Sitting of 17 March 1880

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS—First Reading— Katz Naturalization*.
First Reading—Second Reading—Report—Rammingen's Naturalization*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—National Debt* [115]; Exchequer Bills and Bonds * [116].
Considered as amended—Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices (No. 2) [107]; Customs and Inland Revenue [114].
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation), and passed.
Withdrawn—Sligo Borough (Ireland)* [12]; Epping Forest (No. 2)* [96].

PRIVATE BILLS.
Standing Order for the Suspension of Petitions for Private Bills.
Ordered, That where the Examiner has not reported as to compliance with the Standing Orders in respect of any Petition for a Private Bill deposited for the present Session in the Private Bill Office, such Petition shall be suspended, and the Standing Orders complied with in respect of the same shall be held applicable to such suspended Petition in the ensuing Session.
That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House, and be printed. [No. 141.]—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

QUESTIONS.

  NAVY—NEW BREECH-LOADING GUNS.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is his intention to substitute on board any of the vessels of the Reserve Squadron breech-loading for muzzle-loading guns; also, upon what system the breech-loading guns already ordered are to be constructed; and, if, in conjunction with the Minister for War, he will be good enough to place upon the Table of the House a copy of the Report of the Naval and Military Officers who attended the experiments made with Krupp guns last autumn at Meppen?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON,in reply, said, the Question might have been more properly addressed to the War Office, as that Department supplied guns to the Navy. However, he had been informed that the War Office were about to supply breech-loading guns which were made after a pattern approaching that of the French system, although not exactly similar, and that they were now in process of construction. By the "Reserve Squadron" he had no doubt the hon. Member meant the Coast Guard ships, and he could only say respecting their armament that it would follow that of the armour-clad ships in the Navy. The Report of the officers who attended the experiments made with Krupp guns at Meppen was not yet
  1174
  complete, and it was impossible to say when it would be introduced.

  POOR LAW—LIABILITY TO POOR RATES—OVERSEERS OF ST. WERBURGH v. HUTCHINSON.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will give the decision in the case of "The Overseers of St. Werburgh v. Hutchinson" further consideration, with the view to an alteration of the Law thereon, and instruct the auditors of the Local Government Board not to press such cases in the meanwhile?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, that he would readily undertake to give the decision further consideration, with a view to see whether some amendment of the law could not be introduced, and that at an early date; but he could not undertake to instruct the auditors of the Local Government Board in the manner suggested. They were judicial officers, and were bound to do their duty in accordance with the provisions of the existing law.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—DISTURBANCE OF A TENANT RIGHT MEETING AT PORTADOWN.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is true that yesterday the riotous proceedings at Portadown were repeated, a peaceable meeting of tenant farmers being again assaulted; and, whether, in view of these continuous outrages, the Government will continue to abstain from directing either prosecution or inquiry with a view to bringing the criminals to justice?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): Sir, the proceedings referred to by the hon. and learned Member only took place on Monday, and the Question only appeared on the Paper this morning, and there has not, therefore, been time to obtain an official Report. There is, however, a complete report in The Freeman's Journal, which states that the proceedings passed off quietly and without serious interruption, but that there was some throwing of stones, and one man was seriously wounded in the head by a stone thrown by a person who was at once arrested and carried off. Any person made

  1175
  amenable and against whom there is sufficient evidence will, of course, be prosecuted.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND)— APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS—THE RETURNS.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Returns ordered by the House, some of them so long ago as the 10th February, relative to information as to the amounts of money applied for and granted in the various' Scheduled Unions, for relief of Distress in Ireland, will be in the hands of honourable Members; and, whether he will take care that they should at all events be circulated before the Dissolution?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): Sir, I have communicated with the Board of Works by telegram asking for information, but I have not yet received a reply. When I do receive it, I will communicate with the hon. Member, and I shall endeavour to secure that the Returns will be laid on the Table as soon as possible.

  INDIA—ARMY PRIZE—"THE BEGUM KOOTE LUCKNOW."
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Why the prize money known as "the Begum Koote Lucknow," has not been paid; and if he has any objection to lay the General Order relating to the same upon the Table?
  MR. E. STANHOPE,in reply said, that the facts concerning this treasure were, that certain soldiers on entering Lucknow discovered some valuable articles which were decided to be not of the nature of prize money, but of treasure trove, that 25 per cent of the value of these articles had been given to the troops, and that there was nothing more to be paid. The whole Correspondence on the subject was presented to Parliament in May, 1876.

  PRISONS ACT.—SUPERANNUATIONS.
  SIR FREDERICK PERKINSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that Thomas Box, now sixty-seven years of age and in declining health, who had been employed at the Southampton Borough Gaol for twenty-three years, and who had earned the su-
  1176
  perannuation allowance of two-thirds of his salary under the new Prisons Act of 1877,has lost this rate of pension through ignorance of the strict ruling of the same, and this in opposition to a very strong desire on the part of the Corporation still to pay him the full rate of allowance; and, if these facts are correctly stated, whether Her Majesty's Government will be pleased to consider the case, and empower the Southampton Corporation to pay out of their funds the full superannuation allowed under the Act?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Sir, under the 36th section of the Prisons Act the Treasury had power to grant Box as much as two-thirds of his salary, but before they exercised this power, it was necessary that the local authority should furnish certain information required by a Circular issued by the Home Secretary on December 21, 1878. The Corporation of Southampton had not chosen, until three days ago, to furnish such information, and, in consequence, Box was pensioned on the scale of the Superannuation Act, 1859. Now that the information has been received, it will be considered immediately, and if found, as I believe it will be found, satisfactory, Box's pension will be re assessed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES (No. 2) BILL.
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES (No. 2) BILL.

