Sitting of 4 May 1883

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Turnpike Acts Continuance [No. 153].
PUBLIC BILLS—Leave—Ordered—First Reading—Constabulary and Police (Ireland) (Pay and Pensions) [171].
Ordered—First Reading—Tramways Provisional Orders (Aldershot and Farnborough, &c.)* [167]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2) (Birmingham and Western District, &c.)* [168]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) (Colchester, &c.)* [169]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) (Bethesda, &c.)* [170].

PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).

  COMMUNICATION TO THE HOUSE.
  MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House that he had this day received from. Mr. Bradlaugh, one of the Members for Northampton, a Letter which he read to the House as follows:—
  4th May.
  To the Right Honourable the Speaker.
  Sir,
  I beg to ask you to call me to the Table, at the proper time, with two Members to introduce me, for the purpose of taking the Oath required by Law; and, should yon feel any difficulty in taking this course, I respectfully ask to be heard at the Bar of the House, in support of my claim.
  I have the honour to be, Sir,
  Your most obedient Servant,
  C. BRADLAUGH.
  MR. SPEAKERfurther stated, that, bearing in mind all the circumstances

  1843
  that surrounded the claim of Mr. Bradlaugh to take his seat, he felt bound to desire the instructions of the House, before he called upon Mr. Bradlaugh to come to the Table.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, as I do not understand that the Prime Minister proposes to offer any counsel to the House upon this question, I need offer no apology for presenting myself. I assume that those who have on several previous occasions voted against allowing Mr. Bradlaugh to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath will still remain of the same opinion, without that opinion being at all affected by circumstances which have recently taken place; and I therefore shall, without any comment, propose the same Resolution which I have upon previous occasions proposed, the effect of which will be to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from going through the form of repeating the words of the Oath which is prescribed for Members of Parliament. I observe in the letter you, Sir, have communicated to the House, that Mr. Bradlaugh expresses a desire to be heard at the Bar of the House in support of his claim. For my part, I see no objection and I shall certainly offer no opposition to his being heard at the Bar in support of his claim. That does not at all affect the terms of the Motion which I have now the honour of placing in your hands.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880, of the 26th April 1881, and of the 7th February and 6th March 1882, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by the Statutes 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, after hearing you read the letter which you have received from the junior Member for Northampton, I was under an erroneous impression that probably the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton, who has been the natural and legitimate Representative of his Colleague in all matters—in all lawful matters—relating to this controversy, would rise and make a Motion upon it. But that did not take place, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite was called upon. I am bound to say I should have had no
  1844
  objection whatever to make to the very proper Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I think, perhaps, upon the whole, it rests more appropriately with him than with me in the circumstances; I think it is a compliance with the principles of equity, and it shows a disposition, within the limits of conscientious conviction, to pay due respect to the views of a constituency in the exercise of a Constitutional duty. I give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for having, on that ground, invited criticism in moving that we hear Mr. Bradlaugh.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: What I stated was that I should move the same Resolution that I have moved on previous occasions, that Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to take the Oath, that being the first and main point of the letter which he has addressed to the Speaker. With regard to the second part of that letter, in which Mr. Bradlaugh expresses a desire that he should be heard at the Bar of the House, I stated that I could see and should offer no objection to his being heard at the Bar. It is not for me to move that he should be hoard at the Bar.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to move that Mr. Bradlaugh be heard at the Bar.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, I rise to Order. Is it competent for the hon. Member to make that Motion when another Motion is before you?
  MR. SPEAKER: As I understood, the House appeared to be in doubt whether Mr. Bradlaugh should be heard at the Bar. I will take the pleasure of the House on that matter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, I desire to submit a very few words in support of my right to take the Oath and my seat, pursuant to my return. I was elected on the 4th of March last year, and since that election I have not presented myself for the purpose of taking my seat. The House, after my election, expressed its pleasure that I should not be permitted to obey the law last Session. This Session the House has been engaged in considering a measure which, if it had passed, would have rendered it possible, supposing my constituents to have re-elected me, for me to have taken

