of Ireland by the fact that when an effort was made to have the public-houses in Ireland closed on Saturday evenings, they opposed it on the ground that the Sunday closing measure should first be settled, and yet when the Sunday Closing Bill came before Parliament they manifested just the same opposition. He trusted that the present discussion would be persevered in, even if it took till 6 o'clock in the morning. He thought it would be well worth while to adopt that course, as it would at once give an assurance to Ireland that the House would deal properly with this measure and facilitate its progress.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Clery) had pointed out that there were Petitions from the town of Naas containing 14,000 signatures against the Bill. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) had himself presented two of those Petitions; but they came not only from the town of Naas, but from the county of Kildare, and most of them were signed at the Curragh, so far as he could learn. He denied that he had said that the bringing in of the Bill at this hour of the night took the House by surprise —what he had said was that arriving at it so early took the House by surprise, and that hon. Members who opposed it had left the House under the impression that there was no chance of its coming on. He should certainly do all that lay in his power to prevent its being proceeded with to-night.
    MR. CHARLES LEWIStrusted that the postponement of the Committee would not be agreed to unless some understanding was arrived at with the Government as to what they meant to do in reference to the Bill. A very poor re-

    1703
    turn was now being made for the honourable and delicate conduct of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), who, when he got the House into Committee on the Bill the other Wednesday, declined to make any progress with the clauses because of the absence of those whom the hon. Gentleman knew to be opponents of the measure. As to bringing on the Bill at a convenient time, they knew that no time would be convenient to determined opponents. If an adjournment were now agreed to, the Government ought first to say what facilities they would give for discussing the clauses in Committee. If the sort of guerilla warfare which had been exhibited to-night was to be carried on for the future, no private Member would ever have a chance of getting a Bill through Parliament.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman was in error in supposing that the Government supported the Motion for reporting Progress. He had stated already what the position of the Government was—they had agreed to the second reading of the Bill, and they had agreed to put certain Amendments on the Paper. If those Amendments were in substance adopted, the Government would make facilities for the Bill; but if, on the other hand, they were not, the Government could not make themselves responsible for the measure. They only pledged themselves to have their Amendments discussed, and they left the promoters of the Bill to pursue what course they pleased. If the hon. Member for Roscommon divided the Committee against the Motion, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), for his own part, would vote with him.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 79: Majority 59. — (Div. List, No. 12.)
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he did not appear there as a partizan, he had long abstained from voting against the Bill; but he thought it impossible to proceed this evening, and he would therefore move that the Chairman leave the Chair. He could not, in justice to the constituents he represented, who were at that moment engaged on both sides in collecting and expressing their opinions on the subject—he could not, in justice
    1704
    to those constituents, be a consenting party to pressing forward the Bill at that period. They were now expressing, some on one side, some on the other, their opinions on the subject. It was not necessary that he should again go through the arguments which had been already stated in favour of an adjournment. They had a long Session before them, so that it was not necessary that they should discuss the Bill at that late hour of the night. Under these circumstances, he would move that the Chairman leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 20; Noes 77: Majority 57. — (Div. List, No. 13.)
    MR. ONSLOWbegged now to move that the Chairman report Progress. He had one remark to make on what the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. O'Clery) had said. The hon. Member said that the principal opponents of the Bill in that House dealt in liquor. Now, he supposed that he (Mr. Onslow) was one of the last men in that House who could be accused of having anything to do with the liquor traffic, except in regard to what he took himself. What he wanted was to secure a full and fair discussion for the Bill. Was it right for the hon. Gentleman the Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) to come down there a few days hence, and say—"This Bill, in which I took so much interest, has been passed during my absence?" He (Mr. Onslow) thought no one would be more surprised than the hon. Member himself (Mr. J. Lowther). Really they ought to give hon. Gentlemen time to consider the matter. Let them also consider who had been the Tellers in the division. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was one of those Tellers. He thought that was a very significant fact. It enabled them to see at once where the opposition to the Bill came from, and where the money came from to get up all the Petitions. It was not Irish money, but English money; and, therefore, upon all these grounds, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would agree, now that they had had their amusement and a little discussion, to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Onslow.)
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he was a warm supporter of the Bill, but he thought the hour had now arrived when there was really no prospect of getting on with the measure, and he hoped the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) would therefore give way.
    THE O'CONOR DONthought it was perfectly clear, after what had happened, and after the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that it would be impossible to mate any progress that evening; but what had taken place clearly demonstrated that it was quite impossible for any private Member to pass the Bill through all its stages, or through that stage which was necessary in order to enable the Government to ascertain the opinion of the House upon the Government Amendments. Therefore, he thought he had a strong claim upon the Government that they should now name an early day for proceeding with the measure. He hoped he might be allowed to call the attention of the Committee to the whole facts of the case. This Bill, as already stated, came on in Committee on a Wednesday morning at half-past 12. The whole of that Sitting was then open for proceeding with the Bill; but, upon that occasion, not wishing to take hon. Gentlemen by surprise, but in order to give them fair play, he postponed the Bill at once and agreed to report Progress the moment the Preamble of the Bill had been postponed. What would be the position of the promoters of the Bill if they were not allowed to go on with it any night when it came on before 12 o'clock? If they were to be persistently opposed as they had been to-night, what possible chance would there ever be of getting on with it? He had looked carefully over the Order Book, and he found that all the Wednesdays were occupied until the close of the Session. He therefore appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was now able to see the character of the opposition likely to be offered to the Bill, and that it was of the same description as the opposition offered in previous years—he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to name an early Government day when
    1706
    they could go on with the consideration of the Amendments. His hon. Friend the Member for the city of Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) said, he ought to take the same course as the Government took in regard to Government measures that were called on at 10 minutes to 12 o'clock. That would be all very well if he had the same number of days at his disposal as the Government. In that case he would adopt tonight the course usually followed by the Government, and put the Bill down for Monday next. But, unfortunately, he was not in the same position as the Government, and he therefore appealed to the Government to redeem their pledge and give him an early day.
    MR. O'SULLIVANwished to say one word in regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don). His hon. Friend had taken credit for not pushing the Bill forward when it went into Committee on a Wednesday morning early in the Session. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) wished to remind his hon. Friend that he had told him (Mr. O'Sullivan) the night before, that he had only put the Bill down for that Wednesday in order to name a day for bringing it on. Under these circumstances, how could the hon. Member have pressed it forward upon that day, when everything else had lapsed? There were 17 Amendments down in regard to the Bill already, and they all knew, from the number of the Petitions which had been presented against it, that it would meet with considerable opposition. There were eight hon. Members representing constituencies in the county of Cork who were opposed to the measure, and not one of them was there that night. It was well known that the large majority of the people of the county and city of Cork were opposed to the Bill, and yet the hon. Members for that district had all gone away under the impression that the Bill was not coming on that night. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member for Roscommon would not persevere further with the Bill, but would consent to report Progress.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought the appeal of his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) was one that deserved and required an answer from the Government. This Bill stood in totally different relations from