    [BILL 107.] CONSIDERATI0N.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—[Mr. Attorney General.)
    DR. CAMERON,in the absence of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), begged to move that the Bill be considered that day month. He did not intend anything more than to make a final protest against this most mischievous and unhappy measure. It was a Bill to encourage profuse expenditure and corrupt practices at elections. In the course of the debate on this question, it was stated by the hon. and learned Attorney General that there was no moral law which forbade one to pay

    1177
    for the conveyance of a voter to the poll. There was no moral law which forbade him to give a voter a glass of beer; but yet that House had prescribed a punishment for undue treating. It had done the same thing to prevent corruption by the wholesale employment of vehicles to convey voters to the poll. There was no argument in favour of the Bill which could not be equally well adduced to do away with the prohibition to bribe voters with beer. The offence was as purely artificial in the one case as in the other. There was no more argument for robbing a poor man of his beer than for preventing the bribery of those who owned cabs. There was no necessity whatever for that Bill. It had been said that if the hours of polling were extended it would do away with all necessity for hiring cabs, and so it should. Yet in Southwark, where the hours of polling had been extended, more cabs were used than was ever the case in any metropolitan borough before. It was said this law was considerably broken, and, therefore, it should be repealed. But the same thing might be said with regard to treating voters with beer. Nothing was more notorious than that publican supporters of particular candidates gave beer to customers on the express understanding that they would vote for these candidates. Though the Government had been six years in power, and had come into Office after an Election when they had examples of all that could be said in favour of repealing the present law, they had done nothing till now. Even when they introduced a Bill dealing with the subject of corrupt practices, that Bill did not, he understood, contain one word of this last proposal, which, at the last moment, was sprung upon the House. There appeared to have dawned upon the Government that it would be an advantage to their monied candidates if such a clause as this were passed. No possible explanation of the change of policy occurred to him other than that the Carlton Club, or some other great money-bag of the Conservative Party, might have had some qualms of conscience in doing what was not legal; and to enable them to enter upon a profuse expenditure of money, and so obtain an advantage in the coming Election, this clause had been devised. This was undoubtedly a new form of corruption, intended to buy up the votes of an important class of
    1178
    voters. He thought it desirable that the country should know that the last act of the Government in the last days of Parliament, when there was no one present to oppose them, was to pass a Bill for the encouragement of profuse expense at elections, and giving a legal recognition to a practice hitherto condemned.
    MR. RAMSAY,in seconding the Amendment, said, he thought there ought to have been some notice taken of the recommendations of the Report of 1875. The Committee recommended that there should not only be a change of the law, but that that change should be exactly in the opposite direction from the one now proposed by the Government. This proposal would increase the expense incurred in every borough election in England. It was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to regard the decision of the Committee which they themselves appointed, and which recommended that the employment of conveyances should be made a corrupt practice under the Act. Hardly anything more absurd or unjustifiable than this proposal was ever submitted to the House.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. STANTONsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), as he thought it would be better to leave the question open; but if the Bill should be passed, he hoped that Stroud, which he had the honour to represent, would be placed in the number of excepted boroughs, and treated as a county with reference to the conveyance of out-voters.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that this was the same question which was discussed yesterday; and, therefore, it would not be necessary to do more than to state the grounds for the Bill being introduced. Hon. Gentlemen belonging to both political Parties complained of the present state of the law and practice in regard to the conveyance of voters, and said that they were anomalous, and led to much inconvenience—that, in point of fact, the bringing

    1179
    voters up to the poll was so general that it was impossible to treat it as a corrupt practice, without causing considerable inconvenience; that it was left to private arrangement and outside the law, and could not be taken notice of; and, therefore, the practice really led to greater expenditure than if there was proper supervision. That was what the Government endeavoured to do. Everybody was aware that in the metropolis and some large towns the whole of the conveyances were taken up by private arrangement, and those expenses could not be brought under the review of the Election Officers, and there were, therefore, no means of checking the expenses of an extravagant and corrupt election. The Government now proposed to limit the action of the Bill in the manner proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson)—that was to say, to the conveyance of voters within boroughs. It was not within the purview of the Bill that persons should be brought from great distances to poll in boroughs by the payment of money for their expenses. He did not think it would be possible to meet the case of Stroud in the way suggested; but there could be no very great difficulty in conveying voters residing outside that borough from the boundaries to the polling places. He hoped that the House, having discussed the matter fully, would now agree to the Bill passing this stage.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, that few things had occurred in this Parliament to cause greater regret to both sides of the House than the course adopted by the Government in reference to this Bill. Of course, the Government was master of the situation, and they were completely at its mercy. They were alike interested in maintaining the traditions of fair play in the House; but not even the staunchest supporter of the Government could say that the House had been fairly treated in regard to this question. The Government, according to their own statements, must have known that an Election was imminent. It could not be supposed they were so careless as to suddenly resolve upon this change of the law. It could not be said they had wanted opportunities of bringing forward the Bill earlier. They might have devoted to it, for instance, the night they occupied in passing a Vote of Censure upon the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll). He
    1180
    wished to place upon record his emphatic protest against the course proposed by the Government, and to express it still more strongly against the manner in which it was being carried out. The Government would be certain to receive the reward which unfairness always met with in this country. Many candidates had hitherto resisted the expense of conveying voters to the poll; but, under this Bill, all would have to engage conveyances, and the expenses of each candidate would be 20 or 30 per cent more than formerly. They ought all to unite in a vigorous effort to prevent any increase of expenses. Any change in the law should be in the opposite direction. It was said, he knew not with what truth, that the Government were expecting to get some advantage from the Bill at the coming Elections, and that arrangements had already been made in several places to give effect to the new law, and that all the cabs had already been secured. He would even, at this eleventh hour, make one more appeal to the Government, in the interests of fair Parliamentary discussion, to give up this proposal, which had come as a surprise upon the House and the country, and which could not fail to be mischievous in.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, the spirit of the Constitution was that each elector should vote, and he contended that means should be afforded to all to exercise the franchise. It was a great evil that at many elections such a small proportion of electors polled.
    MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, it might be inferred, from what had occurred, that one of the dearest objects of the Conservatives was to poll the full sense of the constituencies; but why, if that were so, had they opposed the extension of the hours of polling in the country when it was enacted for London?
    MR. W. E. FORSTERwished to call attention to the fact that the Select Committee of 1875 came to an unanimous resolution strongly opposed to the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer). The hon. and learned Attorney General was a Member of that Committee, and he regretted that he was not present. He was glad that the Amendment had been moved, and, though there might be no hope of its being carried, it was well that they should protest once more against

