Sitting of 2 July 1880

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Evesham, v. Daniel Rowlinson Ratcliffe, esquire, void Election.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Sir Sydney Waterlow, baronet, for Gravesend.
PRIVATE BILLS [by Order)—Considered as amended—Kings Lynn Corporation*; Nottingham Corporation*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Employers' Liability [re-comm.) [209], debate adjourned.
Report—Inclosure Provisional Order (Abbotside Common)*[218]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ballinasloe, &c.)*[220]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Aberavon, &c.)*[125]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Eastbourne &c.)*[189]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Fleetwood, &c.)*[199]; Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings (Scotland) Provisional Order (Leith)*[200].
Mr. CHARLES BRADLAUGH, one of the Members for the Borough of Northampton, claiming to be a person for the time being by Law permitted to make a solemn Affirmation or Declaration instead of taking an Oath, made and subscribed a solemn Affirmation in the form prescribed by "The Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866," as altered by "The Promissory Oaths Act, 1868."

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House, that he had received from Mr. Justice Denman and Mr. Justice Lopes, two of the Judges selected, in pursuance of The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, for the Trial of Election Petitions, a Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the
Borough of Thirsk:
And the same were read, as followeth:—

THIRSK ELECTION.
Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
To The Eight Honble.
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
We, the Honble. George Denman, and Sir Henry Lopes, kt., Judges for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby certify that upon the 30th day of June 1880, and the following day, We held a Court at York for the trial of, and did try, the Election Petition for the Borough of Thirsk, between Samuel Bradley Willcock, Robert Skilbeck, Thomas Humphrey, and David Meek, Petitioners; and the Honble. Lewis Payn Dawnay, Respondent.
And we certify that the said Respondent was duly elected and returned.
And whereas charges were made at the said Election of corrupt practices having been committed at the said Election, we, in further pursuance of the said Act, report in writing to you as follows:—

1. That no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any Candidate at the said Election.

2. That we have reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the said Election.

GEORGE DENMAN.
HENRY C. LOPES.
York,
July 1st 1880.
And the said Certificate and Report were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

MOTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—TEWKESBURY WRIT.
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENORmoved—
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Tewkesbury, in the room of William Edwin Price, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."
  MR. J. R. YORKEreminded the House that in the case of the Evesham Election Petition the learned Judges appointed to try it had reported that they had no reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the late Election, and that they confined themselves strictly to the evidence before them. The Attorney General in that case submitted a Motion for the production of the shorthand writer's notes of the evidence, in order that the House might have an opportunity of considering it. Now the case for Tewkesbury was the same as that for Evesham, with this exception, that the Judges did not state that they had confined themselves to the evidence before them. The two cases were evidently to be governed by the same principle, and should stand or fall together. He should propose, therefore, that the Writ be suspended until the shorthand writer's notes of the evidence were in the hands of Members, and that, should it then appear to the House to be necessary, a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the evidence.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLagreed with the hon. Member that the House ought to be in possession of the facts of the case. He should, therefore, move as an Amendment—
  "That the Writ be postponed till the Shorthand Writers' Notes of the proceedings on the Election Petition are printed."
  The law, notwithstanding the powers of the Judges, was not effectual for the discovery and punishment of corrupt practices. He begged to call attention to the fact that the Report of the Election Judges in this case, as in the case of the Evesham Petition, did not report that no corrupt practices prevailed, but that from the evidence before them there was no reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed. It was quite clear this peculiar form of words was used
  1388
  as warning that there was a great deal of suspicion connected with the case. Tewkesbury and Evesham were two of the smallest boroughs in England, and it was most desirable to show that such constituencies were not corrupt. Of late years the expenses of contested elections had been enormously increased, and the last Election was the most expensive that ever occurred. Very soon the House would be driven to consider the matter, because if the expenses of elections were to increase at their present rate none but a rich man could possibly obtain a seat in Parliament. The evil effect of this was seen in the fact that landed squires, manufacturers, and the rich men were those who resisted the various measures of the Government though professing to be Liberals. The mode of conducting Election Petitions now-a-days was to establish one or two cases, prove the agency, then shake hands all round, and withdraw from the case. His Motion might be objected to on the score of expense, and he might be referred to the manuscript evidence. He had seen the manuscript evidence about an hour before; but he submitted that in view of the facts he had stated the House should have an opportunity of carefully considering the evidence, and to that end he begged to submit the Motion in his name.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Writ he postponed till the Shorthand Writers' Notes of the Proceedings on the Election Petition are printed,"—(Sir George Campbell,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he should not attempt to deal with the minor questions often mixed up with the one under consideration—such as the disfranchisement of small boroughs, or the growth of election expenses; but he was going to ask the House to lay down, by its vote on the Motion before it, some general principle on which it should proceed in all such cases; for if they were to act on vague words contained in an Election Petition Report, it was obvious they must involve themselves sooner or later

  1389
  in some very unsatisfactory conclusions. When a Report by the examining Judges contained the statement that there was reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed a Commission was issued, and until the Report of the Commissioners was received the Writ was not issued. But if the Judges were silent on the subject, or reported that there was no reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, the House had proceeded, after two day's Notice, almost without exception, to order that the new Writ be issued. The reason for that course was—first, that the constituency should not be deprived of its right of election, and also that there should not be interposed any long period of excitement in the constituency. When the Motion for the issue of the Evesham Writ was made, the hon. Member (Mr. J. B. Yorke) called attention to the words of the Judges, that—
  "From the evidence before us, to which we have confined our attention, there is no reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed in the said election."
  These words were somewhat peculiar; and, therefore, the Government, when their attention was called to them, yielded to the suggestion that there should be a delay in the issue of the Writ. Well, that delay had occurred, the evidence in relation to the Evesham Election Petition had been printed, and now, when the present Motion was decided, a Motion was about to be made to issue a new Writ for Evesham. He hoped hon. Members had read the evidence in the Evesham case. He had himself read it, and he confessed he had never read a weaker case for the supposition that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at the late Election. The Evesham Writ had been withheld for 14 days in order to enable them to know what was the meaning of the words used by the learned Judges. In the case of Tewkesbury, the Report contained words not usually found in these Reports, and he must say he did not know what the learned Judges meant. They could not act upon suspicion like his hon. Friend. The Judges were bound to confine their attention to the evidence; if they did not, they were wandering away from the duty cast upon them. If this Motion was not conceded the House should understand its position. If it deter-
  1390
  mined to proceed, not on evidence, but on newspaper reports, and said there was something in those reports that should induce them to withhold the Writ for an indefinite time, that would be treacherous ground to take action on. If the Judges failed to report that corrupt practices extensively prevailed, the House ought not to listen to newspaper reports or gossip in the Lobby. In justice to the constituency, he thought the House should agree to the Motion of the noble Lord.
  MR. J. R. YORKEthought the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech illustrated the extremely unsatisfactory state of the law. If he understood the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman it came to this—that unless the Judges had legal evidence that corrupt practices extensively prevailed they were to be silent. But it was well known that parties to Election Petitions tried to minimize such matters, and counsel on each side ended by complimenting each other. It was actually made a subject of compliment the other day that a gentleman did not enter the witness-box to deny certain acts of bribery attributed to him. In the case of Tewkesbury the Judges were even more emphatic than in the case of Evesham, for they said, having regard to the evidence to which
  "We have strictly confined ourselves, there is no reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed."
  The Judges, in fact, had endeavoured to invent a formula which would give the House to understand the impression left upon their minds. He thought, therefore, that a Special Committee ought to be appointed to inquire into the whole circumstances before a new Writ was ordered to be issued. What he contended was that, if the House had reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, then it should act upon that belief. The Attorney General's argument was that, though the Judges had reported in somewhat significant terms, since they had not distinctly stated that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, the House could not take action upon it. He ventured to submit, however, that the House had not parted with its final jurisdiction in the matter. If the House wished to put down corrupt practices, it must alter the grossly unsatisfactory

  1391
  state of the law as regarded the constituencies, which in nine cases out of ten were in fault rather than the candidates. Election after election was conducted by persons who rejoiced in their iniquity, and the impunity with which their practices were attended, and the tradition was handed down to their descendants.
  MR. RODWELLwas of opinion that the House would run very great danger if it adopted the course recommended by his hon. Friend, because then they would take it upon them to review the decision of the Judges. It would be very unfortunate for that House to constitute itself a sort of Court of Appeal from the decision of the Judges, because they could only deal with the same evidence which the Judges had before them. In former times, whenever they had reason to suspect that evidence was withheld, the law gave them power to issue a Commission, and the Speaker had authority for appointing counsel to inquire into the whole circumstances of the case. A corresponding power was now placed in the hands of the House when the Judges reported that there was reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed. The proposition laid down by the Attorney General was the only sound and proper one.
  MR. GLADSTONEthought the hon. Member for East Gloucester (Mr. J. R. Yorke) deserved all possible praise for his zeal as to the repression of corrupt practices. During the lifetime of the present Parliament there would, no doubt, be ample opportunity for the development of that zeal; but it was to be regretted that the hon. Gentleman did not show the same zeal in preventing, at the close of the last Parliament, the hurried passing of a most mischievous measure bearing on corrupt practices. The question now before the House was whether it was convenient that every Motion for the issue of new Writs should be made the occasion of a discussion as to the general principle on which they ought to proceed with regard to corrupt practices. At the present moment it was inconvenient, and greatly interrupted the progress of Public Business, that they should have rambling discussions of this nature, which appeared to aim, not at the establishment of general rules, but at exceptional proceedings, bringing into question, if not the integrity, certainly
  1392
  the judgment, of the Judges to whom they had intrusted this very important matter, and really constituting an obstacle to the House arriving at any right decision. The proposal of the Attorney General was that they should proceed by general rules; but the suggestion of the hon. Member was that when Reports of this kind were presented to the House a Select Committee should be appointed to make an inquiry, the Writ being meanwhile suspended.
  MR. J. R. YORKE: I rise to explain. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House.
  MR. J. R. YORKE: I merely wish to make an explanation. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to make an explanation he can do so, with the indulgence of the House, at the close of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It was necessary that they should have some definite method of procedure with regard to individual cases, and that definite method of procedure they were not establishing now for the first time. The trial of Election Petitions by Judges had been in force during the existence of two Parliaments; and he believed it had been a uniform rule to institute a Commission when the Judges reported that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed. When, however, the Judges reported that there was no evidence of corrupt practices having extensively prevailed, the House, bearing in mind that the proceedings were penal as well as remedial, had felt bound not to offer obstacles to the issue of a Writ. That was the rule under which numbers of Writs had been issued with the general assent and concurrence of the House. Whether that rule should be altered or not was a grave question; but it was a question which should be raised in an independent way, and at a time when it could be sufficiently considered, and no good object could be gained by raising it on a Motion with reference to a particular borough which presented no exceptional circumstances. He hoped, therefore, the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would be followed, only observing that the Government asked nothing but that the general Rules of the House should be maintained and adhered to.
  MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, that the Prime Minister had misrepresented his argument. What he had urged was that the House ought to reserve to itself the power of considering the evidence in each case, and that, if necessary, a Committee should be appointed to consider the matter; not, as the right hon. Gentleman put it, that in every case a Committee should be appointed—that would be absurd.
  MR. GORSTobserved, that the Attorney General had specially invited the House on the present occasion to lay down a general rule, and the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. E. Yorke) was only following the lead of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He was surprised to hear the Prime Minister refer to the mischievous Act of last Session; but the Act received the support of the present Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: No, no!] The hon. Gentleman said that the payment of cabs ought either to be made a corrupt practice or it must be legalized, and he did not care which. The late Government, following the hon. Baronet's advice, had resolved to legalize the payment.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the hon. and learned Member that the Question before the Chair was the issue of a new Writ for Tewkesbury.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that he would, of course, obey the ruling of the Chair; but he had been led into the digression by the example of the Prime Minister. Another reason why they should institute an inquiry into these matters was to see how far these corrupt practices were influenced by the Circular issued by the Liberal Party, and for which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench were responsible. In the case of Tewkesbury the Judges had made an extraordinary Report. It was neither affirmative nor negative. It stated that, so far as the evidence was placed before them—and they had strictly confined their attention to it—no corrupt practices had prevailed. There was great danger that only a small fraction of the case had been brought before the Judges. It would, therefore, be wise, he thought, that a Committee should in such cases be appointed.
  MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had misrepre-
  1394
  sented the Attorney General, who did not ask the House to lay down a general rule on the present occasion, but only to follow the rule hitherto observed. It was not the duty of Election Judges to make fishing inquiries, but to take the evidence that came before them, and upon that to make their Report to the House. It would be an endless proceeding if they were to begin to go behind the judgments of Election Judges. If the proceedings in their Courts were unsatisfactory, the only thing to do was to revise the law under which the trial of Petitions was conducted, and on that view there was nothing exceptional in this case. A judgment had been given at Plymouth, which struck many people as extraordinary; but they did not find hon. Members opposite rising to oppose the issue of a Writ for that place. Hon. Members opposite were, however, always eager to oppose the issuing of Writs for Liberal boroughs, and the effect of their doing so was to obstruct the progress of Public Business; but the country would understand, as the House did, why such a course was resorted to, especially when it observed who some of the Members were who took a leading part in such discussions. He hoped the House would not consent to the temporary disfranchisement of the borough of Tewkesbury by refusing to issue the Writ.
  MR. WARTONprotested against the insinuations made by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He did not approve of the action of his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. E. Yorke); but he was convinced that his motives were perfectly pure. The only reason why Liberal Writs came before the House so frequently was that twice as many Liberal Members were unseated for bribery as Conservatives.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 238; Noes 53: Majority 185.—(Div. List, No. 37.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Tewkesbury, in the room of William Edwin Price, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void.

  PARLIAMENT—EVESHAM WRIT.
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENORmoved that a new Writ be issued for the election of a Member for the borough of Evesham, in the room of Mr. Daniel Rowlinson Ratcliffe, whose election has been determined to be void.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that after the last division it would be useless to oppose this Motion. The matter, however, was one in which he took great interest. The Attorney General must be a sanguine man if he thought that many Members had read the evidence which was adduced at the trial of the Election Petition recently. It had only been in the hands of hon. Members two days, and as the evidence was voluminous, probably not one Member in a hundred had mastered it. He differed entirely from the Attorney General, who seemed to suggest that there was not the slightest suspicion of extensive corrupt practices attaching to the borough of Evesham. Whether corrupt practices had extensively prevailed or not, he had no doubt that the election was won by money. He did not know whether the money was given in charity or from corrupt motives; but his surprise as to a gentleman who dropped his sovereigns about so indiscriminately was that one-half the borough constituencies in England did not invite him to stand. He could not say whether it was the candidate or the constituency that had been corrupt. It was possible that the candidate gave his money without any corrupt motive; but the voters of Evesham appeared to be like the innocent little birds they had seen who opened their mouths whenever they thought anything was likely to fall into them. Either the House had a discretion in the matter or it had not. If the House had no discretion, then legislation was urgently required, because there was no public tribunal by which these corrupt practices were sifted. If the House had a discretion it ought to exercise it and appoint a Committee to make further inquiries. His individual opinion was against the Motion; but he would not divide the House on the subject. He hoped, however, that, in order to afford the necessary time for careful perusal of the evidence, the Motion for issuing the Writ would be postponed until next Monday.
  MR. ONSLOWsupported the appeal for delay. This case was very different from that of Tewkesbury, as to which he voted with the Government. He appealed to the Government to give the House further time for reading the evidence taken at the time of the trial of the Evesham Election Petition. At the present time he would venture to say not a single Member had read the Paper now laid before the House, but which had not as yet been circulated to Members. He knew Evesham, and he ventured to say that no more corrupt constituency existed in the whole of England. A gentleman whom everybody would like to see in the House, not long ago visited the place, as he had been asked to contest the seat; but he was so horrified at what was expected of him, that he shook the dust from his feet, and would have nothing whatever to do with the place. It was a scandal that a borough of this kind should continue to be enfranchised, and he thought this was a case which the House ought to take up.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not understand what practical course was intended in asking for delay. Some Members had already read the evidence—among them the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, who made no Motion. Were they to appoint a Committee to review the decision of the Judges, who had reported that corrupt practices had not extensively prevailed? Having looked at the evidence, he believed there was no ground for delaying the issue of the Writ.
  MR. J. R. YORKEalso thought it not unreasonable that the issuing of the Writ should be delayed until Monday, in order that hon. Members might have a further time to read the evidence taken. He had personally only had time to skim the evidence and the Report; but he could not help thinking, as the result of such perusal, that the facts disclosed showed a necessity for further inquiry. He was not going to move that the Writ should be suspended, because it was not improbable that before the Election Petitions were altogether disposed of some startling disclosures would be made, and he might then find it necessary to bring the whole matter before the House. He now submitted that sufficient time had not been allowed for the House to consider this subject.
  Motion agreed to,

QUESTIONS.