    1707
    any ordinary hon. Member's Private Bill. A pledge had been given by the Government last Session in reference to the measure, and an undertaking had been given that Session. That pledge and undertaking did not leave it at all in the category of a Bill of a private Member. The Government had undertaken to give facilities for proceeding with the Bill, with certain conditions, and his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon said that, unless the Government gave facilities immediately, it would be impossible to discover whether the conditions could be fulfilled or not. He understood his hon. Friend to say that the question of how far the Amendments of the Government were or were not to be adopted must really depend upon the course taken in Committee upon the Bill. He (Sir William Harcourt) could not conceive that the Government would take so irregular a course as to enter into a bargain outside the House as to what the exact character of the Bill should be when it came into Committee; and, therefore, the nature of the Amendments must be discussed in Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon had said nothing more than was patent to every hon. Member of the House-namely, that if he was left to his own unaided efforts, this sort of opposition, proceeding, not from a majority, but from a minority, of the Irish Members, and from a few hon. Gentlemen who took the view of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), would leave him entirely helpless. Therefore, there was great force in the appeal of the hon. Member to the Government that they should give him an opportunity of placing his Bill in such a position as would enable him to get the Government Amendments discussed.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that hon. Gentlemen would recollect that Her Majesty's Government last year offered every facility for proceeding with this Bill. On one Wednesday hon. Members who had precedence were induced to give way in order to make room for this measure, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Law-son) actually withdrew the Permissive Bill so that it might come on. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government had given every possible facility for proceeding with the Bill, and he hoped the hon. Member for Roscommon (the
    1708
    O'Conor Don) would now be content, and allow the Bill to run the ordinary course of Bills introduced by private Members.
    MR. O'CLERYwished to remind the Committee that the concession made by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) last year was defeated by one of the staunchest Friends of the Government — the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse)— who succeeded in talking the Bill out. [Mr. WHEELHOUSE said, that was an entire mistake.] He (Mr. O'Clery) was so accustomed to the persistent opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Leeds, that he might be pardoned for the unintentional mistake he had fallen into. He might say that the Government had hitherto professed ignorance of the desire of the people of Ireland to have some such measure as this passed. He thought they could not plead ignorance of the desire of the House to have some such measure passed, judging from the majority that recorded their votes last year in its favour. Therefore, if the Government would not state frankly to the supporters of the Bill what they intended to do with it, it would be the absolute duty of the Irish Members to stand to their guns, and to show they were thoroughly in earnest in the support they gave the measure by continuing the discussion until their ends were obtained, or until they could induce Her Majesty's Government or the Leader of the House to come to some arrangement with regard to the Bill.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he would do justice to the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse). It was quite a mistake that the hon. Member talked the Bill out last Session. The hon. Member did not talk it out every Session, and it was in the preceding Session that he succeeded in talking it out. What the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) had said might mislead the House. The only thing the Government did. in favour of the Bill last Session was to allow it to be put down for a Morning Sitting, and when two or three hon. Gentlemen were determined to talk out a Bill they could easily accomplish that object in a Morning Sitting. The proper thing for the Government to do was to give a Sitting which might be prolonged for an indefinite period, and that they did not do.
    MR. M. BROOKShoped the Government would not give the exceptional facilities that were asked for in favour of this Bill. He regarded the course which had been taken that evening as an attempt to steal a march on the Irish Members who were opposed to the Bill. The Bill itself was intended to coerce th6 large majority of the Irish people— not those who were upon the electoral list, but those who did not enjoy the franchise. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman whould not give any further facilities, or make any further concessions to the appeal of the hon. Member for Bos-common.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,thought the undertaking of the Government was as much as could reasonably be expected from them, and they had not the slightest intention of departing from it. They stood now to what they had said—namely, that as the Bill proceeded, if the Amendments proposed by the Government were subsequently adopted, then they would endeavour to give all the facilities in their power for passing the Bill through the other stages it would have to pass; but they could not, at that period of the Session, undertake to set aside Government Business for the discussion of a Bill in regard to which there seemed to be a great deal of difference of opinion among the Irish Members, and about which there must naturally be a great deal of discussion. Hon. Gentlemen must be aware that the Government had throughout been prepared to aid the hon. Member in discussing the Bill tonight; but the feeling of the House was against this course, and it was impossible to proceed in opposition to such a clearly-expressed opinion. He was sorry that it was so; but he did not think it would be at all fair that the Government at present should be called upon to give any definite promise.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, it was difficult to understand how the feeling of the House could be against him when 77 hon. Members present had voted for proceeding and only 20 against. But irrespective of that, he had risen chiefly to ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer if they were to understand that the Government would give no facilities for the progress of the Bill until the question had been finally decided in regard to the Government
    1710
    Amendments? If those were the promised facilities offered by the Government, he thought the proceedings which had taken place that evening showed that the facilities promised would be comparatively valueless. It was quite in the power of hon. Members who were opposed to the Bill to prevent any opinion being given on the Government Amendments. They had only to put down Amendments themselves and make long speeches in order to render it impossible for a private Member to advance the Bill sufficiently to reach the required point until the close of the Session. He therefore wished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he understood him to say that until the Government Amendments were passed he would give no facilities for proceeding with the Bill?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not gone the length of saying that; and if he had said so, such a declaration might have been attended with the inconvenience suggested by the hon. Gentleman. What he had said was, that at the present early period of the Session it was impossible to go beyond the promise which had already been made. He thought that the promoters of the Bill should use their best exertions in order to try and find a day for bringing on the measure. He did not say what the Government would be prepared to do later on in the Session; but he must have regard to the other Government Business, and he could not undertake at the present period of the Session to set aside Government Business for the purpose of going on with that Bill.
    MR. CHARLES LEWISasked how the promoters of the Bill were to make further exertions than they had made? They had come down prepared to support the measure, and finding it came on before 12 o'clock, they were ready to go on with it. Yet an hour or more had been wasted in fruitless Motions for adjournment, showing what the opposition was likely to be in the future, and proving that it was impossible for the promoters of the measure to do anything in the matter unless they received aid from the Government. Whatever might have been the exact mode or form of promise made by the Government, he thought it had hardly been adhered to in the spirit. The measure was looked

    1711
    upon with great gravity, and was regarded as one of great importance in the sister country. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had advised the hon. Member for Roscommon not to take a further division. He (Mr. Lewis) would ask the hon. Member for Roscommon to persist in dividing the House, in order to see whether the Government would vote for an adjournment or not, after the very unsatisfactory way in which they had complied with the application made to them to fulfil in the spirit the promise they had given.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that all persons in Ireland were anxious that this question should be determined, and it was for that reason that he strongly supported the appeal made by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) for the Government to give them as full and immediate an opportunity for discussion as possible. In regard both to those who supported and those who opposed the Bill, it seemed to him that it was to their interest to have the matter decided quickly. Last evening the debate came on unexpectedly, and he had voted for postponement; but this evening all parties were aware that it would be pressed, and if any were absent, they could not complain of surprise.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, it seemed to him that the Bill, which was not now for the first time before Parliament, was being met by a most extraordinary opposition. They were now arrived at a period when, after the Government last year had foreshadowed that they would, if certain Amendments they proposed were carried, agree to the passing of the Bill. They were not ready now to redeem their promise to give facilities for passing it this Session. Now, he must say that he considered that a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. A small, but a very persistent, minority had used every possible endeavour to obstruct the measure in every Session that it had been introduced. They now argued that it had not been before the people of Ireland, and that they wished for time for the people of Ireland to consider it. Now, to say that it had not been considered by the people of Ireland, or that it had not been considered in that House, was, he thought, rather a ludicrous assertion. It had been brought before
    1712
    them repeatedly and persistently, and it had been not only strongly supported, but carried by large majorities in that House. He hoped the Government would at last see their way to making some provision for having the Bill properly considered in Committee. He did not know whether those who opposed it were consumers or producers; but, between the two, they opposed it very strongly. He dare say the consumers were quite as earnest as the producers; although he could not forget that, as far as the consumption of spirits on a Sunday was concerned, a good many people might be able to supply themselves on the day before. It certainly appeared to him that the opposition at the present time was, he would not say factious, but extremely obstinate. He hoped the Government would give facilities for the consideration of a Bill which had excited such deep interest among the people of Ireland. His hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole) had denied that he was a producer; but he (Mr. Macartney) assumed, at any rate, that his hon. Friend was a consumer.
    MR. STACPOOLEwished to know if the hon. Member for Roscommon was prepared to accept the Amendments which had been brought forward by the Government? If they accepted those Amendments, the fact might facilitate the measure going forward. He therefore asked if the Amendments were accepted or not? He had been charged with being a consumer. He certainly was; but it was not upon that ground that he opposed the Bill. He would never be prepared to support any measure that proposed to rob a man of his beer.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that it would be irregular to enter into any discussion of the Amendments that already stood upon the Paper.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHthought it was a waste of time to prolong the discussion; but, as he had felt it his duty early in the Session to give a promise to the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), he wished to trouble the Committee with a few words to explain the nature of that promise, to which the Government were prepared to adhere. The promise he had made amounted to this—the hon. Member for Roscommon had given Notice of