    1181
    the course taken by the Government—the bringing forward of the Bill after many hon. Members had left London. If the Members of the Government had not been in the House, the Bill could not have passed. It was distinctly against the Report of the Committee of 1875, and was a step backward in regard to political purity. The Bill would overweight poor candidates. It was quite true that the law had in some cases been violated; but it was by no means so general a practice as the Chancellor of the Exchequer alleged, for, as he had mentioned last evening, in his own borough, where there was a very sharp contest, neither side had resorted to it. There could not be two opinions that it was a bad thing for the constituencies that cabs should be employed at all. There could be no excuse for it but absolute poverty, and he did not believe that the great body of the voters were so indifferent as to require to be conveyed to the poll as a condition of voting. It would be disgraceful if the last expiring act of this Parliament was to pass a measure of which the only effect would be to increase the cost of borough elections. The Government had admitted that it would be bad for Scotland and Ireland, which had both alike protested against it; but what was bad for Ireland and Scotland was, it seemed, good enough for England. The hon. Baronet who had just sat down had stated that the Bill would only be temporary; but he could not have heard the opinion of the Solicitor General, who declined to give a positive opinion on the point. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was a possible doubt as to the effect of this clause, whether it would be temporary or be permanent. However this might be, it was clear the Government, with its eyes open, had proposed a clause which their own Law Officers could not interpret, although it was the great object of the Bill. He rather gathered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in favour of the view of the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir George Bowyer); but it could not be denied that the Government had, on the eve of a General Election, proposed an important change in the law with respect to elections without being certain whether it would be permanent or not.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the intention of the
    1182
    Government, as he had already stated, was that the Bill would be temporary, so that the next Parliament would be able to deal with the whole question.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, then all he could say was that the Government was badly served by its Law Officers. It came to this—that a measure which was so bad that it could not be forced upon Scotland or Ireland for the purposes of the impending Election, could be passed for England, and if the Government persisted in forcing through this measure for election purposes, they must not be surprised if its object was thoroughly exposed.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he should not have been sorry if the Bill had not been pressed, but, as it was before them, he should support it: the law as it at present stood was a mere brutum fulmen. It was not desirable such a state of things should continue to exist, and, consequently, this Bill proposed to get rid of the anomaly. It was but a temporary measure, and should it not work well the next Parliament would have the opportunity of considering it.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, this Bill only affected English borough Members, and therefore the Government should give way to the expression of opinion of those Members. Admitting that the present law had been evaded, what harm would there be in permitting it to remain in force for one more Election, and then raising the entire question in the next Parliament? He declared that the employment of cabs at borough elections by the candidates was certainly not universal, and he instanced the case of his own borough—Reading—where, though cabs had been employed, they had not been paid for by the candidates, but by other parties interested in the election. The measure now forced on the House was supported mainly by a party composed of county Members. On analysing the first division of the previous day, he found that out of the 85 Members in favour of it 52 were county Members, and only eight of them were borough Members independent of the Government, who were seeking reelection. In the second division, out of the 37 Members who supported the Government only three were borough Members, all the rest being English county Members or Irish and Scotch Representatives. He again appealed to the

    1183
    right hon. Gentleman to proceed no further with the Bill on this occasion.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, it had been stated that the Bill had only been supported from his side of the House; but he should point out that the strongest possible suggestions had been made by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), urging the Government to deal with this topic. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Stanton), again, had asked to have his borough placed in the same position as the counties, which was going beyond what the Government proposed. These were matters which ought not to be lost sight of. At present, the enactment was openly disregarded, and when the money for cabs was paid by some friend of the candidate there was no mode of formulating and putting those expenses before the public. Under the present Bill, the effect would be that all these expenses must be returned as part of the cost of the contest, and if there was a Petition, the Judge could consider what were their nature, character, and extent. He considered that the Bill would methodize, systematize, and cause to be regulated, a system which was now carried on in a manner that was furtive, clandestine, and not at all satisfactory. Scotland and Ireland had been excluded on entirely different grounds from the case of England, and there could be little objection to the proposal, for the whole Act must come under review in the new Parliament, when the House would have had the experience of how it worked in the intervening Election.
    MR. DILLWYNappealed to the Government, whether the pressing forward of this Bill was not a violation of the implied understanding into which they entered with the Liberal Party, that if no obstruction to Government measures were given no new legislation should be introduced? In Swansea he obeyed the law, and did not employ a single cab, and he could say that he had not lost a single vote by doing so. Were this clause of the Representation of the People Act repealed, the victory would be with those who had the longest purse, and those were the Conservatives; so that he was justified in denonncing it as a Party move.
    MR. J. R. YORKEconsidered that the law, as it stood, was calculated to
    1184
    keep the old, and, therefore, the most experienced, voters from the poll, as age not only brought with it experience, but also information. He denied that the Government was taking the Liberal Party by surprise, as he had distinctly heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the evening he announced the approaching Dissolution, state that this was one of the Bills which he would ask Parliament to pass before the Dissolution. It appeared that those expenses were neither legal nor illegal, but stood in a kind of electioneering twilight; and from his former experience as a borough Member, he would advise the House, in the interest of borough candidates, to adopt the proposal of Her Majesty's Government, for although they could not now be called upon to pay these charges at present where the law was evaded, the charge was only a deferred one, and sure to come upon them as soon as the possibility of an Election Petition got out of question. If the clause did not work well, there would be an opportunity of re-considering it. In conclusion, he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made the concessions he had done to the Scotch and Irish Members.
    MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that last night he appealed successfully to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exclude Scotland from the Bill, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for doing so. He now ventured, in common with other hon. Members, to appeal to the Government not to press this Bill. Appeals had been made by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), and the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), and it was evident, from the statements which they had made, that a considerable number of boroughs wished to be free from the corrupt practice of hiring cabs and carriages at elections. He thought that the House should have further time to consider this question, in order to ascertain how far the law had been evaded. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. and learned Attorney General had laid down a very dangerous rule, that when the law had been evaded, the practice should not be brought in accordance with the law, but that a new law should be made in order to suit the practice. That would give encourage-