  INTERNATIONAL DISARMAMENT.
  MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury to the effect that an endeavour was made in 1869 by Lord Clarendon, in conjunction with the Government of which the right honourable Gentleman was the head, to set in motion some measure to be at least a beginning of disarmament, Whether there are in the Foreign Office any records of the negotiations that then took place; and, if so, whether there will be any objection to lay them upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I made the reference mentioned by my hon. Friend, as he will perfectly well understand, not in the nature of any contentious or polemical argument in defence of the Government; but, as I may with truth say, historically and for the purpose of paying what I thought was a very just tribute of honour to the memory of a very distinguished statesman and a most valued Colleague. Therefore it was that I felt myself justified in making that reference to his memory. The exact state of the case is this. The records show that I was mistaken in giving the date as 1869; it should have been 1870. In the Foreign Office are to be found records of the proceedings which concern the communication between Lord Clarendon and the Government of the Emperor of the French. The ulterior portion of the proceedings—the communications between Lord Clarendon and the German Government—are not to be found in the Foreign Office. I have no doubt whatever of what the meaning of that is—namely, that Lord Clarendon, with very good judgment and discretion, having to make a proposal to the German Government, determined to feel his way in the first instance unofficially, and, as I intimated in the debate, he then discovered that no practical progress could be made. In these circumstances, and, indeed, on general grounds, I hope my hon. Friend will not press for the production of these Papers, which are in the Foreign Office, and which are essentially one-sided. Moreover, the production of them might possibly seem like raising some controversy, or casting some imputations on the one Government or the
  1398
  other. That was as far as possible from my intention, for I do not think that any fair ground for imputation rests on one side or the other.

  FRANCE—EXPULSION OF THE JESUITS.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government have remonstrated, or intend to remonstrate, with the French Government against their removing from their homes and banishing the Jesuits and members of other religious orders; and, if the Government intend taking any steps for the protection of those subjects of the Queen who are members of the Jesuit order, or of other religious communities in France?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, this Question having been placed on the Paper only last night, and appearing only this morning, we have had very little time to search for precedents; but, as far as the examination has yet gone, it has been found that on the numerous occasions when the Jesuits have been expelled from various European States, no remonstrance had ever been made by the British Government at any time. Owing to the short Notice which the hon. Member gave of his Question the examination is not yet complete; but there is reason to suppose that no remonstrance has in any case whatever been made on the subject. With regard to the second part of the Question, relating to British subjects, there has been no remonstrance made or address forwarded to the Foreign Office by any British subject affected by these decrees.

  THE BRITISH BURMAH COMMISSION.
  MR. WARTONasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that several young civilians from India have been placed in the British Burmah Commission over the heads of Military Officers who have served in that Commission for many years, and who had relinquished their position in the Army on the faith of promises of assured promotion in the said Commission?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No, Sir; I have no knowledge of the circumstance referred to by the hon. Member, and I do not find that any representation has been made on the subject to the India Office.

  WAYS AND MEANS—INLAND REVENUE—THE INCOME TAX.
  MR. NORTHCOTEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is the case that Income Tax at the rate of 6d. in the £1 has been deducted from the salaries of permanent Civil Servants of the Crown for the quarter ending June 30th, notwithstanding the fact that the Supplementary Budget has not yet received the sanction of this House; and, if so, on what grounds this deduction has been made in the case of Civil Servants, whilst the Bank July Dividends bear a charge of only 5d. in the £1?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, the deduction of Income Tax from the Salaries of Civil Servants for the quarter ending June 30 has been made, in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879, at the rate sanctioned by the Resolution of this House which was passed on the 11th of June last. The reason why the Bank July Dividends bear a charge of only 5d. in the pound is that the books of the Bank having been already made up, it would be extremely inconvenient, with so large a number of payments concerned, to require them to be re-adjusted to the new rate at so short a notice. The deduction in the next payment will be made at the rate of 7d.

ORDER OF TEE DAY.
  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 209.]
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Brassey.)
  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 209.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Dodson.)
    MR. MACDONALD,in rising to move—
    "That no measure dealing with the Employers' Liability for Injuries sustained by their Servants can be accepted as a satisfactory solution of the question which admits, as a ground of defence in any action or proceeding brought for the recovery of damages or for compensation in respect to bodily injury or loss of life, that the person by whose negligence the injury or
    1400
    loss of life is alleged to have been occasioned, was employed in a common employment with the person killed or injured,"
    said, he had no intention to impede the progress of the Bill; but it was desirable that he should point out to the House certain things in connection with the subject of employers' liability that perhaps the House was not aware of or did not understand. The present law inflicted an injustice upon the workmen, and it was very desirable that some effective measure of redress should be considered and passed. In this country, and in every other country, the most dangerous form of law was Judge-made law, and for the reason that it was continually altering and changing, and in that state which Lord Cairns described as maturing. He feared, however, that it was maturing in the wrong direction, affecting as it did the liberties and rights of the people. He admitted that the case of Priestly v. Fowler, which was decided by a single Judge, not on appeal by the House of Lords, ruled the cases in England; but it had no power over the Scotch Courts. In Scotland the law was even broader than the Bill brought in by the Government, and that was seen from a case that occurred in Scotland many years ago. In that case two men were killed in consequence of the engineer who wound them up from the pit falling asleep in the middle of the operation. That case came before the Scotch Court, and was decided in favour of the wives and children of the two men. It was then removed to the House of Lords, where the decision was reversed on the law as in-terpretedin the case of Priestly v. Fowler, and the Judge whom the case originally came before said that might be the law of England, but he hoped and trusted he might never live to see it the law of Scotland. In another case, the colliery manager, who acted in every respect as the employer, was held to be the fellow-workman of the man who had been killed; and, therefore, the employer was not responsible. The argument had been used that if the doctrine of common employment were removed it Would be oppressing the employer, and that capitalists would take their money elsewhere, and thus damage the interests of the country. He did not believe that such would be the case, because the capitalists were wise enough not to take their capital

    1401
    away from the country where they could find the best use for it. Then it had been said that if the law were altered in the direction he had indicated, and the doctrine of common employment were taken away, that there would be an increase of litigation without number. But they were not without experience upon that matter, and a high authority had said that experience was their best teacher. It was recorded as the law of France a considerable time ago that employers could plead the doctrine of common liability for accidents to the workmen. A case happened in the year 1842 in France, where, in the highest Court, it was decided to the effect that it ought to be no bar to a workman to make a claim for compensation that the injury was done by a fellow-workman. What was the case? Litigation was scarcely known of since. In France, Italy, and Belgium no litigation took place, and in the case of Germany the laws had been modified from time to time, and the principle of the Bill introduced by him into the House of Commons this Session was being considered by the German Parliament, and the object of that Bill was to destroy the possibility of litigation, and to declare that it was no bar to the claim of a man that he was a common workman. He moved his Amendment in no spirit of hostility to the principle of the Bill introduced by the Government. That Bill went a considerable distance; but he wished that it could have gone further. In matters of that kind, he believed that a compromise was the best way out of the difficulty; therefore he accepted the principle of the Bill, in the hope that the Government would, from the expressions they had heard that day, take courage and go forward until the doctrine of common employment was erased from the Statute Book and the decisions of the Courts.
    MR. INDERWICKsaid, that, in seconding the Amendment, he had no desire to impede the progress of the Government measure. His object was rather to strengthen the hands of the Government, and, if possible, to enable them to give to the measure before the House substance and vitality, and an element of finality which, at present, it did not appear to him to possess. Its object was to settle a difficulty of a somewhat serious character between em-
    1402
    ployers and employed, in which it was believed that capital had an advantage over labour. The workmen said that they were in an exceptional position, because, while strangers were entitled to demand compensation for injury, workmen could not do so unless they charged masters with personal negligence; and this was a grievance from which they desired to be relieved. He found it suggested, in documents that had been circulated, that this was a sentimental, and not a substantial grievance; but he believed that it was a substantial one. He did not believe that workmen were treated with a want of kindness or liberality. That charge was not made against employers as a class. The other day, at a railway station, he saw an appeal to the public, on behalf of the widow and family of a guard who had lost his life in a laudable endeavour to save that of a passenger, and the Railway Company headed the appeal with a very handsome subscription. What the men said was that they did not allege any inhumanity or unkindness; but they desired that their position should be strictly defined, and that they should have, by law and right, that for which they were obliged to appeal to private benevolence and public sympathy. He had taken an impartial view of that subject, being neither associated with the capitalist, nor representing what might be called a working men's constituency. The origin of the dispute appeared to be extremely doubtful. The matter was first brought to a head about 1837, when the decision was given that common employment was a legal defence. The matter was then brought to the House of Lords from Scotland, and from that time the law had been established and acted upon. There had been circulated a pamphlet by Lord Justice Bramwell, who had discussed the matter at considerable length, and whose opinion was entitled to very great weight, not only because he was a distinguished Judge, but also because he was a worthy and kindly gentleman. He was, however, unable to arrive at the same conclusion as the learned Lord Justice. Of the rule of common employment he found no trace before 1837. No doubt the Judges acted upon what they rightly believed to be a tradition of the law which was handed down to them. He could well understand that

    1403
    in the primitive ages there was some such rule applicable to the small transactions of life, such as wood cutting, hut not in the same sense applicable to the present conditions of society. The origin of this rule was, to say the least, obscure; its parentage was doubtful; and there had been conflicting decisions which had been discussed from time to time. He was entitled to say that the law as laid down was uncertain, was difficult of application, and was exceptional in character. There was a rule of life and of sound common sense that a man was responsible, not only for his own acts, but for the acts of those persons whom, from the necessities of his position, he engaged to carry out acts it was impossible for him to perform himself. This rule was of no recent or obscure origin; it had existed as far back as the law could be traced on the subject. The rule which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) sought to set aside was an exception to this sound rule of law. It might be assumed that there was a general agreement that the law could not be allowed to remain in its present state. When a proposition of that kind was established, the only statesmanlike way to deal with the matter was to abolish the exceptional rule altogether, and to relegate the persons affected by it, as far as possible, to the position they occupied before the rule of law was laid down. It was said there was no necessity to abrogate the rule, because the object desired could be attained by contract. Theoretically that was an answer; but practically it was nothing of the kind. The workman did not stand upon the same footing as the employer. If the workman proposed to make the employer's liability a condition of service, the employer would say—"The law does not place that liability upon me, and why should I take it upon myself?" The result would be that the workman must accept work upon the terms of the employer, or else he must starve. If it were said that this was not quite so, because workmen combined and acted through their unions, he replied that that fact made it all the more desirable that they should legislate as soon as possible, and that their legislation should, as far as possible, be of a complete and final character. Everything that could be done ought to be done to prevent these questions becom-
    1404
    ing burning questions between combinations of employers and employed. It was said that a change of law would lead to litigation; but that would depend upon circumstances. If the relation of employers and employed were placed upon a reasonable footing, he saw no reason for such a result; and he believed both parties would endeavour to apply the law in a fair and temperate spirit. He could understand that if employers attempted to evade the law by special contracts or notices, and thus to deprive workmen of the advantages which the law was supposed to give them, there would be great dissatisfaction, and there might be serious litigation; but he hoped the law would be carried out in a fair spirit, and that there would not be any great amount of litigation. It would not be just or right simply to abrogate the law of common employment and to do nothing more. If the House had been called upon in 1837 to pass a measure in the sense advocated by the Amendment, no one would have had any cause to complain; but with the immunity of employers since that date there had grown up a kind of vested interest which would have to be compensated to some extent. Several schemes had been formulated to meet that difficulty. One proposal was that the liability should be limited to the sum of £200; and a further proposal was that a person injured should have his average earnings for six years—both of which propositions he objected to. With respect to the question of insurance, he doubted the propriety of an insurance mutually effected by the workmen and employer. He had given considerable attention to the matter; and he thought the desirable course to take, if a scheme of insurance were considered indispensable, would be to give the employer the opportunity of relieving himself from liability by effecting such an insurance on behalf of each workman as would insure to the workman payment of compensation in case of accident, and would afford to the employer a full and absolute defence. The insurance should be effected under Government guarantee, so that the payment should be absolutely secured. If the master chose to avail himself of the authorized mode of insurance, he should be entirely free from liability. The man injured would be certain of his compensation, and he might not have the same certainty in

    1405
    case of mutual insurance in companies. If the master did not choose to avail himself of the means of insurance authorized, his liability should be unlimited, and he should be bound to pay to his workmen such compensation as a tribunal might award.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no measure dealing with the Employers' Liabilities for Injuries sustained by their Servants can be accepted as a satisfactory solution of the question which admits, as a ground of defence in any action or proceeding brought for the recovery of damages or for compensation in respect to bodily injury or loss of life, that the person by whose negligence the injury or loss of life is alleged to have been occasioned was employed in a common employment with the person killed or injured,"—(Mr. Macdonald,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR,who had an Amendment on the Paper to the following effect:—
    "That while it is desirable workmen should be placed on the same footing in regard to compensation for accidents as the general public, equality should be sought rather by altering the general principle on which compensation for accidents is now awarded, than by merely abolishing or modifying the existing exceptions to it,"
    said, that neither of the hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken had insisted at any length on the grounds which had influenced them in calling the attention of the House to the Amendment which they had advocated. The real ground which had influenced them he believed was this—that under the law, as it stood, and even as it would stand when modified by the Government, workmen were not placed on an equality with the general public, in the matter of compensation for accidents. So long as that inequality existed, this question would never be finally or satisfactorily concluded. So far, then, he entirely agreed with both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. But while he so far agreed with them he saw the greatest objection to the particular solution which they proposed, which was to leave the law as it was with regard to the outside public, but to produce the desired equality by modifying it with regard to workmen. Now, either the wages of workmen were de-
    1406
    termined with reference to accidents or without reference to them. If insurance against accidents was included in the present rate of wages, which he believed to be the fact, workmen, by the operation of this Bill, would be paid twice for the same risk. If compensation was not included in the wages of a workman, then practically this was a Bill for modifying the consequences which resulted from the free operation of contract between master and workman. How far were they prepared to carry such a principle? Many employments were exceptionally detrimental to the health and life of those engaged in them, not because they were liable to accidents, but because they inevitably produced disease. Did the wages of those workmen include insurance against those risks? The advocates of the present Bill (if they were consistent) must hold that they did not. They must also hold that the masters of such workmen ought to be compelled by law to insure the lives of their workmen in addition to paying them wages at the market rate. Was that a course which the House was prepared to enter on? The solution which he ventured to suggest, and which he had endeavoured to embody in the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, was to produce equality between the workman and the general public, not by placing the workmen in the position of the general public, which was the proposal of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), but by placing the public in the position now occupied by the workmen. He admitted that this would produce a very large change in the existing law. But was the existing law either just or reasonable? It compelled a man to pay for the infliction of injuries in which he neither directly nor indirectly had any hand. He might employ the best and most careful workmen, he might take the utmost pains to secure the very best machinery, he might leave no stone unturned to secure the lives of his workmen, and yet he had to pay damages for injuries for which he was in no sense responsible. Such a law could not be regarded as equitable; but it might be thought necessary or expedient. It might be supposed to be the only means of making employers of labour careful of the lives of the public. So regarded the present law belonged to the Criminal Code in regard to its objects, though to