    1713
    his intention to introduce the Bill. The Government assumed, naturally, that lie would take means for proceeding with its subsequent stages, and obtain the best days for that purpose. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was authorized, on the part of the Government, to say that, if necessary, they would give him further facilities to ensure the discussion of the Bill during that Session, in order that the question might be settled that year. Now, what had. happened? The hon. Member had introduced the Bill. He had obtained a day for the second reading, and on another day had succeeded in moving the Speaker out of the Chair. So far he had been extremely fortunate. He now proposed, at 12 o'clock at night, to ask the House in Committee to proceed with the consideration of the Bill. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was bound to say that, though he was anxious that every fair opportunity should be given for proceeding with the Bill, and although he had supported the hon. Member in the division—he did think his proposal was somewhat unreasonable. Nobody anticipated that the Bill would come on that evening. It so happened that an earlier adjournment of the debate on the County Government Bill took place than anybody could have expected, and a Bill on which there was likely to be much discussion was not usually begun after 12 o'clock at night. At any rate, there were four or five Government Bills on the Paper, after the County Government Bill, that were not proceeded with on this ground. However, when the hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to proceed with the consideration of his Bill, the Government had done their best to induce the Committee to do so; but, in spite of what the hon. Member had said of 77 hon. Members being in favour of going on and only 20 against, he had no doubt the hon. Member would admit that, although there had been a general wish on the part of the Committee to proceed with the Bill if possible, yet there was a considerable feeling that the hour had now arrived when the further progress of the Bill must be postponed. They were now at the 14th of February; it was an early period in the Session. The hon. Member would have other opportunities of inviting the House, in Committee, to consider the provisions of this Bill. No doubt there were many days that might
    1714
    be available, for all the Tuesdays were hardly likely to be occupied, and there were several Wednesdays on which particular Bills stood as the only Orders of the Day. For instance, there was the Permissive Prohibitory Bill, which stood by itself for one day; the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill, which stood for another; and the Sale of Liquors on Sunday Bill, which was down for a third. These Bills had, he believed, in former years, been more than once postponed in order to suit the convenience of those who were anxious to proceed with this particular measure. The sponsors of these measures were certainly ardent promoters of the present Bill, and he had no doubt they might again be induced to postpone their measures for the sake of proceeding with this. It was, therefore, a little early for the hon. Member to come to the Government and say—"I cannot go any further with this Bill; you must now give the facilities you promised to give if they were necessary." He was bound to say it did seem to him that the hon. Member ought to make a certain amount of further effort to secure that consideration for the Bill which they were all anxious it should receive. The Government adhered to the promise they had made, and they considered that they were bound by it. They were certainly as anxious as the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) or the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) that the Bill should be settled before the end of the Session.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) must be aware that in regard to Tuesdays there was very little likelihood of an Order of the Day coming on at an early hour. Therefore, Tuesdays were out of the question. And in regard to Wednesdays, what was it that the right hon. Gentleman proposed? The first day he had referred to as available was the 29th of May. Was it reasonable to expect that, with a great number of Amendments to the Bill, and with the promise that these Amendments would take a considerable time in discussion—was it reasonable, seeing that this was the 14th of February, to ask the promoters to postpone the consideration of the Bill in Committee until the 29th of May? That, however, was absolutely the only proposal the right hon. Gentle-

    1715
    man made; and because he (the O'Conor Don) did not at once consent to postpone the Bill until the 29th of May, the right hon. Gentleman told him that he was unreasonable. If that was the sort of spirit in which the pledge made by the Government at the beginning of the Session was to be carried out, he could only say that he had been greatly deceived in regard to it. There was one statement made by the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) which he wished to refer to. The hon. Member must be under a misapprehension if he thought that he (the O'Conor Don) had assured him that he did not intend to go on with the Bill in Committee on the Wednesday when it first went into Committee; because he distinctly stated—and he believed the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Brooks) would bear him out—that it was his intention to go on and make as much progress as he could with it upon that day. He certainly did not expect that he would be able to make much progress, as there were several prior Motions on the Paper, and he stated this to the hon. Gentleman, telling him that if he did not make any progress, he could, at least, name a day; but he gave no pledge whatever that he would not go on with the Bill, either to the hon. Member for Limerick or to anyone else.
    MR. DILLWYNasked the Government if it was not reasonable that they should give some better assurance to the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) in regard to facilitating the future progress of the Bill? He (Mr. Dillwyn) had voted for the Bill, not because he was particularly fond of it, but because he conceived it to have been undertaken in accordance with the wishes of the Irish Members. If his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon had been told that he must find his own opportunities for passing the Bill that Session, there certainly would not be much chance of making progress with it, if he was to be treated as he had been that evening. They had already had a good specimen of the way in which he was likely to be met. The Government told him that, if he had not disposed of the Bill before the end of the Session, they would give him facilities. He was afraid in that case we should have the same scenes repeated that we had had before under the
    1716
    present Government. Everything was deferred until the end of the Session, and then it was all hurry-skurry to get through the Business, without any chance of disposing of it satisfactorily. If the Government pledge was merely a promise to the hon. Member for Roscommon to give him facilities at the end of the Session, then the measure must be considered to be in the category of those which were certain to be obstructed and defeated. He thought the Government might make some concession to his hon. Friend, and ensure that the measure should receive discussion at an earlier period than the end of the Session.
    MR. ONSLOWthought he could suggest a solution of the difficulty. His hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) said he might be able to bring the Bill in on the 29th of May.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he had not stated that it could come on on the 29th of May. His impression was, that if it were postponed until then, it would not come on at all, looking at the state of the Order Book. What he had said was, that that was the first day the right hon. Baronet the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had mentioned.
    MR. ONSLOWhoped it might come on on the 29th of May. And, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not seem to care very much for his Bill last year, he might be induced to give up also the 26th of June. Last year the hon. Baronet appeared to care more for this Bill than his own, and he (Mr. Onslow) hoped the hon. Baronet would have no objection to give way to the hon. Member for Roscommon.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was present in the House when a celebrated discussion took place between the late Prime Minister and Mr. Miall, who thought he had been taken in about the Education Bill, and said "once bitten, twice shy." Now, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would not be taken in or led away by any promise of the Government such as that which was made last year. The promise made last year was what he said at the time he thought it would be. Although he gave way, it had turned out to be entirely a mockery, a delusion, and a snare.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 25; Noes 37: Majority 12.—(Div. List, No. 14.)
    MR. CHARLES LEWIS,in moving that the Chairman do leave the Chair, said, that the promoters of the Bill, he thought, ought to be satisfied, now that they saw the kind of support they were to expect from the Government, who, after two divisions, had walked out of the House. He thought this would let the people of Ireland know that there was some ground for the assertion that this was a publican's Parliament, and that there was ground for believing that the Conservative Ministry were too much identified with the publican interest.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Charles Lewis.)
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Charles Lewis) could not be aware of the effect of carrying such a proposal as he had just made. The effect of it would be to throw the Bill back a stage; therefore it was impossible for the supporters of the Bill to consent to a proposal of that kind. Surely the hon. Member had made the Motion under a misapprehension. With regard to the charge against the Government, he could not go so far as the hon. Member. He thought, however, that the Government might have given them stronger assurances than they seemed disposed to give, for they must see the difficulties in which the promoters of the Bill were placed. For the right hon. Gentleman to refer them to the 5th of June or 26th of June was practically to say that the facilities offered by the Government were not real facilities at all.
    MR. M. BROOKS,rising to a point of Order, asked if it was Parliamentary language to describe the House as a publican's Parliament?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the phrase was one that was not usual; but it would have been more in Order if the hon. Member for Dublin had risen at the time the assertion was made.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought they really ought to come to some understanding now. The facilities the Government had offered had been few, either in
    1718
    the abstract or concrete, judging from the proposition of the right hon. Baronet the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Baronet said—"Oh, you can make your own exertions in this matter; and when you have done so, we will see what we can do for you." The only practical offer he had made was—"If you can get the 26th of June, why then we will see what we can do for you." That was practically to say that the Government did not mean to give any facilities. Really, that was the only chance the right hon. Baronet offered the promoters of the Bill to bring on their Bill. It would be dealing with more straightforwardness if they would get up and say—"We really don't mean to give any facilities at all." Anyone who had any experience of Parliamentary Business must know that an offer to bring on a Bill in July was equivalent to no offer at all.
    MR. MEREWETHERsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) could hardly have been in the House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a promise to the other side, which was received by several Members with profuse thanks. It was not until what had been called a "specimen of obstruction" took place, that the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) was compelled to say that the Government could not assist him at all. He (Mr. Merewether) asked whether the hon Member for Roscommon, because he met with obstruction on his own side, was to come here and ask the Government to give him facilities which no private Member on that side could obtain if he was subjected to the same obstruction?
    MR. O'DONNELLasked if "obstruction" was a regular Parliamentary expression?
    MR. MEREWETHERsaid, he was quoting from the remarks of one of the hon. Member's own friends, who said— "This is a specimen of obstruction which hon. Members had to meet with." He did not mean to say it was applicable, or even Parliamentary.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had entirely misrepresented the remarks he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) made. He never intended to say, and never said, that the hon. Member for Roscommon

