Sitting of 1 March 1878

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered—First Reading —Statute Law Revision (Ireland)* [122].
Second Beading— Exchequer Bonds (£1,000,000)*

121
. Committee —Factories and Workshops [3]—R.P.
Third Heading — Matrimonial Causes Acts Amendment*[117], and passed.
Withdrawn — Judicature Acts Amendment *[91].

QUESTIONS.
  COAL MINES ACT—MINE INSPECTORS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the answer of Mr. Inspector Moore to 8,159 question of the evidence in the Blantyre Colliery Explosion, which reads as follows:—
    "I just want to say again that unless a complaint is made to me I have no reason to think that the rules are neglected;"
    and, again—
    "I do not consider it my duty at all to go into a mine to ferret out complaints;"
    whether such a view of the duty of an inspector of mines be in accordance with the directions as to the duties of an inspector of mines by the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and, further, if such views be correct, what is the object of the forty-fifth Clause of the Act relating to coal mines?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, that certainly is not my view of the duties of an Inspector; but I think it hardly fair to take single extracts from the evidence of Mr. Moore, and to found Questions upon them; because, in conversation with that gentleman, I have found no reason to think that he differs in opinion in any way from me as to what the duties of an Inspector really are. I can afford the hon. Gentleman this information—that I have thought it wise to codify the rules that have been laid down from time to time for the guidance of Inspectors. They are not yet quite complete, but as soon as they are I shall be happy to lay them upon the Table of the House, and the hon. Member will then see that this point is especially guarded against.

  NAVY—CHARGES FOR PILOTAGE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. DALRYMPLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in correction of a Question put to him on the 18th ultimo on the subject of a payment to a pilot who towed Her Majesty's ship "Nelson" to Greenock, and which should have referred not to the "Nelson" but to the
    536
    sister-ship the "Northampton," Whether the same pilot, who towed Her Majesty's ship "Northampton" to Greenock, did not receive less than would have been paid for towing a merchant ship of the same draught; and, whether an application for additional remuneration was refused?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, I am not aware if it was the same pilot who towed both the Nelson and the Northampton to Greenock; but the pilot who took H.M.S. Northampton was paid the full amount due for pilotage by the Admiralty scale—namely, £2 10 s. 8d. per stage, which is 3s. 4d. less than the sum that would be paid for a merchant ship of the same draught. An application for additional remuneration was made, but was not complied with, on the ground that the scale of payment, which had been framed to meet general cases, could not be altered for the Service in question. The difference between the amounts paid in the cases of the Northampton and Nelson arises from the fact that for the latter ship an allowance for six days' attendance, in addition to the pilotage, was granted. In the pilotage certificate for the Northampton, no mention of any attendance was made.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION — RUSSIA AND TURKEY— THE TREATIES OF 1856 AND 1871.—QUESTION.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, during the negotiations for Peace between Russia and Turkey, the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and of the other Powers parties to the Treaties of 1856 and 1871, has been directed to the Declaration signed at London on the 17th of January, 1871, and subsequently adopted by the Government of France, in the following words:—
  "The Plenipotentiaries of North Germany, of Austria-Hungary, of Great Britain, of Italy, of Russia, and of Turkey, assembled to day in Conference, recognize that it is an essential principle of the Law of Nations that no Power can literate itself from the engagements of a Treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting Powers by means of an amicable arrangement;"
  and, whether any intimation had been conveyed to the Governments of Turkey and Russia to the effect that no engagements taken between them and in any way

  537
  affecting the stipulations of European Treaties would be valid in International Law until they receive the assent of the other Powers parties to the said Treaties; and that any compact, agreement, or Treaty entered into separately or secretly between the Russian and Turkish Governments affecting such stipulations will be in contravention of the principle of the Law of Nations as laid down by the Declaration in question? The hon. Baronet added that his Question was principally addressed to the news we had received of the re-organization, under a Russian system, of the Bulgarian Principality.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I think the best answer I can give to my hon. Friend is to refer him to what he will find in the Papers already laid on the Table of the House. If he will look at Papers, Turkey, No. 3, 1878, page 5, he/will see that on the 14th of January Her Majesty's Government instructed Lord Augustus Loftus to state to Prince Gortchakoff—
  "That, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, any Treaty concluded between the Government of Russia and the Porte affecting the Treaties of 1856 and 1871 must he an European Treaty, and would not be valid without the assent of the Powers who were parties to those Treaties."
  Again, in Turkey, No. 5, 1878, page 3, my hon. Friend will see that on the 25th of January Her Majesty's Government issued a Circular Despatch to their Representatives at Paris, Vienna, Berlin, and Rome, stating, with reference to the pending peace negotiations between Russia and Turkey, that they could not recognize the validity of the arrangements that might be come to—
  "Unless they shall be made the subject of a formal agreement by the Powers parties to the Treaty of Paris. Her Majesty's Government entertain the hope that the view of the case above stated, which is entirely based upon the Treaties, and more especially upon the Treaty of London of 1871, will receive the assent of the other Powers who were parties to those Treaties."
  On the 30th of January—Turkey No. 5 —Lord Augustus Loftus telegraphed that he had communicated to the Russian Government the views of Her Majesty's Government as to the validity of the bases of peace, and that Prince Gortchakoff had replied that the bases then being negotiated were—
  538
  "Only to be considered as preliminaries, and not definitive as regarded Europe. His Highness stated categorically that questions bearing on European interests will be concerted with European Powers, and he had given Her Majesty's Government clear and positive assurances to this effect.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)— LUNDY ISLAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. MONKasked the Postmaster General, Whether, having regard to the fact that no local interest would be specially benefited by the establishment of telegraphic communication with Lundy Island, he is now prepared to lay down a cable to that island without insisting upon a local guarantee?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, I regret that I do not feel justified in laying a telegraphic cable to Lundy Island except under a guarantee. I understand, however, that a company is about to be formed for the purpose of establishing telegraphic communication with the island, and I have informed those mainly interested that the Post Office will carry messages to and from the landing-place of the cable at the ordinary rates.

  DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTRY, LICHFIELD.—QUESTION.
  MR. MUNTZasked the Secretary to the Treasury, there being at present a vacancy in the appointment of a District Registrar of the Court of Probate at Lichfield, Whether he would consider the desirability of leaving the vacancy unfilled until some arrangement could be made to include at least South Staffordshire in the Birmingham Probate Registry, in order to obviate the existing inconvenience arising from so large a number of the inhabitants of South Staffordshire being intimately connected with Birmingham?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, some little time ago, in anticipation of the present vacancy in the District Probate Registry at Lichfield, I caused a letter to be addressed to the Lord Chancellor, suggesting that when the vacany occurred the question of uniting this registry with that at Birmingham should be considered. No answer has yet been received from his Lordship, but the hon. Member will perceive that the object which he has in view was not lost sight of at the Treasury. The matter depends

  539
  entirely upon local considerations, and the convenience of the persons concerned, as well as upon the view which the Lord Chancellor may take of it.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE—THE ANNUAL RETURN.—QUESTION.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Why the annual Return, containing the details of the receipts and expenditure of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, presented to the House pursuant to Act of Parliament, up to 1869, has been discontinued; whether there is, since the discontinuance of such Return, any means open to the public, or Members, of ascertaining those details of receipts and expenditure; and, whether in English cities the police courts are partly maintained out of local funds, as as they appear to be in Dublin, according to the Return of 1869?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the reason why the Return alluded to in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question has been discontinued is that a new system of accounts was established in 1868 by the Treasury, under the control of the Public Accounts Commissioners. Since then the total cost of the establishment is voted by Parliament, and the amount of local income or extra receipts is paid over to the Exchequer. Full details of expenditure are given in the annual volume of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland, and in the Appropriation Accounts. For example, if the hon. Member will refer to page 228 of Appropriation Accounts, 1876–77, he will find a detail of the expenditure. If he will refer to page 106 of "Judicial Statistics" volume for 1876, he will find further particulars as to expenditure. The details as to local receipts are given in the volume of local taxation statistics, presented annually to Parliament. With respect to English cities, I understand that with the exception of the metropolis the police courts are maintained entirely out of local funds. As to the metropolis, the police courts in the City of London are maintained out of City funds, and the metropolitan police courts out of Imperial funds.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—NAVIGATION OF THE DANUBE.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
  540
  If he can state what progress has been made towards clearing the River Danube for navigation between Sulina and Galatz; and, if it is correct that the Russian authorities have placed the management of the river, pro tern, under the supervision of the Danubian Commissioners?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, we have heard that the Russian authorities have placed themselves in communication with the Danube Commissioners with the view of having the obstruction removed from the Sulina branch of the Danube. The obstruction was placed there some months ago. Her Majesty's Government have not yet heard whether the works have been commenced, nor whether any progress had been made at all in that direction.

  METROPOLITAN BUILDING ACT, 1855— ALL SAINTS' CHURCH, LAMBETH.

    QUESTION.
    MR. COWPER-TEMPLEasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Under what statute the Board has threatened to seize the goods and chattels of the Vicar of All Saints Lambeth, for repayment of the cost of repairs of the church executed by the Board, while the Vicar protests that he is not personally liable by Law for such repairs, and that he is not the owner of the fabric, in the sense of receiving rents or profits from it?
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, in answer to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to state that upon the 9th of May, 1876, an accident occurred in consequence of a portion of the stonework of the tower of All Saints Church, Lower Marsh, Lambeth, falling to the ground, and the structure was afterwards reported as in a dangerous state, and the Metropolitan Board of Works incurred an expenditure of upwards of £100 in executing the necessary repairs. Churches are expressly included within the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, as "public buildings," and by the 73rd section of the Act of Parliament all expenses incurred by the Board in respect of any dangerous structure are to be paid by the owner of the building. Upon May 10, 1877, the magistrate at the Lambeth police court, after hearing the case, made an order upon

    541
    the Vicar for payment of £105 19 s., 5d. and costs; and the Board has been advised that, as owner of the fabric, the Vicar is personally liable to make the payment, but, in order that the question may be decided by the Superior Court, the Board, instead of requiring a distress warrant to issue in a summary manner, directed further proceedings to be taken, in order to ascertain whether the Vicar is personally liable. Until such liability is established by the Courts, it is not the intention of the Board to enforce the order of the magistrate.

  ARMY—STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—THE PERAK EXPEDITION—ALLOWANCES TO TROOPS.—QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the allowances to the officers and men of the Perak Expedition have not been paid, and when they are likely to be?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, owing to the fact that the forces engaged in the Perak Expedition were drawn partly from India, and partly from other stations, and were in consequence subject to different regulations as regards pay, there has been some question as to the scales on which the extra allowances should be calculated. This, however, has now been settled, and the allowances will be issued forthwith. Indeed I understand that in a few cases, payment has already been made.

MOTIONS.

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

  THE POOR LAW—ELECTION OF POOR LAW GUARDIANS.

    MOTION FOE A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. HIBBERT,in rising to move—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the system under which Guardians of the Poor in England and Ireland, and Members of Parochial Boards in Scotland, and Members of Local Boards, are at present elected; and to report whether it is desirable to make any change in the manner of conducting such electione, either by the adoption of the ballot or
    542
    otherwise; and also, whether it is desirable to extend the term of office for which Guardians and Members of Parochial Boards are now elected,"
    said, that in 1834 the Boards of Guardians had forced upon them the great work of carrying out the new Poor Law, and it would be admitted that they had satisfactorily performed the duties entrusted to them. Since that time a large amount of the administrative work of the rural districts had been cast upon the Guardians. They had been entrusted with the execution of the Sanitary Acts, and a short time ago the education of the rural districts had been placed in their hands. The machinery by which the Guardians were elected was very well suited to quiet times, but it would not stand the pressure of political excitement. They were elected by a system of voting papers on the principle of the cumulative vote. That system had given rise to various abuses of late years. The Clerk of the Union, who was the returning officer, appointed certain persons whenever there was a contest to go round and deliver the voting papers on a certain day. Formerly two days were allowed to elapse between the delivery and collection of the papers; but an order issued by the Local Government Board last year required that the papers should be collected on the day after they were delivered. No doubt this was an improvement; and yet some of the worst of the abuses which had come to his knowledge had occurred since the new order was issued. He would now state some of these abuses. The first place to which he would refer was Oldham, a town which he had the honour to represent. In that town the election of Guardians had, he was sorry to say, become a political matter. Indeed, all through Lancashire, since household suffrage had been established for Parliamentary elections, all other elections were conducted on political grounds. Last year, in one ward at Oldham, the voting papers were distributed on Saturday, the 7th of April, and collected on Monday, the 9th. That gave an additional day. During the interval persons called, desiring to be allowed to fill up the papers. This was allowed in many cases, and it was afterwards found they had filled them up incorrectly. In some cases the people, on finding this

    543
    out, rather than allow their votes to be given for a candidate to whom they were opposed, burnt the papers; in others they refused to give them up. In other cases persons called at the houses and got possession of the voting papers, under the pretence of some mistake having been made, promising to bring new papers, which, of course, they failed to do. Unauthorized persons also called on voters, and got possession of their voting papers, which they destroyed or withheld from the collectors. The result was that hundreds of voters were disfranchised and had no means of redress. The same practices were carried out in other parts of the country, numerous instances of which had been communicated to him. The Board of Guardians of Nottingham, in a Memorial to the Local Government Board in 1876, stated that at a recent election a wholesale attempt had been made to tamper with the voting papers. In a district numbering 100 houses, no voting papers had been delivered at all. The missing papers were found in other collectors' bags, all filled up for the same candidate and in the same handwriting, and were rejected by the returning officer on the ground that the signatures were forgeries. The Guardians also went on to say that the system of election which had been adopted opened a wide field for bribery and corrupt practices. The same Board of Guardians had written to the Local Government Board this year, pressing upon them the necessity of making an alteration in the mode of election, and the tenure of office. They asked the Local Government Board to authorize the election of Guardians for three years, one-third of the number to retire annually. Nor were complaints on this subject confined to provincial towns; they were heard also in the metropolis. Great abuses had been discovered in the St. George's Union, Westminster, and he believed the Local Government Board had been asked to hold an inquiry. A very good plan was adopted there of engaging the police to deliver the papers; but a man in one district followed the policeman and delivered at the same time another paper in favour of four candidates. A gentleman who saw this done in Ashley Place for some time, and saw the man place the second paper within the voting paper, remonstrated with the policeman; but the
    544
    policeman said he did not know he was doing anything wrong, because he supposed the man was employed officially. If such an affair could occur even when policemen were employed, he thought they required greater protection in carrying out such elections. He had received statements on the subject from all parts of the country. A gentleman wrote from Prescot to say that he had three times contested the parish, and the result of the election simply depended upon the quantity of beer given away. In a colliery district of Lancashire the manager of one of the collieries compelled all the men to bring their voting papers to the office to be filled up, and sent men back to fetch their papers who came without them. In the autumn of last year he (Mr. Hibbert) presided at a conference of Guardians of Lancashire and Cheshire, and a resolution was then come to, in favour of a revision of the system, and an alteration of the tenure of office. It was then stated that in the West Derby Union, persons employed to deliver papers gave them promiscuously to passers by, and others abstained from discharging their duty at all. It was also stated that in Manchester the delivering officers went round with a bottle of gin in one pocket and a bottle of brandy in the other, and the papers were marked by them in the houses. If such practices were carried on in a great number of places, he thought the House would agree with him that the time had come for a revision of the system. It was no doubt a good one at the beginning for securing quiet elections, but it was not adapted for populous towns. In country places where there was little excitement it could be carried out very well. He could not avoid drawing attention to the fact, that in many of the local board districts they might have four different systems of election carried out. The members of the local board and the Guardians might be elected by voting papers; if there was a burial board the members would be elected by personal attendance at the vestry room; if a school board election had to be carried out, they had the ballot and the cumulative vote. There was, in fact, a perfect chaos of system. There was an election for the burial board on the 26th of March; on the 5th of April for the local board; and on the 9th of April for Guardians. The voting papers,

    545
    where there was a contest, were collected by different sets of men; there was a different returning officer in each case; and the ratepayers were, therefore, put to much additional trouble, and the locality to additional expense. If there was but one election for all these purposes on one day, and one nomination paper, it would be a great advantage. Then there was the question of small parishes. There were between 14,000 and 15,000 parishes where an election of Guardians must be held. Many of these parishes were very small indeed. In Northumberland, where the parishes were smallest of all the counties in England, there were 113 parishes with a population in each under 50; 109 parishes with a population between 50 and 10; one parish with a population of only 1; one with a population of 3; two parishes with a population of 4; one with a population of 5; four with a population of 6; three with a population of 7; and three with a population of 9. It was almost absurd to conduct elections of Guardians in these small parishes. In the South-Eastern counties there were 66 parishes, each of which had a population under 50; 181 with a population of between 50 and 100; and 163 with between 100 and 200. He thought the Local Government Board should consider the question of relieving these small parishes from the important duties now imposed on them by law. With regard to the mode of election, hon. Members would of course gather that he was in favour of the ballot. He would, no doubt, be met with the objection that the ballot was expensive; but the number of contests in the country was so small that he did not think it would prove very expensive. In 1873 there were only 601 contests out of 14,000 or 15,000 elections, in 1874 only 681, and in 1875 only 720. He therefore thought the expense should not deter them from the adoption of the ballot. The Guardians were called upon to undertake very important duties, and by the County Government Bill still more important duties were assigned to them, such as the election of members for the county board, and, therefore, the mode of election for Guardians ought to be as pure as possible. By the present system of voting papers they did not obtain the real opinion of the electors. Owing to the intricacy of the voting
    546
    papers many of them were useless. In the Chorlton Union, Manchester, out of 11,000 voting papers distributed in one township, only 2,531 were returned as good votes; in Aston township, Birmingham, in 1877, out of 32,000 voting papers distributed, only 5,192 were good votes. By the ballot they would get the real opinion of the electors. In proposing to adopt the ballot he entirely disclaimed political views; but he thought it one of the surest and best means of remedying the great abuses of the present system. He now came to the question of the tenure of office. The tenure now was for one year, and he had never yet met with any one who took part in local government who was not in favour of an extension of that time. He did not think the time was long enough to enable Guardians, however clever they might be, to become thoroughly acquainted with their duties. No doubt the Local Government Board had power, with the consent of the majority of the owners of property and the ratepayers of any parish, to extend the term of office from one to a greater number of years; and, he believed, the term had been extended in several instances. He did not think it desirable to add to the chaos which already existed by having Guardians elected in some Unions for only one year, while in others they were elected for three years. Every other board had now to be elected for three years. The members of the metropolitan vestries, the provincial municipalities, the local boards, and the school boards were elected for three years, and in the case of the former, one-third of the members retired annually—a detail which he was inclined to think it would be well to adopt in the case of Guardians rather than to incur the risk of so great a change in a board as would be possible if all members retired at the same time. He knew it might be said there would be a difficulty in the way of this in the case of a small parish returning but one Guardian; but to obviate this difficulty, throe small parishes might be combined for the election of three members, so that one could retire annually. In Ireland there was a strong feeling in favour of the election of Guardians by ballot; indeed, Bills to legalize it had been before the House in former Sessions, and there was one at the present time. He therefore proposed to embrace Ireland