    1407
    the Civil Code in its procedure; and was naturally enough, therefore, very clumsy in its operation. Among other instances of the absurdities to which it led was that damages were awarded not at all in proportion to the carelessness which produced the accident, or even to the amount of injury it caused, but were largely determined by the position of the persons who suffered by it. The Government should take into consideration the whole state of the law as it existed. Their present proposal combined many of the evils which existed under the present law, and many of the evils which would be introduced into it, if the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) had his way. The Bill would unduly interfere between employer and employed, and would tend to promote litigation, while it would not secure that final solution of the question which the House had a right to expect.
    SIR HENRY JACKSON: The House is placed in an unfortunate position with regard to the present debate. During the debate on the second reading of the Bill complaint was made that we were not discussing the real Bill; and that complaint has, I think, proved to be well founded. In what position are we now? A Bill has been read a second time on the distinct understanding that, for purposes of discussion, the House should be in the same position as if the real Bill, and not the original Bill, was being debated. But how has that been carried out? Why, a real, practical discussion is prevented, for the Motion to go into Committee is met by an Amendment which, though not equivalent to the negative of the second reading, at any rate prevents the House from expressing its opinion upon the substantial question involved. The opponents of the Bill, who stood by on this promise, and let it be read a second time, object that the Bill goes too far; but the issue raised by the Amendment which will be put from the Chair is not whether the Bill goes too far, but whether it goes far enough, as the hon. Member for Stafford who moves it asserts that it does not. The result is that a proposition, to which the Government do not assent, and which the majority of the House repudiate, prevents any vote on any other of the Amendments on the Paper, several of which raise questions, and suggest modes of dealing with this legisla-
    1408
    tion, of the highest value. The second reading has been assented to, not because the House likes the Bill, for it does not; the feeling of the House is against it, and its true supporters are few and far between. It has been submitted to as a necessity that cannot be avoided. My idea is that so strong is the individual feeling against this Bill, that, if in this House we voted by ballot, the result would be very different to what it is. For my own part, however, I look the position in the face; and I accept the necessity for legislation as established and inevitable—and that being so, I disclaim any intention of talking this Bill out or frittering away its provisions, and I shall do what I can to make it work out as a settlement of this most serious question, but with due regard to all interests involved. When once this line of action is resolved upon, it becomes important to see how it can best be carried out; and I concur in the strong desire which exists on both sides of the House that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee; but that, we are told, the Forms of the House make impossible. I cannot but think it very unfortunate that such should be the position of a most important social measure; but as the Bill cannot be sent upstairs for full and calm consideration, there is all the more necessity that it should be fully discussed in the House. What, then, will be the practical effect of the measure upon the great industries of the country? The House now stands as arbiter between two great factions. On the one hand we have the capitalist, whose capital is the result of foresight, economy, courage, self-denial, and industry—of the exercise of all those qualities which made England what it is; on the other hand we have the working classes, whose share in our economical system is as important and necessary as that of the capitalist, and who have as much interest as we have in keeping up the great edifice of British prosperity. The capitalist is alarmed at this Bill. It is the fashion to sneer at the proverbial timidity of capital. Admit this timidity, but recognize it, and be careful not to drive capital out of the country. The working classes, or some sections of them, have taken this agitation up, and with them it has become a burning question; and on their part, as well as among employers, there is great and natural anxiety as to the course the House will

    1409
    adopt. With the working classes that anxiety is aggravated by the mistaken notion that the present law was directed against them as a class. I have always asserted that this is an utterly unfounded idea. No such notion is to be found in any legal conception or expression of the law, and does not exist in fact. The present law is, in fact, based upon this fundamental ground—that the rule of natural justice is that no man ought to be legally responsible for any misfortune resulting from an act for which he is not morally responsible. There are certain exceptions, and the question we have really to consider is whether those exceptions should be extended. I do not stop to consider whether the exceptions are new and the law old, or the law is old and altered by new exceptions. That discussion is now profitless, and will only secure more or less contradiction from some hon. and learned Members near me, whose opinions on the abstract question differ from my own. I recognize that difference of opinion; and, however strong my own views may be, I, in all sincerity, am ready to admit that they may have been warped by circumstances, or may be wrong. I feel that I am right; but I concede that there is a considerable amount of authority against me. And, therefore, I admit that something has to be done. The most logical solution of the problem is that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford; but I fear that is the least practicable. Indeed, I suppose that my hon. Friend himself hardly imagines that the law can now be altered in the direction he indicates. He would make the moral and the legal responsibility coincide. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Stafford would make every employer liable for everything which happens to everybody in his employment or out of it. That is logical, too. Indeed, I am far from seeing how the interests which that hon. Member is understood to represent are to gain very much by this Bill. If a platelayer is killed on Monday by the negligence of a fellow-servant in authority, and gets compensation, a platelayer who is hurt on Tuesday, by the negligence of a fellow-servant not in authority, will not get much satisfaction out of the new law; and we may be having further proposals to meet his case, and to inclose employers in one comprehensive net of lia-
    1410
    bility. Is the object to insure safety? is the proposed law, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford has asked, a police law? If by fining you intend to make employers more careful in selecting materials and superintendents, why do you stop at fining? Why do you not send them to prison for negligence on the part of agents, which, if brought home personally to themselves, would be criminal? But is such a Bill as this to be carried through at a Morning Sitting? I do not wish to stop the Bill. I will be party to no obstruction. What I ask is that adequate opportunity should be afforded to the House for fully discussing it. As the result of a bonâ fide discussion, I hope that the Bill may be made a fair and equitable settlement of a vitally important question—that it may prove, not the mere result of hustings promises, but the deliberate outcome of the wisdom of Parliament applied to one of the most difficult of social problems. There seems to be considerable diversity of opinion as to the object aimed at. Is its object to protect the lives of workmen? If I could think that such would be its effect in a single instance, I, for one, would withdraw from all opposition, and would hurry the Bill on; but I do not believe it will have any such effect. The House must remember that the interests that most dread the Bill—the mining interest, for example—are carried on—every single operation of every day's work is performed under the direct supervision of officers appointed for the purpose by the State. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the protection thus afforded is sufficient, or as much as is practicable. But it is said that, apart from its effect, this Bill raises a question of justice, and is to be supported on that ground. No one can have any other feeling in reference to a demand for justice on any question than one of sympathy. But on a matter like the one before the House, where the relations both of employers and of workmen are intimately concerned, questions of justice or injustice are not simple and easy, but of great difficulty and delicacy. Both sides claim justice, and both sides allege injustice; possibly the truth may lie between them. It, therefore, becomes important to consider whether that justice which is desiderated by both cannot be obtained by means of a fair compromise which would have the

    1411
    effect of allaying instead of aggravating the differences now existing between labour and capital, to the disadvantage of both. I cannot admit that there is any compromise in one side merely conceding half of what is asked. There must be something conceded on both sides, in order to bring about a bargain likely to be a permanent settlement of this difficult and delicate question. The only-course open, as far as I am able to see, is either to leave the existing law alone, or to amend it in such sort that the employés may be satisfied without terrifying the capitalists whose money is invested in the various industries in this country. This is without doubt a danger of this, and the best thing to be done is to reduce that danger to a minimum. After much deliberation, I have come to this conclusion—that if this new liability is to be put on employers it must be limited in amount, so that the employers may know the maximum they may have to provide in case of the worst accident, and, knowing it, may provide against it by insurance. I wish the House to understand that I am against compulsory insurance. Put it how you will, insurance to which anyone is compelled to contribute is only a tax in disguise; and I recognize the impossibility of such a tax. I only ask for facilities. I am bound to admit that in the Bill now before the House the Government has recognized the principle of limiting this new statutory liability, and I desire to thank them for this concession. But they propose to carry it out by confining the liability of employers to the amount of a limited number of years' earnings of the person injured; but I do not think that this means of carrying out that principle is a wise or satisfactory one. It seems to me that, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Eye has said, this proposal will be a perennial well of litigation. I can imagine no more tempting subject for unscrupulous lawyers than the inquiry into three years' probable earnings of any workman; and the House must not lose sight of this practical consideration—that every law-suit would be at the cost of the employer, who would necessarily have to pay costs when the plaintiff recovers, and who never receives any costs when the plaintiff fails, for the simple reason that no plaintiff, under this Bill, would have any means for
    1412
    paying costs. Now, the only hope of escape from this most serious practical difficulty will be found in fixing some maximum sum. In the Workmen's Trains Acts, the sum of £100 has been fixed, and that has worked well in practice. But take that, or any other just sum. What will, then, be the employers' position? He will, at any rate, know the worst; and it will then be for him to secure the means to discharge this new liability when it comes. He can only do it by insurance; and I suppose that the course he will take will be to ascertain the number of his employés, and multiplying that number by the extreme limit of the sum fixed, to induce as many persons in the same peril as himself as he can get to form some sort of combination by which they may cover their liabilities up to the amount of the maximum sum they would have to pay in case of the greatest imaginable disaster. For years the actuarial value of these risks will be doubtful; but they will eventually be discovered. Large premiums on such insurances will have to be paid, and the capitalized value of those premiums will represent the burden which this Government Bill is proposing to put on the struggling industries of this country; and that at a time when, according to my information, they are least able to bear any additional weight. Eventually, doubtless, this weight will fall upon the consumer; and, so far as home trade is concerned, will adjust itself. But the interim disturbance will be very serious; and I question whether, in competition with the foreigner, we shall ever cease to feel it. I also hope, Sir, that, in addition to fixing a definite maximum sum, the Government will admit clauses which will facilitate arrangements for insurance between employers and employed. What could be more simple than such a provision as this? Suppose you fix £100 as the limit under the Act, and then provide that if the master and workmen together agree to effect an insurance for any equivalent or greater sum, such insurance shall exclude the operation of the Act. No one would be hurt by such a provision, and it is obvious that it would tend to promote insurances, which mean providence and economy. But under the vague scheme of the Government, the employer would be unable to know the amount of his liability or

    1413
    danger, or to enter into any agreement with the employed for effecting an insurance which should free him from liability. If Her Majesty's Government will intimate that they have no objection to the principle of this proposal, and will consent that the Bill shall be sent to a Select Committee, which I can undertake, on the part of those interested, shall sit with a determination to forward rather than retard the passing of the measure, they will be remembered, not as having brought forward this Bill for political purposes or as a weak-kneed concession to agitation, but as having made a bonâ fide effort to arrive at an equitable and reasonable solution of one of the most difficult problems ever presented to Parliament. I do not think that they will be able to work out these complicated proposals on the floor of the House in Morning Sittings in July; but there may be some hope of doing it if the Bill is referred to a Select Committee. The late Government had this subject forced upon them, and they have seen how difficult it was to deal with; but it has by no means been forced upon this Government; they have rushed at it. I have heard it said that they had picked up the Bill somewhere about the platform of the Chester Railway Station. That, of course, is a piece of electioneering jocularity; and I have no doubt the Government have taken the matter up seriously and honestly. Still, whatever may have been the intentions of the Government, it is evident that they have not yet quite mastered the subject. But, while giving them credit for their good motives, I trust they will not force the Bill on without giving those who would be most affected by it an opportunity of being heard by a Select Committee of the House. I have thought it right to make these few observations, though I have not thought it right to divide the House; and, as the Notice Paper now stands, it will not be possible to do so on the Motion for a Select Committee.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)observed, that three classes of objections had been raised to this measure by the hon. Members for Stafford, Hertford, and Coventry. Those hon. Members agreed that some legislation on this subject was necessary; but they took different views of what the principle of that legislation should
    1414
    be. The position of the Government was this. They found that this question had been before the House and the country for years; that a Select Committee had taken evidence bearing upon it in 1877; and the Government had done their best to embody in the Bill the principle which was the most consonant with public opinion. What were the objections raised to the measure? The hon, Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) held the view that the Bill did not go far enough, and that the defence of common employment ought to be abolished altogether, so that the employer would be liable for all injuries resulting to workmen from the negligence of other workmen in the same employ. He (the Attorney General) did not think the House was prepared to accept that view, for the total abolition of the defence of common employment would cast such a burden on the employer, and cause such a disarrangement in the rate of wages, that the proposal could not be regarded as practicable. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) took quite a different view. Instead of increasing the liability of the employer, he would diminish it, and would say that employers should not be liable at all, unless they had been themselves guilty of some misconduct. That was a suggestion which it was too late to consider, for the existing law carried the employers' liability beyond that point. More important matter was to be found in the arguments of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), who had spoken not only as a lawyer, but apparently with a knowledge of the subject which was not entirely theoretical. Now, his hon. and learned Friend admitted the necessity of some legislation. His propositions amounted to this—in the first place, they must alter the law; and, secondly, they must logically either let the law alone or accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Stafford. His hon. and learned Friend apparently did not desire to leave the law as it was. [Sir HENRY JACKSON: I would if I could.] Now he understood his hon. and learned Friend. But why should he desire that result? On account of the injustice of the law? If that were so, why was any alteration inevitable, and why should he admit that alteration really could not be avoided? Why had he