    1185
    ment to the evasion of the law. The Attorney General for Ireland had pointed out that they were not on that side of the House unanimous. He (Mr. W. Holms) found, on looking at the Division List, that the Attorney General for Ireland was entirely wrong in what he said with reference to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and, perhaps, he would be surprised to find that on the 10th of March the hon. Baronet was to be found in a Division List voting in favour of making the present law more effective. The hon. Baronet had not supported the Government proposals, but had stoutly opposed them. In his (Mr. W. Holms) opinion, they could not come to any other conclusion than that the Government had brought forward this Bill at an untimely period of the Session, and for one purpose, that of electioneering; and, moreover, that in doing so, they were giving encouragement to bribery.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLhoped that no more time would be spent in discussing the Bill. Scotch Members were very anxious to go down to their constituents, and they wanted to go with the consciousness that the elections would be conducted on pure principles, and that they would not have to put their hands into their pockets for more money, in consequence of the new items of cabs. He had heard of a case where the candidates on each side were saddled with £2,500 for cabs alone, and he thought it monstrous that candidates should be called upon to pay such large additional sums. The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. E. Yorke) had talked of this as a semi-legal payment; but, in his opinion, it was an illegal payment. [Mr. J. R. YORKE: What I meant was that there was no penalty attached.] That was what they wished to do—impose a penalty, and not methodize and systematize corruption, as the Attorney General for Ireland wished to do. If they methodized and systematized in this particular, he saw no reason why that should not be done in every case of corruption. He had always found that there had been a sufficient number of private carriages for the really lame and sick in every well constituted constituency, which were placed at the disposal of the candidates. He ridiculed the idea that the new clause in the Bill was in-
    1186
    serted for the purpose of allowing candidates to bring sick and infirm voters to the poll. It was for the purpose of bringing indifferent voters to the poll. He thought it was quite unnecessary and undesirable to bring them at all, as their vote would not be actuated by proper motives, but would carry with it that influence which they all could easily imagine. He hoped the Government would see their way to act wisely by withdrawing the Bill.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONprotested against the doctrine that the Government had taken the House by surprise. It would be in the recollection of the House that, on the appeal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the Bill before the House was one of the measures that would be considered before the Dissolution, and he had added that the specific object of the measure was to settle the question of the conveyance of voters to the poll. With regard to the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, whatever his latest vote might have been, he was confident that last year he had favoured an alteration of the existing law in either direction. They all knew that cabs were used in boroughs, which involved a larger expenditure than if the payment were legal, because that which was done clandestinely was always more expensive than that which could be done openly. As to the argument that, as Scotland and Ireland had been excluded, England should not be retained, it ought to be remembered that the original Bill of the Government did not apply to Scotland and Ireland at all. Whether the clause was to be permanent or not, the whole question must come under review on a future occasion. He considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was fully justified in bringing in the Bill. It was merely for Party motives that an attempt was now being made to accuse the Government of a violation of an implied understanding which had never existed.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANremarked, that the subject had never troubled him in the constituency which he represented. Upon reference to the Division List, he found that the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) voted for making the law more stringent, not for relaxing it. In his