    547
    in the inquiry. He had, at the request of several Scotch Members, also included the parochial boards of Scotland. And he was told by them, though he could not vouch for it himself, that great abuses had taken place in some of the large towns of Scotland in the carrying out of the system of voting papers. The abuses which occurred in that country were very similar to what occurred here. It seemed to him, besides, that Scotland was in a worse position than England, because nearly every parish in the country elected its managers on a different day, this being fixed in some cases by the boards themselves, and in others by the magistrates, so that, in fact, they had in Scotland elections taking place nearly every day in the year. Every year additional duties and responsibilities were being cast upon Guardians, and it was therefore of increasing importance that their election should be carried out in the best manner possible. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
    MR. PELL,in seconding the Motion, said, he advocated inquiry without pledging himself at all as to the views which the terms of the Resolution might be supposed to indicate. He trusted the inquiry would be an open one, and that it would not in any way be limited by the terms of the Reference. He thought the feeling of the House and of the country was in favour of inquiry, not only into the office of Guardian, but also into the mode of election and qualification for other parochial offices. A different qualification was required for a Guardian from that for a member of the highway board, a burial board, or a local board, and in some respects each differed from the other. In fact, the qualifications of the members of the different boards varied almost as much as the modes of electing them. In the election of highway boards a person rated at over £50 had a vote for every additional £25, but for local boards, only one vote for every £50. There was also inconvenience affecting the votes of owners, who, in some instances, lost their votes if they had not formally claimed to be put upon a register. There were further anomalies in regard to plural voting. He thought a good case had been shown for inquiry, if for nothing more. In regard to the proposed election of Guardians for three
    548
    years, he thought now there was a prospect of the establishment of county boards, there was a reason why the Guardians should hold office for that period. He thought the election should be annual, and preferred that one-third should go out annually than that the whole body should go out at the end of three years.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the system under which Guardians of the Poor in England and Ireland, and Members of Parochial Boards in Scotland, and Members of Local Boards, are at present elected; and to report whether it is desirable to make any change in the manner of conducting such elections, either by the adoption of the ballot or otherwise; and also, whether it is desirable to extend the term of office for which Guardians and Members of Parochial Boards are now elected,"—(Mr. Hibbert,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) had made out so clear a case for a Committee that he did not think the discussion could continue long. One ground, however, which his hon. Friend had passed lightly over seemed to him a strong ground for inquiry, and that was as to the working of the system in purely country parishes. He (Mr. W. E. For-ster) believed the present system worked in the country as they might expect it would work, and that was very badly. He did not think it would be possible —it certainly would not be easy—to form any system of voting which would give so much room for illicit influence as the present. A man received a voting paper on the Monday, say, and it was not returned till the Wednesday, or even later. For the whole of the intervening time until he signed his paper, he was open to influence. In rural districts this influence was openly used; but in most places the effect of the present system was that there was hardly any attempt at any election at all. He thought there was another reason why they should grant the inquiry, and that was the very important position which the Guardians were going to occupy under the Bill which had been brought in by the Go-

    549
    vernment. He would not stay to discuss the ballot; but he would say that he believed they would have to adopt it for the election of Guardians, as they had already been obliged to do for Members of Parliament and school boards. Very little fault had been found with that mode of election; at any rate, so far as the fairness of election, and the advantage to the constituencies were concerned. There had been some complaint about the expense this would entail upon a parish; but he did not think a large expenditure necessarily attached to election by ballot. He believed an arrangement might be made to obviate it; but he thought the Government must feel that, perhaps, the strongest ground for an inquiry into the election of Guardians was to be found in what they were themselves doing. The most important Bill they had brought before the House had reference to county government; and by this Bill, as had been stated, the Boards of Guardians were made into electoral colleges. He was sorry the Government had framed the new system on the principle of indirect election; but, looking to their own proposals, they must recognize that this was an opportune time to thoroughly consider the way Guardians were elected. If the Committee were granted, the inquiry ought to embrace plurality of voting, the inconsistencies of which had just been pointed out; also cumulative voting, which had been in operation for some time, and the feasibility of grouping together small parishes for the purposes of elections; indeed, the terms of Reference should be wide enough to allow of the inquiry being as complete as possible.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEdesired that the inquiry should also be extended to the case of town councils which were nothing more, in many instances, than local boards; indeed, often far more so, and exercising far greater powers than many of the smaller local boards. The inquiry was more peremptorily needed in the case of corporations than in any other class of so-called local boards; and he ventured to assert that no inquiry could be either exhaustive or complete in which town councils were not included. There was another matter to which he desired to call attention—namely, that in the course of such an investigation as that now proposed, it would be well to
    550
    consider how far it was practicable to change the season of the year for holding all these smaller fixed elections, so as to have them, on some day or days during the summer months, instead of, as was now the case, holding many of them in autumn or mid-winter. Take, forinstanee, the municipal elections to which he had referred. These being fixed by statute for the 1st of November, they were necessarily brought to a close in the gloaming of a winter's afternoon, whereas it was, on every account, desirable that, if possible, everything connected with elections should take place in daylight, an advantage which could be secured only by changing the day of election to one of the summer months.
    SIR THOMAS ACLANDalso trusted that the Committee would consider the advisability of grouping thinly-populated rural parishes for electoral purposes, and the dividing of Unions and highway districts in the best manner for the collection of votes.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he was not going to oppose the Motion, though he could not say that he regarded it with any particular satisfaction; he thought they had had enough inquiries already, and that it was better to finish what they had before embarking on fresh ones. At the same time he was ready to admit that the hon. Gentleman had made out a tolerable primâ facie case for what he now asked. His neutrality was, however, only conditional on the words about the ballot being withdrawn. Indeed, if the ballot was retained he should not only not support it, but he should most decidedly oppose it. He had no love for the ballot in any form; but he believed that if it was adopted here it would be fatal to plurality of voting, for the voter by ballot could give only one vote, and that would do away with all representation of property, which was the characteristic of these elections. It would throw the control of the representation into the hands of the class amongst whom were now the recipients of out-door relief, and when they came to consider the question of whether out-door relief should be continued—which they would have to do shortly—there was no doubt as to which way this class would give their votes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford appeared to object to the leaving of voting papers,

    551
    on the ground that it subjected the vote to undue influence; but he would point out that there was such a thing as "due influence." He thought a voter was very often in a better position to give a conscientious vote on the second than on the first day: he had had an opportunity of talking the matter over with his wife and family and friends. The House must remember that it was not a question of aye or no on a particular point, but it was a matter of selecting two or three from a list of perhaps a dozen submitted to him. If the hon. Gentleman was anxious for a Select Committee he did not wish to grudge him the opportunity of inquiry.
    MR. GRAYsaid, he wished to remark, as one who had introduced a Bill upon the subject with reference to Ireland, that the adoption of the ballot would not necessarily abolish the plural vote. In his Bill it was provided that every elector should receive a paper for each vote to which he was entitled—that was to say he would get four, five or six papers instead of one, and he could accumulate his votes or distribute them as he pleased. Reference had been made to the question of due and undue influence; and certainly there were influences of both kinds, and due influence could be exercised between the day of nomination and the polling—and influence brought to bear after the voter had received his paper was undue influence. But all he wished to say was, that as regarded Ireland, in no part of the United Kingdom was reform in the election of Guardians more required. Since he had taken in hand the Bill to which he had alluded he had received quite a number of letters giving accounts of undue influence exercised upon voters in Ireland, more especially in the rural districts. All these correspondents requested their names not to be mentioned. One of these letters was from a gentleman who was a candidate in 1866, and he described the opposition made by his opponents. Two bailiffs were employed to stand at the door as the people came out of chapel and speak to them about the election; another letter detailed the hostility exercised towards him by which he was several times defeated through the influence of the law officers, the officers of the Union, and the land agents, because he had put the law in force in sanitary matters. Another correspondent
    552
    mentioned cases in which poor voters'-after an election of Guardians were de prived, in consequence of the way in which they had voted, of the right of pasturage for their sheep and of cutting turf, as well as other privileges. The agents assigned some other cause for their action; the people dreaded such treatment, and feared to give information of particulars. Other letters were written in the same strain, but he would not trouble the House with repetitions. One case, however, he might mention. A landlord opposed a particular candidate, and for several elections that candidate was defeated. At last, however, he was successful; but the landlord put such pressure upon his tenants that, out of pity for them, the successful candidate resigned his seat rather than see his supporters suffer for having exercised their franchise too freely. It was possible that some of these cases were not quite true, or were exaggerated; but where this opinion existed, it showed that it was time some reform was introduced in the mode of election, and he trusted the Government would accede to the Motion for a Committee, and he should be quite willing to refer his Bill to that Committee for consideration. He had had some experience of these local elections, and was led to believe that a yearly election was undesirable. Election for a longer period was to be preferred, say for three years; but a system of partial yearly election brought about a state of stagnation in the elected body upon which it was difficult to bring public opinion to bear its part. Hon. Members on both sides must agree that this feeling of stagnation was one of the greatest evils of local bodies, and it generally happened that when a man once got in he kept there until he died or resigned. There was a chance of removing the evil by the election every year; but by a system of partial election that reform would never be introduced. He was strongly in favour of election every three years, and he hoped the Motion would be assented to, and a full inquiry show where reforms were necessary.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he hoped the Government would assent to the Motion for inquiry; but, at the same time, he trusted that they would not be driven to assent to it except on the condition that the question of the ballot was not to be admitted into it. He had been returned

    553
    to support the introduction of the ballot in Parliamentary Elections; but it seemed to him that there was a real distinction between the best mode of Parliamentary Election and the system most advisable in the case of Boards of Guardians. The distinction, of course, lay in the very different questions with which the two bodies had respectively to deal. Whether a man was a mechanic or a scholar, he could not possible understand the immense number of questions which Parliament had to decide, nor did even the candidate himself pretend to be able to do so. The necessary result was, that both inside of the House and outside, parties grew up by the adoption of general and divergent lines of policy; and a man had to bear the odium and inconvenience of belonging to one party or another—often, perhaps, paying the price of his vote by the loss of friends or of work. Certainly a great reform was carried when a man was able, for the first time, to give his vote on great questions without fear, though it was impossible to help feeling that the advantage had been obtained at the cost of manliness and frankness— the two best elements of our public life. But, passing to the election of Local Boards, the case was wholly different; questions of theory or of high politics were not involved, and all that was necessary was to elect plain men of business. The borough of Birmingham afforded a striking example of the ill-effects of introducing politics into business matters. In that place every one, from the Mayor to the chimney-sweepers, was a Party man, and the system of bribery was carried on in the most open fashion, the result being that when administrators had to be chosen the borough lost the services of one-half of the community. Party spirit was necessary only where a multiplicity of questions had to be decided, and was no more beneficial on a local board than on a board of railway directors. If that were so, all the hatred and risk sometimes incurred would disappear, and everyone would be free to vote without danger, as there would be no permanent division of opinion as in politics, and no great principle would be involved in the act of voting. Of course, the question was one of degree; yet all these considerations had influenced, his mind, and though he would screen and protect a man who had to
    554
    vote on a great principle, he would not sacrifice so good a characteristic of our political life as the practice of open voting for the sake of persons dealing merely with petty details. As for the pressure brought to bear on the voters, he believed that it was exercised less by the masters themselves than by the trade union. Before the ballot was granted in Parliamentary Elections, he was bound to admit there was a considerable demand for it, and the feeling of the country was to a large extent in favour of it. But had they any kind of a demand for the ballot in elections for Boards of Guardians? So far from there being a demand for the ballot in the exercise of the vote in the elections of Guardians, they found that hardly 1 per cent of of the ratepayers throughout the country exercised their right of voting at these elections, and it could hardly be supposed that those who did not vote abstained because they could not vote by ballot. He could not understand how it could be possible for the Government to yield on this point, which he considered was quite uncalled for; and he hoped they would strike out that portion of the Motion which applied to the mode of conducting the elections.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he thought the House must have made up its mind that an inquiry into this subject was desirable. The hon. Member for Oldham might very well meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite who were so much opposed to the ballot by omitting from his Motion the reference to that mode of election, and leaving the Committee to consider the whole question He hoped, however, it would be understood that they had perfect freedom to consider the question of the ballot, and any other question affecting these elections. His object in addressing the House was to suggest to the hon. Member for Oldham that, so far as Scotland was concerned, it might be desirable to extend the scope of the inquiry to the constitution of parochial boards. He ventured to make this suggestion, because Her Majesty's Ministers in the course of the present Parliament had on more than one occasion laid before the House plans for modifying the existing law, and had introduced Bills for altering the existing constitution of local boards. These Bills did not pass through Parliament in consequence of the oppo-

    555
    sition raised to them. The opposition to these measures was so great that they were ultimately withdrawn; but he thought it would be an advantage now if the Government would authorize the proposed Committee to inquire and consider the expediency of making a change. He had no preconceived view as to what change should be made; but he thought it would be well for the Committee to consider whether a change in the constitution of the boards was desirable. He trusted the hon. Member for Oldham would accept the suggestion of the Government.
    MR. SOLATER-BOOTHsaid, the House seemed tolerably unanimous in its wish that this Committee should be appointed, and he must say that the Government never had any other feeling on the subject than to acquiesce in the Motion of his hon. Friend. It was on the Paper for many weeks last year, and an intimation was then made that the Government would not be indisposed to consent to this inquiry as a thing desirable to have. He was glad that his hon. Friend had drawn attention to the provisions of the existing mode of election as applicable to rural as well as to urban districts. They had found that a mode of election which had been in existence for many years was tolerably well calculated to meet the requirements, and had worked with good results in the rural districts. But as regarded the people of the populous parts and places of the Kingdom, it was understood that there was need for inquiry, if not for change. He might refer to the remarkable figures—that, of the 15,000 parishes into which the country was divided, the average number in which contests occurred amounted only to between 600 and 700. But if they analyzed the circumstances of these contests, they would find that they happened chiefly in populous parts of the country, and that in many of the places the elections were mixed up with political feelings. Nobody disputed that, and he need not shrink from stating it. He was quite willing that the question of voting papers should be considered. As to "the manner of conducting the elections, either by the adoption of the ballot or otherwise," his course was not so clear. Of course, he did not mean to say that the Committee should be excluded from entering into the question
    556
    of ballot or no ballot. It would be absurd at this time of day to exclude it. If there were any means by which the ballot could be combined with the system of voting papers, and with plural and proxy voting, he, for his part, should not be afraid of it, provided only that the recommendation was not made use of to vivify local life in any particular form, or to excite contests and produce differences in those parts of the country where there was no occasion for any interference. But he would point out to the House that it was not a simple question whether the ballot should or should not be applied to these elections. It was a complex question. The election of Guardians of the Poor had been fenced round with an as triplex —namely, voting papers, vote of owners by proxy, and the plural vote. He did not pretend to say that these safeguards were incapable of modification. It should never be assumed that what was laid down in the Act of 1835 was to be stereotyped for ever; but he hoped his hon. Friend would consent to these particular words being excluded, and take the Committee, as it was the obvious intention of the House it should be taken. He would just remind the House of the great importance of the subjects which from time to time might be put to the ratepayers in elections of Guardians. In times of strikes, or of great local distress, the question of out-door relief would be a most dangerous thing to submit to the vote without any restrictions. It was quite evident that, when they came to a question like out-door relief, they must be extremely careful. The number of cases in which complaints of improper proceedings at the election of Guardians were brought to the test of judicial inquiry was very few indeed. There was a power vested in the Local Government Board to order a judicial inquiry; but many of the complaints were settled by a sort of arbitration or by written communications, and a great many others were dropped on different grounds. Still, it must be admitted that after each annual election, a large number of complaints were received from places where contests had occurred, and that fact gave the impression that there was good reason for instituting an inquiry as to whether the present mode of voting worked satisfactorily or not. It had been suggested that the question of simultaneous elec-

    557
    tions might also receive consideration, and that Scotland and Ireland should be dealt with by the Committee. He would, however, advise the hon. Member to be careful not to extend the inquiry unduly. By the terms of the Reference the Scotch and Irish modes of electing Guardians would come under the notice of the Committee; but he thought that the constitution of parochial boards in Scotland almost went beyond its proper scope. It had been proposed that some power should be given to the Committee as to the grouping of small parishes for the election of Guardians; but he doubted whether it would be desirable for the Committee to enter into that subject. The Local Government Board now had an absolute authority to group small parishes, and within the last few days he had issued an order having reference to a certain Union in the county of Northumberland, to which reference had been made, which would have the effect of extinguishing, as regarded the election of Guardians, a number of such parishes. At the same time, when the House was disposed to look with favour on every element of local representation and independence, one could not but feel a reluctance in extinguishing that important function in any parish entitled to be represented in a Board of Guardians. With respect to the annual elections, as now conducted, there was no doubt much to be said both for and against that system. On that point he could only repeat what he had said the other night, that the question was, with him, a perfectly open one—that he did not wish in the least to prejudge it. At the present moment the desire for triennial elections, strange to say, proceeded from those populous places where it might be supposed that nothing was so much delighted in as contested elections. Complaints had come from Oldham and Bethnal Green as to the trouble, annoyance, and expense of annual elections, and a wish had been expressed to have the elections held once in three years. He was bound to say that those complaints came not from the ratepayers, but from Guardians themselves. He had no objection to those triennial elections, and at that moment an order had gone down to Nottingham, Coventry, and several other places, with a view to facilitate the trying of the experi-
    558
    ment. It was reasonable that three years should be given to Guardians, in order that they might become experienced in their duties, and that was a matter which might be fairly considered by a Select Committee. The question as to one-third of the Guardians going out every year was one on which he would not trouble the House; but there were objections to introducing that principle into the Unions, because it would not remove the turmoil and other disadvantages connected with annual elections. There could be no doubt that Guardians might be chosen for three years as members of school boards and other local bodies were now. That discussion had been satisfactory as exhibiting a remarkable unanimity on both sides of the House. Nobody could doubt that they had arrived at an important point in regard to the functions of Guardians in relation to local government. He would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion at that moment and put it on the Paper for as early a future day as he thought proper, when the Government would be quite willing to consent to its being again moved without further opposition or debate. He made that request because suggestions had been thrown out from various quarters which deserved to be more carefully considered than they now could be, and also because it would be well to eliminate from the Motion the alternative as to the ballot, which might be misleading as it now stood. It was, moreover, important that proposals of that kind should not be carried in the inconvenient form of Amendments on the Motion for going into Supply.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEtrusted the hon. Member would not allow his inquiry to be encumbered by acting on the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay). It was desirable, in his opinion, that an inquiry should be carried on separately for Scotland. There were great reasons, on the other hand, why the inquiry should be a general one, and should consist of Members representing the United Kingdom. It would not, however, carry any weight in Scotland, unless Scotland was adequately represented; and if it was proposed to extend the inquiry to Scotland, there should be at least two Members connected with the urban and two with the landed districts—

    559
    the two being distinctly interested; and he did not think the inquiry could be adequately conducted without these. No doubt a demand would be made on the part of Ireland. It would be for the hon. Member to consider whether there would be space enough for these Members without making the Committee too large. If it was to be a united Committee, information from Scotland and Ireland must be brought to bear on the whole of the United Kingdom. He admitted the great advantage and simplicity of carrying on several elections at the same time; but, with reference to school board elections, there were questions of Church feeling, and he should be rather afraid, if they had simultaneous elections, that the same feeling might be introduced into the election of Guardians.
    MR. HIBBERT,in reply, expressed his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he had dealt with the subject. He should be very glad to assent to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal as to an alteration of the terms of the Motion—as to the exact terms of which alteration he must confer with the right hon. Gentleman—on the understanding, of course, that the Committee would be allowed to enter upon the question of the ballot and the other questions which had been raised. On that understanding, he should be glad to withdraw the Motion for the present.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CUSTOMS—THE WINE DUTIES.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. W. CARTWRIGHTrose to call attention to the present system of levying Customs Duties on Wine, and to move—
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present system of levying Customs Duties on Wines."
    It would, he said, be within the recollection of hon. Members, that two Sessions ago he brought forward a similar Motion. It was not necessary for him to state why he did not press his Resolution on that occasion, but he did wish to explain why he did not bring it forward last year. Two years ago the Commercial Treaty with France was approaching its termination, and, being convinced that the question of the wine duties de-
    560
    served attention, he at that time thought the matter should be fairly met. Last year it was known that negotiations were pending on the subject of the Commercial Treaty with France, and it was also known that these wine duties were an important feature in those negotiations, and he felt that to ask for such a Committee as he now proposed would only have been a source of embarrassment to the Government. But now it was different; and, as a matter of fact, those negotiations had been suspended for the present—not only suspended, but postponed almost indefinitely. Under those circumstances, there was no reason why he should not bring forward his Motion. It was commonly said, and commonly believed, that this was a matter intimately connected with the integrity of the fiscal system of the country as far as it depended on the revenue derived from the duty on spirits. That was one of the greatest fallacies that ever existed, and that opinion had been challenged by those outside as well as those who held the garrison of our fiscal system; and it had been combated with remarkable force by many authorities. Surely, then, if he could show that there was a controversy and conflict going on within the area of official circles, he had made out a primâ facie ground for an inquiry. Then there was another reason why this matter should be considered by a Committee. It was a question which had never been the subject of a Parliamentary Inquiry, and the assessment existing now was arrived at in a fog. It was arranged at a time when there was no technical knowledge, without which it was impossible to arrive at a fair, equitable, and, he might say, scientific basis. The only Parliamentary Committee that ever sat on this question was one in 1851, in the days when, as the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) said, those who were engaged in the trade, from the state of the law, really had no knowledge of what constituted natural wine. He must say a few words as to the circumstances under which the assessment was really arrived at. It was arrived at in 1860, at the time of the French Treaty of Commerce. The object of those who were engaged in framing the new regulations were, as the right hon. Member for Greenwich said at the time, to secure