    1415
    not the courage of his opinions, and why did he not endeavour to convince the House of their justice? His hon. and learned Friend's position was untenable. He gathered that his hon. and learned Friend was disposed to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Stafford, and to abolish the defence of common employment. But then in return he asked for concessions that would make the concessions granted in the Bill of no value. His hon. and learned Friend had wished to appoint a fixed sum as the maximum amount that could be recovered—a proposal that he, for his part, thought very unjust. Was it likely that an artizan earning 40 s. a week would think himself well treated if he recovered no more than the amount awarded, perhaps, to a boy receiving 10s. or 12s.? The suggested maximum of £150 Was certainly not so just to all parties as the arrangement by which the maximum would vary in accordance with a varying scale of wages. His hon. and learned Friend's second suggestion was one that seemed to have satisfied him that the views of the hon. Member for Stafford were acceptable. His answer to the Bill had been contained in one word, "insurance;" and he seemed to wish that there should be no responsibility as long as the master contributed to the common insurance fund. Now, he believed that that idea of giving the master immunity in consequence of his part in an insurance scheme was a matter that could not be managed by legislation. No doubt it was desirable that the master and servant should enter into a contract, as they easily could do [Lord ELCHO: As yet], and make an agreement, the one to give compensation, and the other not to appeal to the liability created by the Bill; but he could not imagine how the law was to give any real effect to an insurance scheme. Were the subscriptions of the master and the workmen to be levied compulsorily, or in what other way? He thought that the question of insurance could be settled better by personal arrangement than by legislation; and he believed that even his hon. and learned Friend, if he attempted to draw clauses that would get rid of responsibility by a system of insurance, would find the extreme difficulty of effecting practical legislation on that subject. [Sir HENRY JACKSON: Make it their interest.] That was not a matter
    1416
    of legislation. The view of those in charge of the Bill was that insurance depended upon the combined action of employers and employed; and, though they were heartily in favour of it, they had not embodied it in their Bill. He did not think that there was any reason for sending the Bill to a Select Committee. The question of insurance controlled by legislation had come into existence by virtue of the Bill being placed on the Table. ["Hear, hear!"and "No, no!"] At all events, the subject had not even been suggested before the Select Committee of 1877, or a change in the law would certainly have been proposed. [Sir HENRY JACKSON: They suggested no change in the law.] His hon. and learned Friend was on the Committee, and why was he prepared to do now what was not suggested then? Holding views on the subject such as he had described, he could not think that another Select Committee would be useful or necessary. If a Select Committee were appointed, the Bill would still have to come down to the House, where matters of detail would have to be discussed. There were practical men in the House who were well qualified to consider any alterations in the Bill which might be necessary. There was no desire on the part of the Government to press the measure without due consideration. On the contrary, there was every desire on their part to accept suggestions from practical men. His hon. and learned Friend had said that if the votes of hon. Members were to be taken by ballot the Bill would not pass. But why should not his hon. and learned Friend and every other Member vote according to their opinions? Did his hon. and learned Friend mean that he and other Members thought one thing and their constituents thought another? If his hon. and Friend mean that, he ought to have recollected that he was speaking in the presence of a great many employers of labour who had been returned by the men they employed. He believed the judgment of those hon. Members would be different from that of his hon. and learned Friend, and that they would sacrifice what they believed to be their own interest in order to do justice to those who were not present in the House. He did not believe that those hon. Members would vote for what they thought to be unjust as if it were just, or that if they were to vote by ballot

    1417
    they would vote differently from what they would do now. He trusted before the Session concluded that the Bill would receive the sanction of Parliament.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, in order to facilitate the Bill going into Committee, after the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his Amendment. ["No!"]
    MR. J. W. PEASEsaid, that where this Bill came from everyone knew. It was one of the praiseworthy, if not very successful, attempts of his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) to settle a very difficult question. He did not know whether he was one of those referred to by the hon. and learned Attorney General, who were returned by the men whom they employed; but he had come from a contested election, and he could state that not a word was said to him all the time about employers' liability. But if a question were put to him on the subject, he would say, as he did now, that, as no one could say that the present state of the law was satisfactory, he would be prepared to deal with it. In endeavouring to deal with the question, how-over, they were running a great risk. This Bill, if passed into law in its present state, would do a great deal more harm to the working classes of this country than it would do good. At present working men were very much protected by benevolent and insurance societies; but the moment this Bill was passed every man would think that the law was going to take care of him, and that he need not look out any longer for himself. In the trade with which he was connected there were 117,000 members of various mutual provident associations, to which the masters subscribed as well as the men. These 117,000 were very nearly, if not more than, a fourth of all the men employed above ground, and were nearly one - third of those employed under ground in the coalfields. The funds accumulated already amounted to £112,000, the widows supported by the fund were 720, the children 1,400, and the disabled class 19,000. There would always be a difficulty in working compulsory and voluntary funds side by side. No doubt insurance could be carried out voluntarily; but might it not be encouraged if it were recognized in an Act of Parliament? The unfortunate open-
    1418
    ing for litigation which would be made by the Bill in reference to disputed causes of accident would bring into the mining districts that greatest of pests, the low-bred attorney, who would promote differences between masters and men which did not now exist. In his district, happily, trade disputes were obviated by appeal to the Council of Conciliation; and he was jealous of opening the door in any way to that class of attorney that would produce conflict between capital and labour. The door would be closed against litigation by encouraging the principle of insurance; and if carried out properly it would do much, not only to help masters and men, but to relieve the ratepayers of the country. As the Bill stood, it would do harm to the working classes and to the ratepayers. While heartily assenting to the further progress of the Bill, he earnestly supported the views of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), though he would not go quite so far in opposition; but he believed it was essential to the success of the Bill that it should deal with the question of insurance.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he heard with regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General offered no concessions to the appeals that had been made. Practically, this Bill had not been read a second time, for this was another Bill substituted for that to which a second reading was given. It was a great improvement; but practically it was a new Bill. For one, he could not consent to abrogate altogether the doctrine of common employment. He regretted to hear it said that provisions relating to insurance were incompatible with the principle of the Bill, and must be made the subject of private arrangement. The Bill would give the workman the right to compensation, on which he would rely, and the workman who had been contributing would say that a new law had come into operation which ignored his former contribution and threw the liability on the master. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was acquainted with the doctrine of set-off, and had heard of paying damages by anticipation. Why not apply these doctrines to insurance, and let the employer set off what was provided by insurance? Under the Factories and Mines Acts penalties were imposed

    1419
    upon employers in cases of injury to workmen, and these penalties were recoverable by the workmen. By the Bill, as it stood, the workmen could recover these penalties as well as compensation. These were matters that could be dealt with only in a Select Committee; and he believed the reference of the Bill to such a Committee would facilitate its being passed. They might very well adopt the principle that the employer should be responsible for the agents he employed; but they could not make him responsible for those over whom he could not exercise direct control.
    MR. CRAIG: Sir, I shall not detain the House more than two or three minutes. We have had speeches from several hon. Gentlemen; but with the exception of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), we have had none from practical men. I will confine my attention to one practical point. I am one of those who dislike this Bill. It is neither liked by employers nor employed. Here we have an Amendment by the hon. Member for Stafford, which declares that it will not be satisfactory to the employed. I do not dislike this Bill on account of the compensation with which it will saddle the employers. What I dislike is that it will induce litigation to a great extent, and that it will break down all those kindly relations which at present exist between employer and employed. I should, as an employer, much prefer the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Stafford. I have always declared myself in favour of some measure which will relieve those serious accidents to miners; and I believe that the measure brought in by the hon. Member for Stafford, although it would to some extent swell the contents of the cup, would take away that poisonous element which will destroy the good feeling between employer and workman. I do not know any man who endeavours to retain the respect of his neighbours who will remain in the profession of colliery management after the passing of the Bill. I think the great defect is that it is applying indiscriminately a general principle to all the trades and industries of the country. Now, Sir, these learned Gentlemen ought to have known that there are two classes of trades—those that are dangerous, and those that are not
    1420
    dangerous. When an accident happens, in some cases it is almost impossible to discover what is the cause. Look at the Coroners' inquests in reference to mining accidents, where evidence upon evidence is given, and yet no satisfactory result is arrived at. How much more difficult is it to foresee and prevent an accident? I say that there is no accident which happens but what leaves behind it some trace of human imperfection; de-pond upon it there will be a tendency on the part of the employed to bring actions against the employers in order to saddle the manager with negligence, and to obtain compensation. There ought to be a distinction drawn between those employments where the accident can be traced, such as building and other employment above ground, and those employments below ground, where it is almost impossible to ascertain the cause of the occurrence. I prefer the Bill of the hon. Member for Stafford, because it is more consistent than the Bill of the Government. I also prefer it because it would remove further back the boundaries of litigation on accidents arising from neglect of follow-workmen, and will be much more to the point, because, under it, there would not arise the necessity of distinguishing between the negligence of one class of workmen and that of another; and, whatever may be the issue, I am sure it will fall considerably below the amount that would arise from more litigation. If general litigation takes place between employer and employed, the disarranging effect upon every trade will be very serious. I think, therefore, this Bill requires a great deal more serious consideration than it has had; and although these learned Gentlemen may give reliable opinion as regards the law, whenever they venture on practical matters they are mere children. I have read all the evidence given before the Committee in 1877, and it is most lucid and trustworthy. Lord Justice Bram-well, so long as he confined himself to the exposition of the law, was clear; but, so soon as he gave an opinion as to the practical effect of the proposed legislation, he sinks down below the rank of a practical witness. In order to show how very necessary it is that this question should be better considered, it is desirable to refer to what Lord Justice Bramwell says. He has given an opinion. He says that cases of negligence by

    1421
    fellow-workmen would be more numerous, and he says that the workmen would be in a better position than the employers for detecting negligence; and, therefore, the employers should not be made liable for injuries of that sort. The hon. Member for Stafford said to him—"Do you know anything of mines?" He said—"Very little."
    "Then you do not know that the work of miners is denned by statute?—I cannot say. I believe there has been a good deal of statutory regulation, and miners have had their share of it."
    The hon. Member for Stafford said that in mines where 300 or 500 persons were employed, they were required to remain in their own particular working place, but if they left it they were liable to imprisonment. He asked—
    "How can it be said that these men have control over their fellow-men?—I cannot say it is so. I think you have alleged it is so.—No, I spoke generally of masters and servants, not particularly of miners. It would be great presumption of me to do so not knowing about miners."
    This Bill is founded on the recommendation of that Report. It is on all fours with it. It is a Bill which I had in my hands 12 months ago. It is, in reality, the Bill of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey). We all considered it, and saw that it was really a dangerous Bill. However able the gentlemen may have been who drew up that Report, I say it is not what we should have expected it would be, but is an interference with many important industries, and however learned the drawers of the Report may be, they would probably feel puzzled to state in detail the difference between employment in a coal mine and employment in a cotton mill. We want further knowledge as to this Bill, and to have further discussion; and, depend upon it, that would not take a long time, but would be all the better for the Government, because the Bill would have received due attention before it was passed. I do not intend to offer any opposition to it. I think it is very desirable to have something done. It has been a long time agitated; but I do hope the Government will seriously consider the propriety of referring this Bill to a Select Committee again, in order to have the matter fully and fairly discussed, and especially to consider the suggestions made by the hon. and learned Member
    1422
    for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), with a view of seeing whether in these dangerous employments at least something in the nature of insurance will not be more desirable than the provisions which appear in this Bill as it now stands. I do not think that in this House, as far as I am able to ascertain, there is any employer who wishes to delay the passing of a measure this Session. All they want is a Bill that will not bring them into daily conflict with their workmen. I think it is most desirable, especially in regard to those dangerous employments, that there should be some other principle than that contained in the Bill. I shall not detain the House longer with any observations of mine. I could have spoken on other points; but as time is pressing, and there are probably others who would like to speak, I will only say further that whatever good arises out of this Bill, whether it arises in this House or "elsewhere," it will be to the credit of the hon. Member for Stafford; no one else ever suggested anything relating to a change in the law either to secure compensation or relief to workmen injured by accident during his employment until he did; but I do maintain that it is an error to suppose that this Bill will mitigate accidents when it is passed. I believe it will increase them, because it will drive from the profession of mining the competent persons who are now in it as managers. I can say from personal experience that I have never known a colliery manager who is not first of all anxious for the safety of his men. They are men of courage, men of intelligence, men who are educated for their profession, and who would be seriously interfered with if what is proposed in this Bill were brought about. They are often said to be careless, and it is often said that accidents might have been prevented by them; but these things are generally said by those who have never had experience in colliery management. There is another ground that will show conclusively that this will not lessen accidents. Her Majesty's Government and the hon. Member for Stafford say that if this Bill passes and gives compensation it will induce greater care on the part of employers and managers. It has, on the other hand, been said, I know, by many, that if men had this compensation for accidents it will not make them less careful. That I endorse.

    1423
    I do not believe that any man will injure himself in order to obtain compensation; but surely if this is the case with regard to the men, you will allow it with regard to the managers. If the reception of compensation will not make a man less careful, upon what ground can we come to the conclusion that payment of that compensation will make managers more careful? The Government must, I think, take some other means of dealing with dangerous employment than that proposed in this Bill.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLmoved the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Staveley Hill.)
    MR. DODSONsaid, that the alterations which had been made in the Bill were matters, not of principle, but of detail. That had been admitted over and over again in the course of the debate, and it was admitted also that the House were anxious that the question should be settled and that the Bill should pass. Taking these two facts together, he appealed to the House, in the name of common sense, to allow the Speaker to leave the Chair. In Committee the details of the Bill could be fully considered.
    MR. WARTONagreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) that the present law was satisfactory. He was further of opinion that in bringing on the Bill the Government had but yielded to agitation.
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  CENTRAL AFRICA—ALLEGED OUTRAGES BY MISSIONARIES.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    DR. CAMERON,in rising to call attention to recent reports of outrages committed by missionaries on native inhabitants in Africa and elsewhere; and to move—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to take measures to prohibit British subjects, not commissioned by Her, from assuming rights of criminal jurisdiction over the natives of uncivilized countries, and perpetrating upon them acts of war; and praying Her further to cause communications to be entered into with the other Great Powers with a view to the protection of uncivilized tribes from acts of violence at the hands of persons not commissioned by the Government to which they owe allegiance,"
    said, that in bringing forward this Amendment he was actuated by no unfriendly spirit towards missionary enter-prize; his motive was, if possible, to remove from that enterprise and the proceedings of travellers a blot which threatened to impede the progress of Christianity among savage tribes, and the march of exploration and research. He intended to be as brief as possible, and to confine his observations to acts committed by missionaries and travellers which constituted crimes against the laws of this country, and which would subject the perpetrators to penalties if they were tried in this country. What made it more necessary to draw attention to the subject was the fact that the missionaries who had done these things did them apparently under the impression that they were doing no harm, and were acting in a manner which was for the advancement of justice and the benefit of missionary enterprise. Now the law upon the subject was very simple. It was laid down in the 24 & 25 Viet. c. 100,s. 9, that whenever a murder or manslaughter was committed in any part of the world, whether under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty or not, upon a person whether a subject of Her Majesty or not, the person committing that murder or manslaughter, or implicated as accessory in it, might be tried in this country under precisely the same laws as if the offence had been committed in this country. Reports had recently reached this country of extraordinary doings on the part of missionaries established at the Blan-