    1719
    (the O'Conor Don) might endeavour to bring on his Bill on the 26th of June, and that the Government would not give him any day until after that date. All he did was merely to suggest to the hon. Member that he might endeavour to persuade the promoters of other Bills to give way for him, as they had already yielded; and he instanced certain Bills, the promoters of which had in previous Sessions given way in favour of this Bill. He certainly did not think that the promises of the Government would be redeemed by waiting until the 26th of June, in order to give facilities for the hon. Member to proceed with his measure. On the other hand, he thought it was entirely unreasonable that on the 14th of February they should be asked to postpone all other Business in order to facilitate the progress of this Bill.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he could not often support the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), but he could heartily support him in his Motion now before the Committee. He must remind the Committee that the last time there was an Irish Coercive Bill before them it took 12 nights to discuss it. If the Government were to give two days, then they might discuss the Sunday Closing Bill, but they could not do so in less.
    THE O'CONOR DONinformed the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that he had looked through the Order Book, and certainly he had not intended to make any appeal to the Government until all the means at his own disposal were exhausted. So far as he could see, there was no day which he could have a chance of having before the 5th of June. An hon. Friend reminded him that the 5th of June would be the Derby Day, and as there would be no House on that day, it really came to this—that they had no day open to them before the 26th of June; for, as regarded Tuesdays, they were quite out of the question. He did not want the Government to postpone any of their measures for him. All he wanted them to do was to say they would take the matter into consideration as soon as they could, that they would, at as early a period as possible, give the House an opportunity of discussing some of the Amendments to the Bill, of which Notice had been given. If they would do that early in the Session, it would save a good
    1720
    deal of Government time as well as that of the promoters of the Bill. He did not at all wish to be unreasonable, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say something of the kind, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Londonderry to withdraw his Amendment.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that the course which had been pursued within the last hour or two with regard to the facilities asked of the Government had not been a wise one. There had been no indisposition on the part of the Government to give fair opportunities for the progress of the Bill; but it was unreasonable that at this early period of the Session they should be pressed to promise to give up Government time for this Bill. At the present time of the Session, and under existing circumstances, he was not in a position to enter into any formal engagement with the promoters of the Bill and the Committee as to when the Bill should be brought on. He had no doubt that if the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) and his' Friends were to look at the Paper, they would find an earlier day than they anticipated on which to bring forward their measure. If they failed to do so, the Government would be ready to consider what should be done. The hon. Member for Roscommon knew perfectly well there was no indisposition on the part of the Government to give fair play to the Bill. The Government had certainly been pressed in an unbecoming manner, and especially so by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, whose only desire seemed to be to find, something about which he could blame the Government. That kind of proceeding was not such as would bring about an amicable arrangement. With regard to the observations that were made as to their not voting on the last occasion, he really understood from the hon. Member for Roscommon that he saw no use in proceeding. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would advise the Committee to agree to report Progress.
    MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment. ["No, no!"]
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: — Ayes 6; Noes 56: Majority 50. — (Div. List, No. 15.)
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that, after what had taken place, it would be quite useless to proceed further that evening; therefore, he would move that Progress be reported.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HERSCHELL, Bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HERSCHELL and Sir HENRY HOLLAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 117.]

    COMPANIES (FOREIGN SHAREHOLDERS) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Registration of Foreigners as Shareholders in Companies, ordered to be brought in by Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Sir ANDREW LUSK, Sir CHARLES MILLS, and Mr. CHARLES PRAED.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 118.]
    House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading— Territorial Waters Jurisdiction (23).
THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE CONFERENCE—CONSTANTINOPLE-MOVEMENTS OF THE FLEET.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CAMPBELLwished to ask the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether the place at which the Conference was to be held had been determined upon? The Question did not spring from curiosity, but from a view that some places ought to be avoided, and from a hope that none would be chosen without the sanction of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, in answer to my noble Friend, I have to state that the place at which the Conference is to be held has not yet been determined upon. The Austrian Government initiated the proposal, and they naturally proposed Vienna as the place of meeting. We had no objection to offer to that selection, nor, so far as we know, had any other Power, with the exception of Russia. The Russian Government raised certain objections which I have not seen in detail, and I