    561
    the greatest possible amount of simplicity of operation, and the application, as far as possible, of the lowest duties for natural wines. The right hon. Gentleman also defined natural wines to mean the juice of the grape with only that amount of spirit as to make it fit for the market. The result was that neither one nor the other object was secured. He should show that the system was not simple, and its operation did not, as it was intended, secure the lowest duties for natural wines. At that time, in consequence of the state of the law, as already said, there was a general absence of knowledge in regard to wines, and a very curious hitch arose at the outset. What took place when the present unsound standard was fixed was curious as a matter of history. When the negotiators concluded their work, it was evident that they did not know themselves what they had done. Wine was tested by an instrument called an alcoholometer, which was something of the nature of a thermometer. As everybody knew, our thermometer was that called Fahrenheit, while in France they used the Centigrade. By Fahrenheit, if the thermometer stood at 32°, hon. Members would expect to find it freezing, but in France 32° by the Centigrade represented a temperature somewhat of the hottest. Nobody would think of confusing the two thermometers, but that was exactly what the negotiators did with the alcoholometer. They placed the strength at 18°, but they did not know that by the French alcoholometer that would represent 32°, according to the one in use with us. When the French traders brought in their wines, under the conditions as they thought, of the new Treaty, they were stopped at the Custom House as considerably over the strength represented by 18° of the English standard. The result of that was that some fresh understanding had to be arrived at—the blunder had to be remedied, and it was arranged by a happy-go-lucky compromise. As a compromise they took 26° as a sort of half-way figure between 18° and 32°. That was the way the present figure was arrived at. He wished the House to bear that fact in mind, not because it had immediate bearing on the subject of his Motion, but as one pregnant of illustration of the imperfect knowledge of the subject under
    562
    which the arrangement in regard to the present assessment was arrived at. He would now ask the House to look at what was the practical effect of the present scale. All wine, the alcoholic strength of which was below 25·9 per cent, was admitted at a duty of 1s. per gallon; but if it was a single decimal per cent above that strength, there had to be paid on it a duty of 2s. 6d. per gallon, which amounted to a differential duty of 150 per cent. The only argument there was in defence of that system was, that unless that extra charge of 150 per cent was maintained, the whole principle of our spirit duties would be infringed, and therefore that its maintenance was necessary as a safeguard of the revenue from that source. Now, he would ask the House one question. Was there any other commercial country in the world which adopted the same assessment? There was not one of them did so, although many of them were wine-producing countries, which might well be affected with a disposition to protect their own produce by heavy duties. France was one of those wine-producing countries, and she certainly had not been slow to take to protection; and yet, instead of having a standard of 25·9, the standard there was 36·75; so that a merchant could import into France from Spain or Portugal wines up to the strength of 36·75 without being called upon to pay any additional duty. Again, as regarded the necessity to defend the revenue derived from spirits, the duty in France was only 3⅛d. per gallon on wine, whereas the duty on spirits was 6s. 8d. per gallon. When there was such a vast difference as that between the duty on the one article and the duty upon the other, one must conclude that there was a great temptation held out to illicit distillation, if practicable; yet in France it was not the case that the Revenue was so defrauded, on testimony of the highest authority. The system adopted in this country very soon gave rise to complaints on the part of several wine-producing countries, that their products were subjected to an unfair differential duty; and those complaints acquired such force that they at length became the subject of a Government inquiry. There was a Blue Book which contained the Correspondence which passed bet ween the Board of Trade, the Board of Inland Revenue, and the

    563
    Board of Customs, and which arose out of the complaints made on the part of those countries. They felt that there was a grievance in the shape of a differential duty, and that the system demanded attention upon more grounds than one. The Board of Trade took the question up, and said justly that the considerations resolved themselves under two heads—-whether, as regarded the Customs, any alteration in the wine duties to a standard above 26 degrees would, as a consequence, admit an importation of beverages—compounded liquors—not real wines, but fraudulent mixtures, which the Board of Customs could not stop or find means of detecting on importation; and whether, as regarded the Board of Inland Revenue, if these compounds were once allowed to be brought in, illicit re-distillation could be prevented. The Board of Trade elaborately considered both these questions, and arrived at its conclusion—which was to the effect that, as regarded the re-distillation of spirits from nominal wines, or the substitution of cordials for wines, there was no room for apprehension. It was further said that precautions could be taken by the Customs to prevent irregularities, and distinct suggestions for such precautions were advanced. The Report made was submitted, in the course of official procedure, to the Boards of Customs and Inland Revenue, and both of these authorities reported on the subject; but he ventured to say that no hon. Member who looked at the Board of Customs' Report would be able to state that the case submitted by the Board of Trade was fully grappled with. The answer of the Customs was simply the utterance of non possumus. It confined itself to observations which had to be taken upon trust, and there was an absolute omission to take into consideration the practical suggestion made by the Board of Trade. The Report of the Board of Inland Revenue was more elaborate, and sought to show that any reduction in the wine duties would result in affording very great temptation—and one which it would not be possible to counteract—to bringing in fictitious, or Hamburg sherries, which were in fact only spirit mixtures, and redistillation from which it would not be possible to stop when they were once allowed to be freely introduced, and that therefore a considerable loss would
    564
    result to the Revenue from spirits-He took exception to the allegations which were advanced, and which they were asked to accept mainly upon trust, and that was one of the grounds why he now asked for the appointment of a Select Committee—namely, that the arguments which had been advanced by the Boards mentioned were not quite valid. He understood from competent authorities that by the application of certain instruments no fictitious mixtures could pass into this country without detection. There was, however, a case for inquiry. The whole of this subject, as regarded the facility for illicit operations, was one of controversy. The Board of Customs did not subject now certain articles to duty from which spirit could be easily distilled—namely, molasses, cider, and other things; and there were now facilities, as regarded freedom from duty, for deriving spirits from certain mixtures, if it were found possible to carry on the business, without fear of detection by the Board of Inland Revenue. Moreover, he would remark that, notwithstanding the opposition of the two Boards, the Government concluded in favour of a reduction of 20 per cent, and by that conceded what he advocated in principle, for his case was that neither the present duty, nor the present assessment were essential to the integrity of our fiscal system. The reduction proposed had not been acted upon. The Government then again referred the matter to the Boards of Custom and Inland Revenue for them to consider whether the 20 per cent reduction might not be increased. The Customs stood by their old lines, and the Inland Revenue advanced further arguments against any concession. The Board of Trade, however, thought it could be demonstrated that it would be perfectly possible, without loss to the Revenue, to make a further reduction in the duty. At any rate, he ventured to think that he had made out his point that there was such a conflict of opinion between these Boards, and controversy upon the subject as to data and facts, that there ought to be a public inquiry by a Select Committee of the House. He conceded it was the intention of the framers of the present system that only a natural wine should be admitted; but he contended that the data on which it was laid down that wine above 26 degrees

    565
    could not be regarded as natural wine was fallacious. Lord Derby, in his despatch to the Portuguese Government in 1876, said the only scientific data on the subject was that furnished by the experts sent out by Her Majesty's Government, in 1861, to test the strength of wines. These experts operated upon 17 samples of Portuguese wines, and, finding 12 below 26 degrees, arrived at the conclusion that natural wine was not above this standard; but the vintages of these wines were only two or three months prior to the examination, and they were consequently not completely fermented when tested. Wines so recently made were not at their full strength. They had heard a good deal about Australian wines, one of the great Customs authorities a few years ago saying that without artificial alcoholization it was impossible they could be above 26 degrees; but since then an examination of 200 specimens by the Customs authorities showed that five-eighths were above this. He thought there was a doubt and controversy about the whole question which justified an inquiry. He saw the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had an Amendment on the Paper, and they would no doubt hear now, as they had heard before, something about the imperilled spirit interests in this country. But he (Mr. Cartwright) wished to reduce the duties on wines above 26 degrees, because at present they were most unfairly handicapped as against spirits. The great bulk of the wine exceeding 26 degrees brought into this country ranged from 26 to 36 degrees, that ranging from 36 to 42 being very small in amount. For these 10 degrees—above 26—the importer paid 1s. 6d. duty per gallon, whereas the duty on the same amount of spirits was 1s., so that such wine paid 50 per cent more duty. The effect of this was that the importation of these wines between 26 and 36 degrees had fallen very much behind those of pure alcohol and cognac. Between 1861 and 1877 he found the importation, and consequently the consumption, of the wines that would be affected by any alteration of the duty had only doubled, while the importation of cognac had during the same period quadrupled. The importation of Spanish and Portuguese wines had been steadily declining since 1874. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman the
    566
    Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to see his way to grant this Committee, because what information they had on the subject was obsolete. There could not be a more satisfactory tribunal than a Committee of the House, which could make an intelligent and searching examination of experts. There was primâ facie ground for inquiry in the fact that our system was singular, and was to be found in no other country.
    MR. BAXTERsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Cartwright) had asked him to second the Motion, and he did so with great pleasure. Little need be said on the subject. He (Mr. Baxter) would carefully abstain from offering any remarks as to the changes, if any, which ought to be made in our Customs duties on wines, and he would certainly not trouble the House with any of those difficult questions on which good judges differed greatly. This was a subject which always struck him as one of great complexity and no little difficulty. Not only Government officials, but experts, had expressed the most opposite opinions in regard to the wine duties, and it was not for him to dogmatize on the subject. He did not now advocate any reduction on the wine duties, certainly no particular reductions; but he could not help thinking that the system now in use had been adopted very much at haphazard, when there was no proper inquiry into the subject, and that it had never properly come within the province of Parliament. It appeared to him that, after the voluminous Correspondence which had taken place with foreign Government departmental officials and that portion of the outside public who were interested in the matter, the question raised could not be met without a full and searching inquiry. He knew that objection had been raised to an inquiry by a Committee of this House, and two years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave expression to the most cogent of these objections; but, having weighed the arguments, he thought that those in favour of an inquiry were most entitled to consideration, and he believed that those who had taken part in this difficult question in this and foreign countries would not be satisfied until it had been examined and reported upon by an impartial tribunal. His hon. Friend had not touched that night on the main

    567
    argument in favour of a reduction. In his opinion, the principal inducement for a re-consideration of the present system was the hope—which skilful negotiation would convert into certainty —that if we made any reduction in the duties on strong wines the Governments of Spain and Portugal would be induced to make a proportional reduction in the duties on British manufactured goods. Everyone who felt any interest in the subject was convinced that our export trade with the Peninsula and its Dependencies was capable of very great expansion. The reduction of the duties on strong wines would lead, he believed, to commercial Treaties with Spain and Portugal of great value to British manufacturers. He thought that a sufficient case had been made out for a Parliamentary inquiry. Those foreign countries which were inhabited by Spaniards and Portuguese were almost the best customers we had for many of our textile fabrics; but as long as the feeling that they were unjustly treated rankled in the minds of Spanish and Portuguese producers, it would be impossible to conclude a commercial Treaty with those countries, or to induce them to lower materially the import duties on British goods. That was to his mind one of the chief arguments that could be raised in favour of his proposal. His hon. Friend had referred to the departmental Correspondence. He had read it with great care, and with perfect impartiality; for, until he began to study the subject, he had formed no very strong opinion on it either way. His mind had been fortified by the perusal, however, and he was strongly in favour of an inquiry. It was more than 10 years since the Government authorized a proposal to be made to the Government of Portugal for a reduction of duty on strong wine from 2s. 6d. to 2s. All the departments had agreed that if the duty were reduced a considerable reduction might be made in the departmental machinery. On reading the arguments in that Correspondence on the part of the Board of Trade for a change, and on the part of the Inland Revenue and the Customs against a change, he could not resist the conclusion that the Board of Trade took the broader and more statesmanlike view of the question, and entered into the subject with a thoroughness and impartiality much to be com-
    568
    mended. And he would go further, and say, that he thought those Papers alone afforded sufficient ground for a Parliamentary inquiry. But, at the same time, he thought the Customs and Inland Revenue were perfectly right in being very cautious, and in setting forth all the dangers, probable or even possible, which might be caused by such a change. This it was their duty to do. But when he came to the question of illicit distillation, and the wide door which it was said by some people would be opened to fraud by the reduction of the duty on strong wines, he was more puzzled than ever. It was impossible to read the Correspondence without seeing that the difference of opinion was most remarkable, and that difference of opinion seemed to depend on circumstances which had never yet been made clear. They were told, on the one hand, by officials of such great experience that they might be right for aught he knew, that if they were to reduce the duty on strong wines, they would be imported largely for the purpose of manufacturing spirits, and that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to protect the Revenue. But spirit brokers and distillers, so far from admitting that, took the opposite view, and argued that it would be far more easy to detect spirits made that way than it was to detect spirits made from grain, molasses, and other substances. This was a question which might very fairly come before such a Committee as his hon. Friend asked for. Then it was alleged on the one hand, and denied on the other, that the effect of such a change would be to reduce the consumption of spirits in this country, and so to injure the Revenue. That was a subject on which such a Committee might take very important, and perhaps conclusive, evidence. The question was one of such importance in its bearings on trade in other parts of the world that it was worth the while of Parliament to thoroughly investigate it as was proposed. Since they discussed the subject two years ago, they had heard something from some of the Colonies that had entered the field. In many of the Colonies the wine trade was increasing, especially in Australia, and that trade, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew, had joined those who asked for a revision. It was simply

    569
    because he thought the demand could not be much longer resisted that he had risen to say these words. He should be sorry to commit himself to any particular view; but whilst there was so much difference of opinion, he thought it the duty of Parliament to take up the subject; and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no better counter-proposal to make, he should be glad to hear him say he accepted that of his hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the present system of levying Customs Duties on Wines," —(Mr. William Cartiwright,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present—
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA,who had the following Amendment on the Paper, but which the Forms of the House prevented him from moving—namely,
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is not expedient to inquire into the present system of levying Customs duties on wine, or to vary such duties, save as part of a general scheme for equalizing the duties on all alcoholic liquors, having regard to the quantity of alcohol contained in each respectively,"
    said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, who seconded the Motion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire commenced his speech by sayingthat he would not speak in favour of the reduction of wine duties; but he followed up that observation by a speech which seemed to have no other object in view than the reduction of those duties. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire, no doubt, sheltered himself by urging upon the House the moderation of his demand for a Committee; but if the House granted that demand, after the speeches made, the Committee would be launched with something of a foregone conclusion that there was something wrong and anomalous in our application of the wine duties which ought to be got rid of by levelling down. Both the hon. Members who had
    570
    spoken had referred to the anomalies in the present mode of levying the duties. It was said that when wines of 26 degrees proof spirit were taxed at 1s. a-gallon the duty had been raised an additional 1s. 6d. if the wines were 10 degree higher —that was to say, that a fine of 1Is. 6d. a-gallon was put on the wine. That might be an anomaly, but it was not half so great an anomaly as that they should be able to obtain wine of 26 degrees proof spirit at all at 1s. agallon duty. The duty on spirits per gallon was 10 s.; but if a man consumed a gallon of spirits diluted with some real or fictitious vinous fluid he could drink that gallon of spirits on a duty of 4s., for four gallons of wine at 26 degrees proof would contain one gallon of spirits. No doubt if he came within the scope of the increased duties, and happened to fancy a wine above 26 and up to 42 degrees he paid more, but even then he only paid 6s. as compared with the 10 s. of the man who drank brandy-and-water or whiskey-and-water. The consumer of home-made spirit was therefore placed at a great disadvantage. He mentioned these facts as a species of notice of the grounds on which he intended opposing the appointment of a Committee. The whole question of the duties levied on alcoholic liquors was one of the most important that any Chancellor of the Exchequer could have to deal with. The duties levied upon intoxicating liquors amounted in the total to £32,000,000 a-year in the United Kingdom; and takingthe quantity of wine imported into this country, and accepting the figures given by the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, it was a great anomaly that the amount of duty on that wine was £1,738,000—and this represented an amount of alcohol three, if not four, times as much as would be required to raise the same amount of duty from the Excise. There was an anomaly, too, in the beer duties; and some day or another, when the country might have to draw upon its resources, it was one they would probably have to have recourse to. The duty levied upon beer, taking into account all the different modes of levying it, was £8,973,000 annually. Now, that represented a consumption equivalent in alcohol to about 100,000,000 gallons of proof spirit. The strength of the liquor, taken as a whole from the quantity of

    571
    malt, was something more than 90,000,000 gallons. He did not dispute the expediency of encouraging the trade with Spain or France; but then charity began at home, and we ought not to encourage foreign trade at the expense of the home producer and consumer. The tax paid by the Irish on the spirits they consumed amounted to 2s. 6d. in the pound on the gross incomes under all Schedules of the whole country. It was most unjust to tax Irish and Scotch spirits at the excessive rate he had mentioned; and he must object to the grant of a Committee to inquire into the best method of enabling Englishmen to drink wine at even a lower rate than at present, and that the aggravation of the great anomaly existing in the relative taxation of wine and spirits should be extended. If the Committee was granted, it should embrace an inquiry into the incidence of duties on all the various kinds of alcoholic drinks, including spirits and malt liquors as well as wines. He would have no objection to such a Committee.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, this was a subject that was not within the province of a Select Committee to inquire into, but one solely to be dealt with by the Executive, and on the responsibility of the Government. The hon. Member who brought forward this Motion had failed to give any valid reason for the appointment of the Committee. A Committee was appointed when a grievance had to be remedied; or when, in the opinion of this House, a Committee could do some practical good; but he did not believe that the wine growers of Spain and Portugal, or the wine merchants and the consumers of this country, objected to the present rate of duties. No one had cause to complain of the present tariff. If they were to have a Committee, it should be one to inquire into the whole system of levying duties on alcoholic liquors in this country. The hon. Gentleman had also failed to show that the duties on wine were prohibitory, or that there was any necessity for the Committee; but he had not held out through the whole of his speech any inducement to the House to believe that the duties were reduced or assimilated to that of French wines, or that there would be any increase in the consumption of heavy wines in this country. If the Committee were to be appointed, the whole subject of the duty upon alcohol
    572
    should be submitted to it. They were wines not generally consumed by the masses, but only by a portion of the wealthy classes of this country. If a Committee was wanted only to collect facts, many might be appointed to collect facts of far greater importance than on this subject. The only practical grievance that had been urged was against the standard of 26, which had been fixed after careful examination and scientific inquiry. The system had so far worked well; but the hon. Member who introduced the subject ought to have shown the House that it had not worked well, in order to induce the House to grant this Committee. He said the standard of 26 was a fallacious one, but if it was he had not shown how it was to be altered. There was no public opinion on this subject calling for the appointment of this Committee. It might be that Spain and Portugal would reduce their duties on our goods, but would France do so? At present some of the claret sent from France was dear at the price they had to pay for it, and he had no wish to encourage its consumption in this country.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had referred to the injustice which he thought was done to Ireland by the differential duty on spirits, as compared with the duty on beer, and in that grievance he entirely concurred with his hon. Friend. He wished to state the injustice done to Scotland on the same principle as the hon. Gentleman had stated the injustice done to Ireland. He was not going to enter into any detailed argument, but would content himself by stating simple facts. As there were numerous Parliamentary Returns on every subject, some hon. Members took from one Return and some from another; and that his facts might be verified, he might mention that he took his figures from a Return which was ordered by the House of Commons in August last, and had been distributed within the last two or three weeks. The result stood thus—The sum paid by Scotland for duties on whiskey, foreign spirits, malt made into beer, Excise licences, and the quantity of sugar used in the preparation of alcoholic liquors, and everything in the nature of alcohol, within the year was £4,696,000. Now, Scot-