    1187
    (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman's) opinion, the employment of conveyances would open the door to bribery, and this view was supported by the evidence of Mr. Spofforth, given before the Committee on Corrupt Practices. He protested against the Government, in their last days, bringing in a Bill to facilitate corrupt practices.
    GENERAL SHUTEsaid, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy contended that the Bill ought to be given up, because there was only a fragment left. That fragment, however, was a most important one. The Bill would do only ordinary justice to the poor, the feeble, and the hard-working of the constituents in the larger boroughs. No doubt the cost of elections were far too great; yet hon. Gentlemen opposite were not justified in objecting to a few pounds being added to the costs of candidates which enabled men now virtually disfranchised to be brought to the poll.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, they were all very much obliged to the Government for exempting Scotland from the operation of the Bill; but these debates would show that the law was systematically violated in England, and the idea would go forth that it was only necessary to violate a law sufficiently to get the practice of violation made legal. When the conveyance of voters to the poll was made legal in England, he wished to know how it would be possible for Scotch constituencies to conduct elections without employing cabs? Some candidates with longer purses than others would certainly introduce them, and most likely the practice would thus become universal in Scotland. The only way out of the difficulty was to insert a penalty in the law as it at present stood. The measure did not touch the Scotch Members directly, though it did indirectly, and they would continue to throw in their opposition with that of the English Members as strongly as ever.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had told the House that there was only one way to deal with the practice, and that was to put a stringent penalty upon it. So that what was legal, permitted, and even encouraged, in every county of England, Ireland, and Scotland, and in several boroughs in England, was to be rendered not only illegal, but punishable, in the English
    1188
    boroughs. No Parliament, whether a moribund Parliament, as this was said to be, or a new Parliament, would put on the Statute Book so anomalous and unjust a law. It was said that the whole Liberal Party was against this measure. That was not at all an accurate statement of the case. On the second reading, when the principle was at stake, there was an important division, and he had extracted from the Division Lists the names of a number of Liberal borough Members who had voted for the Bill. The right hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was a considerable authority with the Liberal Party, and he voted for the second reading. Or was the right hon. Gentleman no longer a Member of the Liberal Party? There also voted for the second reading the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Stanton), the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. H. O. Lewis), the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), the hon. Baronet the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Backhouse), and the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan). All these being borough Members sitting on the Liberal side of the House, he ventured to protest in the strongest manner against the statement that the Liberal Party were all opposed to the Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 34: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No. 47.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    DR. CAMERON,in moving the insertion of the following new Clause:—
    (Conveyance of voters to the poll.)
    "From and after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful for any candidate at any Parliamentary Election for any borough, directly or indirectly, to provide carriages or any other means of conveying voters to the poll, and any such candidate wilfully acting in contravention of this enactment shall be guilty of a corrupt practice within the meaning of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule to this Act,"
    urged the Government to re-consider their determination to proceed with the Bill as it at present stood, and hoped they would accept the new clause he had proposed. That clause gave expression to a Resolution carried in the

    1189
    Committee which sat on Corrupt Practices, which had been supported by the Attorney General, the Attorney General for Ireland, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), and the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke).
    New Clause—(Dr. Cameron,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that he had voted for the Bill in the last division, although previously he had opposed it, because it was quite clear that the principle had been thoroughly discussed, and the objections to it overruled. The same points had been raised over and over again on the Liberal side of the House in a spirit of the greatest obstruction that he had witnessed this Session. The last speech was merely a réoumé of that which had been made before, and he protested against the Bill being talked out by such unfair proceedings.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDcontended that it was the bounden duty of borough Members to offer every opposition to such an objectionable and mutilated Bill that the Forms of the House allowed. He certainly should persevere in that course. If this could be considered obstruction then he was willing to be called an Obstructionist. It was the business of the Liberal Members to see that legislation which was opposed to the feeling of the majority of the House and to the decision of a Select Committee which had recently inquired into the question, and of which the proposers of the present Bill were Members, was not forced through the House by means of the brute majority which the Government possessed, and by their method of conducting business. He considered anything they could do in accordance with the Rules of the House was not obstruction, but only a fair exercise of their privileges. He approved of the clause moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron); and he hoped that opposition would be continued to the progress of the Bill unless the conveyance clause was struck out.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, the line taken by the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir
    1190
    Henry Holland) was utterly uncalled for and unjustifiable. The manner in which this Bill was being forced on was in itself almost an infringement of the Privileges of Parliament. The contention that the Bill was necessary because the law was evaded was degrading and humilitating; and if it were requsite to deal with the matter at all, it should have been dealt with on the lines of the Amendment rather than by legalizing the offence against the existing law. He charged the Government with corrupt motives in pressing this Bill. A most important contest was about to take place in Westminster, where the First Lord of the Admiralty was a candidate. The cost of conveyance of voters in that constituency could not be much under £5,000, which would be a charge upon those who contested the seats with him and his Colleague. There was, however, no knowing to what extent the cars belonging to the grocers and other tradesmen of Westminster might be brought into use, and that he would regard as a corrupt practice.
    MR. DILLWYNdid not think the hon. Member for Midhurst was justified in his charge of obstruction. It was the duty of the Opposition, in such a case as the present, to do all they could to induce the House to refuse their consent to an unconstitutional and inconsistent proceeding. He, however, recommended his Friends, having entered their strong protest, to throw the responsibility of passing the Bill upon the Government.
    DR. CAMERONbegged to explain that his object was not obstruction. He would withdraw the Amendment.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN moved the following new Clause:—
    (Amendment of Law as to Parliamentary Elections in Scotland.)
    "In all elections whatever of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for any county, division of a county, or for any city or burgh, or districts of burghs, in Scotland, no inquiry shall be permitted at the time of polling as to the right of any person to vote, except only as follows (that is to say): that the presiding officer or clerk appointed by the returning officer to attend at a polling station shall, if required on behalf of any candidate, put to any voter at the time of his tendering his vote, and not afterwards, the following questions, or either of them:—
    1. Are you the same person whoso name appears as A.B. on the register of voters now in force for the county of [or for the division of the county of], or for the city [or burgh] of or for the district of burghs [as the case may be];
    2. Have you already voted, either here or elsewhere, at this election for the county of [or for the division of the county of], or for the city [or burgh] of or for the district of burghs [as the case may be]:
    And if any person shall wilfully make a false answer to either of the questions aforesaid, he shall be deemed guilty of a crime and offence within the meaning of 'The Ballot Act, 1872.'"
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)said, there was no objection to the clause.
    New Clause added.
    MR. STANTON MR. STANTON moved the omission of the words "so far as concerns the conveyance of voters within any borough."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 19, to leave out the words "so far as concerns the conveyance of voters within any boroughs."—(Mr. Stanton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the words were inserted last night after a lengthened discussion, and it would be inconsistent with the agreement that was then come to for the House to accept the proposed Amendment, It was impossible to meet all the cases of difficulty such as that presented by the peculiarities of the borough of Stroud.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL— [BILL 114.]
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL— [BILL 114.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  GENEEAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURappealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some arrangement in the regulation of the increased charges for probate duty upon small estates. He allowed that by amalgamating the
  1192
  two scales for testate and intestate, and only levying a diminished scale, the estates of the poor who often died without a will had been benefited; but even then the scale of charge was high, and he, therefore, urged a further change by which estates under £2,000 should only be charged 1 per cent. He urged also that probate, as in the case of legacy duty, should not be chargeable upon small estates until after the debts had been ascertained and a settlement of them arrived at. Further, that the probate duty should be levied, only on the estates which were net £500.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthoroughly sympathized with his hon. and gallant Friend's object, but said, he doubted very much whether at this stage of the Session the Government could, in a Bill of this complicated character, so re-cast the measure as to give effect to it. He suggested, however, that it would go far to meet the case if the limit of duty was fixed at £200 instead of £100.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 7, to leave out the word "one," in order to insert the word "two,"—(Sir George Campbell,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'one' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREbegged to call attention to the extent to which the new scale would aggravate the existing difference between freehold and leasehold property. Leasehold property paid probate and legacy duty; freehold paid only succession duty. He took a case in which a property would pay now £192 instead of £140 on the death of the owner of the leasehold, as compared with £27 which it would pay on the death of the freeholder. He could also mention cases in which the duty on leasehold houses would be 40 times as much as that on the ground rents under the new Probate and Stamp Duties Act. The opportunity offered by the Bill ought to have been taken by the Government to undo the extraordinary anomaly which existed; and the best way, in his opinion, would be to relieve the leasehold house property of the charge of probate duty.
  MR. PAGETsaid, there were doubtless anomalies in regard to leasehold estates which it would be necessary to remedy at some future time, but which