    1425
    tyre Mission, Central Africa; and they recently formed the subject of a paper by Mr. Andrew Chirnside,. a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society. His statements had caused considerable excitement in the country. It was said he had been rather hard upon the missionaries; but he should found his arguments entirely upon the admissions of the missionaries themselves, and upon such admissions he should argue the necessity of some such Resolution as he should submit for the judgment of the House. Mr. Chirnside's statements were to the effect that the Blantyre missionaries had assumed a criminal jurisdiction over the people in whose midst they resided; that on a certain occasion two persons being suspected of murder, in Mr. Chirnside's opinion erroneously, the missionaries held upon them a sort of trial, and they were condemned to death; one, however, escaping, and the other being shot. He need not dwell upon the circumstances which characterized the execution according to Mr. Chirnside. The man was shot upon by a large firing party. This volley did not prove fatal. Another volley was fired which was equally ineffectual, upon which a Native Chief standing by, out of pure compassion, snatched a gun from the hands of a European and blew out the brains of the unfortunate man. These details were denied; but so long as the fact of the execution was admitted they were really beside the question. The second charge made by Mr. Chirnside was that a Native carrier, suspected of having stolen a chest of tea intrusted to his care, was tied to a tree and received 200 lashes with a very heavy whip, and that in consequence of this he died within a very few hours. Mr. Chirnside, in support of his allegations, brought home the whip with which the flogging was accomplished, and certainly it was a most formidable weapon, far exceeding in power and danger any of the numerous "cats" with a sight of which the House had been favoured during the flogging debates of last Session, and that instrument had been deposited with his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Of course, he did not desire action to be taken upon such ex parte assertions; but subsequently a pamphlet had been published by a Mr. Andrew Riddell in defence of this Mission, and a Report had been made by
    1426
    the Committee of the Church of Scotland, to which the Blantyre missionaries were responsible, in which a number of admissions were made on behalf of the missionaries. Regarding the execution, that was admitted. According to the statements of the missionaries, contained in letters sent home to this country to the Mission Committee of the Church of Scotland, the facts of the case were these:—A woman was found murdered on the 26th December 1878, and shortly before that event a slave had taken refuge in the Mission. Two men, one of whom was her owner, were supposed to have wished to have revenge on some persons connected with the Mission for having afforded her shelter. According to the statements made in defence of the missionaries, it was supposed they had murdered the woman, and their trial was decided upon.
    "Anxious deliberation was held, and authorities consulted as to the course to be followed, and there was a general concurrence in the conclusion expressed by Dr. Lawes, that wilful murder must be punished by death, and that this was in the circumstances unavoidable in accordance with Divine law."
    The murderers were captured and tried before a jury composed of Natives, and presided over by a White man of the Mission, Dr. Macklin. That gentleman appeared to have presided over a sort of jury composed of the rest of the staff and the headmen of the Mission. "Then the people clamoured for their death;" but it seemed the missionaries shrank from any responsibility in this direction. However, after the men had been kept in the stocks for a fortnight, according to Mr. Riddell one of them escaped, and it was resolved to execute the other, and he was executed. Then, as to the charge of flogging, that was admitted too. The missionaries admitted that the man who was flogged had died; but not, according to the opinion of the surgeon, in consequence of the flogging, though they stated that in deference to the opinions of the Natives they abstained from making a post-mortem examination. After, however, the 200 lashes which had been administered, it was certainly no wonder that the man had died, and the fact of their having been administered went very far to present a solution of the cause of death. Mr. Chirnside had told them that these proceedings landed the missionaries in a

    1427
    little war; and that gentleman quoted extracts from a missionary journal concerning various skirmishes, in one of which, two men were killed, and in another of which more lives were lost—Mr. Chirnside said nine. In other reports it was admitted that some skirmishing had occurred, though it was denied that this originated in their attempted jurisdiction. When this matter was before the Committee on Missions, that body sent out a letter pointing out that they could not give their missionaries any criminal jurisdiction over the people among whom they resided, and that such acts were likely to involve them in very serious responsibility. Again, the matter had been debated before the General Assembly, and some speakers had denounced the acts mentioned as unjustifiable, while others had taken a different view. It was because of this that he thought it necessary to bring forward this Motion for; it was, above all things, necessary, to preserve our missionary enterprise abroad, that missionaries should be made aware exactly how far they could go, and not, as was said by one gentleman, allow them to perform their duty with a lash in one hand and a halter in the other. The only excuse urged for the missionaries was that their settlement was not merely a Mission, but a Mission Settlement, and that, according to the laws of the people among whom they resided, they had a sort of territorial jurisdiction; but the illogical nature of this plea was shown by the fact that while, on the one hand, they had assumed territorial jurisdiction, and power of life and death, on the other they had refused to exercise the duties of their territorial jurisdiction when it came to protecting poor savages from the vengeance of their barbarous Chiefs. He need say no more about that matter. But he now came to a question that was far more serious, and he referred to the New Britain Mission, the missionary being Mr. Brown. The Mission was situated in a group of islands not far from Sydney, and the Natives from a neighbouring island set upon four Native missionaries, killed, and ate them. That was followed by certain hostile demonstrations against the missionaries generally. A Chief had taken forcible possession of a missionary's wife, and the Chief who was supposed to have instigated the murder threatened to eat Mr.
    1428
    Brown, one of the leading missionaries, and Mr. Brown stated that several intimations to that effect had reached him. Mr. Brown, who was in one of the other islands, proceeded to New Britain, and found that some of the missionaries in the settlement were very anxious to avenge themselves, and they were preparing to go on an expedition for the punishment of the cannibals. He, however, thought that would not be desirable, and asked them to take his advice, and act according to his instructions. He was told that the reputed murderers had come to the Mission Station for the purpose of murdering those who were there, and he said—"The story we knew to be true, as some of the teachers saw them outside the place." He found that the teachers were planning an expedition that night; but he felt it would fail, and be attended with loss of life. So he begged them to trust the matter to him, and they did so. He held a council of war, gathered together as many Europeans as he could, and looked among the Natives for allies. One Chief, who was suspected of having murdered a Mr. Jackson, and eaten him, was sought as an ally by Mr. Brown. He spoke of the missionaries who were murdered as being under his protection, and Mr. Brown sought his aid in avenging the missionaries. Mr. Brown told him that he could not allow any cannibalism, as it was not our custom to eat men, and he stated that the Chief looked at him in a way that indicated surprise at their conduct and pity for their folly. He professed himself, however, willing to help Mr. Brown; but, owing to the restriction put on their warfare, they found the Chief was not much to be trusted. An expedition was, however, started, and hostilities ensued. In the first encounter which took place two men were killed, and Mr. Brown said that he subsequently found that these men belonged to a friendly tribe, and paid for them to the satisfaction of the Chief. After killing some 20 or 30 persons, some seemed to think they had had enough of revenge; but that was not the opinion of others. Subsequently, the Chief, who had held back, was induced to commence hostilities; and the expedition, which commenced on the 16th of April, went on to May. According to Mr. Brown's statement, many lives were lost, "probably between 50 and 80;" but he went

    1429
    on to say that the present and future good of thousands would far outbalance that. What he (Dr. Cameron) wished to call attention to was that in this expedition there was a number of men armed with rifles fighting against savages who had no weapons but slings; and a painful circumstance in the case was that several women were killed; although, said Mr. Brown, the Natives did not care about that, for they declared that the women were worse, both as cannibals and in exciting hostilities, than the men. What were Mr. Brown's reasons for taking the punishment of these cannibals into his own hands? The Pacific Islands were under the jurisdiction of Commissioners, and men-of-war were not unfrequently in those seas. Why did not Mr. Brown report the case to Sydney, and wait for the arrival of some man-of-war, in order that the punishment might be inflicted by proper authority? Mr. Brown said that he did not think that desirable, because he did not think the captain would interfere unless he had strict authority to that effect; and, secondly, he said that when men-of-war came upon the scene the most they would do would be to bombard the town. This matter was taken up by the Aborigines Protection Society. They appealed to the Colonial Minister, and a tribunal consisting of Sir Arthur Gordon and the Chief Justice of Fiji was directed to investigate the case. It appeared that the Admiralty had instructed Captain Purvis to proceed to New Britain to make inquiries; and he had drawn up a Report which reached Fiji when Sir Arthur Gordon was there. The Report exonerated Mr. Brown from blame, and declared that his responsibility was shared by the European residents. According, however, to his (Dr. Cameron's) reading of the Act of Parliament, all the persons connected with this transaction were guilty of murder or manslaughter. The trial of Mr. Brown was eventually fixed; but the clay before Sir Arthur Gordon called Mr. Brown to him and said he had read the statements prepared, and that the evidence would not have led him to institute or recommend a criminal prosecution. Sir Arthur Gordon added—
    "I cannot but hope the evidence to be adduced to-morrow may free you from all imputations of criminality, and enable me to continue the investigation that has been interrupted."
    1430
    He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies would be able to give some explanation of the circumstances which induced one Judge to express an opinion like that without consulting his Colleagues. The result was that the Attorney General of Fiji refused to prosecute, and Mr. Brown was not tried at all. That, he thought, demanded the most careful and dispassionate judicial inquiry. Then, in a letter addressed to The Christian World by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard), some two years ago, that Gentleman remarked that the The Christian World had done itself honour by protesting against the conduct of a missionary in New Guinea who shot the Natives because they would not receive the Gospel at his hands. There must have been some foundation for that, but he left his hon. Friend to give details; therefore, there were three cases in which missionaries had taken upon themselves the right of putting persons to death and commencing a war. Now he came to the second part of his Resolution, which related to similar acts, but not committed by British subjects. Mr. Stanley waged something like a war with some Native tribes in Africa. He did not object to the taking of life in self-defence; but all the instances he had introduced had been instances in which life had been taken, not in self-defence, but in exercise of quasi-judicial or quasi-sovereign functions, against the assumption of which he altogether protested. Mr. Stanley's description of the affair was that he was threatened by a tribe, and was compelled to kill some in self-defence. In fact, there were 14 of the Natives killed and wounded. He had no wish to challenge that; but what he did challenge was what occurred subsequently. Mr. Stanley managed to get clear away from the Natives; but he considered it necessary to go back and wage war upon them, so that it was no longer a question of self-defence. In the second encounter 42 were killed and over 100 were wounded, whilst only two of Mr. Stanley's men suffered from contusions from stones slung at them. Mr. Stanley had no right to do that, and if it were allowed they would be having other travellers waging war upon Native tribes. Lord Derby had been written to on the subject at the time, but had expressed himself unable to interfere, as Mr. Stanley

    1431
    was not a British subject. Therefore the necessity for the second portion of his Resolution. In conclusion, he thanked the House for its patient hearing, and begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to take measures to prohibit British subjects, not commissioned by Her, from assuming rights of criminal jurisdiction over the natives of uncivilised countries, and perpetrating upon them acts of war; and praying Her further to cause communications to be entered into with the other Great Powers with a view to the protection of uncivilised tribes from acts of violence at the hands of persons not commissioned by the Government to which they owe allegiance,"—(Dr. Cameron,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELLdid not rise to offer any opposition to the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), for he entirely concurred in the Amendment that had been proposed. The Resolution, however, was founded upon reports of outrages; and he wished to make a few remarks in reference to one of the Missions mentioned by the hon. Member. He would ask the House not to form a judgment in regard to the charges of cruelty and injustice that had been brought against the missionaries until those charges had been thoroughly inquired into. On an early day this Session, in reply to a Question of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs mentioned that the attention of his Department had been called to the report of cruelties and outrages in connection with the Blantyre Mission, and that an inquiry had been instituted by Her Majesty's Consul at Mozambique. That inquiry was now going on, and he had further to say that the Church which sent out the Mission—the Church of Scotland—had instituted an investigation on her own behalf, in order that the truth of the matter might be ascertained. The Church of Scotland was sending out a special Commissioner to inquire into the whole circumstances of the Mission, and
    1432
    the charges that had been made against the missionaries. The Commissioner, he might mention, was the Rev. Dr. Rankin, of Muthill, a highly esteemed parish minister, a man of ability and good sense, who enjoyed the full confidence of his Church. He was accompanied by a layman, who went out at his own charges, who also had the confidence of his Church, and who had instructions to take up the Commission in the event of Dr. Rankin by any accident being prevented from finishing the work. These gentlemen would act in conjunction with Consul O'Neill, so that the House and the country had every assurance that there would be a thorough and impartial inquiry. The Motion, however, as his hon. Friend was careful to say, proceeded not upon the charges of Mr. Chirnside, as if these were established, but upon admissions made by the Church itself, or by its missionaries. Now, he granted that, without reference to charges of cruelty and injustice, there was enough to justify some such Motion as this. There was enough to justify some prohibition of private subjects of the Queen, whether missionaries or not, from assuming criminal jurisdiction in uncivilized countries. But, while the facts which were admitted justified this Amendment, he held that they were by no means so compromising as would be supposed from the speech of his hon. Friend, in which he thought the charges in Mr. Chirnside's pamphlet had, to some extent, been assumed to be true. He was unwilling to enter into particulars; but, as the House had heard of the execution which took place at Blantyre in the spring of last year as an act of very questionable justice, even if those who were responsible for it had a right to exercise jurisdiction, it was only right to say that there was another view to be taken of it, and until they had the result of the inquiry now in progress before them, it would be hardly fair of them to take the worst view of the matter. According to the accounts received by the Committee at home, the missionaries were thoroughly satisfied as to the sufficiency of the evidence against the two men, one of whom was executed. As to the execution itself, the Committee had the assurance of the missionaries that there was no cruelty in the mode of execution. Then, as to the flogging, the Committee were now making inquiry. Dr. Macklin

    1433
    had stated to the Committee that he saw the poor man who died, whose case had been referred to, and that blood had not been drawn, and there were only slight scratches on his back. Such was the doctor's testimony. Dr. Macklin also stated that during the time he was at Blantyre—some three years—there were only six cases of flogging, and only two of them were serious. He had been present on every occasion except the last, in which case he had only seen the man afterwards. He also stated that the instrument of punishment was light, except that used on the first occasion, in 1877, when the flogging had not been administered by any of the Blantyre missionaries. All these matters, however, were now under inquiry, and the House would do well to suspend its judgment until the inquiry was completed. The missionaries were wrong, however, in assuming jurisdiction at all; and when the Committee in the spring of last year received information that an execution had taken place, they at once recorded their sense of deepest distress that the missionaries had thought it necessary to take into their own hands the power of life and death. The Committee made further inquiries during last year, receiving what information they could from the missionaries; and the whole of their inquiries satisfied them that the missionaries had felt constrained to carry out the execution because of what was represented to them as to their jurisdiction in consequence of being in possession of the land, and having villages under their care. The Committee did not hesitate to state plainly to the missionaries that they could not recognize any such jurisdiction. Their words were—
    "We beg to point out to you that, whatever may be the technical tenure by which we hold the land at Blantyre, we wish to regard our occupation of it only as a necessary instrument in our work of Christianizing the people."
    Again—
    "Your position must be understood as excluding the power and jurisdiction known as civil government. We have no right to give, and you have no right to receive from us, any jurisdiction whatever over the lives, persons, or property of the Natives who live round about you. We cannot make you civil magistrates over any portion of Africa, even though we may possess property therein."
    These events happened in the beginning
    1434
    of last year. The Committee had never heard before of any floggings. After these events, peace and quietness reigned for some time. The collision with Natives to which his hon. Friend referred had no connection whatever with the execution in February. It was thus mentioned in a Special Report to last General Assembly—
    "Towards the end of September came another misfortune. A neighbouring Chief waylaid our carriers, and stole their goods. On a demand for restitution, a hostile attack ensued, when our people were obliged to defend themselves by force, and one man was killed."
    There did not seem to have been anything deserving the name of war with the Natives. He thought they must all sympathize with missionaries in uncivilized countries. They were subjected to difficulties and trials which people in comfort at home could little understand. They must sympathize with them, and be ready to take the most favourable view of what they did; but their sympathy must not blind them to the fact that to assume criminal jurisdiction was a wrong thing. No secret, therefore, must be made of their determination that no claim of this kind could be recognized. At the same time, we must remember that the missionaries had not themselves sought this jurisdiction; it had been pressed upon them by the Natives around them; their fault was in allowing themselves to be persuaded into taking it. But he would simply add that the missionaries were not the only parties to blame. He could not but think that the Mission Committee at home, of which he was himself a member, must take some share of the responsibility. If there was danger that the missionaries might be drawn into assuming jurisdiction, they ought to have been specially cautioned on the subject. It was easy for them to be wise after the event; but the Mission Committee must be prepared to take blame to themselves for not having anticipated such difficulties as had arisen.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that whatever they might think of the Amendment which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had put on the Paper, they must all admit that that subject was one which had been very properly brought before the House, and that it had been introduced in a speech of admirable tone and temper. The hon.