    573
    land bad just one-seventh, part of the population of England, according to the Report of the Registrar General at Midsummer last. Therefore, if the duties were equitably arranged, so that each consumer of alcohol was made to pay in the same proportion, whether it was consumed in the shape of beer or in the shape of whiskey, England would have to pay £32,872,000, but it paid only £23,920,000; so that England had been favoured, as compared with Scotland, to the extent of nearly £9,000,000 a-year. There could be no fallacy in the calculation, as anyone could judge for himself by looking at the Return. Now, he considered that was a great injustice done to Scotland, and that, if the proposed Committee were appointed, the subject ought to be investigated why alcohol in beer paid so little, while alcohol in whiskey paid so much. He knew that the high duty on whiskey was defended as being on a poisonous and mischievous thing; but he maintained that the alcohol in beer was just as pernicious. If they took the records of the criminal courts in England, Scotland, and Ireland—putting aside agrarian outrages in the sister Kingdom—they would find that more brutal cases occurred among the beer drinkers than among the whiskey drinkers. At the Leeds Assizes, some time ago, there were nine cases of serious assaults upon women tried—some of them of the most serious nature known to the law—and he was sure they would not get an equal number among the whiskey drinkers of Scotland or Ireland for the last 10 years. He agreed that whiskey should be heavily taxed, because it was the parent of much violence; but he did not see why beer should not be proportionally taxed according to the quantity of alcohol it contained, or why there should be such a disproportion between the taxation of whiskey and beer. To drink a little whiskey, mixed with water and a little sugar added, as it was usually taken in Scotland, was just as harmless as to drink the same quantity of alcohol in water with a little hops, and slightly tinged yellow, under the name of beer.
    MR. COBBOLDsupported the proposal for the appointment of a Committee, remarking that the question was as important in relation to our country as it was in regard to our commercial interests with other countries. In the first place,
    574
    there had been a great divergence of opinion among the different departments of the Government in this country which had to deal with the matter. The Board of Trade were certainly not against a Committee being appointed; the only fear they had was that it would be more difficult to detect fraud in the case of wine than in distillations from other materials which would take a much longer time in the process. He believed that had been proved to be a groundless fear. The Treasury had also been appealed to on the subject, and were rather in favour of a duty of 2s. per gallon; but they hesitated to deal with the subject for fear of endangering the £13,000,000 or £ 14,000,000 which the Revenue derived from these duties. The Custom House authorities calculated that the reduction would involve a loss of some £800,000 a-year; but, in making this calculation, they had left entirely out of account the increased consumption which would come from a reduction of the duty. He thought these divergences of opinion among the different departments of our Government justified the hon. Member for Oxfordshire in asking for a Committee. As far as our relations with other countries were concerned, it must be remembered that, at the time of the Treaty of 1866, England did not put forward a claim to come under the most favoured nation clause, and so practically admitted that Portugal had a right to the full and impartial hearing of her views on the question. France, under her Treaty with Portugal, obtained from that country her strong wines, which were used to fortify the weaker wines of France before they were sold to England. France got almost all the benefit of this; Portugal comparatively none. Lord Derby, the other day, speaking in reply to a deputation of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, expressed a hope that Spain would soon see the error of her ways in reference to this question of the wine duties; but a speaker in the Spanish Cortes would probably use a tuquoque, and suggest that the time might with advantage speedily arrive at which the noble Lord would himself see the error of his ways. Lord Derby, continuing, said no one would propose the adoption of differential duties with different countries so as to take the form of a reprisal. Those were not the views of another statesman, Prince Bismarck,

    575
    who a few days ago had said that political friendship was independent of commercial relations, and that if Russia enforced differential duties, the only remedy would be to tax Russian imports. The Correspondence with our Ministers in Spain and Portugal revealed a strong desire that this question should be looked into. In 1865, Mr. Lytton, then Secretary at Lisbon, entertained the idea that these wines were fortified beyond what was needful; but in 1875, when he was Minister, he had reason to change his views, and was anxious, for the sake of our relations with the country, that those who supported its claims should have a fair and just hearing. On these grounds, he could not do otherwise than support the Motion.
    MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Sir, the Motion before the House appears to me to be one that has to be considered without much reference to the Amendment of which Notice has been given by the hon. Member below me (Sir Joseph M'Kenna). That hon. Gentleman seems to have formed a very curious idea in regard to the system of taxation upon intoxicating drinks which has prevailed, I suppose, much longer than our own time in this country, and he wishes that alcohol, as such, should be charged the same, in whatever shape it is presented for the consumption of the public. Now, that would entirely derange or overturn our whole system of finance; and he must know himself that to adopt that principle would be absolutely impossible. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) has given us two or three facts. I have a fact here which has been furnished by, I believe, the largest distiller in the United Kingdom, and he shows that a quarter of barley made into malt and made into beer produces to the Revenue the sum of 23s., but that a quarter of barley made into spirit will produce to the Revenue the sum of £9 10s. Well, I think it is quite obvious that there must be very strong considerations which have caused that great difference; and, no doubt, in the matter of these taxes, there is something to be said on the question of morals as well as on the question of finance; and if it were thought wise, and likely not to be injurious to the public, to bring whiskey down to the price of beer, and to have, as far as men could bear it, as much whiskey drunk now—at least, in some
    576
    proportion—as there is of beer, the change might be made which the hon. Member suggested.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: I beg to say I did not suggest anything of the kind.
    MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Of course he did not suggest anything of the kind, because it was too absurd. Then, all I say is, that to bring about that state of perfect impartiality as between the man who drinks beer and the man who drinks whiskey, it would be necessary to introduce some such measure as I have been describing. The question before the House is whether we can prevail upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to admit a Committee to examine into the question of the wine duties. I am endeavouring to persuade myself, to comfort myself, with the belief that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not agree to the Committee, it is because he has himself come very near to the conclusion which he suspects the Committee would be forced to arrive at. The question affects not only this, but other countries, and not only Spain and Portugal, but it affects France very much indeed, and I am not sure it does not affect France even more now than it affects Spain and Portugal. I saw last year a very interesting pamphlet, published by a firm in the City, giving some particulars as to the wine trade in France. One of the statements was that, although the Treaty between this country and France was negotiated in 1860, and although that Treaty has introduced so large a quantity of French wines into this country, still nearly all those wines were from three or four Departments of France. That is a very striking fact, and one that was entirely new to me. Now, I think nearly every one of us in this House believes that the effect of that Treaty has been very advantageous both to France and to England. It has extended the trade very largely between the two countries, and it has smoothed the ill-feeling which at the time, or just before the negotiation of that Treaty, had existed between France and England; but although we find that in France now there is a much larger and more powerful interest in favour of free trade than there was 20 years ago, and owing, to a large extent, to their increased exportations of wines to England, I am not

    577
    quite certain that if our duties were so regulated that the wines sent here were not the product of only three or four Departments, but the product of nearly all the wine-growing districts of France, we should have in France a very much wider feeling in favour of a free trade with England than we have now, although the Treaty has been in force for 17 or 18 years. Therefore, I think if the duties could be so altered that we could take wines from five times the number of people in France that we do now, we should find they were more in favour of free trade by reason of that change, and also that we should have a much greater number of customers for the manufactures which we export to pay for their wines. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could look at these duties broadly—that is, see how they affect Prance, and then see how they affect Portugal and Spain—I believe he might, without any permanent sacrifice, and with only a small present sacrifice, make a change which five years hence we should be able to look back upon with pleasure, with the strong satisfaction that it had been a great advantage to our foreign trade, and had promoted the consumption of articles which, if not beneficial—I doubt very much whether they are—at any rate would tend more towards temperance, rather than the consumption of articles of an intoxicating character, which, I believe, are much stronger and more hurtful. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) said he had never heard anybody complaining of the wine duties as a grievance. Well, the hon. Member does not generally give his support to any grievance that is brought forward; but there are other persons who know there is a grievance, and although it does not affect me or any other individual, and although you could not point to a man in the street who is injured by this tax on wine, yet still we know from our own sense and past experience that there are two ways of imposing taxes—one which limits trade, and is generally injurious to the country; and another which imposes the same burden, but is raised in a manner that does not so seriously injure trade, and makes the burden almost un-felt. At this moment we are raising more than £60,000,000 from taxes, and 40 years ago we were raising probably
    578
    not more than £45,000,000, or hardly so much; yet we are all sensible of this fact—that there is not at present in the United Kingdom one-twentieth part of the complaint of the weight of taxation that there was 30 or 40 years ago, when the total amount levied was so much smaller. No doubt this alteration has taken place entirely in consequence of the change in the mode of taxation. A man will carry double the weight if you put it on his shoulders in a convenient form to what he will if it is in some form that is painful and hurtful. The hon. Member for Guildford said he thought a Committee was not in the slightest degree necessary. I will tell the House why I think it is particularly necessary, unless the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has so far converted himself that he does not think it needful to have any further inquiry. I believe the objection to a change in these duties is one very much of tradition. Some years ago, when I was permitted for a short time to be at the office of the Board of Trade, I took some particular means to inquire into the whole question, and had a long conversation with a gentleman then at the head of the Excise Department, and I came to this conclusion—that nobody had any exact facts on which firmly to base or sustain the opinion that the present system was necessary; and I believe now that the opinion is one that has come down from a generation or two back. There is a common idea that if you allowed wine of a certain strength to come into the country at a certain low duty, that wine would by distillation produce a large quantity of spirit, and that that spirit, which ought to pay 10,9. in duty, would only pay the duty due on wine, and that thus the Revenue would be defrauded; but the omniscience of the Excise officers in this country would render it impossible for such a fraud to be committed. That is the opinion of the most honourable men connected with the trade, and of a great number of persons whose view cannot be set aside, because they have paid very great attention to it. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow this Committee to sit, it will take the evidence of persons who hold that opinion strongly, and of those who hold the contrary opinion. I believe they would come to the conclusion with which

    579
    I am disposed to agree; but, if they came to a contrary conclusion, there would be strong grounds for maintaining the duties that now exist. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to make any considerable, or satisfactory, or permanent change in these duties at once; but if he cannot do that, the inquiry of a Committee might help him next Session. This is not a matter in which any of us have the slightest Party interest. It is not a Party question; and when I was sitting on the front bench opposite I spoke entirely in favour of this change; and I am perfectly convinced, from my own experience and investigation, that the change would be a wise one. It has been suggested that it would be a wise thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the duties on French wines below a certain line to 6d., above a certain line to 1s, and the higher kinds to 1s. 6d., which would include all the stronger wines. He would have three scales, and three rates of duties'; but he would include in his net all the wine-growers of France, on the one hand, and the whole of the wine-growers of Spain and Portugal, on the other. I am certain these are matters worthy of the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. Our trade is not so prosperous that we can afford to throw away markets that are ready to open to us if we would be liberal and wise to them; and I think, looking at the interests of our foreign trade, the condition of our people, and to the fact that it would, in my opinion, tend to the promotion of morals and temperance, it would be wise to adopt this proposition.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, he could not refrain from saying a few words in favour of the Motion, which was made on the simple ground that the duty on wine was enormous, and based upon no principle whatever. The duties were differential against several countries. The duty was in favour of one country because its wines came in at a certain strength, whereas the wines of other countries did not come in at the only strength at which the wines could be produced. It was anomalous that the wines of France, some of which wore only worth 2s. a gallon, had to pay 1s. duty—50 per cent—while wines from the same country worth 20 s. and even more per gallon, still only paid
    580
    5percentonthels.duty. Hedidnotmean to refer to the differences now existing between this and other nations; but he would take Italy, who could not send us her wines because of the 2s. 6d. duty, which became an imposition almost to their exclusion. The small quantities of low-priced wine which came from Lisbon, were nothing compared with the produce of Portugal. And, coming to our own wines, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to turn his attention to the Colonies, with which we were anxious to exchange our productions more extensively, but whose wines suffered in the same way as the wines to which he had alluded. They could not, from their natural strength, come in under the 1s., and the 2s. 6d. duty was almost a prohibitory one. He therefore felt that it behoved us to consider whether our duties were founded upon any rational principle whatever. In conclusion, he expressed his decided opinion that a Committee of the kind proposed should be appointed.
    MR. YEAMANwished to say a few words, because he represented a large community, including merchants and manufacturers, who had had this question under their consideration for a great many years past. They had always urged that heavy duties on wines pressed against the opening of markets to our textile manufactures. If these duties were equalized, the increased demand for our manufactures would be enormous, particularly in our textile manufactures, and especially in Portugal and Spain. If these tariffs could be made equal, the one against the other, there could be no doubt it would be highly beneficial to this country, as well as to Spain and Portugal, and France, and he was quite sure that in a few years it would be a vast gain to our trade and commerce. He did not think it was necessary to go into the matter of alcohol drinks, and the proportions consumed, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and he only hoped the Government would allow this Committee to be appointed.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion before the House, but hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that the wine duties were regulated by no principle whatever. That was not so, for they were charged according to an alcoholic test, Wines of

    581
    a certain strength were charged at the low duty, while those charged at the higher rate contained a larger percentage of alcohol. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) seemed to contemplate the continuance of the alcoholic test as the principle by which duty should be determined on wines, and, if so, the same test might with, equal propriety and facility, be adopted in the case of beer. He thought that if the officers of Inland Revenue could be examined it would be found that the amount of alcohol in the beer exported was accurately ascertained, and if so, the quantity contained in the beer used for home consumption could readily be determined by the same process. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, in criticizing the speech of the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), and speaking of the hon. Genetlman's Amendment as absurd and impracticable, spoke without that accurate information which he usually displayed on every subject on which he addressed the House. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be that a quarter of malt, instead of paying into the Imperial Revenue 23 s., would be charged £6, because he believed the beer produced by every quarter of malt contained 12 gallons of proof spirits. He thought the whole question, as to the incidence of these duties, might very well be left to this Committee; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to granting it.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I hope that hon. Gentlemen, when they come to a division, if one takes place, will bear in mind what the particular question is upon which they are asked to give their votes. We have hoard a great deal in the discussion which has been going on that has been very interesting, and a great deal that has been said is very true with regard to the wine duties; but I must confess that I have failed to catch, in the arguments either of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), or in most of those who have taken his side in the discussion, the connection between the views which they take upon the general question of the wine duties and the particular proposal that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the subject. Many things that the hon.
    582
    Member for Oxfordshire has said, many things that the right hon. Memberfor Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) and the hon. Member who addressed us with so much knowledge of the particular branch of the question—the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cobbold)—have said, are perfectly true, and I am prepared to accept much that they have advanced; but I confess I do not see how we are, by appointing this Committee, to do any good towards the realization of the object that they have in view. And I am inclined to think the disadvantages which, as I shall presently venture to say, might attend the appointment of the Committee would outweigh any advantages that have been hinted at. But, in the first place, I must say, with regard to the references that have been made by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire himself, and I think by the right hon. Member for Birmingham and others, to the views which I myself have held in former times when I was in a responsible position as President of the Board of Trade, that I still maintain those views; and I do not by any means undertake to defend everything that has been said with regard to the importance or impropriety of extending or altering the present system of the wine duties. On the contrary, I hold now, as I held in the year 1866, that it would be reasonable and a safe proposal to re-consider the particular incidence of the scales which now exist. I think that the objections that were then taken by the heads of the Revenue Departments to the particular alterations that were proposed were objections which I will not say had nothing in them, but were objections that were by no means conclusive against the proposals. I held then, and I hold now.— that it would be perfectly safe, that it would probably be convenient, to make some modifications in the present scale, with the view of removing some of these obvious inequalities, and especially, I think, to remove the inconvenience which results from the very sudden jump which takes place on the particular standard of 26 degrees. And I am perfectly confident that, if time and opportunity suited, such a proposition might be fairly recommended to Parliament, and I have great hopes that it would be adopted. But I do not think there is any necessity for a Committee to inquire into the soundness or un-

    583
    soundness of the objections that were taken by the officers of Inland Revenue and Customs in the year 1866 against the modification of the scale. I do not see what good the Committee would do. I do not see what information they would be able to collect which is not either now already collected or might easily be collected by the Government, which, after all, must be responsible for any proposal that is to be made. I think a Committee might be appointed for one or two purposes. A Committee might be appointed to collect information, or it might be appointed in order to assist in forming and developing a policy. Well, with regard to obtaining information, I think no ground has really been laid down in the speeches we have heard for any inquiry of this description in order to obtain such information. We have an enormous mass of information. We have not only the information that was contained in those Reports, but Commissions have sat and tests have been applied to various kinds of wine, and we have a very great deal of information respecting various classes of wine; so that in reality all the materials of the question are fairly before the Government. I am not saying that they are so fully placed before Parliament as might be the result of the labours of a Committee, which would inquire and sit for a long time, hearing the views of all sorts of persons who know a good deal about it. But if it is merely a matter of curiosity and interest, possibly Parliament might fairly say—"We should like to inquire into this question and get the opinions of people who know a great deal about it." I am, however, quite satisfied that that would not add in any degree to the knowledge which the Government possess, and that it would not add to the facilities of dealing with a question which is a very difficult one. You will say—"If you admit that, after all, a Committee might be interesting, and if your only objection to it is that its labours would be superfluous, because the Government already have the information, why do you object to our having this interesting information, which, at the worst, is but superfluous?" Well, I cannot admit that it would be only superfluous. I believe that such an inquiry as we should have to conduct if we went into this Committee, would be to no inconsiderable extent embarrassing,
    584
    and probably might be mischievous. I will explain this in a few moments. In the first place, with regard to the scale and incidence of the present wine duties, I wish to remind the House of the principle upon which the present scale is established. What I understand to be the principle of the present scale of the wine duties is this—that it is intended to charge all natural wines—that is to say, the wines produced by the process of fermentation only, without the introduction of distilled spirit, at the rate of 1s. per gallon. If wine is strengthened by the introduction of distilled spirit, which it may be to an enormously indefinite extent, then the reasons which induced Parliament some 16 years ago to lower the scale do not apply to wine of that highly fortified character. The effect of large quantities of spirit being introduced into this country under the name of wine, at a very low duty, would, having reference to the general scale of our spirit duties, be very serious, and even dangerous, to the Revenue. Well, we are informed that the point which has been taken— 26 degrees—is not a proper point. It was a point selected at the time, because it was believed, from the information before the Government of the day, that 26 degrees was the limit to naturally fermented wines, and as a rule it would be found that no wines which were not fortified to a considerable extent by distilled spirits would come above 26 degrees. There has been a good deal of question as to whether the point was properly fixed; a good many inquiries have been made; analysis has been made, and information collected in foreign countries and the Colonies, which throws a small light upon the question whether this is a proper point to take. For obvious reasons I will not express my own opinion upon the point at this moment, but generally say that I think there is a great deal to be said by those who consider that 26 degrees does not entirely cover all the natural wines. A great deal of the wine that is sent, especially from Spain and Portugal, is in reality wine that has been fortified with more or less spirit; but there is some controversy as to how much is spirit and how much is not. I quite admit that that is a point upon which consideration ought to be bestowed when we come to deal with the question

    585
    of the wine duties. If we are to begin to alter the point at which the duty is to be charged, we should undoubtedly cause a certain amount of disturbance to the wine trade—and I think that is very undesirable for trade considerations alone, to say nothing of Revenue considerations. It would be far better, too, that any change that might be made should be made upon the responsibility of the Government, and after but a short notice, as the appointment of a Committee, taking evidence over an extended space of time, would in all probability affect the importation of wine, and materially affect the receipts of the Exchequer. That is a reason for not undertaking lightly, or without a fair prospect of the full equivalent advantage, any inquiry which I must say I think would be of a rather loose character. I think that the speeches of several hon. Members have gone to this point; that they thought a good deal is to be said about the wine duties; that the matter is a very difficult one, and if a Committee were appointed it would get valuable information, and strike out some important light on the subject. But I think that we ought not to appoint a Committee of this House without some more definite object than any held out in the speeches we have heard in its favour. The Committee must necessarily contain many Gentlemen who have no practical experience of the subject, and they would be naturally assailed by persons out-of-doors who have special views and ideas upon it, and so influenced it could hardly be expected that the inquiry would be close, or that it would rigidly exclude what might be considered as extraneous or useless matter. There is another aspect of this question on which I wish to dwell, and which gives a still stronger reason why we should be cautious about the appointment of the Committee. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cobbold) has called our attention to the relations between this country and Spain and Portugal, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright)—who it is to be regretted is not now in his place—has called our attention to our relations with France. Reference has also been made to Italy, Austria, and our great Australian and African Colonies. There can be no doubt that these are countries which have a very great interest in the question of the British wine duties. In this
    586
    country people do not consume anything like the amount of wine per head that is consumed in many foreign countries. There are those who think that if the system of wine duties were altered a larger quantity of wine would be imported into and consumed in this country, and that that would have the effect of bringing about a larger trade with the countries that are wine producers. Certainly, those countries think so. There is no doubt that perhaps Spain and Portugal, and also France, might be very beneficially affected by such a change in the wine duties as would suit those countries. It might be possible in our arrangements with them to use the wine duty as an equivalent in negotiation, and so bring about more satisfactory relations than exist between us and those countries. But then we come to a very great difficulty, which I think has not been sufficiently considered in the arguments addressed to the House. Hon. Members speak as if a measure which will suit one country will suit the other countries also; and that it is a mere matter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer suffering a certain loss of Revenue, which he will make up by the increase of trade produced by the alteration of duty in favour of these foreign countries. But that is not the case, and so far from it being the case that the same measure will satisfy all these countries, it is extremely probable that what will satisfy one will discontent others and cause disputes. For instance, we are asked to alter the point at which the higher duty commences in order to admit the wines of Spain and Portugal; for it is said that as it stood it is a differential duty in favour of French wines and gives then an unfair advantage. The reply to that is that we do not make any distinction in favour of the wines of our country and another, and if Spain and Portugal send in wines under 26 degrees they will have the advantage of the 1s. duty that France has. There is no question of a differential arrangement whatever in favour of one or the other, and that argument is one which Members have no right to use. If we alter our duty in favour of Spain and Portugal, France will say we are no gainers by this, and you are doing us rather a bad turn. At all events, France would gain nothing, and what France asks is that we should do something for them that we have not done yet. The