  1845
  my seat on Affirmation. Last night the House felt it right to reject that measure, and it is now my duty to do what the law requires me to do, and I ask the indulgence of Members who are hostile to me, in the few words which it is my very unpleasant duty to submit to the House. I ask that indulgence because my position for some time has been one of considerable pain. By the privilege of an unsworn Member I have been within hearing of everything which has taken place in this House; but by the practice of the House I have been precluded from offering the smallest dissent to any phrase, however severe, to any insinuation however harsh, and to any charge however much I might feel it to be false. My constituents have the right to the voices and speech of two Representatives in this House. That is their right by law. They have chosen me three times in this Parliament to be one of their burgesses, and if I were as vile as some Members have chosen to describe me, if that vileness imposes no legal disqualification, no one within these walls has the right to challenge the return of my constituents. The law requires me to take my seat. It imposes a penalty upon me if I do not take my seat. It gives me privileges which I ought to enjoy while I hold unchallenged this certificate of return; and here I ask whether there ought to be any hindrance between the returned of a constituency and the duty which the law imposes upon him whose service the constituency has the right to exact? And I submit that any hindrance which is not justified by law is an act which in itself is flagrantly wrong, whoever may commit it, and that the mere fact that the majority of voices in one Chamber may prevent a citizen from appealing to the law in no sense lessens the iniquity of an illegal act, and that history will so judge it, whatever to-day you may think it your right and your duty to do. I listened, Sir, with pain to one dangerous doctrine which was put forward against my admission—namely, that Parliament recognized no rights but its own; that it had never treated those claims—that is, those of the electors of Northampton for electoral and representative concessions—as rights; that it had always regarded them as high and valuable privileges, which it was in its power to withhold or bestow, and that it had never been guided by any other
  1846
  principle than expediency or policy. I submit that that doctrine is treason to the Constitution of England. I submit that the suffrage is a right—that in the famous case of "Ashby v. White" it was decided by the highest Courts of Judicature in this Realm that the suffrage is not a privilege, but a right; and I submit that while it is true that Parliament has the right to take away, negate, or destroy the right of any citizen in this country, yet that one Chamber is not Parliament, and neither House by its mere Resolution may override, negate, or suspend the law, and that, although you may have the right of force, that is a had right to put against the right of law. [Interruption.] I can only thank the courtesy of the Members who interrupt me on my right for their consideration to me in the difficult position in which I am placed. I will ask the indulgence of the House while I offer one or two words of explanation as to matters which have been personally urged as reasons why I should not sit. It is said first, that I am a candidate of the Government—put forward by the Government. Surely, if that were true it would be no great objection in the way of my return. But there is not a particle of truth in it. I stood in 1868 at Northampton to fight the seat of Lord Henley. The present Prime Minister on that occasion thought it his duty to oppose my election, and he wrote a letter which I thought then a fair ground of complaint, advising the people of Northampton to return the sitting Members—Mr. Charles Gilpin and Lord Henley. I have never had, directly or indirectly, the smallest aid or assistance from either the present Prime Minister, or any Member of the Government, or, to my knowledge, from any Member of the Liberal Party, in any one of the elections I have fought in that borough. And when the hon. Member who has felt it his duty to come in unfortunate collision with me elsewhere chooses to contradict that, he contradicts it without the smallest knowledge of the facts. With reference to the allegation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), that Mr. Adam had in some fashion recommended me to the electors of Northampton, there is not the faintest shadow of foundation for that. I never held the smallest communication, direct or indirect, of any character whatever, with