    1435
    Member had, however, made a mistake in his statement of the law, inasmuch as he appeared to assume that almost the only Act bearing on the question was 24 & 25 Vict. In truth, there were several other statutes, and we already-possessed considerable—he might say-ample—powers for dealing with British subjects out of the jurisdiction of civilized Powers. Besides this Act of 24 & 25 Vict., under which we could try any subject for murder and manslaughter when the offender could be brought to trial in the United Kingdom, there, were also Acts under which they could try an offender even if he had not been brought to trial in the United Kingdom. Even if he was caught in foreign parts, there was power of trial by commission to Colonial Courts under an Act of George III.; but the Act to which he would specially direct attention was the Act of 1878. Under the operation of the Jurisdiction Act of 1878 there was power to issue an Order in Council for the legal exercise of British jurisdiction over British subjects. This was a very unusual power, and it was one which up to the present time had not been exercised. The Act had only just come into force; but it was an Act which could be put into force, and might be exercised. Under that Act they could claim jurisdiction even over British subjects in parts of Central Africa which were not subject to any regular Government. Now, what were the special powers as regards Africa which affected the circumstances in this case? It was a fact not generally known that for criminal purposes the jurisdiction of the Cape Colony extended northwards vastly beyond the boundaries of the Colony itself up to 25 degrees of south latitude. But the Blantyre station was considerably to the north of that limit. But the Act of 1878 said that Her Majesty should have power and jurisdiction over her subjects who might for the time being be residing in, or resorting to, countries or places out of her Dominions. That power might almost be described as enormous; and the real question for them to consider was, not whether they possessed sufficient powers, but whether in a particular case they would run the risk of putting them in force. And when he spoke of legally raising and putting these powers in force, of course the House would understand exactly what
    1436
    he meant. He had been asked the other day by an hon. Member whether it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Consul General in the heart of Africa for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction, and he replied that there was a very great danger in making appointments of that kind. If a Native Chief should carry off a British Consul, who could hardly be environed with a sufficient guard in the heart of Africa to resist the capture by a Chief who happened to be very powerful, they would be probably committed to a military expedition, which would involve great cost and great danger to the troops, in order to release our representative. Therefore, they must be very careful how they attempted to acquire jurisdiction in places where they could have no sufficient force. In the Pacific, where this country possessed, by naval means, far greater power than it could have in the heart of Africa, very large special powers had been given to the High Commissioner, Sir Arthur Gordon, who was Governor of Fiji, and in many cases the High Commissioner had been able to exercise great influence in the direction which the hon. Member for Glasgow would desire. The hon. Member's Amendment began with a preamble referring to the reports of recent outrages alleged to have been committed by missionaries; but out of the three instances which his hon. Friend had laid before the House, one did not concern the missionaries at all. From reading the Notice of his Amendment, he had thought his hon. Friend was going to deal almost exclusively with the case of the Blantyre Mission. But his hon. Friend had gone on to speak of the New Britain case, and also of the case of Mr. Stanley, as to which there was no allusion whatever in the Motion. The Stanley case was one in which missionaries were not concerned, and had that case been adverted to specially by Resolution, great difficulty might have been experienced in defending the exercise of jurisdiction which there occurred. As he had already pointed out, however, that case did not come within the preamble of the present Resolution, and it was certainly not his intention to go into it, or attempt to offer any defence or justification of the circumstances concerned with it. As to the two cases in which missionaries were concerned, the Blantyre case came under

    1437
    the cognizance of the Foreign Office. The New Britain case did not. It had been dealt with by the Admiralty, and was under the Colonial Office. With regard to the Blantyre case, that seemed a bad case, so far as the circumstances were known; but he did not think it was necessary to go into this matter at length, because it was one which, as the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen (Mr. J. A. Campbell) had shown to the House, was actually under investigation at the present time. The hon. Gentleman, in the very temperate observations which he had made on the matter, also admitted that the investigation was being conducted by those who were not strongly hostile to the missionaries. There was one point on which some of the defenders of the action of the missionaries differed from others, and that was as to the question of jurisdiction. He had heard a defence of the Blantyre Mission to the effect that the missionaries did not claim jurisdiction, that they had placed a Native Chief on the juries, and that they sheltered themselves by the Chief's jurisdiction. There was no desire on the part of the Foreign Office to be a party to any exercise of jurisdiction by Europeans in this indirect manner. But at first sight he was bound to say there did appear to be a case deserving in the highest degree of careful investigation, and the only reason why he declined to enter into details and deal with it was that the acts which had been committed were the subject of investigation at the present time. The foreign Mission, as the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen had told them, had sent out some gentlemen to inquire into the affair, and Her Majesty's Consul at Mozambique had been instructed not only to assist them, but to proceed to the spot and join in the investigation. It would be an impartial investigation, and Her Majesty's Consul would endeavour to arrive at the truth. With regard to the New Britain case, he believed some sort of approval was given to the conduct of the missionaries by the late Board of Admiralty; so he supposed something was to be said for them. It did not come within the Department with which he was connected, and it was impossible for him to give the House any informal tion on that subject. The third case
    1438
    had nothing at all to do with missionaries; although he could not help coming to the conclusion that the case might on some future occasion usefully form the subject of a debate in the House. He did not, however, think the case should be debated now, because the friends of Mr. Stanley in that House would not have been really informed by the terms of the Notice of his hon. Friend that it was intended to bring the subject before the House that evening. The hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen stated that, on the whole, he concurred in the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could not concur in the actual terms of the Amendment, though he wished it to be understood that he gave his entire support to the doctrines which had been enunciated, that being not only his own view individually, but the view of those who were responsible for the administration of the Foreign Office. It had been the desire of the Foreign Office not only to discourage, but, as far as possible, to actually prevent, the exercise of jurisdiction by British subjects over whom they had no control. The exercise of such a jurisdiction was not only calculated to lead to acts of which they disapproved, but to involve the country in serious complications; and such a thing must be discouraged, and, as far as possible, prevented by all who had to do with the direction of Colonial affairs. If the Resolution of his hon. Friend merely expressed the disapprobation—he might say the extreme disapprobation—with which Her Majesty's Government viewed the exercise of irregular jurisdiction by British subjects in uncivilized parts of the world, he should give his cordial assent to the Resolution. But the Resolution did more than that. In the second part of the Resolution, by which his hon. Friend expressed his wish that there should be a communication with other Great Powers with the view of protecting uncivilized tribes; but his hon. Friend had not brought forward a sufficient number of cases, or sufficiently strong cases, in which foreign Powers would be likely to interfere. Except Mr. Stanley, he knew of no foreigner who had been mentioned in this matter; and Mr. Stanley was not a subject of any of what were usually called the Great Powers,

    1439
    but of America. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had no reason to think that the Great Powers of Europe would be likely to take up the matter unless such a case was brought forward as would show that serious complications were likely to arise. The great majority of travellers in uncivilized parts of the world, and something like the majority of missionaries, were British subjects; and that was a remarkable fact, as showing the enterprise and spirit of their countrymen; and the question was, therefore, one which peculiarly concerned this country, and in regard to which they were not likely to obtain much assistance from other States. As regarded British subjects, we possessed ample power. No man could desire stronger power than was given by the Acts which were passed a few years ago; and the question now was, when and how far those powers should be exercised by the Government. There might be great difficulties in certain cases as to putting those powers into force; but those powers were not asked for for nothing. They were not mere menaces—they were intended to be used on sufficient occasion and after careful investigation; and the Government were determined not only to discourage, but, when it could be safely done, to actually prevent, the irregular exercise of jurisdiction by British subjects in any portion of the world.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he could not conceive that they could have a stronger case for adopting the important Resolution now before the House than the proceedings of Mr. Stanley referred to by the hon. Member opposite. The Aborigines' Protection Society memorialized the Government on that subject when Lord Derby was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Lord Derby, after very fully considering the subject, said it was impossible for him to take any direct action in the matter, inasmuch as Mr. Stanley, not being a British subject, he had no authority over him. He thought there could be no doubt that Lord Granville would have taken the same view of the matter. The course which the Foreign Office took showed the great necessity of the Resolution, because it showed the importance of there being some communication between the Great Powers of the world, and that they should act in concert in endeavouring to put an end to
    1440
    such atrocities as those alluded to in the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite. Mr. Stanley, it should be remembered, took upon himself to carry on this war by hoisting the British and the American flag. Lord Derby said Mr. Stanley had no authority to put up the British flag. It seemed that he felt it was necessary to enter into communication with the United States upon the subject. He thought that justified the Motion brought before the House by his hon. Friend. In conclusion, he thanked his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow for bringing this subject forward, and he hoped a gain would result to the cause of humanity.
    MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he would not have risen on the present occasion, after the able explanation of the law given by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had it not been for the appeals made to him by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron). The hon. Member was entirely correct in assuming that the Island of New Britain did fall within the jurisdiction to which he referred—namely, within the jurisdiction of the Commissionership of Sir Arthur Gordon. He believed that the creation of that High Commissionership resulted from precisely the same feeling which had dictated the Amendment which had been put upon the Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. That High Commissionership was called into existence because there was a very strong feeling that British subjects could not be permitted to make use of their superior strength to commit wrong in the Pacific Islands. That being so, the attention of the late Secretary of State for the Colonies was called to this affair, and he directed Sir Arthur Gordon when he was in London to look into the matter; and he, of course, as soon as he returned, endeavoured to carry out his instructions as soon as possible, but he was prevented from doing so. Of course, Sir Arthur Gordon was dependent, to a great extent, upon the Admiralty; and he applied to the Commodore of the Australian station to give him a vessel to go to the Duke of York's Island, in order that he might investigate the matter. Unfortunately, however, at that time the Commodore of the station did not see his way to provide him with a vessel, which caused considerable delay. Meanwhile the whole question was in-

    1441
    quired into by Captain Purvis, acting under the Admiralty. It was no part of his (Mr. Grant Duff's) duty to defend the proceedings of Mr. Brown, but it was only fair to say that the report of Captain Purvis to the Admiralty after the inquiry instituted by him was very favourable to Mr. Brown's conduct. Captain Purvis came to the conclusion that the act of Mr. Brown was an act committed in legitimate self-defence. A document which had reached the Admiralty fully confirmed that view. It was the report of a German officer to the German Admiralty in relation to some other proceedings, and it was decidedly favourable to Mr. Brown. The contradictory opinions that had been expressed made it difficult to arrive at a correct view of the situation from a distance; but it would seem that in the opinions of impartial persons' on the spot, as well as in the opinion of our own Admiralty, there was a great deal more to be said for Mr. Brown than was to be said against him. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Brown came to Levuka and told Sir Arthur Gordon that he was ready and willing to submit his proceedings to a full investigation. Sir Arthur Gordon, while holding that it was impossible to inquire into such a matter at a distance from the place where the events occurred, would probably so far have gone into it as to have enabled Mr. Brown to state his case, if the Chief Judicial Commissioner, without any concert with Sir Arthur Gordon, had not directed the commencement of criminal proceedings against Mr. Brown. The continuance of the inquiry before Sir Arthur Gordon would have been manifestly improper; and he, therefore, informed Mr. Brown that, while proceedings before the Chief Judicial Commissioner were pending, he felt it necessary to adjourn the further prosecution of his own inquiry, adding that, whatever opinion he might entertain of the judiciousness of Mr. Brown's action, he felt bound to inform him that no evidence had been laid before him which appeared to render the prosecution of a criminal charge against Mr. Brown necessary. Sir Arthur Gordon also wrote a letter to the Chief Judicial Commissioner, in which he communicated to that officer an opinion similar to that which he had expressed to Mr. Brown. Partly in consequence of this letter, and partly, if not, as might be presumed, chiefly,
    1442
    because there was really no informant or prosecutor in the case, the charge against Mr. Brown was dismissed when it came on for hearing before Mr. Gorrie, and Mr. Brown immediately afterwards sailed on his return to Duke of York's Island. Most of the witnesses had since left the locality; and even if it were possible to do so, it did not appear that any useful purpose would be served by re-opening the inquiry.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the House owed the hon Member for Glasgow a debt of gratitude for raising this question. It had been stated by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that the Government were determined, as far as they could, to prevent missionaries or other persons from exercising illegitimate authority over the Natives with whom they might come in contact. He hoped the Government would make it understood that the matter was not to end by their merely making that statement, and expressing that opinion, but they would enforce what they had stated, Very serious difficulties had arisen because former Governments had not made it known that they were determined to enforce such a view. There was a tendency on the part of missionaries in foreign countries to interfere with the political and territorial affairs of the countries in which they were stationed; and he could not help thinking that if Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the other Powers, could put an end to this state of things, they would do a large amount of good. There could, he thought, be no doubt that the work of missionaries in the making of con-verts would be helped forward by their not taking part in any political operations in the countries to which they were sent for very different purposes.
    SIR HARRY VERNEYthought it necessary that where the Government gave any sanction or approval to the establishment of British subjects in any part of the world, and especially in uncivilized parts, there should be, if possible, some means of protecting and controlling them, and preventing them being guilty of actions which bring disgrace on their country.
    MAJOR NOLANwished to explain to the House that he had had some private conversation with Mr. Stanley with reference to his African Expedition, and

    1443
    that that gentleman had expressed his great disappointment that no one had come forward to defend him against the accusation brought against him. The fact was that Mr. Stanley had been in continued danger of his life while travelling down the river. The Natives had been very threatening in their attitude towards him, and the act of which complaint had been made was described by Mr. Stanley as a single event constituting his defence during his journey through the country. Had that gentleman not acted pluckily as he did, the probability was that he would never have returned from the heart of Africa to give an account of his Mission to discover the sources of the Congo. He did not believe Mr. Stanley would commit any wanton outrage.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, that, after the satisfactory statement of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he would ask the leave of the House to withdraw his Motion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MOTION.
  RUSSIA AND BRITISH INDIA.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTrose to call attention to the relations of Great Britain and of Russia with Afghanistan and Central Asia; and to move—
    "That, in view of the great advance made by Russia since 1862 towards Afghanistan and British India, and of the desirability of preventing that Power from obtaining a foothold south of the great desert between the Caspian, the Hindoo Koosh, and the Oxus, which forms the natural boundary to a further advance southwards; and in view of the necessity of preserving the independence of the Turcoman tribes as a bulwark against the Russian armies, and of the importance of Afghanistan from a military, commercial, and political aspect as constituting the key of British India and as commanding all the great trade routes of Central Asia; and in view of the great expenditure and labour already incurred on several occasions in occupying Afghanistan, it is desirable for the safety of the British Empire in India and the security of the 250,000,000 of people inhabiting that Country, and for the highest interests of civilisation, that the British occupation of Afghanistan shall be maintained, but more especially that the great fortress of Kandahar shall be permanently garrisoned by British troops."
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at a quarter after Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Highway Acts, nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Ashford, &c.)*(ll5); Local Government Provisional Orders (Bethesda, &c.)*(116).
Second Reading—General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Broughty Ferry)*(99); Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cardiff, &c.)*(100).
Third Reading—Great Seal*(90); Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (Limited Tenures)*(111); Universities and College Estates Act Amendment*(92), and passed.