    587
    right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) said, very truly, that it is a remarkable fact that French wines do not come from all parts of that country, but from only four or five winegrowing districts; while there are 40 or 50 Departments producing wine which would be of value to England if it could come in. But why cannot that wine come in? Because it is of so low a value that it cannot pay the 1s. duty, and France may say, reduce your 1s. duty to 6d. or 4d. on wines of that low class. But it appears that it is not all wine of a very low strength. Some of it is wine of no inconsiderable strength, and yet is of coarse quality, and which will sell only at a very low price. But if we admitted wines of a low class and of a weak description, Spain and Portugal would say—-"You are doing nothing for us. We have a great deal of wine of a very low and cheap description which is strong, and which you ought to admit also. If you admit cheap French wines, you ought also to admit the wines of Spain and Portugal." If we entered into any arrangement, I do not see how we could answer that argument; but if we accepted this view, we should have to change our system of alcoholic tests, and introduce duties ad valorem. If we were to attempt to ascertain the value of wines, we should be plunged into difficulties of no ordinary kind, and to ascertain the value of the wines introduced would be a task of no easy solution. Then, if we entered into questions of this sort, and discussed them under the eyes of all the nations of Europe, I doubt very much whether we should make our arrangements easier than at present. As it is now, the question is a very complicated one. I think I have said enough to show that it is an extremely complicated one, and cannot be solved by a certain surrender of duty by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is one that must be adjusted very nicely. But, says the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Hanbury), let us have this discussion and go into it for our own sakes without reference to other countries; but if we do it for our own sakes, foreign nations, when we ask them for concessions, will say—"You have nothing to give in exchange; you have already given everything for your own sakes; we decline to alter our system out of love for you or of regard for arguments which may have con-
    588
    vinced you but do not convince us." It is part of the case of hon. Gentlemen opposite that we have an equivalent in the wine duties which enables us to deal with other nations. I admit that, and it is because I think that we ought to keep that advantage that. I object to plunge the subject into the vortex of a public inquiry, and desire rather to keep the matter in the hands of the Government and of negotiators, and it is for that reason that I object to this Committee. I can assure the House that there is no reason for supposing that this is a question that does not interest the Government. There is no reason for supposing that we are not alive to the great importance of the question, or not disposed to deal with it if we found ourselves able to do so. But, at the present moment, the time is not very favourable for commercial experiments, and it is not very favourable for that sacrifice of Revenue which undoubtedly a change of a satisfactory character would require, and which it would be some time before they could make up again. Even now I do not think we are receiving as much duty on wines as we did before the great changes in 1860 in the duties. Whatever we might do, the change, if made, would involve a sensible loss of Revenue, which I cannot venture to under-take; and, therefore, for all these reasons, I hope that the House and the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) will see that, in resisting this Motion, I am not taking up a position antagonistic to the principles which are entertained by those who desire that the wine duties should be carefully reviewed with a view to commercial negotiations. On the contrary, acting entirely in the spirit of those who desire that they should be carefully considered, it is my deliberate opinion that the course proposed is not the best course to take, and I trust that the House will support me in declining to take it.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 85; Noes 65: Majority 20.—(Div. List, No. 37.)
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do not leave the Chair."
    Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  (Mr. Assheton Gross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.

    [BILL 3.] COMMITTEE.
    [Progress (New Clause) 28th February.]
    Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
    New Clause—
    (Exceptions for certain descriptions of flax scutch mills from certain provisions of Act.)"
    "The regulations of this Act with respect to the employment of children, young persons, and women, and the provisions of this Act which are declared not to apply to a workshop which is conducted on the system of not employing children or young persons therein, shall not apply to flax scutch mills which are conducted on the system of not employing children therein, and which are worked intermittently and for periods only which do not exceed in the whole six months in any year."—(Mr. Mulholland.)
    Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSdid not think that the hon. Member who had brought forward this clause, with the view of having it read a second time, would succeed in inducing the Committee to allow flax scutch mills to escape from the operation of the provisions of the Bill. It would, however, be necessary, as a matter of form, to allow the clause to be read a second time, in order that any Amendments it might be deemed necessary to make in its terms should be brought forward and discussed; but if the Committee preferred an alternative course, it would be competent for it to reject the clause as it stood.
    DR. WARDasked whether the change suggested by the clause did not apply to women in the same way as to children? [Mr. ASSHETON GROSS: No.] It was unfortunate, because in this description of work large numbers of women were employed, and he certainly thought that it was not an occupation the nature of which, as applied to women, ought to escape the operation of the general provisions of the Bill. If that part of the clause to which he objected were not withdrawn, he should oppose the clause.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: If the hon. Member who has just spoken will allow
    590
    the clause to be read a second time, he can move to alter the portion to which he objects. He is quite in Order in taking this objection.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the provisions of the Bill applied to three classes of persons—children, young persons, and women, and the clause as it stood proposed only to retain children under the protection of the Bill in the cases indicated. On the other hand, it was objected that children, women, and young persons should be removed from the protection intended to be given by the Bill. ["No!"] Well, it was objected that women and young persons should be removed from that protection. Now was the time to discuss the question whether the clause should be read a second time, in order that any alteration might be made in it. He understood that the hon. Member for Down-patrick (Mr. Mulholland) consented to strike out the exemption of young persons, and if the clause were road a second time, it would be upon this understanding.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, as he understood, also, that the hon. Member for Downpatrick assented to the withdrawal of the proposal to exempt young persons, the effect of the clause, so altered, would be only to exempt women from the operation of the Bill in the cases specified.
    MR. PARNELLdid not see the necessity of reading the clause a second time if they were successful in their efforts to exempt women from the operation of the Bill. The work done in scutching mills was of a most dangerous and unhealthy character, the process filling the air with a number of minute particles, which got into the lungs of those who were employed in the mills, and was attended with injurious effects. The nature of the work caused women to become consumptive. He hoped the Home Secretary would consent to include women employed in these mills in the regulations made by the measure before the Committee; because, if it were necessary to protect them in other employments, so was it in this instance. The Home Secretary had introduced many provisions for the protection of women into the Bill, yet he now proposed to omit them from its operation in relation to an occupation which was often carried on 15 or 16 hours a day. It was said to

    591
    be necessary to carry it on for so many hours because the trade was only in operation during a short time in the year. During the season all the farmers were impatient to have their flax got ready for the market, and the utmost inducements were held out to the flax millowners to get through the work as speedily as possible. Where the employment was unhealthy and the hours long, surely there was reason for protecting the persons employed in it, if protection were necessary in any case. He might be told that the course he proposed would injure the factory owners; but if it could be shown that women were suffering in health by the employment, they ought to be protected. If it were necessary to carry on the work 15 or 16 hours every day, no reason existed why it should not be done in eight-hour shifts, in the same manner as work was performed in mines.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that, when the case of these scutch mills had been first brought before him, he had read the evidence taken before the Royal Commission on the subject. The mills were under the provisions of the existing laws relating to textile factories where more than 50 hands were employed; but in a large number of instances the mills employed less than that number, and they did not come under the Act, and to put them under this Bill would be imposing great restrictions upon them. He quite agreed that, as far as danger to those employed in the trade from machinery was concerned, nothing ought to take them out of the provisions of the law, and the same protection as regarded fencing machinery would apply to these scutch mills as to other mills. The only part of the Act which would not apply was the regulation as to hours worked by women. Therefore the Committee would be putting the scutch mills on very much the same footing as women were in places where there were no protected persons. He quite agreed that there was a great deal of dust in these scutch mills, and that, as far as children and young persons were concerned, they ought to be protected; but anyone who had read the evidence laid before the Royal Commission would see that there was a great distinction between the work in these and other mills, and that in many of them the work was more like
    592
    an agricultural operation than what was performed in many factories. The labourers could only work a certain number of months, and during the rest of the year they took up agricultural employment quite free from dust; so that they were entitled to be placed in the category of persons not working during the whole of a year in a factory.
    MR. MACDONALDregretted to be compelled to differ from the Home Secretary, who failed to see that, in carrying out the views he had just expressed, he would be allowing women to work without protection at one of the most dangerous occupations carried on in the country. Scutch mills were said to exist principally in Ireland; but the Home Secretary must be aware that many of them were carried on in Yorkshire. In this case, it was proposed to exempt young women from the provisions of the Act—
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: No, no; only from one of its provisions.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, the exemption from that one provision allowed women to follow what he held to be a dangerous occupation, without protection. It was said that persons employed in the scutch mills only worked during a portion of the year; but he ventured to say that if they went on for a whole year, they would require at the end of it to take six months' rest to enable them to recover from the condition into which such an occupation, carried on for such a time, would bring them. The dust, fibre, and pieces of material flew about in these mills to such an extent that when, as a boy, he had pulled flax, he had seen persons standing with their mouths closed, and others at the door trying to get relief on account of the state of the atmosphere. If persons engaged in these mills were to be employed all the year round they would be destroyed in two years, and as it was they suffered from irritation in the bronchial tubes, and lung disease frequently set in. To exempt young women as proposed would make a most dangerous exception, and would lay down a ground-work for a possible agitation against one of the most excellent provisions of the measure. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would have the favour of the hon. Member for Hackney and a few others now that he had not had before. He would put it to him if the friendship of those were worth

    593
    having as compared to those who had stood by him in all his efforts of this kind. He hoped, therefore, that the Home Secretary would not be cajoled by a few Gentlemen from the North of Ireland to take a stop that would be fatal to the principle of a Bill which otherwise would redound so much to the right hon. Gentleman's credit.
    MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, the people of the North of Ireland naturally felt interested in this matter because the manufacture referred to was almost entirely confined to that part of the country. Prom the remarks of some hon. Members, it would almost appear as if the manufacture of flax were so unhealthy and dusty that the plant ought not to be grown; but he believed that the health of the population of the North of Ireland where scutching was carried on would compare favourably with that of any people elsewhere. These scutch mills offered employment to the agricultural population during the winter months when there was no out-door employment, and many of them were going during only a short period of the year. They were scattered over the country, and 670 out of 800 of them employed less than six scutching hands. Children and young persons would still come under the provisions of the clause.
    MR. E. COLLINSventured to dissent from the view put forward by many hon. Members on that side of the House. Scutching was not altogether a manufacturing, but partook much of an agricultural character, inasmuch as the process of preparing the flax was somewhat similar to the process of dealing with other descriptions of agricultural produce. If restrictions were put upon the manufacture it must necessarily increase the cost of preparing the article, and interfere seriously with the great trade of the North of Ireland. Nearly all the manufacturing industries of the country were dying out by degrees. The manufacture of cotton, which was at one period of considerable importance, had nearly ceased to exist. Shipbuilding was not long since a source of employment to many, and now the trade had all but disappeared — linen was one of the few left to the people, and he thought hon. Members should lend their hands to support, instead of seeking to interfere with, it. He was enabled by
    594
    statistics to compare the present state of the manufacture under discussion with its condition a few years since, and he found that in 1871 the number of scutching mills in the four Provinces of Ireland was 1,499; whereas five years later—the latest period to which he had been able to bring down his figures—the number was reduced to 1,250; therefore, there had been a decrease of 20 per cent in the number of these factories in Ireland during five years. If the same ratio of retrogression should continue for five years longer the number of these mills would be diminished to one-half, and it would require 15 years only to sweep them away altogether, and so extinguish this great industry. He hoped the process of reduction would not go on as it had done, and that many of his hon. Friends would not insist upon the views they had taken on this subject; but would be satisfied with the protection of children and young persons—which was a necessary measure—and leave women, who were pretty well able to control their own labour, to take their own course with regard to employment in scutching mills.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought the observations of the last speaker would apply to other clauses than that under discussion, and that if the Committee acceded to the principles laid down by the hon. Gentleman, they might have spared themselves the trouble of considering the Bill at all. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not consent to the clause being read a second time, and that his hon. Friends would not allow such a proposition to pass without a protest. It was urged that scutching was only carried on during six months of the year; but two or three months spent in close application to an injurious occupation would ruin anybody's health. The "walking postman" did not walk many days in the course of the year— certainly not for half the year—yet medical gentlemen would probably say that he imperilled his health by excessive labour during the time he did walk. The fact that a woman had no employment during six months of the year was no argument why she should over-do it during the time she was at work. He hoped that persons employed in factories of all kinds would have the general protection afforded to them by a Bill which

    595
    was a contribution to the cause of humanity and good government.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that when he visited some Irish scutching mills he could well have fancied himself in an English farmyard when threshing was going on. He did not think all the provisions of the Factory Acts ought to be applied to these mills; but the Royal Commission was in favour of carrying out the provisions in regard to fencing in machinery, and, as he understood the Amendment, all those regulations would be enforced.
    DR. WARDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had proposed that he should not press his opposition to the clause, but give it a second reading, and at first he had been inclined to do so; but he now saw that if the clause were passed on the lines indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, it would leave a loophole which would enable women to be employed in an unhealthy occupation. He opposed the second reading of the clause, on the ground that if the Factory Act should protect women at all, it should certainly include one of the most unhealthy of all occupations. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the evidence given before the Royal Commission to show the nature of the employment carried on in scutching mills; but it would be found that some of the witnesses regarded the work carried on in them as of a most unhealthy character. One of the medical witnesses was asked whether, apart from the question of accidents, there was any necessity for interference by legislation with the mills, and he replied that legislative interference was necessary, because the diseases which the operatives suffered from were the same as those of hecklers and others in spinning mills. The same witness stated that there was no limit to the hours of work at certain seasons of the year. The evidence amounted to this—that the work was most unhealthy, and that the women engaged at it worked 15 and 16 hours a-day. The usual mortality in a fairly healthy town like London, was something like 20 per 1,000 from all kinds of disease; but in those special processes the mortality from lung disease alone amounted, in some cases, to over 30 per 1,000. Then it was said that not many women were employed at this occupation, but in many cases they outnumbered the men.
    MR. MUNDELLAwas generally reluctant to oppose any Amendment regarding factory legislation which was proposed by the hon. Member for Down-patrick (Mr. Mulholland), because no man had done more for manufactures in Ireland than he had, and everything which he suggested deserved the greatest consideration. Ireland had, unfortunately, too few manufacturing industries; and if there was anything in this Bill which would tend to restrict those manufactures, he, for one, should set his face against it. But he was bound to ask what were the reasons why this particular exemption should be granted? The hon. Gentleman said it was an intermittent employment, only extending over six months of the year; but he found from the Bill that for two consecutive months they might work every woman and child 14 hours a-day. What did they want more than this? There was no textile manufacture in the Kingdom which had any such privilege. If a case had been made out for this exemption, and it could have been shown that without it an injustice would be done to flax growing in Ireland, then he should not have opposed his new clause; but, under the circumstances, he thought the demand was unreasonable.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, having contended for the principle that it was unjust and inexpedient to interfere with the labour of adult women, he was anxious to express the great satisfaction he felt that at last the same conviction had come to the mind of the Home Secretary, and that he was now going to concede a principle he had hitherto constantly and persistently resisted. He should, give the second reading of this clause his cordial support, on the distinct ground that it was unjust to interfere with the labour of women; but, at the same time, he was bound to say that accepting this clause seemed to knock the very bottom out of the Bill, because from the trades enumerated in the Schedules of the Bill, from official documents, and from the evidence of the Royal Commission on these Acts, he could conclusively prove that women ought to be excluded from the operation of the Bill altogether, and not merely in the case of this particular industry. He, therefore, told the Home Secretary that full advantage would be taken of the principle he had now conceded, and on

    597
    the Report efforts would be made to extend it. As women were about to be exempted from the Bill as far as scutching mills were concerned, it would not be difficult to prove that there were plenty of other industries from which they ought equally to be exempted. It was not for him to inquire by what means the right hon. Gentleman had changed his mind. There were some who might say it was due to political influence. He would not indulge in such an insinuation, because he would have no justification for saying so; but he looked upon what the Home Secretary had done as a striking proof that it was always well in this House, for a minority however small to persistently and constantly contend for the principle they desired to see adopted. Here was a case where at the beginning of the Bill those who contended that adult labour should not be interfered with were again and again beaten by majorities of 3 to 1, and the Home Secretary had repeatedly said he could not for one one moment listen to their arguments. Now, when the Bill was just on the eve of being passed through Committee, they bad the great satisfaction of seeing the Home Secretary surrender, and accept that principle which he had at first resolutory opposed. Happily they would have another chance of raising this question of adult labour, and when that opportunity occurred on the Report, the concession the right hon. Gentleman had made to-night would not be lost sight of, and certainly by one Member it would not be forgotten.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I am sorry to deny the hon. Member any satisfaction he may feel; but I may tell him that I stick to my principle as much as ever, and say there is a great distinction between women who are only casually employed, and those who are regularly employed. Whenever the hon. Member chooses to raise the principle, I shall be ready to meet him.
    MR. BIGGARcontended, that the work carried on in the scutch mills was exceedingly unwholesome. Large quantities of dust were about everywhere, even on the hedges in the neighbourhood, and altogether the mills presented a very different aspect from an English farm yard, to which they had been likened by the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish). Some of the dust which was about must
    598
    get down the throats of the workpeople, and this could not be looked upon as a very healthy thing. If the right hon. Gentleman agreed to this clause, he did not see how he could contend that the Act should apply to women at all. If women were to have the privilege of working unlimited time in the scutch mills, they had no right to interfere with their continued employment in other in-dustries
    MR. NEWDEGATEwas sensible of the injury which was inflicted upon many of the industries of the country by the limitation of the hours of labour, and he rejoiced that the Home Secretary had been induced in this particular case, to accept the necessity for exemption. He was quite sure they were restraining the productive power of the country by their factory legislation; and although he was as sternly determined as in 1844 to protect the interests of the young, he still thought the Legislature might push the restrictions on labour too far.
    MR. PARNELLhad listened in vain for any consistent reason from the Home Secretary for the adoption of this Clause. It was not to be put in the Bill in the interests of the women employed in these mills, but in the interests of the mill owners. He should like to ask the Home Secretary, whether he had taken means to secure the fencing in of the machinery of the mills? It was said this occupation in the scutch mills was only an occasional one; but it was carried on for six months in the year, and conducted by long spells during that time. He considered the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had furnished the strongest argument in favour of the rejection of this clause. He had told them that the work of the scutch mills, as far as his personal experience extended, was so nearly kindred to agricultural employment, that he thought he was in an English farm yard, watching a steam threshing machine at work. Now, he should like to ask the noble Lord, whether he would approve of women being employed in feeding a threshing machine for 16 hours a-day during six months of the year? There had been a great deal of talk in this discussion about Irish industries. Formerly this House crushed Irish industries; and he believed it would do so again, if it was found necessary in the interests of Eng-