  1847
  Mr. Adam, or anyone on his behalf, until in this House, in his official position as Commissioner of Works, it was my duty to address questions to him on behalf of my constituents. With that exception, I never had the smallest connection, direct or indirect, with Mr. Adam or any Member of the Government, and to my belief—it may be incorrect, but to my belief—I have always regarded the Liberal Party as rather standing in the way of my election than in any fashion helping to forward my return. This allegation, however, I submit was unworthy of this House; and I submit that no such considerations have ever entered at any time in the discussion of a candidature. I submit that a great House which claims the powers of one of the highest Courts of this Realm should try to be judicial. Then it is said that all that has happened I have brought upon myself; that it is not the opinions which were alleged against me, but, to use the words of more than one right hon. and hon. Member, the offensive way in which at the Table of the House I paraded my views and threw down the gauntlet in the face of the House. Now, there is not a shadow of justification for that. The only way in which it is attempted to support the allegation is by saying that at the Table of the House, when I had in writing claimed to affirm, giving no reasons whatever in that claim, and when I was asked under what law I claimed to affirm, and I named I the Statutes, it was said that was a declaration of Atheism. But it is not true, and no person having the smallest acquaintance with the law should have made such a declaration. I think I heard one right hon. Gentleman commit himself to the statement that none except Atheists could affirm under the Evidence Amendment Acts of 1869 and 1870. That is not so. By the law prior to the passing of those Acts, any Theist who did not believe in future rewards or punishments was one of those who were not competent to give evidence on Oath, who might have been objected to as incompetent, and who became competent to affirm under those Statutes. And, therefore, I say there was no declaration of Atheism involved in what was said at the Table, and that no Member has the right to examine my opinions. I have never uttered them in this House, and, under great temptation, I have
  1848
  refrained from using any word which could wound the feelings of the most religious, though I have heard within these walls, within but a few hours, language used, by one who has declared his religion, against me, which I should have felt ashamed to use in any decent assembly. Nothing of my opinions, Sir, was communicated to the House until the Committee which examined me before it asked whether I had written a certain letter to The Times. It has been stated over and over again on both sides of the House that any declaration in The Times, or any declaration outside these walls, is a matter with which Parliament has no concern. I objected to answer the question on the ground that it was a matter with which Parliament had no concern. But when the Committee insisted I gave way, for I had no desire to be a hypocrite or to conceal my real convictions. I have put, I hope, as respectfully as any man can put, what I thought a fair reason for the line I took, and though I believed it was a matter which the House had no right to deal with, and entirely without its province, yet, when the Committee pressed me on it, I believed I was dealing with generous English Gentlemen, who would not distort what they had asked for into a declaration that I had paraded it before the House. I have had to sit with pain while reckless charges, probably supplied to Members by persons not having the responsibility of a seat in this House, have sounded in my ears; I have heard two right hon. and several hon. Members quote against me during this week, letters from "An Avowed Atheist," as expressing my opinions on religion and on family. These were quoted on the 1st of May against me, though on the 26th of April, in the paper in which those letters were printed, there appeared a declaration that they had not been written by an avowed Atheist at all, but by a professing Christian, for the purpose of injuring me and preventing my candidature. I ask the House whether that is a loyal and brave way to deal with a man who has no right of speech till it is too late to remedy the wrong done? Members have been industrious in reading all the things I have ever written, and some things I have never written. One, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), read in this House a phrase which, when he read it,

  1849
  I could not remember, and which I knew it was impossible I could have used in the way it was put, because it would have been fatal to the candidature I had desired to preserve at Northampton. And what do I find? I find, instead of its being a matter happening in any fashion since this contest began, that a portion of a speech attributed to me 15 years ago has been taken, though at the top of the very paragraph from which the hon. Member has quoted I find there is a declaration that I am not in any way responsible for what appears in the report. Surely, it would have been generous of him to say that, it would have been fair to say that, it would have been just to say that. I do not pretend that many things I have said are not deserving of blame from this House; but there is a great difference between treating things as deserving blame, and twisting and distorting a phrase to make it a groundwork for the heaviest punishment that can fall on a man who desires to serve the constituency that elected him to represent it in this House. Then I heard that I had been convicted of circulating a filthy book, and had escaped by a legal quibble the punishment I had deserved. The hon. Member who thought it right to say that in this House, might have stated that the learned Judge who tried me—and whose grave may protect him from the insinuations heaped upon other Judges who have had the misfortune to do me justice—the late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, said—
  "The defendants honestly believed that the evils which this work would remedy, arising from over-population and poverty, are so great that these checks may be resorted to as a remedy for the evils and as bettering the condition of humanity, although there might be things to be avoided if it wore possible to avoid them, and yet remedy the evils which they are to prevent. That such is the honest opinion of the defendants, we, who have read that book and heard what they have said, must do them the justice of believing."
  Is that the language which one of England's greatest Judges would use of a man on trial before him for circulating a filthy book? And the jury who found me guilty said in their verdict—
  "We entirely exonerate the defendants from any corrupt motive in publishing it."
  Surely, when foul words of condemnation came, a generous and strong opponent would have at least said this
  1850
  on the other side, so that the House might be a judge how far the condemnation was warranted. I would say one more word personally. Members who have alleged that I attacked marriage, that I attacked family, cannot have read one word I have written or said on either. I have never in my life attacked either. Members who charge me with Socialism and Communism are ignorant of the whole history of my life, and of the whole political strife in which I have been engaged. But these charges, if they were as true as they are false, give you no right to stand between me and my seat. I ask the House with all respect to be logical. I do not doubt that it would be difficult for some Members to get into the frame of mind which would enable them to be so; but I ask them either to declare my seat vacant now, or at once to introduce a Bill rendering me incapable of sitting for any constituency. Deprive me of all civil rights by law, and then I must submit, as hotter men have had to submit, whom the Parliament of England has attainted and outlawed; but while I have my civil rights I will claim them. If the law cannot give them to me—and perhaps it is better that this House should be above the law—then I can only try to obtain them, and wherever my voice may go, say that you, the High Court of Parliament, greater than law, have trampled upon law. I can at least try at the hustings and the ballot-box; when the time comes—the people, whom you say are on your side—will decide, as it is their legal right to do. I heard the strange phrase from a noble Lord that both sides had gone too far to recede. The House honours me too much in putting me on one side and itself on the other. But the House being strong should be generous. The strong can recede; the generous can give. But constituencies have a right to more than generosity. They have a right to justice. The law gives me that seat; in the name of the law I ask for it. I regret that my personality overshadows the principles involved in this question. But I would ask those who have touched my right, not knowing it; who have found for me vices which I do not remember in the memory of my life—I would ask them whether all can afford to cast the first stone—or whether, condemning me justly for my unworthi-