  1599
  believe the matter is still under discussion. I do not, however, think the difficulty is one which is likely to continue long or to stand in the way of the meeting of the Conference.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, on Tuesday evening I put a Question to my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs which he—I think with some reason—described as rather vague and indefinite. There is no doubt whatever that there are a large number of questions of great interest and importance connected with Eastern affairs at this moment, to which answers would be of much interest; but great responsibility attaches to Her Majesty's Government in consequent of recent proceedings, and they must judge what information they can with propriety give. I shall therefore merely repeat the Questions which I put on Tuesday evening. In the first place, I wish to know whether our ships of war are at this moment at Gallipoli or Constantinople? Secondly, if they are there, whether it is at the invitation or with the permission, or against the permission, of the Turkish Government? Thirdly, I wish to know whether Her Majesty's Government have received any further information as to the likelihood of the Russians carrying out their announced intention of, in that event, occupying Constantinople? Fourthly, I shall be glad if the noble Earl will state whether the other Powers which he stated had applied for firmans have given any assurance as to joining in the measures which Her Majesty's Government have adopted?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, in the first place, let me state that I did not at all intend to complain or object to my noble Friend on Tuesday night for putting his Questions in a very general manner. On the contrary, I can quite understand his motive in having so framed them; but it is not easy, when Questions are put in general terms, to know the particular points to which the Answers should be directed. My Lords, the Questions which the noble Earl has put to-night are of a very precise and definite character, and I am prepared to Answer them—but I believe that in the present state of affairs it is better that I should do so briefly, avoiding statements of detail which will be found in the Papers which will be shortly laid on the Table of your Lordships'
  1600
  House, and avoiding, also, explanations of an argumentative character or which may lead to discussion. In answer to the first Question of my noble Friend, I have to state that the ships sent up are at Constantinople—or, to speak more correctly, they are, as we understand, at anchor at Prince's Island, a few miles below the city. Full discretion has been given to the Admiral to place the ships in the position that might appear to him most conducive to their security; but the anchorage which was suggested by the naval authorities at home as the most convenient has, I believe, been taken up. In answer to the second Question, whether the ships have gone up at the request of the Sultan or against his wish, I have to say that, on hearing the objections taken by the Porte, we at once communicated with that Government on those objections; and I telegraphed to Mr. Layard explaining the absolute necessity, in our judgment, for the ships going up, and I also communicated in the same sense with the Turkish Ambassador in this country. The result of those communications is that, although the Turkish Government has offered a formal protest against the passage of the Dardanelles by the Fleet, it took no step to oppose, or attempt to oppose, its passing. I am bound to add that, while under ordinary circumstances we should, as a matter of course, have respected the objection taken by the Porte, we could not but think that, in present circumstances, the Government of the Porte could hardly be considered a free agent, and that, without any feeling of hostility or jealousy towards this country, the Sultan might naturally, and not unreasonably, have felt a reluctance to incur towards Russia the responsibility which he might apprehend he would incur by granting the permission for which we asked. We therefore thought it better to take the responsibility on ourselves. With regard to the Question as to the course taken by other European Powers, I am afraid I have nothing to add to what I stated on Tuesday. The French and Italian Governments, as I then said, had authorized their Ambassadors to apply for firmans; but subsequently suspended action in the matter. With regard to the course taken by the Austrian Government, I am not yet in a position to speak with certainty. Now, my Lords, as to the Russian intention of occupying Con-

  1601
  stantinople, your Lordships will have seen the Circular Telegram of Prince Gortchakoff which has been published in all the newspapers; and I yesterday received another, which your Lordships will perhaps wish me to read. It is to this effect—
  "The English Government has announced to us that they are going to send a portion of their Fleet to Constantinople for the protection of the life and property of their subjects whose safety was threatened, according to the reports that reach them. We have in view the temporary entry of a part of our troops into Constantinople with exactly the same object, with the distinction that our protection, if required, will be extended to all the Christians. The two Governments would thus be fulfilling a common duty of humanity. It follows that this task, being of a pacific nature, could not assume in any way the character of mutual hostility."— [Turkey, No. 14 (1878). No. 5.]
  My Lords, that telegram is conciliatory and not unfriendly; but I am bound to say we do not admit that the case of a military occupation of the city itself and the case of sending men-of-war into a harbour below the city are parallel cases, and that opinion I have expresssd in a despatch written in reply to the telegram I have just read, which despatch I shall lay upon the Table. That, my Lords, is the position of affairs.
  LORD DUNSANYasked, Whether the whole of the Meet or only a part of it had passed the Dardanelles?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: Not the whole.

TERRITORIAL WATERS JURISDICTION.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORrose, pursuant to Notice, to call the attention of the House to the question of the jurisdiction of the Crown in the territorial waters of the Empire, more especially with reference to the recent case of the "Franconia"(Reg. v. Keyn, Parliamentary Paper No. 56, presented 30th April, 1877), and to present a Bill on the subject. The noble and learned Lord said that the jurisdiction to which he desired to call attention was not the jurisdiction in relation to rivers, bays, or harbours, because in respect of that no controversy had ever arisen; but the jurisdiction over the territorial waters in that belt or zone of the high seas which surrounds the shores of the Empire. This, at first sight, would appear to be a question of law. No
  1602
  doubt it was a question of law; but he rather thought that it was a question of that which had been described as the first law of nature—the law of self-preservation. It was absolutely necessary that, to some extent and in some measure, there should be a territorial jurisdiction over the high seas surrounding the seaboard of every country. No Empire which had a seaboard could be allowed to remain without a jurisdiction of that kind. If, in the case of such an Empire, it was held that the jurisdiction of the Kingdom ended with the dry land, the consequence would be that the subjects of that Kingdom, in the presence of foreigners, would be absolutely without defence from the moment they entered the sea for the purpose of bathing, or fishing, or for any other purpose. Not only so, but when on dry land they would be without protection; because, if no jurisdiction from the land extended to the sea surrounding the seaboard, people from all parts of the world might come to that part of the high sea contiguous to the land and resort to practices which might be of the most serious character to people on shore. So, again, in case of war, hostilities carried on by belligerents outside the shore might expose the interests of a neutral Power to the greatest danger. It might be asked whether the question was not solved—so far, at all events, as down to low-water mark—to which unquestionably the territorial jurisdiction extended? With regard to the low-water mark, it must be remembered that there were parts of the coasts where there were considerable intervals between high and low-water mark; and also there were in the Kingdom, as their Lordships knew, many places where the sea came so close to the cliffs that there was absolutely no horizontal interval between high and low-water marks. It had been suggested, or might be suggested, that if the jurisdiction of this country extended over the part of the high seas immediately adjoining the shore, inasmuch as the right of passage over that part was allowed to foreign ships, it would be unfair to claim such a jurisdiction as against them. He was willing for this purpose to assume the right of passage contended for; but he imagined that it was to be conceded—if conceded—on this footing and this footing only—that those who availed themselves of the right of

  1603
  passage ought so to conduct themselves as that they should not expose themselves to any complaint of a violation of the rights of those by whom the right of passage was conceded. Any such argument would apply to the case of foreign ships coming into one of our bays, where they were bound to conform to our laws and respect our rights. In fact, the right of jurisdiction had always been admitted in respect of territorial waters. What made it necessary to bring this matter under the notice of their Lordships was a case of considerable interest — that of the collision between the Franconia and Strathclyde off Dover, by which a number of persons lost their lives. But for this case, it would hardly have been necessary to detain their Lordships by offering any observations. The Franconia was a German ship, and her master was put on his trial for the manslaughter of one of the passengers of the Strathclyde. He was found guilty; and there was no doubt that the case was one of manslaughter according to our law. The case was fully proved, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. But objection was taken on the trial that, the accused master being a foreigner, and he having been on board a foreign ship at the time the alleged offence was committed, although that ship was then within two miles and a-half of our land, there was no jurisdiction in our Courts, and the verdict must be quashed. That point came before the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, and there was a difference of opinion on the question between the learned Judges. They were 13 in number. Six of the learned Judges thought that the judgment should be maintained, and seven thought that it ought to be quashed. There was a majority of one for the latter view, and the conviction was accordingly quashed. The minority were Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, Lord Justice Brett, Lord Justice Amphlett, Mr. Justice Lindley, Mr. Justice Grove, and Mr. Justice Denman. The majority were the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chief Baron, Sir Robert Phillimore, Lord Justice Bramwell, Mr. Justice Lush, Baron Pollock, and Mr. Justice Field. It was a peculiarity of our jurisprudence that in such cases the question of law had to be searched for and elicited from expressions used by learned Judges in judgments differing
  1604
  from each other and not always couched in such terms as to state exactly the principle of law which the Judges wished to affirm. He would endeavour to explain what he understood to be the main ground of the judgment of the majority of the Judges in the Franconia case. But before he did so, there was an incident which he wished to mention to their Lordships. One of the learned Judges, for whom they all had the greatest respect, and whose judgment, from his experience in criminal cases, was of the greatest weight —Mr. Justice Lush—stated that, though he concurred with the Lord Chief Justice in that learned Judge's view of the case, yet he wished to guard himself in this particular case with respect to the limits of the high seas. He said—
  "I wish to guard myself from being supposed to adopt any words or expressions which may seem to imply a doubt as to the competency of Parliament to legislate as it may think fit for these waters. I think that usage and the common consent of nations, which constitute international law, have appropriated these waters to the adjacent State to deal with them as the State may deem expedient for its own interests. They are, therefore, in the language of diplomacy and of international law, termed by a convenient metaphor the territorial waters of Great Britain, and the same or equivalent phrases are used in some of our statutes, denoting that this belt of sea is under the exclusive dominion of the State. But the dominion is the dominion of Parliament, not the dominion of the common law.…Therefore, although, as between nation and nation, these waters are British territory, as being under the exclusive dominion of Great Britain, in judicial language they are out of the realm, and any exercise of criminal jurisdiction over a foreign ship in these waters must in my judgment be authorized by an Act of Parliament."— [R. v. Keyn, 2 Exch. D. 1876.]
  As he understood these words, if Sir Robert Lush had found that, in the particular place Parliament had stepped in and said that that portion of the water was part of the United Kingdom, he would have been of opinion that the Crown had territorial jurisdiction over it, and that the conviction ought not to be quashed. It was fortunate for the prisoner in the Franconia case, though not fortunate for the vindication of the law, that Mr. Justice Lush was under the impression that that had not been done which really had been done. It appeared that in an Act of 1848 for the Regulation of Customs, there was a provision authorizing the Lords of the Treasury to establish ports in many places where ports were required, and to define their