  1193
  could not now be dealt with. The Bill, however, was a step in the right direction, and would, as far as it went, be in the nature of the redress of an inequality. In reply to the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), be asserted that the scale did not operate adversely to occupiers as compared with owners.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERfreely admitted that the bon. Member for Reading bad made an interesting statement, which was well worthy of consideration when the succession duties could be dealt with; but it required some courage to deal with them, and would involve some delay, while the House declared last Session that the probate duties called for speedy action. The general effect of the scheme was to diminish the burdens of small properties and increase those of larger ones, as small estates were now very much overburdened in proportion to large estates. An owner would be likely to have a larger personal estate than an occupier; and, therefore, it could not be said that the change was in favour of occupiers as against owners. It would not be possible to do away altogether with the charge on small properties; but be thought that on properties between £100 and £2,000 there ought to be no increase. Taking the proportion of intestate to testate estates, he considered the effect of the change would be to make some increase on the latter, while as to intestate estates the new scale, in his opinion, would practically operate as a reduction. It was true that, on the whole, the new scale would considerably increase the Revenue; but still there would be a considerable reduction in the amount of probate duty to be paid on all estates under £500. He was, however, prepared to alter the rates in the proposed scale as follows:—Eor properties of the value of £500 and under £600, he should substitute £11 for £13; for properties of the value of £600 and under £800, £15 instead of £17; between £1,000 and £1,500, £30 instead of £31; and between £1,500 and £2,000, £40 instead of £44. This would be leaving these properties as they were at present. He hoped, when the proper time came, be should be allowed to make these proposals to the House.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREurged that all properties under £500 should be exempt. The loss in consequence of this change would not be greater than £50,000 a-year. He begged to move an Amendment in the Schedule exempting properties under £500.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 4, to leave out from the word "be," to "£9," at the end of line 8.—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  MR. PAGETopposed the Amendment. He did not see the justice of entirely exempting the small properties. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that the Government had carefully considered the matter, and would endorse the view he now expressed that the moderate burthen imposed by the Bill on personalty would but partially redress the inequality of taxation which now pressed unfairly on real property.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONcalled attention to the fact that what was equivalent to leasehold property in Scotland came under the same category as real property, and urged that the English law should be assimilated in this particular to the Scotch.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought £500 net amount of an estate low enough to commence to charge probate duty.
  MR. CHADWICKsaid, it was an injustice to exempt real property from probate duty.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Reading.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERinsisted that there was no such unfair distinction as alleged between the charges upon personal and real property. On the contrary, owners of landed property suffered far more severely from taxation than the owners of personal property.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment, and protested against the imputation of injustice which had been made against the proposals of the Government. It was, he said, a dangerous principle to admit that small properties should be exempt altogether. With regard to the Income Tax, no doubt, small

  1195
  incomes were exempt; but that was on the ground that enough must be left to a man to maintain him. He pointed out that, under the proposals of the Government, estates under £500 would be so relieved that the Revenue would lose £40,000; and if this proposal was carried out they would lose another £76,000. It had been suggested that the debts on these small properties might be deducted; but he did not think that could be worked.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and, Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. W. CARTWRIGHTinquired whether the Government would produce Papers already asked for with regard to the Greek Frontier?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the particular Paper referred to, as he supposed, by the hon. Member, was part of negotiations still going on; and it would be contrary to the usual practice to produce Papers of this character not yet presented by the French Government.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

EPPING FOREST (No. 2) BILL— [BILL 96.]
(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Gerard Noel.)
EPPING FOREST (No. 2) BILL— [BILL 96.]