INTEMPERANCE—REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW,in rising to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee of the House on Intemperance, and to inquire, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to introduce any further measure to carry into effect the recommendations of that Committee? said, he had to regret that some more important Member of their Lordships' House had not called attention to the matter. The Committee in question was appointed in 1876, on the Motion of the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury). Since the Committee reported, three of its most important Members, including the noble Duke who was its Chairman, had become Members of Her Majesty's Government. This fact was a further inducement to him to ask what were the intentions of the Government with reference to the recommendations of the Committee. The Archbishop of Canterbury had moved in the matter in consequence of a Memorial to the Bishops from a very large body, both of the clergy and laity, of the Established Church. There was no question that, at that time, the consumption of intoxicating liquors had increased in the country; and during the year 1877 there were no less than 200,000 persons charged with being drunk and disorderly; but these did not include those who were too drunk to be disorderly or not drunk enough to be incapable. It was fair to say that the

  1367
  consumption of tea and sugar had increased to a still larger extent in proportion to the population; but there could be no doubt of the fact that intemperance increased with the advance of wages, and that the crimes of violence increased in proportion to the apprehensions for drunkenness, though they were not actually coincident with the increase of drunkenness, but subsequently to it, as if it required some years of bard drinking to bring the working classes to their greatest depravity. It was one of the results of habitual intoxication. The Acts of 1869 and 1872, supplemented by the Act of 1874, had materially improved the condition of things; order in the public streets had increased, as had the vigilance of the police; and the severer penalties imposed made the publicans more careful in the conduct of their houses. But much remained to be done, and the Select Committee, which had collected a great deal of information and statistics, made numerous recommendations. One was that some legislative facilities should be given to those Local Bodies who were desirous of making an experiment in the direction of repressing drunkenness in the localities for which they acted. It was a mistake to suppose that this had any reference to the Permissive Bill. The whole spirit of the Report was antagonistic to the Permissive Bill; the recommendation of the Committee aimed rather at the possibility of giving a trial to some such scheme as the Gothenburg or Mr. Chamberlain's. The former consisted of giving the municipality power to sell the whole of the licences in the town, which, in the case of Gothenburg, they did to certain philanthropic persons, who conducted the business solely on the principle that no individual should derive any profit whatever from the sale of intoxicating drinks; the only advantage they were allowed to derive being from the sale of food and non-intoxicants. Mr. Chamberlain's scheme differed slightly from that, as he proposed that instead of the Corporation selling the licences to a company they should become the purchasers and managers of the houses. The Committee were not convinced that either of these schemes would be an infallible remedy; but they thought powers ought not to be refused to those Local Bodies who were prepared to try them, so that, if they were found to
  1368
  be successful in a limited area, they might be extended to the whole country. As he had said, the Committee declined, in any way, to recommend the permissive system, and he (the Earl of Onslow) concurred in that view, because he thought that such a system was opposed to the whole spirit of our legislation; but there was much to be said in favour of some such plan as the Gothenburg system, or a modification of it. The principle of giving power over the licences was not a new one. In 1835, Lord John Russell introduced in the Municipal Corporations Reform Bill a clause to enable municipalities to obtain the control of licences. That clause was rejected; but, now that municipalities were allowed to purchase gasworks and waterworks, and were intrusted with great powers under the Artizans' Dwellings Act, there seemed to be no good reason why they should not be allowed to conduct a traffic which was productive of great increase to the rates, and which might be most injurious to the inhabitants of the locality. Why should they not be enabled to purchase public-houses, to insure good management, and that nobody should be tempted to drink to excess? The merits of this plan were that it would provide due compensation for existing interests, and would enable the public to supply their wants at houses conducted in the most respectable manner. He did not mean to assert that any one of the different schemes for municipal action in the matter would be effectual; but he maintained that power should be given to the municipalities to make the experiment, while the Legislature should stand by, watch, and gain experience from their experiments. Another branch of the subject which had engaged considerable attention on the part of the Select Committee was that of grocers' spirit licences, which, though they had been a convenience in some respects, had, it was feared, promoted in other respects drinking habits. The number of grocers' licences had increased from 3,546, in 1871, to 5,821 at the present time. Those licences could be refused only on four statutable grounds—either that the person or the house was not qualified for such a licence. Hitherto they had trusted to the high price of the grocers' licences to restrict their abuse, the grocer having to pay £28 14s. on a

  1369
  £100 house, as against £15 10s. 8d. paid by the licensed victualler on a house of the same value; but under the new system of licensing duties now proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this would be materially modified, and the two classes of licence placed on an equal footing, as the publicans' licence would be increased to £30, whilst the grocers' would remain at £28 14s. It appeared to him that, under these circumstances, there was a danger of a very large increase in the number of grocers' licences. There was an objection to those licences being granted by magistrates, because of the invidious position in which these functionaries must be placed if they had two applicants of equal respectability from the immediate neighbourhood; but he should be willing to see a power given to magistrates to fix the maximum number of grocers' licences which they would permit within a district, and to put all those licences up to public tender, so that the fullest value would be paid by the grocer for his privilege. In that way the number of grocers selling spirits would be kept down. It was a convenience to many persons to be able to buy spirits in the shops of their grocers; but it had been stated, in evidence to the Select Committee, that much mischief was caused by the facility for the purchase of spirits which the shops afforded to women, and that some of the grocers consented to enter as "goods" the spirits had by women. Indeed, one gentleman told the Committee that this was so common in Scotland that whenever he found the entry "goods" in a grocer's account he at once understood it to mean "bads"—that was to say "drink." Referring to another point, he believed that public opinion was at this moment ripe for some slight increase in the restrictions on the trade, especially as regarded Saturdays. He thought it would not be too much to oblige publicans to close their houses at an earlier hour on Saturday evenings, when the working people left off work earlier, and had more cash to spend. It was stated that women in Glasgow said they never got their eyes blackened on Saturday nights till after 10 o'clock. He did not think this country was prepared for Sunday closing. In Ireland there was a strong feeling expressed by the publicans in favour of it; but there had been no such manifestation of public feeling in this
  1370
  country. One important question was as to giving greater power to magistrates to refuse the renewal of licences where the character of the premises had been altered; such, for instance, as in the cases where proprietors of old inns had taken the adjoining premises, and converted them into gin palaces, which proceeding had been ruled not to be an infringement of the licence. He thought that they should have greater power; above all, he looked to the results of the establishment of counter attractions to public-houses. The opening of coffee public-houses, working men's clubs, and even temperance music rooms was to be regarded with pleasure; but he sincerely hoped that, whatever legislation might be undertaken in this matter, none of those who had so earnestly and successfully laboured for this object would relax their efforts. Legislation, on its present lines, had been carried almost to the limit, and he did not believe it would be possible to carry restrictions very much further. If they were to have legislation on this subject, it must be an entirely new departure. The subject was one which was attracting considerable attention throughout the country; and after the utterances of the Premier in Mid Lothian on this subject, which he trusted he had no idea of retracting, he hoped for a favourable reply from the Government. He begged, in conclusion, to ask the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, the Committee was appointed on a Motion of the most rev. Primate the (Archbishop of Canterbury) as the result of a very extensively signed Petition by the clergy. That Petition, in effect, asked the Bishops, as such, to introduce further legislation upon the subject. It was universally felt by the Episcopate that it was not for them to introduce a Bill dealing with the question. It did not seem to them that the Episcopal Bench was the most hopeful quarter from which such a Bill should proceed; but they also felt that it was impossible to turn a deaf ear to a Petition made so heartily and disinterestedly in relation to a subject upon which, if any portion of the community was well informed, it would certainly be the clergy, seeing that they had very ample opportunities of knowing the mischief caused by intemperance. The

  1371
  noble Earl (the Earl of Onslow) had referred to the fact that there had been a change in the condition of Parties since then, and that several of the most distinguished Members of the Committee now occupied the other side of the House. That was a very important point to refer to, because it was not right to consider that the question of temperance or intemperance belonged to one side more than the other. It was a monstrous supposition that a Party of one colour was more interested in temperance than a Party of a different colour, and he did not believe there was in that House any such division of the two sides with regard to this question. But it so happened that a number of distinguished statesmen who were now on the Government side of the House were at that time—if he might use the expression—out of work, and were available to serve on the Committee, and he could bear testimony to the admirable, laborious, and conscientious manner in which they went into the subject. He trusted that noble Lords on that side of the House would now, in their prosperity, not despise the child of their adversity. A great many of the recommendations of the Select Committee were so simple and obvious that he did not see any difficulty in the way of their adoption. Why should not the entering of spirits as "goods" be treated as a fraud, punishable by loss of licence, as it now was in Scotland? and why should not the selling of spirits to boys or girls under the age of 16 be made penal in Ireland and Scotland as it was in England? Then there was a recommendation concerning the bonâ fide traveller. It was frequently assumed that the definition of such traveller was a man who, on the preceding night, had slept at a distance of not less than three miles than the place at which he was served; this was not really so; it was still left to the judgment of the magistrates to determine whether a man was a bonâ fide traveller or not; and the Lords' Committee recommended that this point should be made clear. There could be no doubt that "Local Option" created great interest throughout the country, and in the other House of Parliament a Resolution in its favour had recently been carried; but the question now to be decided was what local option meant. There was a wide distinction between law and Lawson, and
  1372
  when Local Option came to be converted into a hard law then would come the difficulty. Sir Wilfrid Lawson would like to translate his Resolution at once into the Permissive Bill; but they must all agree that that translation was neither a possible nor a desirable thing. There was a form of Local Option which the Committee in their Report called "local adoption," which was, perhaps, a more suitable term; but he (the Bishop of Carlisle) confessed he was not very hopeful as to that recommendation, although the experience of the Gothenburg system in Sweden, where it had been adopted in town after town, was a very strong practical argument in its favour. The proposal made before the Committee was not so much the Gothenburg system as that modification of it which was devised by Mr. Chamberlain, which was that the towns should have the power, if they pleased, to buy up the interests of the Licensed Victuallers, and should take the whole business into their own hands, as was now the case in many towns with respect to gasworks and waterworks. Having heard the evidence given on that plan, he did not go the length of asserting that it was possible; but he did say that it was very well worth the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and that he did not see any better method of dealing with the liquor traffic in large towns. The evil of the existence of a very unnecessary number of public-houses in some of those towns was great. A case was brought before the Committee in which a sailors' home had been established, and in which every avenue leading to that institution was lined with public-houses. As to Sunday closing, after the decision in the other House regarding Wales, the Legislature seemed distinctly to be committed to a consideration of the question, although he did not think it was simply one of the suppressions of intemperance, Sunday being by no means the most drunken day of the week. It should be borne in mind that this was not a question of the rich man against the poor man, but was the question of the poor man defending himself against an evil, the pressure of which he knew from experience. There could be no doubt that there was a growing opinion that it would be an advantage to have the public-houses closed on that day. It had been shown that of the whole num-

  1373
  ber of householders canvassed on that point, amounting to nearly 800,000, 640,000 were in favour of Sunday closing, 80,000 against it, and 50,000 neutral. That result showed a very large majority for the measure, while, no doubt, a very large minority would have to be considered as not being of that way of thinking. It was a remarkable fact, however, that the majority for the greater part was composed of working people, and not of persons who had their wine cellars and clubs. He did not think public opinion was far enough advanced in that direction to warrant the belief that a measure for the entire closing of public-houses on Sunday would be generally acceptable; but he believed that the moderate recommendation of the Select Committee might be adopted—that the hours should be shortened—and in some parts of the country there might be entire closing. Those recommendations were were so simple and so full of common sense that he could not conceive there could be any difficulty in introducing them into any Bill which might hereafter be brought forward on the subject. He sincerely trusted that the Report of the Committee would have due consideration from the Government whenever they had the opportunity of going into the question; and that early next Session they would have some proposal to legislate upon it.
  LORD COTTESLOE,as a Member of the Committee which had sat upon the question, hoped the Government would be able to state to the House whether they intended to take up that question. It was highly desirable that they should speak out upon the point, for it was a matter of too much importance for anybody else to take up. So long as it was doubtful whether they were going to deal with it, therefore, the reticence of the Government prevented any progress. He believed that there was no question of greater importance affecting the well-being of such a large body of the people. The interest in the question was shown by the large number of temperance societies which had been established, the meetings which had been held, and the money which had been subscribed for, among other things, the establishment of coffee-houses and labourers' clubs throughout the country; therefore, he trusted that the matter might be taken fairly in hand by the Govern-
  1374
  ment; but he must confess that he had his misgivings on that point, in consequence of the inaction on the part of the Executive which had followed the labours of other Select Committees and of Royal Commissions. His experience was that Committees and Commissions were appointed readily enough, but that, unfortunately, no legislation resulted from their labours. There had been a Committee on Railway Accidents and one on Noxious Vapours; but, beyond the collection of evidence, where was the legislation on either subject? There were many among the 20 recommendations made by the Select Committee on Intemperance, the adoption of which might be effected with great public advantage and without delay or difficulty. Such were the recommendation that beer licences should be put on the same footing as spirit licences; that transfers of licences should be refused on the same grounds as renewals were now; that no transfer of a licence should be granted without an opportunity of objection having been afforded to the inhabitants of the locality; that there should be a further restriction as to the hours at which public-houses were open in the early morning, when they afforded a temptation to men going to work; and the question of Sunday closing should be dealt with. He thought that the practice of taking out six-day licences could only be carried out by a general law, for it was hardly to be expected that a landlord would take out a six-day licence when all his rivals took out one that would enable them to supply his customers on Sunday. Such a system should be made general; and he was also of opinion that all convictions, as a matter of record, ought to be endorsed on the licences. The recommendations of their Lordships' Committee were plain and simple, and could be easily included in a short Bill which would receive the support of the country.
  THE EARL OF FIFEsaid, that the question before the House was one of those the importance of which the Government felt as strongly as the noble Earl who had opened the discussion (the Earl of Onslow). The Report to which the noble Earl had alluded emanated from a Committee of their Lordships' House, composed of men who had sat for three Sessions, and given