    599
    lish industries. The hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) had said, if they did not agree to this clause, they would crush an Irish home industry. He denied that they would do anything of the kind. If this clause was rejected, the only people who would he inconvenienced would be a certain number of the constituents of the hon. Member, who would not, in future, be able to make quite as much profit as they now did. They all knew that the North of Ireland Members in that House, were not often able to demonstrate their usefulness to their constituents; and having this remarkable chance, they had been asked to do a little job; and if they succeeded they would return home amidst the plaudits of a small section of their countrymen, who would hail them as having saved their country from having one of its home industries crushed.
    MR. MULHOLLAND,said, he had listened patiently and carefully to the objections made to the clause by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he could say that they were altogether unprecedented by the evidence they had quoted. The real evidence was to the effect that there was now no legal limit of this kind that Scotch mills might work; but there was not a line of evidence that they did, in fact, work unreasonably long hours. There was no intention of extending the hours of labour of women employed in these mills, and if the clause were not adopted, the owners of them, rather than expose themselves to any risk of infringing the law, would close their mills altogether. What they objected to was vexatious interference and troublesome returns.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought that, after what had first fallen from the hon. Member for Downpatrick, there could be no difficulty in restricting the labour of women in these mills to 12 hours. At least they might be informed, whether there was any maximum number of hours' labour that would be accepted by the Government. He had supported the restriction of hours of labour in the Turkey red dye works, and he would now say, let them not have one principle in force in Dumbartonshire, and another in the North of Ireland.
    MR. BIGGARobserved that it would be sufficient, in reference to the remarks
    600
    of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Dr. Ward) to read the marginal note of his clause in the Bill, to which the proposed new clause related. It was as follows:—
    "Factories and workshops in which young persons and women may be allowed to work for 14 hours a-day, under certain restrictions, by reason of the material being liable to be spoiled by weather, or of press of work arising at recurring seasons, or of liability to sudden press of orders from unforeseen events."
    It was clear from that, that in seeking exemption from the provisions of the Bill in this respect, the promoters of this new clause desired that their hands should be allowed to work for more than 14 hours a-day.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 143; Noes 27: Majority 116.—(Div. List, No. 38.)
    Amendments made to the Clause.
    MR. PARNELLmoved to amend the clause by adding to it, at the end, a Proviso that the period of employment on any one day should not exceed 12 hours. The hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) said that the hours of work in those mills were not excessive; but he would admit that 12 hours were a good day's work, particularly in tending a machine such as had been described by the noble Lord the Member for Yorkshire (Lord Frederick Cavendish) as being similar to a straw - threshing machine. The hon. Member said there was no evidence showing that the hours of labour in those mills were excessive. On the contrary, he thought there was, and he would refer him to the printed evidence. He would find that one witness, who was examined with regard to the conditions under which the work was carried on in the smaller scutching mills, was asked whether the hands worked by artificial light, replied—"Yes, they do." Then he was asked whether they worked as long as they might, and he replied—"Yes, they work periodically as long as they can." Yet they were told such a system was necessary for the purposes of that manufacture.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That the period of em-

    601
    ployment in any one day in such mill shall not exceed 12 hours."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought it would not be wise to attempt the limitation which the hon. Member's Proviso intended. These small scutching mills were scattered all over the country, and it would require an army of Inspectors to watch them. It would, be practically impossible to enforce it. If the Proviso were adopted, he was satisfied it would be inoperative, and therefore it would be of no use to insert it.
    MR. ERNEST NOELobserved that, seeing that the hours allowed for work were not intended to be excessive, there could be no objection to this Proviso being inserted in the clause, in order to ensure that the working period should not exceed 12 hours.
    MR. MACDONALDthought that the very argument used by the Home Secretary—namely, that it would require an army of Inspectors to watch these places—showed that he had no substantial reason for objecting to the proposal. Could these small mills require more watching than tailors' shops and other establishments? In those little scutching mills the employment of these persons beyond fixed hours could be easily observed and detected. They heard a good deal said about injuring the industries of Ireland. He did not wish to injure them. He wished, rather, to protect them; but not at the expense of the persons employed in them. He was extremely sorry the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the very line of argument which was used on the Benches opposite, and on this side of the House as well, for excluding women altogether from workshops.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he should like to know what protection there would be for the few factories employing women and children if there were to be no inspection? Those cases, however, were not the only ones in which it was important. It was an extremely unhealthy employment, and, as the hon. Member for Galway (Dr. Ward) had stated, there was more lung disease among persons employed in it than the average among the population of healthy towns. Under those circumstances, he asked whether scutching mills should be
    602
    excepted from the provisions contained in Part III. of the Bill, at page 56. Were the scutching mills to be excepted, and protection withheld from women under employers doing three-fourths of that description of work, and whose hands carried on their labours in most unhealthy places—were they to be left to the tender mercies of those manufacturers in the North of Ireland? Or, would those manufacturers be willing to accept any maximum limit of time whatever? Unless some protection were given to the workers for whom they were pleading, he said unhesitatingly that the whole benefit of the Bill was lost for Ireland in the quarter whore protection was most requisite, if needed at all.
    MR. BIGGARwished to point out to the Committee that it was really not desirable that these mills should work by artificial light. With artificial light there was always a danger of fire, and it was usual enough in Ireland for scutching mills to be burnt down. Few offices would not give insurances on them at any rate offered. What happened was this? A mill was burnt, and a gentleman went to the presentment sessions and made a claim for compensation for malicious injury. He attended personally on the members, and the Grand Jury, who were his personal friends—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in Order. The question before the Committee refers to the hours of labour.
    MR. GRAYthought the Home Secretary could not mean to represent that an Inspector would be required in every mill. How did he propose to carry out his Bill at all? Would it not be by acting upon evidence? They did not mean to watch for a man's committing an offence, but reasonable evidence of his having committed one. The Committee, he thought, were placed in a most extraordinary position. What would be the effect of the discussion in Ireland? It would be said that the righthon. Gentleman had broken through the principle of his Bill to gratify a few of his supporters from the North of Ireland. There would be a suspicion, at least, that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of women being employed in these places for more than 12 hours a-day.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved that in the consideration of this clause the great fact of which the Committee should take notice was this—that the women whose case they had been discussing were not employed in them during the whole of the year, but only for about half a year, and that during the remainder of it they were engaged at hop-picking, and in other ways. On that account, and not because of the character of their employment in the scutching mills, he should not oppose the clause.
    MR. PARNELLcomplained of this exceptional clause as unfair to every other trade. If the proposed exemption were made in favour of a single industry, to the exclusion of every other kind of employment mentioned in the Bill, he feared that the people of Ireland would think it was made only in opposition to Irish Members on that of the House on which he sat.
    MR. MUNDELLAclaimed to have been one of the best supporters of the Bill, and said if he could not vote for this clause, it was from an honest conviction that such a provision ought not to be passed. It had been said that either 12 hours was not a sufficiently long time for doing the work which had to be done in these mills, or that the exemption would be inoperative. But if the exemption would be inoperative, he would ask why did the Home Secretary introduce these scutch mills into the Bill in the first instance? Having so included them, the right hon. Gentleman could hardly be supposed to think that the exemption would be inoperative.
    MR. FAWCETTunderstood that the Home Secretary did not now exempt women from the operation of this clause; because, from the right hon. Gentleman's silence, it appeared that he did not pretend to argue even for a moment, that scutching was an exceptional employment, as compared with other trades. What he understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean was, that he was not prepared to interfere with the labour of women in scutch mills, because it only lasted during six months of the year. That appeared to be the reason why the right hon. Gentleman supported the clause. If that was so, they could propose a clause, on the Report, carrying out the principle that the Bill should not apply to women in employments that did not occupy them more than six
    604
    months of the year. The Home Secretary would then have an opportunity of voting for the principle which he had laid down.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 36; Noes 107: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 39.)
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    DR. CAMERONmoved a new clause to follow Clause 66, providing for the establishment of local offices; but said he did not intend to press the clause, because the Home Secretary had intimated that he had instituted some administrative change which would ensure that the address of the Inspector would be made known to every person concerned. But the right hon. Gentleman had not stated distinctly whether he was going to make some provision for keeping a register of the names of the occupiers of factories and workshops in every district.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he saw no difficulty in the matter, so far as factories were concerned, but he did with regard to workshops. He was willing to do anything in his power to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. YEAMANmoved a new clause. The hon. Member explained that the clause did not extend to children, but applied only to young persons and women. The exception was claimed, not for factories worked by steam-power, but for those which, being driven by water-power, were liable to be stopped by drought or by flood. These were causes over which the employers had no control. With regard to flood, it was frequently caused by the drainage of the high gathering grounds coming down suddenly into the river which drove these water-mills; for when the drainage water rushed down in that way, it had the effect of stopping the mills. When a drought took place, the ground wanted that retentive power which was requisite to keep up a continuous supply of water. The owners of these mills had expended a large amount of money upon them, and they were now going to be deprived of a privilege which they had enjoyed up to the year 1874, without receiving any compensating advan-

    605
    tage. Perhaps, the Home Secretary would suggest that water-power might be supplemented by steam. But the fact was, that many of these mills were situated far from the seaport towns, from which they derived their raw material. This had to be sent, in some instances, a distance of 25 miles; and it was impossible that these factories driven by water could compete with those worked by steam, unless they made up for the loss sustained by drought and flood. The proprietors also complained that, unless they were enabled to give the operatives steady and regular employment, as well as full wages, the latter would go to towns where they might obtain better work. Not only had he himself received requisitions from the operatives of these mills, but a large requisition was sent, two years ago, to the Royal Commission, in favour of an extension of time, in order that they might reap the advantage of the full labour. Another reason for the clause was that, during the last three or four years, competition had been so great that many of these mills had been working at a loss to the owners. Jute mills and other factories had been springing up in France, Germany, and elsewhere, and these foreign manufactures would, when brought into the market, subject the home products to a very severe competition indeed. That fact alone was sufficient to justify the passing of the clause, without which one of the most important industries of this country would be fettered. He hoped that the Home Secretary would agree to the hours as specified in the clause, though the right hon. Gentleman might, if he thought fit, modify the wording in other respects.
    Moved to insert the following new clause:—
    (Exception for factories driven by water power.)
    "Where it appears to a Secretary of State that factories driven by water power are liable to be stopped by drought or flood, he may, by order made under this part of this Act, grant to such factories a special exception permitting the employment of young persons and women from six o'clock in the morning until seven o'clock in the afternoon, on such conditions as he may think proper, but so as that no person shall be employed more than eleven hours in any one day nor more than sixty-one hours in any one week, nor after two o'clock in the afternoon on Saturday, and that as regards factories liable to be stopped by drought, such
    606
    special exception shall only extend to the months of May and October and intervening months in each year, and as regards factories liable to be stopped by floods such special exception shall not extend to more than forty-eight days in any period of twelve months. This overtime shall not extend in any case beyond the time already lost."—(Mr. Yeaman.)
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHurged the Home Secretary to accept the principle of the clause allowing for lost time, for the position of these mill-owners was a hard one. When the Act of 1874 was passing through Committee, a provision was introduced, allowing for the recovery of lost time; but after the Act had been passed through Parliament, those persons who were concerned in that Provision found that it had been struck out without their knowledge, and that they were suddenly placed in a disadvantageous position. With regard to the character of the occupation, these water mills, being situated in country districts, the workpeople had all the advantages of pure air, and were healthy and strong; more so than those who were shut up in the factories of the large towns. The more regular work obtainable in the latter case would not counterbalance the advantages derived from fresh air and from living in country cottages. If these mills were deprived of the privilege of recovering for lost time, the employed, as well as the employers would suffer; because the former, on finding that they could earn more wages elsewhere, would move off to the steam factories, and these water-power mills would be wiped out. Many operatives would thus be left without employment. He did not think it was advisable that the Legislature should put obstacles in the way of the employers of water-power. This was not a matter of small importance, as a considerable proportion of the mechanical power, applied in textile factories, was worked by water. The principle of the clause was to apply to water-power mills, what had been already applied to other factories by this Bill. Overtime had been allowed for special work, which was done at uncertain seasons of the year; but the necessity in this case was stronger than in that.
    COLONEL DRTTMMOND MORAYsaid, the clause was one which affected Perthshire, as there were water mills there, for which he claimed this privilege of recovering for loss of time. If it were not

    607
    granted in some degree to these factories the employés would be driven into the towns where they could get regular work. This was especially true of Perthshire, where there was considerable difficulty in obtaining steam-power. The work was far healthier in the country than in the towns, which were already overcrowded. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would grant some relaxation in favour of these mills.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, that as he had got the Amendment inserted which took away the special privileges which water-power mills had previously enjoyed, he desired to say that if it were now proposed to restore these, he would oppose it; but the concession now asked was a very moderate one. He thought the clause was fairly guarded, and he hoped the Home Secretary would accept it.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in stating the reasons why he had not inserted in the Bill such a provision as that which this clause contained, said, the privilege of working overtime at the water-mills was allowed by law before the Act of 1874 was passed. The opinions of the Inspectors as to the working of that principle were certainly not of a discouraging character. Mr. Redgrave, in his evidence before the Royal Commission, had stated, with reference to the recovery of lost time in water-mills, that he did not think the Factory Act was ever intended to carry out that principle as a regular system; the whole object of the Legislature appeared to be to provide against cases of exceptional difficulty, and over which the mill-owners had no control, whether that difficulty arose from too much or from too little water. The same witness remarked that the Legislature evidently meant that these should be considered natural causes, and to that extent there seemed to be a grievance; so that those who worked their mills by water power ought to have some means of recovering the time lost by the intervention of such natural causes. That was the opinion of some of the Inspectors. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had said that the exceptional provision, introduced in the Act of 1874, was struck out while the Bill was passing through Parliament, without the knowledge of the gentlemen concerned, and that they first became aware of it when the Bill had passed into law. That state-
    608
    ment was not in accordance with his own recollection of what actually occurred; for, if he was not mistaken, scarcely a single day passed without his seeing some gentleman, connected with water-power mills, who begged that the clause might be restored. The Royal Commission, no doubt, went fully into this question, and, in their opinion, some modifications might be made, probably such as were now suggested by the hon. Gentleman who introduced this clause. Formerly those persons who had mills that went by steam, were allowed to recover lost time when there was a breakdown of machinery; but the same Commission which reported against granting this privilege in favour of a breakdown of machinery, had reported in favour of mills worked by water-power. That was looked upon as a very great hardship, in 1874, by persons employed in factories. He did not know how many mills were worked by water-power; but he did know that a good many of them had got steam-power in order to assist them. That, he believed, was a growing practice, and one which would probably grow more and more. Although the Act had been in operation for upwards of four years, no doubt some persons had spent a good deal of money in that way, while others had gone on as they were, hoping that at some time or other the Act might be altered. The reason why he did not put a clause of this kind in the Bill now before the Committee was that he did not think the evils which existed in 1874 were sufficiently proved before the Commission. There was always great difficulty in finding out, with certainty, how much time was lost; because that must depend, in the first place, upon a register being kept accurately in the place where the business was carried on; and, in the next place, upon the Inspector's keeping a proper return of the time lost. Those were the reasons which induced him not to insert any clause on this subject in the Bill as originally framed.
    MR. RATHBONEspoke of the healthiness of the employment carried on in these country mills. During the last four or five years, the Charity Organization Society at Liverpool, and the Board of Guardians there had sent from that town about 1,400 women and children into the factories. That large number of persons were bordering on pauperism

    609
    when they came under the notice of those two bodies, and their employment in those mills had saved them not only from approaching pauperism, but also from vice, the consequence too often of poverty. They were saved from that fate, and sent to good employment and healthy occupation. The country mills were by far the more favourite outlet for such labour. Anything that would diminish an outlet of that kind to such a population was very much to be regretted; and it seemed to him that this sort of legislation required to be justified by proof that it would confer the benefit of health upon those to whom it applied. In the present Bill, without a clause like that now proposed, the Government were weighting very heavily those manufacturers who, under great difficulties, were struggling in their competition with large towns. The tendency, at the present day, seemed to be an injurious indraft of the population into the large towns, and when the people from the country districts had once entered the large towns and become accustomed to the excitement which prevailed there, they could not induce them to go back to their work in the country. Therefore, by placing restrictions upon these mills, which were almost invariably in the country districts, he thought the Legislature would not benefit either the health or the morality of the persons employed there. On the contrary, it was putting a difficulty in the way of an employment, which was both more healthy and more conducive to virtue, than was to be found in the midst of a dense mass of population in the large towns.
    MR. HARDCASTLEsupported the clause, on the grounds just urged-— namely, the real interest of the working people themselves. It did certainly appear to him most undesirable to discourage the kind of industry which the clause endeavoured to sustain. They all knew there was a natural tendency for the smaller factories, with less power, to succumb to the larger factories with greater. The inference, therefore, was this — that exceptional legislation was needed to meet that inequality. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the clause.
    MR. MUNDELLAagreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Bath-bone), that it was desirable to encourage
    610
    water mills, and employment in rural districts, as far as possible. Ireland had plenty of water power, and if Irishmen had an equal amount of enterprize, they might soon vie with manufacturers in any part of the three Kingdoms. He would support the clause if only the Home Secretary took care that steam-power was supplementary to water-power at these mills, and that it was not abused.
    MR. ORR EWINGexpressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the clause, as it would benefit many poor people in Ireland and Scotland. At the same time, his own opinion was that where there had been enterprize and wealth enough to provide steam-power as supplementary to the water-power, which was rendered necessary by the legislation of 1874, that they should be dealt with in the same way as those other manufacturers who had not erected supplementary steam-power.
    MR. E. J. REEDlooked upon this question as one of some importance, since so large a number of woollen manufactories were driven by water-power. He should not have supported the clause if it had not been strictly limited to some compensation being provided for the interference of nature in the process of manufacture. It was different from the breaking down of machinery, which was more or less under the control of those who had the care of it. The clause was carefully guarded so as to be confined to the interference of droughts and floods; and he had heard nothing from the Home Secretary which discouraged him in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the clause, as it stood.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had already given the Committee the reasons why this clause had not been inserted in the Bill. This clause was different in its terms from the one shown to him some time ago. He would now accept the clause, upon the understanding that he should be allowed, on the Report, so to alter its language as to provide all the necessary safeguards.
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. FAWCETTmoved a new Clause to the effect that the provisions of the Bill should not apply to those cases where women were employed not more than

    611
    six months of the year, in any factory or workshop. The hon. Member explained that the object of the clause was simply to carry out the principle for which the Home Secretary had been contending, and which had induced the right hon. Gentleman to accept the clause of the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland).
    MAJOR NOLAN,considering the importance of this proposal, moved that the Chairman be ordered to report Progress; because, at so late an hour as 10 minutes to 1, it was impossible for the Committee to discuss it properly.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—{Major Nolan.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought the Committee might dispose of this clause at once, as they had been discussing the subject of it so long. When they reached a disputed point connected with a Schedule of the Bill, he would be willing to allow Progress to be reported.
    MR. MACDONALDsupported the Motion for reporting Progress.
    MR. MUNDELLAdid not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) was really in earnest in proposing this clause. It was too late to argue the whole question. If his hon. Friend was anxious to discuss it further, he would have an opportunity on the Report.
    MR. MACDONALDremarked that the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forstor), who had an Amendment to propose on the 1st Schedule, had left the House under the impression that there was an understanding not to take the Schedules that night.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the clause offered a compromise upon this broad principle, that where the work of women only extended to six months of the year, no interference should take place. The Home Secretary had said this question had been discussed, and decided that evening. That was not exactly the case. This question had been discussed with reference to one industry, and one alone; and it had been decided so far as that industry was concerned. It had been applied to an industry which was attended with danger to health. But the question now raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Fawcett) was
    612
    a very broad one; its discussion would occupy a very long time, and if applied to all other branches it would be a most dangerous proposal, since they were not so detrimental to the human frame as the trade which had been under consideration earlier on in the evening.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, he certainly was in earnest when he proposed this clause, and he had been in earnest throughout the consideration of this Bill. After his defeat on the question of excluding women from any new restriction, it was not his intention to place obstacles to the Bill. He accepted that defeat. He had been particularly anxious to get a distinct understanding on this point. If the Home Secretary had said that scutch mills were so exceptionally healthy that women might be employed in them on that ground, then no new principle had been introduced into the Bill; but he understood the right hon. Gentleman distinctly to assert that he had not infringed the principle of the Bill as originally introduced, and that his contention, with regard to women, was that their casual employment was no reason why it should be interfered with by the Bill. If that was the case with regard to scutch mills, this clause raised the distinct principle that the casual employment of women ought not to be interfered with in any other industries which were less detrimental to health than scutch mills were admitted to be. Therefore, it seemed to him, from the Home Secretary's own showing, the right hon. Gentleman was bound to accept the clause now proposed, or one similar to it in principle. The clause had a practical bearing on a very important point, for what would now be the position of women in any other employment compared with that carried on in scutch mills? With regard to scutch mills, the principle now laid down was this —because women were employed there for six months of the year, any manufacturer, if he liked to do so, might employ women, at any sacrifice to their health, for 16, 17, or even 24 hours a-day; for there was no limit whatever imposed. If an employer of labour, who was in the habit of engaging men, employed women for only one or two months of the year, he and his industry would be brought under the operation of this Bill. Hundreds and thousands of industries might come within the opera-

    613
    tion of the Bill in that way. If they were not going to act inconsistently with what they had already done, the Committee must accept this clause. Whether it should be discussed that night, or whether Progress should be reported, were questions which he left in the hands of the Committee to decide.
    MR. BIGGARhoped the Government would admit the importance of this question, and not give hon. Members the trouble of dividing a number of times on the question of reporting Progress. There could be no attempt to pass the Bill entirely through Committee that night, and why there should be this question of reporting Progress he could not see.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwished to suggest one reason to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Faw-cett) why he should withdraw his Amendment. He would ask him how it was possible that this Act should effect any amendment in the law if this clause were passed? A complete system of registration would be required to prove that any woman had ever been employed in a factory. He could quite understand those who objected to any interference whatever raising a clause of this kind; but if they were to have an Act at all they should not make it mere bye-play.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Government had raised an entirely different principle from that of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney, and if the hon. Member went to a division he should support him. If the hon. Member considered the Amendment necessary, and if he did act in the interests of women, he could only say that in previous clauses the principle raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary desired not to serve the interests of women but the interests of employers. What the Committee had to decide was whether they would, on the one hand, carry out the principle of serving the interests of employers or, on the other, the principle of supporting the interests of women.
    MAJOR NOLANobserved that the hon. Member for Hackney had taken a very active interest in the Bill, and the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had also watched the Bill very closely. The Bill ought, therefore, to be considered another time, and the Committee ought to protest against going further.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I hope the hon. Member will not press this question further. It has been already, as I distinctly pointed out, considered over and over again.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 16; Noes 77: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 40.)
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, that after the division that had taken place it was evident that the great majority of the Committee wished to go on with the Bill, and he should therefore ask leave to withdraw the proposed new clause.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule 1.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."
    MR. PARNELL: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was not going on with the Schedules.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I said I would stop at the first opposed part.
    MR. PARNELL: I think we are entitled to some explanation.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had an Amendment to Schedule 1 on the subject of "dry grinding" and "wet grinding."
    MR. J. HOLMS: I rise to Order. I think the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) has an Amendment before that.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is so.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I promised the hon. Baronet it should be discussed.
    Motion agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill for the Revision of the Statute Law of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. JAMES LOWTHER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 122.]
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Heading-Referred to a Select Committee —Entail Amendment (Scotland) (15).
Committee —Report —House Occupiers Disqualification Removal (Scotland)*(29).
Report— Public Parks (Scotland)*(18).