  SECOND READING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  MR. BARINGsaid, he wished to raise his protest against the passing of this measure during the last few days of a dying Parliament. The principle of the 4th clause was to enable the Corporation of the City of London to exchange certain portions of lands which had al-
  1196
  ways been open forest, upon which they could not build, for other portions now inclosed. But he understood that the open spaces which would be given up were much valued by the people living in the neighbourhood, and it was only right that they should have time to express their opinions. It was true that no exchange could be made without the assent of the Arbitrator; but his constituents were too poor to compete before him against the wealth of the City Corporation. There was besides an ambiguity in the wording of a later clause, which might possibly authorize building on the lands acquired under the Bill. When they were re-modelling the Bill they ought to make a good Bill of it; for at present there was no penalty for bribery or intimidation at the election of verderers, and the Committee of the Corporation was at present made the arbiter of all claims to vote for the very persons who were supposed to be, in some sense, a check on its action.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. BARINGsaid, he had not put down Amendments because he believed they could not be entertained in such a small House. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day month.
  MR. DILLWYNseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."—(Mr. Baring.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the Bill had been introduced as a Continuance Bill, and he believed that it would prove advantageous to the public; but, as real opposition to the measure was now offered, he was prepared to withdraw it, and to let the fresh House of Commons judge of the value of the proposed exchange of lands.
  Amendment, and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS—Third Reading—Rammingen's Naturalization*; Katz Naturalization*, and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Blind and Deaf-Mute Children* (39).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Banbridge, &c.)* (25).
Report—Hypothec Abolition (Scotland) (34–49).

HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 34.)
(The Earl of Haddington.)
HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 34.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there was an Amendment made yesterday in the 1st sub-section of the 2nd section, dealing with the landlord's remedy when six months' rent was due and unpaid, and providing that the tenants who were removed or ejected should not forfeit rights to which they were entitled. He proposed to make two Amendments upon that Amendment to better meet the case. After the provision that where the tenant was removed or ejected, he should not be liable to pay rent for more than the period between the previous term and the date of removal, the following was inserted:—
  "Provided always, that where any away-going crop to which a tenant is entitled is immature at the date of such removing or ejection, neither the tenant, nor anyone deriving right through him, shall be entitled to carry away such crop at maturity until payment shall have been made to the landlord of the proportion of rent effeiring to the period between the date of removing or ejection and the separation of such crop from the ground."
  The objections to that were, he understood, two. The first was, that, taking the words literally, it would make the tenant pay larger rent on the whole of his holding, and not merely rent on that part of the holding occupied by the crop. The second was, that the tenant, under this clause, taking away the crop at maturity in the month of August or September, would only pay a fraction of the rent by August or September, and would not pay the rent up to the end of the half-year following. And this case had been put—that there might be land which was only valuable for the whole year, and, therefore, that the value of that crop represented the value of the land for the whole year. He did not think, however, that it was possible to provide that the tenant taking away the crops at maturity should be obliged to pay rent, not only up to the end of the current term, but up to the end of another term. It would be quite right that if he took away the crop at maturity he should pay up to the end of the term, if

  1167
  the incoming tenant had no property in the land till the end of it; but he thought it should only be for that part of the land occupied by the crop. The first of the two Amendments he proposed was, that they should insert after the word "effeiring" the words "to the land under such crop for the period," &c. That would meet the first objection. The second objection would be met by leaving out the words "and the separation of such crop from the ground," and substituting—
  "And the next term of Martinmas, the rent of such land being estimated, unless otherwise expressly stipulated, according to the average rent of the whole land from which the tenant has been so removed or ejected."
  LORD BLANTYREmade another appeal for the delay of the measure, which he thought should not be pressed forward that Session. Thirty out of 60 lines which made up the Bill had been altered since Monday. Scotland had not seen the Bill; the county meetings there would take place next month, and it would be well to have their opinions thereon. He represented that if they did away with the security which the crop at present afforded for the payment of the rent of a farm, and substituted the caution of one man for another, they would cover the land with cautioners. He argued that it was the interest of the Conservative, as of any other Party, to pass measures of permanent utility, and not merely of temporary popularity. He still considered the Amendment of which he had given Notice was just, and that the Lord Chancellor's alterations would not meet his objection, which was that, by the Bill, the tenant, after ejectment, might retain the way going crop, which occupied two-thirds of the farm, on paying merely a proportion of the year's rent for the time between his ejectment and the removal of the crop from the ground, leaving the landlord without security for the remainder of the year's rent. Either the ejectment ought to be from the whole farm, with compensation to the tenant for seed, labour, and manure on unripe crops, or, if he was allowed to retain the way going crop, he should pay the year's rent of the land it had occupied before he removed it. It was to be borne in mind that when the tenant was ejected he was six or 12 months in arrear; and to allow him to add considerably more to this unse-
  1168
  cured debt to his landlord would be unreasonable.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORreminded their Lordships that the Bill only applied to future arrangements, and if it was not satisfactory to any particular man, it would be competent for him to make such arrangement by convention as would suit his particular estate. It would be utterly impossible to introduce into a general measure applying to the whole country a provision that a tenant taking away a crop in the month of August or September should be sentenced to pay rent, not only up to Martinmas, but up to the following September.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, the objection he had before taken to this mode of proceeding with this Bill was justified by everything which had occurred since; and at that present moment they were asked to agree to an important Amendment, which none of their Lordships had in their hands, which none of them had even seen, and which it was impossible for anyone to say removed the objections it was intended to remove, or did not. He had a right, at least to ask that these Amendments should be printed, and that the third reading should not be taken until to-morrow. He objected strongly to this mode of proceeding. They did not know what they were doing. He did not believe that any noble Lord in the House, except the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack and some of his Colleagues, knew what the proposed words were, or what their effect would be. They had had no time to consider them; and on such an important subject it would be a mistake on the part of the House, and discreditable to the Government, to press on the proposal on the present occasion.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Earl forgot altogether that the Amendment had been printed. The Amendment now before their Lordships was that of which the noble Lord (Lord Blantyre) gave Notice, and was placed in their Lordships' hands that morning. It was because the Amendment so proposed was not considered satisfactory, that the Government now proposed an Amendment, and that Amendment, of course, there had been no opportunity of printing. The noble Earl was a dog in the manger. He contributed not in the slightest degree to the discussion on