  1605
  limits. Under that provision, the Lords of the Treasury issued a warrant, which was inserted in The London Gazette of the 3rd March, 1848. In that warrant were these paragraphs—
  "That the limits of the Port of Dover shall commence at St. Margaret's Bay aforesaid, and continue along the said coast of Kent to Copt Point in the said county. That the limits of the port of Folkestone shall commence at Copt Point aforesaid, and continue along the coast to Dungeness, in the said county.
  "And we, the said Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, do further declare that the limits seaward of the said ports shall extend to a distance of three miles from low-water mark out to sea, and that the limits of such ports shall include all islands, bays, harbours, rivers, and creeks within the same respectively."
  So that under Parliamentary powers the proper authorities had declared long before the Franconia case that the limits of the port of Dover extended three miles out to sea. We understood the view of the majority of the Judges to be this— that there was one jurisdiction by land and the other by sea; that the jurisdiction by land was one limited by the limits of counties, taking into the county the low-water mark and the harbours and rivers within the county; that the jurisdiction by sea was the old jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral now exercised by the Central Criminal Court; that the jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral extended to the high seas, but the persons over whom it was exercised must be British subjects, not foreigners; and that the Central Criminal Court had no jurisdiction over the persons of foreigners beyond the low-water mark. That he understood to be the common ground on which the majority of the Judges acted in quashing the conviction. And, taking that as the ratio decidendi of the Judges in a decision which he accepted, it would at first sight appear that there was nothing more for him to do than to ask the favourable consideration of their Lordships for a Bill to amend the law. But there fell some observations from Sir Robert Phillimore, the Lord Chief Baron, and the Lord Chief Justice—whose judgment was the most elaborate and might be regarded as the leading judgment of the majority—which contained a principle that seemed to challenge the right of Parliament to legislate on this subject. Some expressions of the Lord Chief Justice would certainly seem to
  1606
  imply that we could not legislate with respect to the high seas, even within the limits of the belt or zone to which he had referred, without the consent of foreign nations, or until after communication with foreign nations. That was a very serious question. If the judgments of those learned Judges amounted—as they were supposed to do—to a proposition of that kind, of course Parliament would be exceeding its powers if it entered into legislation applying to that belt or zone with the view of making foreigners amenable to our law. But he would ask their Lordships to consider whether there was any foundation for that principle. He ventured to think there was not-—and he thought it would be a very serious thing if there were. He would lay before their Lordships the views of great Constitutional writers of this Kingdom and of the United States on this question. Then he would add the views of international jurists on the Continent, and next he would show what our own Judges had decided in cases of an international character affecting the right of territorial jurisdiction which had come before them judicially; and, lastly, he would direct attention to what their Lordships themselves had done in the course of legislation. If their Lordships referred to Bracton and Selden, they would find that those writers maintained that within "the four seas"—the British Channel, the Irish Channel, the sea on the West and East coasts of Scotland, and the German Ocean—the Crown had jurisdiction, and that they held that the country would not be safe without such jurisdiction. They did not enter into the question how far our jurisdiction extended, because in their times our commerce was not such as to make it necessary for them to do so; but they claimed a jurisdiction over "the four seas." He held that that principle had never been departed from. As years went on and commerce extended, definitions as to distance were adopted; but the principle of the claim to a jurisdiction over the waters round the Kingdom was never given up. He would quote the opinion of Coke—
  "If a man be upon the sea of England, he is within the kingdom or realme of England, and within the ligeance of the King of England, as of his crowne of England. And yet altum mare is out of the jurisdiction of the common law, and within the jurisdiction of the Lord Admirall,

  1607
  whose jurisdiction is verie antient, and long before thereigne of Edward the Third."—[Comm. on Littleton, vol. 2, s. 439.]
  Then Hale, in his Be Jure Maris, said—
  "The part of the sea which lies not within the body of a county is called the main sea or ocean. The narrow sea adjoining to the coast of England is part of the East and demesnes and dominions of the King of England, whether it lie within the body of any county or not. This is abundantly proved by that learned treatise of Master Selden called 'Mare Clausum;' and therefore I shall say nothing therein, but refer the reader thither. In this sea the King of England hath a double right—viz., a right of jurisdiction which he ordinarily exerciseth by his Admiral and a right of propriety or ownership. The latter is that which I shall meddle with."
  Again, in his Pleas of the Crown, Hale said—
  "The realm of England comprehends the narrow seas, and therefore if a war be levied upon those seas, as if any of the King's subjects hostily invade any of the King's ships (which are so many Royal castles), this is a levying of war within his realm, for the narrow seas are of the ligeance of the Crown of England: vide Seldeni Mare Clausum. And this may be tried in the county next adjacent to the coast by an indictment taken by the jurors for that county before special commissioners of over and terminer, de quo vide infra, and in the chapter of piracy."
  That was the view of our great international writers on English law, who did not concern themselves with the extent of the jurisdiction, but with its principle. He would now cite the opinion of the American text writers. What did Kent, in his Commentaries, say?—
  "It is difficult to draw any precise or determinate conclusion, amid the variety of opinions, as to the distance to which a State may lawfully extend its exclusive dominion over the sea adjoining its territories and beyond those portions of the sea which are embraced by harbours, gulfs, bays, and estuaries, and over which its jurisdiction unquestionably extends. All that can reasonably be asserted is that the dominion of the Sovereign of the shore over the contiguous sea extends as far as is requisite for his safety and for some lawful end. A more extended dominion must rest entirely upon force and maritime supremacy. According to the current of modern authority, the general territorial jurisdiction extends into the sea as far as a cannonshot will reach, and no further, and this is generally calculated to be a marine league; and the Congress of the United States have recognized this limitation by authorizing the district Courts to take cognizance of all captures made within a marine league of the American shores."
  1608
  Then Wheaton gave this opinion—
  "The controversy how far the open sea or main ocean beyond the immediate boundary of the coasts may be appropriated by one nation to the exclusion of others can hardly be considered open at this day." We have already seen that by the generally approved usage of nations, which forms the basis of international law, the maritime territory of every State extends (1) to the ports, harbours, bays, mouths of rivers, and adjacent parts of the sea enclosed by headlands belonging to the same State. (2) to the distance of a marine league, or as far as a cannon-shot will reach from the shore, along all the coasts of the State."
  And afterwards—
  "The reasons which forbid the assertion of an exclusive proprietary right to the sea in general will be found inapplicable to the particular portions of that element included in the above designations."—[Wheaton, 187–188.]
  And Bishop, in his Criminal Law, (Bk. iv. c. 5. 3. 74), states—
  "A nation bordering on the sea can hold actual possession of it as far from the shore as cannon-balls will reach, while dominion to this extent is necessary for the safety of the inhabitants, who might otherwise, being neutral, be cut down in time of war by the artillery of the belligerents contending on the water. And so much of ocean, the authorities agree, is within the territorial Sovereignty which controls the adjacent shores. A cannon-shot is for this purpose estimated at a marine league, which is a little short of three and a half of our English miles, or exactly 3·4517. But the rule of computing a cannon-shot as a marine league for this purpose was established before the late improvements in guns and gunnery, and, in reason, the distance would seem now to require extension, though the author is not able to refer to any sufficient authority showing the extension to have been actually made in the law of nations."
  The real principle which seems to be upheld by all the international jurists was that in extent so much jurisdiction must be given to every country as was necessary for its defence and protection. Different estimates were made by different international jurists. For instance, Alberius Gentilis fixes the limit at 100 miles; Baldus and Bodinus, 60 miles; Loccenius, two days' sail; Casaregis, 100 miles; Valin, "as far as soundings can be had;" Puffendorff refers to Baldus's and Bodinus's limit, 60 miles, and calls it "an accessory to the land as much as the ditch of a town is an accessory to the town;" Grotius, "as much of the sea as can be commanded from the land;" Bynkershoek and Wolff, same as Grotius; Hubner calls this part of the sea an "accessory "to the land; Lampredi," as much as is necessary to