THE EASTERN QUESTION — RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE TERMS OF PEACE.

  QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl the Secretary of State
  for Foreign Affairs in his place, I beg to ask him, Whether he has information to give the House with regard to the terms of peace?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I have received a statement to the effect that the Treaty of Peace will probably be signed to-morrow. I have also a statement which has reached me from various sources—and I hope there can be no doubt of its accuracy—-that the demand for the cession of the Turkish Fleet has been withdrawn.

ENTAIL AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 15.)
(The Duke of Argyll.)
ENTAIL AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 15.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to remedy a grievance under the existing law. At present where an entailed proprietor became under liability to his tenant for improvements to be effected on the estate, and died before they were completed, the obligation to carry them out was not obligatory on the heir—and except where the estate was given as security for money borrowed for the purpose, the obligation fell on the executor, not on the heir. That was a very unsatisfactory state of the law. In some cases the evil effect of the law might be avoided, either through the agency of various Improvement Companies Acts which had from time to time been passed on the subject, or by other indirect means; but if the person in possession of an entailed estate chose to spend his own money—as many of the Scotch proprietors did—and did not choose to go to the trouble of borrowing to make the improvements, then that obligation would fall upon his executors, and not upon the heir. That was the state of the law at present. The Bill consisted of four clauses. The 1st clause was to the effect that—
  "All obligations undertaken, whether prior or subsequent to the passing of this Act, by an institute or heir in possession of an entailed estate in Scotland, in any lease granted by him as proprietor of such estate for the execution of any improvements of the description contained in the third section of the Entail Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1875, shall, in case of his death

  531
  before complete fulfilment of such obligations, devolve upon the heirs succeeding to the estate after him, who shall in their order be bound to relieve his executors, or other personal representatives, of such obligations, so far as unfulfilled, and to repay to such executors, or other personal representatives, any sums of money which they may be called upon to pay and may have paid in virtue of such obligations."
  The clause was, of course, not to apply to any case in which the grantor of the obligation had in express terms declared his intention to impose the obligation upon his executors to the relief of his heirs of entail. It might be thought that this was a very unimportant amendment of the law; but in Scotland— where the system of 19 years' leases prevailed—it was almost the invariable practice for both new and old tenants to ask for important improvements to be made, and very often they were undertaken at very considerable cost, and required a considerable time for their completion; and under the present law the whole came upon the executory if the owner died before completion of the works. The 2nd clause provided that—
  "The heirs succeeding to such institute or heir in possession as aforesaid shall in like manner as above provided be bound, unless otherwise expressly directed by him, to relieve his executors, or other personal representatives, of all liabilities which he may have undertaken in any contracts or agreements with reference to the execution of improvements of the description aforesaid on the mansion-house and offices of the entailed estate, or any other parts of the estate not under lease, and to repay to such executors or other personal representatives any sums of money which they may be called upon to pay and may have paid in virtue of such contracts or agreements."
  That was the first part of the Bill. Of these clauses he was sure their Lordships would approve when they considered the present state of the law. The 3rd and 4th clauses had for their object the removal of another anomaly. In Scotland the laws of entail were formerly much more stringent than the corresponding laws in England. It was possible in Scotland formerly to entail land for ever, and the powers of the heirs in possession were almost nil, owing to the stringency of the entailing instrument. In that state of the case the Montgomery Act was passed about 100 years ago, enabling proprietors in possession to spend money upon certain conditions being observed. At a later period Lord Aberdeen brought in a Bill
  532
  granting a further measure of relief in respect to family provisions. Since that the Montgomery and Aberdeen Acts were the only Statutes under which the old entail laws could be meddled with so as to enable provision to be made for younger children. In 1848 the Ministry of Earl Russell introduced an Act, the object of which was to introduce into Scotland the English principle of limiting the entail to lives in being and one life beyond. But in that Act there was an extraordinary provision reserving the liberty given under the Montgomery and Aberdeen Acts to the old entails, and abolishing it for the new; so that, in point of fact, the result was a greater stringency for the new entails. Their Lordships might ask why the Government of the day introduced a Bill of that kind? Well, it was an incident illustrating the dangers of the course sometimes spoken of, in which the laws of England were to be carried bodily into Scotland—a course very likely, indeed, to prove unwise; for in the two countries these matters were not always regarded in the same spirit, and the habits of life were different. The theory of the law in England was that the owner of an entailed estate had no other power than that which the instrument under which he held conferred. Those who introduced the Act of 1848 jumped at the conclusion that if the same principle were introduced into Scotland, there would, for the future, be no necessity to provide for younger children by law; because such provision would be made by the instrument itself. The consequence was that conveyancers went on drawing deeds of entail precisely as under the old law, and giving no power at all, or a very limited power, with respect to improvements or family provision. This state of things came to the knowledge of the Government, and legislation was passed, making the Aberdeen and Montgomery Acts apply to new as well as old entails. First, there was a Permissive Act, and then in 1868 an Act was passed applying the provisions of these Acts at once to all entails, new and old. The present Government introduced two years ago another Bill, and a very valuable one, too. They adopted the principle of the old Montgomery Act, and very fully amended the schedule of improvements. But, strange to say, this power was again

  533
  limited to the old entails. He could not help thinking that the point could not have been brought to the attention of the Government; but, at any rate, the result was that persons holding estates under the new entails had not got the advantages of the valuable Act passed in 1875. That he did not consider a reasonable state of things, and the purpose of this Bill was to correct it. The 3rd clause accordingly provided that certain sections of the Act of 1875 should apply to all entails. The remaining clause of the Bill proposed that the heirs in possession of entailed estates, whether holders under tailzies made either before or after August, 1848, as well as such as should be made in future, should have the same power with regard to improvements which the Bill of 1875 contemplated. Since this Bill was brought in, he had had numerous communications from entailed proprietors in Scotland suggesting alterations — one man suggesting one thing, and another dwelling upon another point. He was bound to say, with regard to several of these communications, that he approved of them. But he was exceedingly anxious that this Bill should pass, and he wished to limit it to its own object, and not to introduce debatable matter. It had been under the consideration of the legal bodies in Scotland, and they had suggested one or two alterations which, as far as he read the Bill, did not at all interfere with its principle. However, all these matters could be talked over in Committee, or might be considered by a Select Committee. The Bill was extremely simple in its character, and contained only the four clauses he had explained.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—{The Duke of Argyll.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not rise to oppose the second reading —he should give the Bill his support— but to make a suggestion. The subject it dealt with was one of a very difficult character; but the provisions of the Bill did not so much raise questions of principle as of detail, and were, for the most part, of so technical a character as to be unsuited for discussion by the Whole House. He had communicated with the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), suggesting to him that the more convenient
  534
  course would be to have the Bill considered before a Select Committee. He knew there were several Members of their Lordships' House who were greatly interested in the provisions of the Bill, and it might be better that the question should be considered by a Select Committee than that it should be discussed in Committee of the Whole House.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, that the word "improvements" would require to be more distinctly defined than it appeared to be in the Bill as it now stood—for instance, there was the question of railways, or tramways, which the proprietor of an entailed estate might have constructed for the benefit of the estate—but it was questionable whether, under the Bill, this would be considered an "improvement," unless some alteration was made in the 5th sub-section of the 3rd-—the Interpretation—Clause of the Act of 1875.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLwould accede to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and he was sure that any suggestion which the noble Earl had to make would be considered by the Select Committee.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.
  And, on March 12, the Lords following were named of the Committee:

  Ld. Chancellor.

  L. Stewart of Garlies.

  Ld. President.

  L. Brodrick.

  E. Doncaster.

  L. Elgin.

  E. Minto.

  L. Selborne.

  L. Elphinstone.

  L. Blackburn.

  L. Sundridge.

  L.GordonofDrumearn.

  The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—FI rst Reading— Matrimonial Causes Acts Amendment*(34).
Second Reading —Glebe Loans (Ireland)*(32).
Third Reading —House Occupiers Disqualification Removal (Scotland) *(29), and passed.

THE AUXILIARY FORCES — THE VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTION.
LORD ST. LEONARDSbegged to ask the noble Earl the Prime Minister, Whether Her Majesty' s Government were prepared, in the event of certain contingencies, to hold out any inducement to the Volunteers to offer themselves for foreign service in the event of war?
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, when the contingency arises to which my noble Friend has referred— namely, the necessity of appealing to the patriotism of our Volunteers in respect of foreign service—I have no doubt the appeal will be answered; but until the contingency arises, Her Majesty's Government will not give—as they have not given—that consideration to the subject which my noble Friend seems to anticipate. It is a contingency which, I am sure, we must all deprecate.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—RUSSIA AND TURKEY.-THE TREATY OF PEACE.—QUESTION.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether the announcement made in the papers to-day that the Treaty of Peace has been signed between Russia and Turkey is a true one; and also, whether he can state to your Lordships the probable time at which he will be able to inform your Lordships of the terms of the Treaty?
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I have received both from Constantinople and from St. Petersburg official confirmation of the signatures having been attached to the Treaty of Peace between Russia and Turkey. The terms of the Treaty are not yet in my hands; but I may take this opportunity of stating that I am now able to confirm the announcement made by me with some hesitation on Friday last—namely, that the cession
616
of the Turkish Fleet is not included in the conditions of peace. I am also able to state that the pecuniary indemnity—of which we heard a great deal in an unofficial manner—has been reduced from the original sum of £40,000,000 to £12,000,000, and that the Egyptian revenue will not be in any manner affected by it. When we have the complete terms of the Treaty—and it is hardly necessary to add that we shall do what we can to obtain the terms at the earliest possible date—we shall communicate them to your Lordships' House.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONrose to move—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the sittings for Public Business should commence at 4 P.M. instead of 5 P.M."
The noble Lord said, it was a common impression that the advisability of the change which he proposed had been several times discussed in their Lordships' House, and with results adverse to the proposal. But this was not so. The question had only once before been brought under the consideration of the House—namely, in 1867—when a noble Earl who generally sat on the benches opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject. Seventeen Peers were nominated to serve on the Committee. In the course of the discussions which took place in the Committee, the noble Earl who had moved for its appointment brought forward a Resolution, which was carried by a majority of 8 to 7 to the effect that the House should, after Easter, meet at a quarter past 4 o'clock for the despatch of Public Business. Later on, when the Report of the Committee was finally considered, two of the former majority were absent, and an Amendment was carried by 7 votes to 6. He had himself thought of moving for a Return showing the number of occasions on which their Lordships' House had sat for only half or three quarters of an hour; but, after going over the records of one or two Sessions, he thought it more prudent to ask for no Return of that description. The result of his observations since he had had the honour of being a Member of their Lordships' House, were these—On many occasions there was little or no Business,

617
and the House rose from half-an-hour to three-quarters after the commencement of the Sitting. On other occasions, there was a regular debate which came on after formal Notice; on other evenings a debate sprung up in consequence of some unexpected question or incident. In the first case, the attendance of Peers was little more than nominal; but in the two last, perhaps 25 or 40 noble Lords, who had been serving on Private Bill Committees or Select Committees of the House, remained to take part in the Evening Sitting. Now, these Committees rose at 4 o'clock. Therefore an hour to an hour and a-quarter had to elapse before the House commenced business. During that interval many of the Peers left the House and went elsewhere. Some went to the House of Commons and remained for some time if any discussion of interest detained them in the Gallery of that House. He believed, therefore, that if their Lordships met earlier a larger number would be in attendance when the time for beginning Public Business arrived. On the nights when there were regular debates, as their Lordships were not in the habit of prolonging their discussions into the early hours of the morning, the more humble Members had little opportunity of taking part in them between the hours of 5 P.M. and 12 P.M., the whole evening being monopolized by speakers of the first rank, most of whom held, or had held, official positions. The consequence was the discouragement of young Members, who might desire to train themselves to take a more prominent share in their debates hereafter. In the House of Commons there was a sort of tacit arrangement that some time should be allotted to the less prominent Members. The change he proposed would be still more sensibly felt on what he might term the intermediate evenings, when questions of public interest were put to Ministers in that House. Now, these answers were simply a rechauffe of information already given in the other House, where the Questions were put and answered three-quarters of an hour earlier. He had heard an objection to his Motion, that, as under the Statute, no Peer need enter the House before 5, therefore their Lordships might be interrupted, if they met earlier, by Peers coming in. But it was only since 1843 that the hour for noble Lords to take their seats had been extended to 5
618
o'clock. He found that from the time of Charles II. to the year 1843 the time assigned for a Peer taking his seat was before the hour of 4. In that year Lord Campbell passed an Act extending the time to 5 o'clock. The next objection was that, if their Lordships were to revert to the former hour, the Committees would rise earlier than they did at present. In the House of Commons Committees did not sit after 4 o'clock. Their Lordships' Committees sat at 11 A.M., and in the other House they did not sit before 12 o'clock. From 11 to 4 as much could be done as was necessary for public usefulness, and it would not be desirable to extend the Sittings later than 4 o'clock. The third objection was that those of their Lordships who held offices in the Government would find a difficulty in coming down to their Lordships' House at 4 o'clock or half-past. He could hardly conceive that that could be a serious objection to urge against the proposed change; for if their Colleagues were able to be in the House of Commons by half-past 4 o'clock to answer Questions, Ministers in their Lordships' House, who had not been kept till perhaps 2 o'clock in the morning, would surely be able to be in their places in their Lordships' House by half-past 4 o'clock. He might observe, also, that in the majority that supported the Resolution in the Committee of 1867 were six noble Lords who had previously held office under the Crown, and who had frequently held office since that time. The House now sat for legal business at half-past 10. The last objection was a more serious one, and had reference to the legal Sittings of the House. Until 1853— and he believed later—their Lordships' House sat at 10 o'clock in the morning for the disposal of legal business. He could see no reason why they should not again sit at 10 o'clock, and save half-an-hour at the commencement of the day. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was, no doubt, the hardest worked man of their Lordships' House during the Session of Parliament, and every consideration ought to be shown to him. Now, he (Viscount Midleton) could not see why the Deputy Speaker of their Lordships' House should not discharge his duties for the first hour. Since the Judicature Act the judicial strength of the House had been enormously increased, whilst the busi-

619
ness, on the whole, had become lighter. On the whole, he was of opinion that the change which he proposed would be found, if adopted, to work beneficially. It would promote a greater economy of time; and in those nights when debates took place it would greatly improve them by allowing many more Peers to take part in them, who were now prevented from doing so from want of time. The interest taken in their Lordships' House would also be enormously increased by a time being fixed for answering Questions, instead of as now their being answered at a time when all the interest in them had vanished. His sole object in bringing this Motion forward was to add to the honour and dignity of their Lordships' House, and add to its efficiency in the discharge of public business.
Moved to resolve, "That, in the opinion of this House, the sittings for Public Business should commence at 4 P.M. instead of 5 P.M."— (The Viscount Midleton.)
LORD SELBORNEsaid, he had waited in the hope of hearing some of their Lordships express an opinion on this Motion before he ventured to give his own—for he had certainly formed one on the subject. No doubt their Lordships were all individually concerned in the proposed change; and nothing could be of greater importance to the country than that the efficiency and dignity of the debates in their Lordships' House should be maintained in the future as they had been in the past. He thought that the change proposed by his noble Friend would tend to produce that effect. One, however, of the reasons put forward by his noble Friend did not strike him as of any serious importance. He alluded to the argument founded on the fact that Questions were answered in their Lordships' House later than in the other House of Parliament. He could not think that the fact that Questions were put and answered in their Lordships' House half-an-hour later than in the other House would in itself be a good reason for any considerable change in the hour at which their Lordships ordinarily met for Business. Then, with regard to their debates—it certainly was most important that young Members should be encouraged to feel an ambition to take part in the discussion of
620
public affairs, and so keep up the reputation of their Lordships' House; and if the fact was, as his noble Friend supposed, that when an-important and prolonged debate took place there was not opportunity for all who wished to do so to take part in it, this would certainly be an evil for which a remedy ought to be found; and, if no better remedy could be suggested, it would be a reason in favour of this Motion. But his own reason for thinking the change expedient was rather founded on the third class of Sittings to which his noble Friend had referred — those, namely, which were occupied by business on which there was no great public excitement, and as to which no division was intended to be taken. He thought his noble Friend had scarcely done justice to his own case when referring to that class of Sittings as one in which discussions arose in an unexpected manner. Ever since he first had the honour to enter their Lordships' House, he had observed that on occasions when no division was expected, and when no very exciting question was under discussion, although the business might be of much real importance, and came on after full Notice, there was the utmost difficulty in inducing Members of the House to remain after that hour at which noble Lords were in the habit of going to get ready for dinner. If he was wrong, he apologized; but that was his impression. He believed that one of the reasons of the popularity of their Lordships' House was the opinion that, by their close attention to the details of Bills, their Lordships made good many omissions, and cured many defects in Bills as they left the other House of Parliament. And that was quite true in the case of Bills sent to Select Committees. It was not, however, so correct in the case of Bills the details of which did not attract much public notice, and which were carried through Committee in the ordinary way. Their Lordships might well consider whether, in the stages of second reading and Committee of such Bills, Members of the House were not discouraged from discussing those measures through the feeling that there was not sufficient time for the purpose between a quarter-past 5 and half-past 7, or a little later. Nor was this by any means the whole of the evil. The time available was too limited for the effec-