  1169
  the Bill. He had done nothing but simply object. He expressed no opinion upon any stage of the Bill. The House would have been glad to have heard him, if he had any proposal to make on this clause or on any others. But all the noble Earl did was to object to their proceeding, without expressing himself regarding the merits of what they were discussing.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, there was great force in the objections urged to the clause as it stood. There was no doubt that the crop which was reaped in the autumn was used to pay rent, not only up to Martinmas, but up to Whitsunday. But the Bill only applied to future contracts.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that with regard to the fault which the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had found to making these objections to this proceeding without discussing the Bill, the objection he made was that it was not in accordance with the due dignity of the House to pass a measure of this kind in the manner in which it was proposed to do it now. The objection which he took was one which he had made almost always towards the close of a Session when important Bills had been attempted to be hastily pushed through, when there had been no time for consideration. He had not taken part in the discussions on this Bill, because he did not know the Scotch law or practice; and if he wished to do anything he should wish to consult with some persons in Scotland upon whose judgment he could rely. Their Lordships had had no opportunity of that kind, and they had had no time to consider the Amendments now proposed by the noble and learned Earl. There was no earthly reason why the Bill should not be reprinted, and these additional Amendments proposed on the third reading to-morrow. The Bill could then go to the other House, and it could have time to consider their Lordships' Amendments. To proceed in the way they were asked to do—to consider something not in print before them, no one knowing exactly what it was—was not creditable to the transaction of Business in that House, and was highly injurious to legistation.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the noble Earl who had
  1170
  just sat down was in the habit of indulging in strong expressions. He had spoken of what was due to the dignity of that House. He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) did not think it was due to the dignity of that House, that one holding the position of Chairman of Committees should say that the conduct of the Government with regard to this Bill was discreditable. That was language which he should not have expected to hear from the noble Earl. It was language which could not justly be applied to the conduct of the Government on the present occasion. If the noble Earl's argument was to hold good, no Amendment could be proposed on any Bill unless that Amendment appeared in print.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE: No.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: Yes; that was what it amounted to. A noble Lord opposite (Lord Blantyre) had moved an Amendment. That Amendment was printed. The noble Earl objected to the words which the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack proposed, and it came to this—that they were to accept this dictum, that no Amendment could be made during the passage of the Bill through Committee unless that Amendment had appeared in print. Now, that was perfectly impossible; and he should have thought the noble Earl's experience would have told him that he was asking them to sanction a practice which would lead to lasting inconvenience. At the end of his speech the noble Earl said this Amendment should be printed and considered on the third reading to-morrow. That was inconsistent with what he said before.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE: No.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: The noble Earl would allow him to make his remarks without interruption, and he could make his own afterwards. He said it should be printed and discussed on the third reading tomorrow. The noble Earl was wholly ignorant of the Bill. He knew nothing about it, from the first letter to the last in it; but, inasmuch as they were legislating on a subject connected with the agriculture of Scotland, the noble Earl wished to consult those persons in Scotland to whom he could apply for the information he required before legislating. Yet, in the next breath, he said

  1171
  he would be prepared to consider the Amendment to-morrow. If he required all this information from his Scotch friends, it was impossible that he could get it before to-morrow. Therefore, he repeated, the noble Earl was inconsistent in his view. There was no virtue to be secured by taking all the stages of that Bill to-day; and if it would enable the noble Earl to communicate by telegraph with his friends in Scotland as to the merits of this Amendment, then this question could be discussed to-morrow evening. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had more to say on this Amendment than he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had, though he entirely agreed with what his noble and learned Friend had proposed. There was, however, no objection to the Bill standing over for third reading until to-morrow, although he could see no special reason why it should not pass to-day. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Blantyre) had said something about the inadvisability of proceeding with the Bill that Session. But that was a question which they discussed the other night when they decided that they should go on with it. The Bill was looked for by a a great portion of Scotland. The fact that it only applied to the future and not to existing leases made it of such a character that a landlord, who understood the circumstance of his property and looked after it might watch that the measure should benefit and not injnre him.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that through the noble Earl's (the Earl of Haddington's) Amendment not being printed with the Bill, but separately, it was difficult to discuss an Amendment upon it, and to write it out, so as to see how the Amendment of the noble Earl would read, if inserted. He thought the Bill might be considered in Easter week, as it could only put off the meeting of the new Parliament till after Whitsuntide, which was early this year.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought it would be more convenient that the Amendments should be introduced now, and he would take care that the Bill was printed and circulated as amended, and then their Lordships would see exactly how the Bill stood with the Amendments made upon it.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Order for considering Standing Orders Nos. XXXVII. and XXXVIII. read, and discharged; Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 49.)

BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN BILL—(No. 39.)
(The Lord Norton.)
BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN BILL—(No. 39.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD NORTON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to give greater facilities for the education of blind and deaf-mute children. The Bill would give extended powers to Boards of Guardians to send pauper children to Deaf and Blind Institutions, and would also enable them to deal with those children whose parents were unable, wholly or partially, to bear the expense of sending their children to such Institutions. The 4th clause gave power to build Institutions for such children, but gave no borrowing powers.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Norton.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that Guardians had already great powers, under existing Acts of Parliament, to send pauper children to certain asylums. This Bill proposed a serious extension of their powers, and he thought it ought not to proceed further. He would have important Amendments to propose to it in Committee.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.