  1851
  ness, they will, as just Judges, vacate their own seats, having deprived my constituents of their right here to mine?
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Resolution which had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was one that, as he thought, had been proposed and carried in that House already four times; but the right hon. Gentleman had not stated that on all those occasions there was a considerable number of Members who voted against it. On the 7th of February, 1882, the right hon. Gentleman proposed the same Resolution, which was met by the Home Secretary with the Previous Question, for which he gave the following valid reasons—namely, that—
  "The House has no right to interpose and say that a person duly elected by any constituency is not entitled to come to this Table and take the Oath which the Statute prescribes he is to take. We regard a Resolution of this character—that is to say, of the character of the resolution proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—as in effect doing what a Resolution of the House of Commons ought not to do—namely, set aside the provisions of an Act of Parliament. The course we should advise the House of Commons to take is that as they permitted Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Affirmation, subject to the decision of the Courts of Law, so he should be allowed to take the Oath in the form of words prescribed by the Statute, subject to the judgment of the Courts of Law, as to whether that is a fulfilment of the condition presented by the Statute."
  Such was the argument of the Home Secretary, and he (Mr. Labouchere) proposed to take a precisely similar course in this instance. For his own part, he was not aware why those who on previous occasions held that Mr. Bradlaugh was entitled to take the Oath, should not hold the same now. On the contrary, there was every reason why they should, seeing that Mr. Bradlaugh's case had been strengthened since then. He had been since reelected by his constituency, and the highest Court of the Realm had decided that Mr. Bradlaugh had a right to take the Oath. The Lord Chancellor had decided that as Mr. Bradlaugh was not allowed to affirm, therefore it was his duty to take the Oath. But there was another reason. Without going into the past, they all knew perfectly well that the reason why the House had previously objected to Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take the Oath was that he stated within the precincts of the House what, to all intents and purposes, amounted to this—that he was an
  1852
  Atheist. But the law of England held that Atheism was not a permanent quality. Though a man might have said he was an Atheist 100 times, the law held that he must be judged only by what he said when he came to perform any judicial act requiring an oath to be taken. When he came before a Court of Law, though he might have affirmed 100 times before as an Atheist, the Judge would still ask him whether he was an Atheist then, and if he said he was not, it was not competent to go back upon any previous assertions made by him, to show that he was an Atheist. According to law, therefore, the House had no official knowledge at present that Mr. Bradlaugh was an Atheist. Since Mr. Bradlaugh had been re-elected it was well known by every Member of the House that a Gentleman had been elected of great position in the literary world, and everyone who knew anything of literature was aware that he had avowed himself to be an unbeliever in a Superintending Providence as clearly as Professor Huxley himself. Why had they allowed that Gentleman, whom every one of them know to be an Atheist, to take the Oath, and yet would not allow Mr. Bradlaugh to take it, because it was asserted that three years ago he stated within the House that he was an Atheist? If the majority of the House chose to act illegally, unjustly, and unconstitutionally, they on that side would stand by justice and the Constitution. He begged to move the Previous Question, and he would take a division upon it.
  Previous Question proposed, "That the Original Question be now put."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have to apologize to the House for having failed to perceive the point under discussion when I formerly rose to say a few words. Having made that apology, I pass to the Resolution itself, and here the right hon. Gentleman opposite, relying on the previous judgments of the House, has likewise relied upon previous arguments. I must say I see nothing unreasonable in that course, nor do I think it my duty to follow it. His views are unchanged with regard to the character of the Resolution that he has moved. Our views are unchanged with regard to the legal nature of the claim made by the junior