  1375
  great attention to the difficult and delicate social creations involved in this matter, and whose opinion could but carry great weight in their Lordships' House. He must, however, confess that, on rising from the perusal of that Report, one's feelings were of a somewhat mixed nature, and he might even add of some confusion. There were in this voluminous Report no less than 20 recommendations; but the one which seemed to him both the shortest and the clearest was undoubtedly number 7, which said in rather less than a line that a considerable increase should be made in the licence duty. Those of their Lordships who had followed the Financial Statement lately made by Mr. Gladstone in the other House of Parliament would be aware that that recommendation had been acted upon at the very earliest opportunity, and that it was now proposed to make a very considerable increase in the licence duties. On one point they must all be of one mind, and that was that it was their duty to do everything in their power to mitigate the evils of drunkenness that were only too prevalent in this country. Upon that point everyone agreed; but when they arrived at that point of agreement, temperance reformers joined issue on almost every detail. Some were in favour of total suppression of the liquor traffic, and others were in favour of what was called free trade in liquor; while others again put forward schemes of varying complexity, such as the Gothenburg system, and the more practicable proposals connected with licensing boards. However interesting and admirable the Report was, unfortunately it was hardly possible to find in it any one complete scheme which the Legislature were invited to adopt. The entire suppression of the liquor traffic was hardly possible or practicable in the present state of the public mind, nor would the policy of perfect freedom be likely to recommend itself to any largo section of the community. The question of the hours of closing was one which had been under the consideration of successive Governments, and was one in which they had introduced many alterations of various sorts. For his own part, he very much doubted whether these changes really very much affected the general questions of the temperance or intemperance of the people. With
  1376
  regard to the Gothenburg system, of which we had heard so much lately, that seemed to him one more interesting to study than easy to adopt. He begged their Lordships to consider for one moment the enormous difficulties surrounding such a scheme. They were all aware of the complicated questions which arose on the comparatively simple proposal to buy up the eight Water Companies of the Metropolis. Could anyone imagine calmly the gigantic dimensions of a proposal to buy up and manage the thousands of public-houses in the same area? Perhaps the most promising part of the subject was that which was connected with the whole question of licensing, and how far the power of granting licences should be vested in the ratepayers, or in Boards directly elected by them. The last General Election had shown that the temperance forces in the country had considerably increased, and that there was a growing feeling in favour of some sort of Local Option, and possibly in favour of some restrictions in the Sunday liquor traffic. But he would venture to say that it was hardly fair or reasonable to expect that a Government which had been so short a time in Office, and had had, in the ordinary course of affairs, so many and such great questions pressing simultaneously for immediate solution, could have already elaborated a legislative proposal on a subject which had preeminently baffled the ingenuity of successive Administrations. Those who were most earnest in the cause of temperance reform would admit that it was hardly one of those questions in which it would be wise to go far ahead of public opinion, as any excess in the direction of restraint might have the opposite effect to that which they all wished, by causing a reaction to set in. For, after all, they must not lose sight of the redeeming features of this distressing subject. Recent legislation, upon the whole, had had a beneficial effect throughout the country by producing good order in the streets, and, probably, it was possible to do still more in that direction. Drunkenness had not increased in the rural districts of England and Scotland, nor in Ireland. As a rule, the higher classes of artisans were becoming more sober, drunkenness being more confined to the lowest grades of the community, where education had not yet kept pace with the growth of

  1377
  wages. It must also be recollected that the police arrangements were far better than in former years, and that, consequently, they heard of more apprehensions for drunkenness. While, on the one hand, with increasing prosperity, the expenditure in alcoholic liquors per head of the population had undoubtedly increased, yet, on the other, the consumption of tea, sugar, meat, and tobacco had increased in a far more notable ratio. The Select Committee itself, indeed, pointed out that a large proportion of the increase was owing to commercial prosperity, and to the increased consumption of alcoholic drinks by those who might be described as temperate drinkers. In conclusion, he wished to say that the Government were both earnest and anxious in this question, in the direction of its advancement. The whole matter was under their consideration. They were noting the various changes which had taken place, and were now taking place in public opinion, and they hoped at no distant date to introduce a measure which might mitigate some of the worst features of this lamentable evil.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he had for a long time taken a deep interest in this subject, and would be rejoiced to see it dealt with in a large and comprehensive measure. They must all feel the necessity of watching carefully all those changes in legislation which were being made with regard to the opportunity of making local experiments respecting the time of opening and closing public-houses, and it was essentially desirable that public opinion should be consulted in this matter as much as possible. The early closing movement in Liverpool had been attended with great success. He did not ask the Government for any declaration of their intentions with respect to any future legislation they might have in view upon the subject, for he thought it was far better at present that they should not be called upon to express any opinion whatever, seeing that they had not yet had sufficient time to come to a conclusion on the subject before their Lordships. He (Lord Aberdare) quite shared in the difficulty with which the question was surrounded. In his opinion, there were insuperable obstacles to the adoption of the Gothenburg system in this country. All he wished at present was that localities where a desire existed for the trial of experiments, such
  1378
  as those which had been carried out in Birmingham and Liverpool, should be empowered to gratify their wishes, for it was only by means of experiments that they could hope to arrive at a practical solution of the existing difficulties.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was very grateful to his noble Friend (Lord Aberdare) for saying that he did not wish the Government to pledge themselves to any particular course of action in connection with the Licensing Laws. The subject was one of considerable complexity, and though the Committee appointed to inquire into it had been able to make a number of small, but not uncalled for, recommendations of a not unimportant character, there still remained several points upon which it was very much more difficult to form a conclusive opinion. Allusion had been made to the question of Local Option, and the position which that question had assumed had been pointed out to their Lordships. One thing only was certain with regard to it—namely, that there was a very great and increasing desire throughout the country that, in some shape or other, power should be given to the inhabitants of a town to determine how many licences ought to be granted in the locality. Beyond this point the question as yet had not passed. Everyone who had examined the question thought that the wishes and opinions of the inhabitants of a locality, and especially of the working classes, ought to be very fully considered; but, on the other hand, no one had yet suggested a practical scheme for satisfactorily carrying this principle into effect. The Committee were unable to make such a suggestion; and, therefore, they declined to publish any positive recommendation on the subject. One suggestion made to the Committee was that power similar to that exercised in the Gothenburg scheme should be given to a municipality to deal with local licences by purchase. He had voted against that recommendation, because, though some such scheme might work in large towns, in small ones its successful application would be very doubtful. One thing would be apparent to anyone who read through the evidence that came be fore the Committee—namely, that it was almost impossible to establish a conclusive theory as to the causes of the prevalence of drunkenness. It was important that this point should not be

  1379
  lost sight of, because people were very apt to adopt, in accordance with their predilections, cut and dried theories as to the causes of drunkenness, and forthwith to imagine that it was in their power to furnish a remedy. In the evidence given before the Committee would be found a strong corrective to such views. The Committee, in the first place, found that drunkenness was to a great extent geographical, and that a curious line might be drawn from East to West, to the North of which drunkenness was very prevalent in large towns, and to the South of which it was much less prevalent. Another point worth attention was, that while it was generally assumed that drunkenness must vary in proportion to the number of public-houses in any particular place, the evidence before the Committee by no means verified the notion. Judging from the statistics relating to apprehensions for drunkenness, the Committee found that there were striking instances in which a very large proportion of public-houses in a town was not accompanied by a relative proportion of drunkenness. That showed that a mere diminution of the number of public-houses was not so certain a cure for drunken habits as some supposed. One of the most valuable results of the deliberations of the Committee was, that they had shown that the measure introduced by his noble Friend behind him (Lord Aberdare) was, on the whole, a most successful police measure. The next point to which he would refer was one in which the noble and learned Lord who sat on the Woolsack took great interest. His noble Friend (the Earl of Onslow) had said that there was a great deal of evidence from constables, clergymen, and others as to the great mischief done by shopkeepers' licences. Well, he was bound to say that, in his opinion, and in that of the majority of the Committee, the evidence given before them completely failed to prove that any appreciable increase of drunkenness could be ascribed to those particular licences. They were licences which were possibly liable to attack on various grounds; but no direct evidence had yet been produced of an immediate connection between them and the prevalence of drunkenness. He had not found the assertions with regard to alleged increase of drunkenness among
  1380
  women supported by the evidence, and as to grocers' licences, they were only some 5,000 out of a total of nearly 100,000 licences for the sale of intoxicating drinks. He merely made these remarks to show the noble Lord that he had not lost his interest in the subject. He did not now think it desirable to express any decided opinions on the subject, as he wished to, come unfettered to the consideration of the matter, if the Government should think it proper to bring in a Bill.

CYPRUS—THE HARBOUR OF FAMAGOUSTA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET,in rising to call attention to the Report of Mr. Ormiston on the Harbour of Famagousta, which had been laid on the Table of the House; and to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government have decided upon the execution of the works proposed? said, that if it was intended to convert the harbour into a military harbour, then there must necessarily be the further expense required for fortifying it. He was not at all satisfied with the tenure upon which we held Cyprus, for it was repugnant to one's ideas of propriety that the Queen of England should hold the Island as a tributary of the Sultan of Turkey. Further, it was not only a serious derogation to our position, but also a serious injury to the people of Cyprus, for we had to contribute to the Sultan £100,000 a-year in respect of Cyprus—that was, that we had, for him, to act as tax-gatherer over the people. We had, it was said, taken the Island as a model to show how well we could govern the country; but the facts were that we were obliged, in order to pay this tribute, to tax every fruit, every crop, every sheep, every goat, and we prevented the gathering of the crops until the taxes had been paid; so that we interfered with the whole industry of the people. We had to do this in order to carry out the mischievous financial policy of Turkey. It would be well that we should consider our position, especially in reference to the expenditure upon the Island. There would be a much larger commerce carried on by the Greeks, Turks, and Armenians if they knew that we were going to remain in possession of the ter-

  1381
  ritory; but in the present uncertain condition of things these people were prevented from making any outlay. They knew that we had handed over the Ionian Islands to Greece; and it was not known that we might not hand over Cyprus to Turkey or to some other country. He thought that, as they had had possession of the Island for two years, the Government ought to be able to state something as to their policy with regard to it. He regretted that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) was not in the House. He understood there was a plan to hand over the Island to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but that plan had not yet been fully carried out. The laying of the Report upon the Table would be a good opportunity for such a statement being made. He should be glad to know what the policy of the Government was, or, in other words, what was the intention of the Government with regard to the Report which had been laid on the Table. Perhaps the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies would give them some information on the subject. The estimated cost of the improvement of the harbour in question was from £270,000 to £350,000, and that would not be sufficient to make it an effective military harbour.
  LORD LILFORDsaid, that he took great interest in the Island of Cyprus, and had done since the commencement of their occupation of it. He had made some remarks some time ago upon the question, and he still maintained that their occupation was one of the wisest acts ever done by a British Government; but he agreed with the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) that the manner in which they now held the Island was most unsatisfactory. Some people said it was a bad bargain; but he (Lord Lilford) did not think so. He should be glad to know from the Government whether they had made any arrangement for discharging the annual payment now made to the Sultan by paying down a lump sum? His own acquaintance with the Island was not that it was exactly a Garden of Eden; but it might be made very productive. What was wanted was irrigation, drainage, and so on; and he had no doubt, with British enterprise, under an intelligent Government, and with money spent upon it, the Island might be made very productive, and in
  1382
  a few years it would be made a rich and flourishing Colony of England. He was glad to hear that the management of the Island was to be handed over to the Colonial Office.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, in the absence of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), it fell to him, as presumptive heir to the Island, as he might be called, to reply. He had never had any hesitation in saying that the mode in. which Cyprus was acquired was most unfortunate, and that the tenure by which the Island was held most embarrassing and disagreeable. But if the Island was handed over to the Colonial Office, no opinion that he held on these points would prevent him doing the best he could to render the Island prosperous and a valuable possession—if he might say so, seeing the conditions under which it was held—to this country. Although one might be anxious to make the best of a bad bargain, as he (the Earl of Kimberley) was in this case, yet it was impossible to convert a bad bargain into a good one at will. If this was an ordinary Colony, there might be many modes by which money could be raised for improvements in the Colony, and for the creation of a military harbour; but to embark upon a large expenditure on an uncertain tenure would be a difficult operation, and would require much consideration. The estimate of £350,000 for the works which had been referred to would represent but a small proportion of the sum which it would be necessary to expend in order to construct a great military harbour, because, if they created a harbour in which ships of war were to lie, it would be to the last degree imprudent not to defend it against an enemy, otherwise they might have the place seized and turned against themselves. Therefore, the Report, which had been made by, he believed, a very competent engineer, only touched one portion of the subject. Then, besides the fortifications, there was the healthiness of the position to be considered. If the spot was really an unhealthy one, it would hardly be a desirable place in which to post a garrison; and, on the other hand, without a garrison the harbour would not be safe. It was a question whether Famagousta could be converted into a healthy position; and, if so, at what

  1383
  cost. He was bound to say that the whole subject of Cyprus, whether as regarded their tenure of the Island, or as regarded the possibility of rendering it useful as a great military or naval station, or for any other purpose whatever, seemed to him to be so difficult, and to involve considerations of so various a character, that he hoped their Lordships would excuse him if he did not now pledge himself to the course which should be taken. All he could say was, that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had fully before his eyes the difficulties they were placed in with respect to their relations with the Porte, and that, for his own part, if he had to undertake the Administration of the Island, he would give the whole subject his best consideration with a due sense of its importance.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, it was clear, from the observations of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley), that that was a very inconvenient occasion on which to enter into a full discussion of the question relating to Cyprus. But when the time came that the noble Earl opposite should have the subject fully under his consideration, if the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) should then bring it forward, it would probably be desirable for the Members of the late Government to take part in the discussion. At present, he (Viscount Cranbrook) contented himself with simply reserving their right to take part in such a discussion hereafter.

NAVY—THE TYPE OF TRAINING SHIPS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OP RAVENSWORTHrose to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, after the bitter experience of the loss within two years of the training ships "Eurydice" and "Atalanta," the Board of Admiralty contemplate building one or more sailing ships expressly for "training" purposes; and, if so, what is the type of ship they propose to build? He observed that the loss of those two ships, with 600 gallant young lives, was a calamity which had sunk very deep into the heart of the nation. But there was mingled with the sense of national sorrow at that sad event something akin to the feeling of doubt and apprehension in many
  1384
  quarters whether we had at our disposal the best possible ship for training purposes. It was, therefore, with a view to ally such doubts and apprehensions that he had put his Question on the Paper; and he hoped that satisfactory information on the point might be supplied from the highest official source. It was well known that seamen to be properly trained must be on board sailing ships; and if there were any attempt to combine steam and sail they must sacrifice some advantage or other. He assumed, therefore, that they must continue to employ sailing ships for the purpose of training their young seamen, if they intended to keep up the reputation of this country for seamanship. His own opinion was that they must employ smaller sailing ships. The very size of the vast structures in our Navy rendered them unsuitable for this purpose. Perfection had by no means been yet attained in shipbuilding; but probably the introduction of steel as a material for ships would very materially tend to solve the problem in reference to acquiring lightness and speed. It would, however, be a calumny to say that we had not in the Navy the most magnificent type of sailing ships that the world had ever seen; but if, however, there were not now to be found either in commission or in reserve vessels in every respect adapted for training ships, he thought that no time ought to be lost in constructing one or more. He meant by perfect in every respect that they should be perfect in seaworthiness, perfect as to accommodation, and perfect in the possession of every appliance which art and science could suggest for obviating the dangers of the sea. Of this he felt certain, that whatever the highest ingenuity might contrive in regard to the construction of the ships of the Royal Navy, we should have, whenever the hour of trial came, to depend, as we had depended hitherto, on the skill, the smartness, and the pluck of the British sailor; and his contention was that if the interests of the Navy were to be maintained, they would never be able to dispense with that part of the sailors' education which was conducted on board of a sailing vessel. The noble Earl concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he fully appreciated the motives of his

  1385
  noble Friend (the Earl of Ravensworth) in bringing the subject forward. In answer to the Question which he had been asked, he had to say that the Admiralty were not about to build a sailing ship for training purposes. The programme of shipbuilding for the present year had for some time been settled, and it was impossible to make any considerable alteration in that programme. The matter, however, did not press. The Board of Admiralty thought that the decision of the question, whether any change should be made in the manner of training seamen for the Fleet, should be deferred until the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the loss of the Atalanta had been presented. The inquiry of that Committee would not be made specifically into what was the best kind of ship to be used for the training of seamen, because that was a subject which he thought would be best determined upon the responsibility of the Board of Admiralty. At the same time, it was possible that the question might be affected to some extent by the Report of the Committee. In the meantime, he was not able to give any further answer to his noble Friend, except to assure him that that subject was one which the Board of Admiralty deemed to be of very great importance, and one to which they would direct their most serious attention.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.