  1609
  protect the shore;" Ortolan (chapitore de la Mer Territoriale,) "the sovereignty of the sea has for its limits the distance a cannon will carry." The opinions of Moser, Vattel, Martens, Schmaltz, and Hautefeuille, would be gathered from the extracts he should now have occasion to read. In citing the opinion of some international jurists as to the jurisdiction itself, Moser said—
  "The sea which borders on the coast of a country is indisputably, according to the law of nations, under the sovereignty of the adjacent land, so far as a cannon-shot will reach."
  Vattel laid it down—
  "In general the dominion of the State over the neighbouring sea extends as far as it is necessary for her safety, or it can make her power respected, and her power is able to assert it."
  Again, the same writer said—
  "Now-a-days, all the extent of sea which is within reach of cannon-shot from the shore is considered as forming part of the territory. For this reason a vessel taken under the cannon of a neutral fortress is not a good prize."
  Martens stated—
  "So a nation may assert an exclusive right to the neighbouring portions of the sea capable of being maintained from the shore. At this day all European nations agree that, as a rule, straits, bays, gulfs, and the neighbouring sea belong to the master of the coast, to the extent, at least, of a cannon-shot from the shore. In a number of treaties the wider range of three leagues has even been adopted."
  Schmaltz laid it down that—
  "The parts of the sea which bathe the coast have always been considered to be the property of the country which they bound.…In Europe the opinion of jurists who have treated the matter philosophically has been systematically adopted. According to this principle the sea should belong to the continent as far as the defence of the shore can extend, of which a cannon-shot was to be taken as the measure. At a later period the distance has been fixed arbitrarily at three marine leagues."
  And this was from Hautefeuille—
  "These territorial waters are the property of the nations possessing the shores, and, consequently, these nations have within such, waters all the rights of sovereignty without exception, as though it were on so much land…Foreigners entering this reserved territory must submit to the law of the Sovereign in all that concerns their relations with the land and its inhabitants, as though they were on the land. The limit of the territorial sea is fixed by the principle from which its territorial character arises. It extends as far as the sea can be commanded from the shore, but no further."
  1610
  The result of these concurrent opinions was that it appeared to be established as a matter of principle that there must be a zone or limit of the sea over which a State had jurisdiction. The only doubt was as to how far the limit extended. The authorities were clear on this—that, if three miles were not found sufficient for the purpose of defence and protection, or if the nature of the trade or commerce in the zone required it, there was a power in the country on the seaboard to extend the zone. At present there was a consensus of opinion among the authorities that certainly the jurisdiction extended to three miles. If that were not the established law, nations with a seaboard would be very much worse off than those which had none; because a neighbour on land you could make a treaty with or treat as an enemy; but if a nation with a seaboard had no control over a zone of a certain distance, it would be constantly liable to dangerous aggression from beyond the sea. He would now refer their Lordships to the judicial opinions of our most eminent Judges on this subject. In a case in which Prussia claimed restitution of a ship seized by an English man-of-war within three miles of Prussian territory, Lord Stowell said—
  "A claim has boon given for the Prussian Government, asserting the capture to have been made within the Prussian territory. It has been contended that although the act of capture itself might not have taken place within the neutral territory, yet that the ship to which the capturing boats belonged was actually lying within the neutral limits. The first fact to be determined is the character of the place where the capturing ship lay, whether she was actually stationed within those portions of land and water, or of something between water and land, which are considered to be within Prussian territory. She was lying within the eastern branch of the Ems, within what I think may be considered at a distance of three miles at most from East Friesland.… I am of opinion that the ship was lying within those limits in which all direct operations are by the law of nations forbidden to be exercised. No proximate acts of war are in any manner to be allowed to originate on neutral ground, and I cannot but think that such an act as this, that a ship should station herself on neutral territory and send out her boats on hostile enterprises, is an act of hostility much too immediate to be permitted. The capture cannot be maintained."—[The Twee Gebroeders, 3 c. Rob., 162.]
  In another case—that of the Maria — (1 c. Bob. 350) Lord Stowell said—
  "It might likewise be improper for me to pass over entirely without notice, as another