621
tive discussion of any question whatever, even when it might be most highly desirable that it should be fully discussed. Many such discussions were either not attempted at all, or were virtually suppressed when they were attempted—the unwillingness of noble Lords to remain beyond a certain hour being a discouragement to debate, which was felt by old as well as young Members of the House. The most serious obstacle to the proposed change was its operation on the legal Sittings; but their Lordships would bear in mind that at present the House of Lords had power to sit out of Session for the hearing of appeals, and to sit on Wednesdays for that purpose; and if the legal sittings for the day ended at half-past 3—half-an-hour earlier than at present—that would be compensated by a more than corresponding gain if they could induce a greater number of Members to take a share in the Business of the House. As to the Lord Chancellor, he, of course, could not be expected to take his seat on the Woolsack immediately after he had risen from hearing appeals; not because that interval was one of rest, however necessary some rest might seem after five or six hours of labour, but because it was the only time during which he could transact other indispensable official business before the meeting of the House. The case in respect of the Lord Chancellor might, however, be met by an arrangement such as that proposed by his noble Friend who had moved the Resolution — namely, that the Deputy Speaker should take the seat on the Woolsack until the Lord Chancellor came in. Upon the whole, he was favourable to the proposed change.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Lord who introduced the subject had made some remarks in a considerate spirit for the office which he (the Lord Chancellor) had the honour to hold; but that was not sufficient—he submitted that the burden lay on those who proposed this change to make out clearly that some advantages would arise from it. It was somewhat singular that there appeared no community of spirit between his noble Friend who brought forward the Resolution and his noble and learned Friend who had just spoken in its favour. His noble Friend adduced three reasons, and his noble and learned Friend, not at all concurring in
622
those, set up a fourth reason. In the first place, urged his noble Friend, an anomaly and an inconvenience existed, with reference to Questions put in this and in the other House of Parliament— that when the same Question was to be put in both Houses of Parliament the Answer was given in the other House before it was asked in their Lordships'; and that, therefore, the Answer given in their Lordships' House was already discounted. Now, he might be allowed to remark that if that were the case the proposition of his noble Friend did not meet it in the slightest degree; because, whereas under the present arrangement the Answerw as given first in the House of Commons, and in their Lordships' House at a later hour, if the change proposed were made the Answer would be given in the other House of Parliament later than in their Lordships' House—which would be simply a reversal of the anomaly. The proposition was that their Lordships should meet at 4, when Questions could be put; but Public Business did not commence in the other House of Parliament till half-past 4. But was it a fact that the Answers given in their Lordships' House were less interesting because they wore made after those in the other House? Unless his eyes deceived him among those who came to their Lordships' House to bear Answers given to Questions, and who awaited those Answers with great apparent interest and anxiety, were many who had already heard the Questions "put and replied to in the other House. And that always would be so, for this reason—that their Lordships' Standing Orders were more pliant and more flexible, and allowed of fuller and more explicit Answers than could usually be made in the other House. Their Lordships' forms of proceeding were so flexible that it was quite a common thing for Members of the other House, after hearing a Ministerial statement there, to come to their Lordships' House to listen to the fuller Answer that could be returned to any Question. Another argument of his noble Friend was that there was a certain number of their Lordships serving on Select Committees, which met at 11 o'clock and adjourned at 4; and that, therefore, those noble Lords who desired to remain to listen to the evening debate, had to roam about the building, or find amusement else-

623
where, until 5 o'clock. It appeared to him that the fact thus relied on by his noble Friend would not at all justify the change he proposed. It might be a reason for some change. It might be a reason why the Committees of their Lordships' House should meet at 12 and go on until 5 or a quarter before 5; but why arrangements affecting all the Members of the House should be changed to meet the case of the comparatively small number of Peers who, at a given time, were to be found serving on Select Committees was what he could not understand. The third ground put forward by his noble Friend was the most important. His noble Friend said he had noticed that when there was a great and important debate, there were a number of Members—and especially of the younger Members—unable to find an opportunity to address the House. Now, he was sure that all their Lordships would wish that the younger Members of the House should take part in the debates; but he ventured to ask the noble Lord on how many nights in a Session did that House continue a debate till midnight? Could those nights be counted on the fingers of one hand or on the fingers of both hands? He asked him, if that were so, whether for so small an emergency it was necessary to make so great a change? He would go further, and ask whether there was any real want of opportunities for Members desiring to address their Lordships? He believed, from his own experience of that House, that there never had been a single instance in which the slightest disposition had been evinced by the House to close a debate at 12 o'clock, as long as any desire was manifested on the part of noble Lords to speak on the question under discussion. He knew there had been occasions when a wish was expressed to terminate a debate on a particular night; but on those occasions the debate did not cease at 12 o'clock—it was carried on till the small hours of the morning. There was always the opportunity of ensuring a debate; and he might add that when there was reason to apprehend an unusually long debate, there was nothing whatever to prevent their Lordships resolving that on such an occasion the House should meet an hour earlier. That might be done when the occasion arose without making a change to apply to the Sittings generally. But his noble
624
and learned Friend (Lord Selborne) made a statement with respect to the dinner-hour from which he (the Lord Chancellor) must demur. He had always observed that when there was before the House a question of real interest that question secured serious consideration and discussion, and that, even despite the terrible dinner-hour, the attendance of Peers was kept up. Certainly, on other occasions, and when such questions were not before the House, he had seen the approach of the dinner-hour act indirectly, but not always uselessly, as the "count out" did in "another place." Again, when the clauses of a Bill were being considered in the ordinary way, and not by a Select Committee, it was not always a disadvantage to have the Committee of the Whole House more limited rather than too large in number. In the case of long debates the gain of time—one hour—by the proposed change could have but a very small effect in giving young Members encouragement to take part in the debates. As to the effect of the proposed change on the Judicial Business of the House, he had to observe that the adoption of the noble Lord's proposal would strike in a most serious manner against the whole of the Judicial Business. This business occupied on an average five hours each sitting day. Now, let them strike off one hour from that, and it was clear that while they reduced the time for the business by one-fifth they would add one-fifth to the cost of having that business discharged. Was the House prepared to sanction that? It was said that the House might sit at 10 o'clock in the morning for the commencement of Judicial Business. All the Appellate Courts in the Kingdom sat at half-past 10—and, he was sorry to say, not always punctually at half-past 10—whereas their Lordships' House sat punctually at that hour for Judicial Business. None of the primary Courts, except the Rolls Court and the three Vice Chancellors' Courts, sat at 10 o'clock; and for their Lordships' House to sit at that hour would cause much inconvenience to professional gentlemen. It was said that the House might meet for Law Business on Wednesdays. Well, that was a day devoted to Cabinet Councils and to other business to which the Lord Chancellor had to attend, besides his business in the House of Lords. As to the proposition

625
that, as Deputy Speaker, his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees might sit on the Woolsack from 4 o'clock till some time after that hour, when the Lord Chancellor would come in and take his seat, why, it often happened that the first Order of the Day was a Committee of the Whole House. How could such an arrangement be carried out in that case? He wished to point out that unless the House was prepared to say that it desired its Judicial Business to be suspended at 3 o'clock, the Lord Chancellor would be placed in a totally different position with respect to attendance in the discharge of that Business from that which he at present occupied. In the interval, he might add, which now elapsed between 4 and 5 o'clock the Lord Chancellor had to see his Secretaries, to receive deputations, and generally to look after the work of his Department; and it would hardly be well, he thought, to take away the hour which he now had at his command without affording him another opportunity for the purpose. For those reasons, he must submit to their Lordships that no good grounds had been made out for assenting to the Motion.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought that the reasons given for the change by the noble Lord who had introduced the proposal were entitled to considerable weight. He entirely concurred in the statement of the noble Lord, that the way in which the Business of the House was now conducted did not afford sufficient encouragement to its younger Members to take part in its debates—a matter of much importance, as it tended to keep up the debating power of the House;—and he would also remark that the examples furnished by several noble Lords whom he saw around him showed that those Peers who had not the advantage of previous training in the House of Commons need not on that account despair of taking a brilliant part in the discussions in their Lordships' House. There was, however, a difficulty in the case of the junior Members of the House in finding an opportunity to do so; and that opportunity would, it appeared to him, be to some extent afforded if the hour proposed were added to the time at their disposal. The debates, he might observe, on which he was disposed to lay the greatest stress, were those which arose sometimes without any
626
division being taken, and in which speeches were made by Peers of the greatest weight. Taking the month of July last, he found that there were 16 Sittings of the House. There were no very late sittings. Nine out of those Sittings varied from 5.20 to 6.45—there being no divisions. In the case of the other seven, the House adjourned once at 8.25, again at 8.10, 7.30, 7.45, and 7.40. Now, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said he never saw any unwillingness on the part of Members of the House to sit out the debates during those hours when subjects of importance were under discussion; but his own experience, he must confess, was of the opposite character. From a quarter past 5 o'clock to a quarter to 7 he did not know that any Assembly could give a more patient hearing to the speakers who happened to address it; but at the latter hour there was a general rustling of lawn sleeves, and the benches that were generally occupied by them were almost certain to become perfectly deserted, while five or ten minutes after he observed lay Peers by degrees quietly leaving the House in one direction or another. A certain number, it was true, remained, looking very woebegone, and listened patiently to any Ministerial statement if one was being made; but if any young Member rose to speak, it was almost impossible not to trace in their faces an expression the reverse of encouraging to the youthful orator. It would, therefore, in his opinion, be of great importance that an additional hour should be given to the debates, especially seeing how frequently important discussions were incidentally raised. As to the remark that their Lordships exhibited a liking to go home to dinner, he would observe that that was a feeling which was by no means confined to their Lordships' House. The Members of the other House appeared to be influenced by pretty much the same desire—although it was true they returned to attend to business later on in the evening. There might, he admitted, be some inconvenience to official Members of the House if the present Motion were adopted. The afternoon would, in consequence, be shortened for them; but that was a difficulty which ought not, in his opinion, to stand in the way of the change if it were likely to be of advantage to the transaction of Public Business. The

627
objections which had been raised in reference to the position of the Lord Chancellor were, he admitted, of considerable weight; but as to the small number of Peers who, after leaving the Committee-rooms at 4 o'clock, did not return to the House again, it was to them a matter of indifference at what hour the House met for the transaction of Public Business. There were others, however, who did come back, and unless they had letters to write or paid a visit to the Aquarium, they had nothing to do between 4 and a quarter-past 5—so that in their case the proposed change would, he thought, be an advantage, seeing how often the House adjourned immediately after assembling, and how frequently, therefore, they would be able to have an hour's exercise when it had done so, instead of wasting their time while waiting for the meeting of the House. He was very much strengthened, he might add, in the views which he held on the subject by what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend near him. The time of the Lord Chancellor was of immense value; and it was to be regretted that Lord Chancellor after Lord Chancellor should think it necessary to remain so many hours on the Woolsack. Often he remained on the Woolsack during along Sitting, when his aid was not in the least requisite, and when he might be most usefully employed elsewhere. It was said that he occupied the position of the Speaker in the other House. But he (Earl Granville) had known when there were more than one Speaker—in Lord Denman's time there were two Deputy Speakers—and he thought there might very well be two now to meet the special requirements of any case. The noble and learned Lord thought the change would operate injuriously to suitors. He (Earl Granville) could not see why the appeals should not go on to 4 o'clock; and then the House meet at 4.15. On the whole, the discussion had confirmed him in the opinion that it would be an advantageous change if their Lordships were to meet an hour earlier as proposed.
THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, my noble Friend in his very ingenious speech—which reminds me of some he made in "another place" where I was his companion—has complained of a want of freedom and facility in our debates; and has stated, in a
628
manner with which I daresay many will sympathize, the lack of opportunity afforded to younger Members of the House from the general tenor and management of our discussions. But I must say that my noble Friend—although his opinion, no doubt, was most sincere on the point—gave us, in the speech which he made, no encouragement whatever to hope that a larger area of debate would be the consequence of the success of his position. My noble Friend has a very strong conviction on this question; but what is the course which he takes? He goes about, according to his own account, canvassing the opinion of noble Lords on both sides of the House—then states those opinions here and refutes them; whereas what he ought to have done would have been to have induced them to state their views in their places—then we should have had an animated debate. Now, from the peculiar process adopted by my noble Friend, it is almost impossible for any of them to open their mouths. I will not touch on the questions which have been exhausted in this debate, although it has not been of long duration; but I must express my agreement with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that the argument of my noble Friend that this House is debarred from making inquiries on matters of great import in consequence of those inquiries being anticipated in the House of Commons, is an argument that cannot be sustained. This Session has been remarkable for the number of interesting Questions, naturally arising from the state of affairs, which have been produced in this House; and I am sure, if your Lordships look either to the Gallery where Members of the House of Commons meet, or look to the Throne, you will remember that on every occasion this House has been thronged to hear the Answers. Then, in regard to the three divisions into which my noble Friend has arranged his speech on this subject, I do not exactly see myself how his Motion, if carried, would meet the difficulties which they each of them severally offer. In the first place, there is a series of evenings, we are told, in which nothing is said. It can scarcely be necessary to add to the duration of time for those Sittings. Then there is a series of evenings when there are great debates, lasting many hours,

629
and in which it is of importance that an opportunity should be given to our youthful Members. Well, but I can hardly believe that the short increase of time suggested by my noble Friend— which the noble Earl (Earl Granville) has already curtailed by a quarter of an hour—would afford that relief which is so indispensable. How is it to be managed? Is the three-quarters of an hour thus gained to be devoted entirely to the youthful Members? Is it to be understood that the debates are always to be begun by the younger Members and continued by them till the three-quarters of an hour have expired? I say this, as one who unfortunately no longer can sympathize with youthful Members, yet as one who, in "another place," as much as any man engaged in conducting the Business of Parliament, tried to encourage youthful Members. But it is a difficult task; and I can assure you, my Lords, that the want of opportunity youthful Members experience is not confined to the House of Lords; nor is it the result of our rules and regulations. In "another place" I remember that youthful Members made still stronger complaints than I have heard in this House. Then, there is the third series of Sittings, in which debates, without any previous Notice, which would command an attendance, still give rise to animated and interesting discussions which it is supposed ought not to be cut short by the arrival of the half-hour after 7. Well, I should say upon that subject that, generally speaking, it cannot be denied that if there is a question of public interest under discussion, a Member of the House of Lords would not hesitate for a moment to sacrifice even his dinner. It is a fact that in society our social experience often shows us how Members of both Houses—and especially Members of the House of Lords—are too late for dinner—and the fact is probably due to the prolongation of debates in which they wish to express their opinion, and take that part which is expected of them. Now, in regard to the question, in which most weighty considerations are involved, of our Judicial Business in this House, I think the remarks of the Lord Chancellor must have been conclusive; but it does appear to me, speaking from experience of the other House, that there is an easy and adequate solution of our diffi-
630
culty. There is no reason why this House should always meet at the same hour. As the Session advances, those responsible for the conduct of Business in the other House of Parliament, move that the Business should begin earlier for the rest of the Session; and we find that there is no difficulty in Members adjusting themselves to the new rules— all that is required is thus supplied. After all, you must take a broad view of this question; and, when we are asked to supply more time for our discussions, we must, to a certain degree, in the opinion at which we arrive, be influenced by the experience of the House. The noble Lord opposite gave a portion of its history. I hold in my hand a complete Return for the past year. In the last Session the House sat 93 days. On 49 occasions the proceedings were over by 6 o'clock; on 41 days the House rose between 6 and 9; and only thrice did it sit beyond the later hour. In the face of this Return I do not see how we can make out a case that there is not sufficient time for the general discussions of this House. There may be periods of interest, there may be circumstances of great importance—which might render it desirable that the time allotted for discussion should be enlarged; but I wish to impress upon the House that the remedy is in their own hands. There should not be a fixed rule, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, that the House should meet at 5 o'clock. As the Session advances, as business increases, it is in the power of the House to apply the remedy that is wanted by meeting earlier. I do not know whether my noble Friend will ask for a more decided opinion by the House, or whether he will be satisfied with the debate— leaving those who have the management of Public Business to consider whether the rules may be relaxed without inconvenience to the public service; but I think it would not be wise, without further consideration, to disturb the ordinary Business of the House in a way that might be inconvenient.
THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, that according to these statistics, the House was rarely inconvenienced for want of time. The dinner hour could be, and often was, sacrificed when any business was before the House, and he did not think the proposed change either necessary or desirable. Now and then,

631
perhaps two or three times in the year, some little advantage might he gained; but on all other days the change would cause inconvenience. The rule need not be altered; but it was quite competent to the House, on special occasions, if it thought fit, to change the hour of meeting.
EARL STANHOPE,as one of the younger Members of their Lordships' House, to whom so much allusion had been made in the course of the discussion, appealed to the noble Lord who had brought forward that subject not to press his Motion to a division. After what had been said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and also by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, he thought that the pressure of business did not warrant the necessity of the change. When the Business of the Session increased it would be competent for noble Lords, as the Prime Minister had pointed out, to suggest that the House should be called together at an earlier hour than 5 o'clock.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would give them an opportunity of dividing on the question. It seemed to him that an important point had been kept out of sight. The noble Earl the Prime Minister had truly remarked that their time of meeting need not be as fixed as the laws of the Medes and Persians, and that it might be altered on Notice being given when any very important matter was to be brought forward. But it should be observed that there was an intermediate class of questions which came before their Lordships, and which, although they might not be of exciting public interest, were still of considerable administrative or other importance, and in regard to those questions it would be impossible to give any such previous Notice as had been suggested. The matter now at issue, therefore, was not merely one affecting young Peers, but whether questions which might not lead to important discussions or arouse a great deal of Party or political interest out-of-doors should receive adequate and suitable discussion in that House. Sometimes, when Bills were in Committee and the ominous hour of which they had heard was approaching, even the noble Earl who so ably presided was tempted to be a little impatient to arrive at the end of the clauses and get away to din-
632
ner. He trusted that the noble Lord (Viscount Midleton) who had made that Motion would give them an opportunity of dividing.
LORD DENMAN,having heard the adjournment of the House when it was moved, might, he thought, say a few words. He thought it unseemly that the time of refreshment should be mentioned, as an obstacle to business, for it was uncertain; in Germany the word for dinner was mittag's essen —mid-day meal—and the late Earl of Ellenborough often dined before he came to the House. He thought if the House were to meet at 4, that the disgrace of an adjournment at half-past 4 might be incurred. He held that it was desirable that every subject which came before their Lordships should be thoroughly discussed, and he had often heard debates so complete that nothing could be added to them; and wished that every noble Lord who intended to speak should remain to hear the whole of the debate before his own speech. If that were done the speeches might be more brief, and noble Lords would not be so likely to repeat what others had said before, and be able to answer weighty arguments. The House met at 11 o'clock for business. He thought if the House met at 4, that the usual course of debate should be followed, but he did not wish much to multiply speakers; and, if the hour were changed, he would not trouble their Lordships more often than he did at present.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYthought the question one of very great importance. He admitted that it was a strong argument against the Motion that the time of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was already so greatly absorbed. The wonder was how the noble and learned Lord was able at all to perform so many different functions. And that might be taken as one illustration out of many of the inconvenience of having a man acting at the same time as a Minister, as a Judge, and as the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly. The remedy, however, for that, in his opinion, would be the appointment of another Deputy Speaker. It surely would not be difficult to select from among their Lordships some third Peer qualified to discharge that important office, in addition to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the

633
noble Earl the Chairman of Committees. The Prime Minister had spoken with admirable humour against the present Motion, and had said with great truth that the Galleries of the House had been crammed on certain occasions. But he had omitted to state that the reason why they had been crammed was because of the presence in the House of the noble Earl at the head of the Government himself. The suggestion that they might vary the hour of meeting according to the importance of the Business to be transacted was an impracticable one. How would it be possible for a private Peer who wished to bring forward a Motion to rise in his place and say—"I think my Motion is of some importance; let us meet at 4 o'clock to-morrow instead of 5 to consider it?" That would be stamped by their Lordships, and properly, as impertinent humbug. If, however, the present proposal were adopted, the House would have 50 per cent more time for discussion.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, his object was not in any way to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, but to assert what he felt to be a great and important principle. He very much regretted the decision at which the Government had arrived; but after the very strong expressions of opinion which had fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and from the Prime Minister, and after the appeal which had been made to him, he did not think it right— even though he might be able to snatch a victory—to put their Lordships to the trouble of a division. He therefore begged leave to withdraw his Motion.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYhoped the House would not allow the Motion to be withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved that a number of Peers had left the House supposing that permission had been given to withdraw the Motion.
EARL GRANVILLE,in those circumstances, had no wish to force a division.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.