  1611
  preliminary observation, though without meaning to lay any particular stress on it, that the transaction in question took place in the British Channel, close upon the British coast, a station over which the Crown of England has from pretty remote antiquity always asserted something of that special jurisdiction which the Sovereigns of other countries have claimed and exercised over certain parts of the seas adjoining to their coasts."
  He would now refer their Lordships to an opinion expressed by Sir John Nicholl on a claim by a lord of a manor to goods derelict. Sir John said—
  "As to the right of the lord extending three miles beyond low water, it is quite extravagant as a jurisdiction belonging to any manor. As between nation and nation, the territorial right may, by a sort of tacit understanding, be extended to three miles; but that rests upon different principles—namely, that their own subjects shall not be disturbed in their fishing, and particularly in their coasting trade and communications between place and place during the war. They would be exposed to danger if hostilities were allowed to be carried on between belligerents nearer to the shore than three miles."
  He would also refer to a case which occurred when the Duke of Wellington held the office now held by his noble Friend (Earl Granville)—that of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports—the holder of the Wardenship being also High Admiral of those Ports. In 1829, within three miles of one of the Cinque Ports, some fishermen at sea were fortunate enough to discover a whale valued at £370. A claim to the fish was made by the Lord Warden, and the Admiralty claimed against him. The learned Judge who tried the question came to the conclusion that the office of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports was more ancient than that of Lord High Admiral, and the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports succeeded in carrying off the whale. What were the views of Dr. Lushington? In a case which came before him, under the Merchant Shipping Acts, he asked—
  "What are the limits of the United Kingdom? The only answer I can conceive to that question is, the land of the United Kingdom and three miles from the shore."
  Again, the same learned Judge, speaking on the question of compulsory pilotage, said—
  "The Parliament of Great Britain, it is true, has not, according to the principles of public law, any authority to legislate for foreign vessels on the high seas, or for foreigners out of the limits of British jurisdiction; though, if Parliament thought fit to do so, this Court, in its instance jurisdiction at least, would be bound
  1612
  to obey. In cases admitting of doubt, the presumption would be that Parliament intended to legislate without violating any rule of international law, and the construction has been accordingly. Within, however, British jurisdiction—namely, within British territory, and at sea within three miles from the coast, and within all British rivers intra fauces, and over foreigners in British ships, I apprehend that the British Parliament has an undoubted right to legislate."
  Then he would add to that the opinion of the late Lord Wensleydale in that House in "Gammell v. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests," a well-known Scotch salmon fishery case—
  "It may be worth while to observe that it would be hardly possible to extend it seaward beyond the distance of three miles, which, by the acknowledged law of nations, belongs to the coast of the country, is under the dominion of the country by being within cannon range, and so capable of being kept in perpetual possession."—[3 Macq. 465.]
  In advising that House in another case, a noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford), whom he was glad to see there to-night, and who held the Office which he (the Lord Chancellor) had the honour to hold, said—
  "The three miles limit depends upon a rule of International Law, by which every independent State is considered to have territorial property and jurisdiction in the seas which wash their coast within the assumed distance of a cannon shot from the shore."
  He would conclude his enumeration of authorities by referring to the opinion expressed by another noble and learned Friend (Lord Hatherley) of his, whom he was also glad to see there. His noble and learned Friend, in the case of a collision between a foreign and a British ship, said—
  "With respect to foreign ships, I shall adhere to the opinion which I expressed in 'Cope v. Doherty,' that a foreign ship meeting a British ship on the open ocean cannot properly be abridged of her rights by an Act of the British Legislature. Then comes the question, how far our Legislature could properly affect the rights of foreign ships within the limits of three miles from the coast of this country. There can be no possible doubt that the water below low-water mark is part of the high sea. But it is equally beyond question that for certain purposes every country may, by the common law of nations, exercise jurisdiction over that portion of the high seas which lies within three miles from its shores."
  In the case of the "Free Fisheries of Whitstable v. Gunn"(H.H.M. 208), Sir William Earle said—

  1613
  "The soil of the sea-shore to the extent of three miles from the beach is rested in the Crown."
  Now, these were the opinions — and, as far as he was aware, there was no opinion in the other way—of the eminent Judges who had considered this subject. He had said that he would inform their Lordships what had been done in the way of legislation. He might refer their Lordships to many Acts of Parliament, but he would only refer to one. He would take the last edition of the Foreign Enlistment Act. That was an Act as regarded which, if the words "deliberation" and "care" might ever be applied to the passing of an Act, they might be applied to the passing of it. It was brought forward by the Government of the day under the advice of its Legal Advisers. It received, also, the gravest consideration from many persons outside the Government who interested themselves in questions of that kind. What that Act did was this —it was applicable, and necessarily so, to foreigners, and it provided that "this Act shall extend to all the dominions of Her Majesty, including the adjacent territorial waters." He had troubled their Lordships with these references because he felt bound, after the doubts supposed to be cast on the question, to establish the position, that their Lordships were entitled to legislate as he proposed—that it was a right which we could exercise for ourselves and which did not depend on the consent of other nations, and was a right which he asked their Lordships to exercise again in order to obviate an objection that had arisen in respect of the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Crown. Her Majesty's Government did not wish to make any new enactment as regarded the case of British subjects within the territorial waters of this country—no person doubted the full jurisdiction of the Crown over them. It was only in the case of those who were not British subjects that doubts had been expressed. With regard to those who might be foreigners, and temporarily within the three-mile limit, Her Majesty's Government wished that there should not be an absolute necessity of proceeding against them for a breach of our law. The Bill, therefore, commenced by declaring that—
  "The rightful jurisdiction of Her Majesty extends and always has extended over the open seas adjacent to the coasts of Her Majesty's
  1614
  dominions to such a distance as is necessary for the defence and security of such dominions,"
  and that—
  "it is expedient that all offences committed on the open sea within a certain distance of our coasts, by whomsoever committed, should be dealt with according to law;"
  it therefore proceeds to enact that—
  "an offence committed by a person who is not a subject of Her Majesty, on the open sea, within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions, is an offence within the jurisdiction of the Admiral, although it may have been committed on board of or by means of a foreign ship, and such offence may be tried and punished accordingly."
  The proceedings for any such offence were not to be instituted except with the consent of the Secretary of State or the Governor of the Colony where it was proposed they should be instituted. All existing jurisdictions were saved; and the third section of the Definition Clause was as follows:—
  "'The territorial waters of the dominions of Her Majesty' in reference to the sea, means such part of the sea adjacent to the coast of the United Kingdom, or the coast of some other part of Her Majesty's dominions, as is deemed by International Law to be within the territorial sovereignty of Her Majesty; and, for the purpose of any offence under this Act, any part of the open sea within one marine league of the coast measured from low-water mark shall be deemed to be open sea within the territorial waters of the dominions of Her Majesty."
  He asked their Lordships to read the Bill a first time, and he proposed the second reading for this day week.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, he agreed generally with all what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend. The necessity for the introduction of a Bill like this must have been obvious to everybody since the decision in the case of the Franconia. So far as that case proceeded, on the technical ground of the jurisdiction over a criminal offence on the high seas within the territorial waters of this country, he did not profess to entertain an opinion which would entitle him even to criticize the judgment of the majority of the learned Judges; but he must say that on reading some of the opinions then delivered, there did appear to him to be passages in them, which threw doubt upon the existence of any proper right of sovereignty over those waters which all writers had agreed in describ-

  1615
  ing as territorial. Every other nation claimed a similar right, and, until that judgment, he had not supposed that there was any doubt among lawyers as to its existence. The fact that Selden, and earlier writers, had claimed too much on the part of this country, was indisputable; but he could not think this was a reason for hesitating to declare that the jurisdiction of this nation extended as far to seaward as the distance which had long since been universally acknowledged to be necessary for the independence and security of its shores. It was by the general consent of nations that the three-mile limit had been fixed, and within that limit other nations claimed exactly the same jurisdiction and rights that we ourselves claimed. The Bill proposed, very properly, to assert our right to punish criminal offences committed within that limit; and it was for that reason that he approved it. He did not object to the Preamble of the Bill, which expressed the principle of the right, rather than its conventional limit; nor did he say that his noble and learned Friend was wrong in leaving it open for consideration—so far as the Bill went— whether that right might, under possible future circumstances, be capable of extension. But he was not himself satisfied that any nation would be justified in an attempt to extend it, by its own internal legislation, beyond the recognized three-mile limit. It had been sometimes argued that, in consequence of the increase in the range of artillery, that limit should be extended to five or even six miles; but he doubted whether it would be very prudent to claim an extended zone because cannon were now constructed that would carry twice the old distance. The conventional line of three miles had been long and very generally received; and he, therefore, thought that it was safer to take the course proposed by the Bill, which was to adhere to that distance. If nations having seaboards should desire an extension of the zone, an understanding could be arrived at to that effect; but he thought it could not be done except by international assent.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETasked whether the Bill would touch the question whether, in the case of bays, the three-mile limit would be measured from the shore, or from a line drawn from one headland to the other head-
  1616
  land; also, whether any foreign ship would include ship of war?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORreplied that ships of war would not come within the provisions of the Bill; and that the measure in no way touched the question relating to the measurement of distances.
  A Bill to regulate the Law relating to the trial of offences committed on the sea within a certain distance of the coasts of Her Majesty's dominions—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read laa. (No. 23.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.