  1853
  Member for Northampton, and with regard, therefore, to the nature of the act by which the House has declared its judgment on the matter. I quite admit that the Government is bound to show all the respect that it can consistently with its conviction to the judgment of the majority of the House, and though I should have dissented from the Resolution and signified my dissent in the usual manner when the Question was put from the Chair, I should not have seen any particular advantage in challenging the formal judgment of the House by a division. The senior Member for Northampton is perfectly entitled to take his own course, and being, as I may say, the natural and legitimate representative of the case which his junior Colleague has in hand, he has moved the Previous Question, and announced his intention of taking a division upon it. If he perseveres in that course, I shall undoubtedly consider it my duty to go with him. I do not know that he will induce the majority of the House to alter its views; but I do not think the question is one which I ought to decline to meet in the usual and regular Parliamentary manner by my vote. I hope the House understands what the effect of carrying the Previous Question will be. To carry the Previous Question is to decline a renewal of the controversy upon the Resolution on the ground that it has been already sufficiently argued and debated. Were the Previous Question carried, it would be a declaration by the House which would have the effect of removing every obstacle from the way of the junior Member for Northampton, who would be in a position to exercise his own discretion about coming to the Table and taking the Oath. As one who dissents from the Resolution, I cannot refuse to vote for that Motion, although I should not have thought it necessary to make it, and should have been quite satisfied to record my dissent without asking the House to divide on the question.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I do not think that it would be reasonable for me to remain entirely silent after what has been said; but I am sure that it is not the wish of the House that we should renew or extend the debate upon this question. The grounds on which the House has hitherto proceeded
  1854
  have been grounds often travelled over, and which I see no reason for myself abandoning or expecting the House to abandon. It will be in the remembrance of the House that the opinion that Mr. Bradlaugh, after what had taken place when he was originally elected and first came to the House to take his seat, ought not to be permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath came from a Select Committee of this House. The recommendation of the Committee was accepted by the House, and another form of proceeding was suggested. When the mode of proceeding by Affirmation was found not to hold water, the question was again raised as to Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take the Oath or to go through the form of taking the Oath. The House then considered that they had still before them the original statement of Mr. Bradlaugh on which the opinion of the Committee was founded, and that what he had said amounted to a distinct intimation conveyed to the House that he held the Oath to be not binding, and the words to be unmeaning. These proceedings have all been, as we regard them, parts of one transaction, and I cannot suppose that the House would change its views. But we have to remember what the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out would be the effect of carrying the Previous Question on this occasion. If the hon. Gentleman comes up to the Table and proposes to take the Oath, you, Mr. Speaker, would be waiting for instructions from the House, and if no such instructions were given it would be difficult to say that any objection could be offered to his being permitted to do so. Therefore, it is necessary that the House should give instructions. It is not that by voting the Previous Question that we put the matter aside. Voting the Previous Question is, in fact, the same thing as negativing the Motion, and is clearly the same thing as saying that we ought to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath. That being the case, I think there is no occasion to prolong the controversy, and I hope the House will lose no time in coming to a division.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he wished to reply to an observation made by Mr. Bradlaugh at the Bar. He should be very glad to modify or withdraw any of the statements which he had made about Mr. Bradlaugh, if he could do so con-

  1855
  scientiously; but he was compelled to adhere to every statement which he had made concerning him. The hon. Member stated that he had given a quotation from a speech delivered by him 15 years ago without stating that at the head of the paper in which the speech appeared it was notified that he was not responsible for what was published. In the pamphlet from which he had taken the extract there was no such notification. Had there been, he would have mentioned it. The notification, however, could have had no application to what the hon. Gentleman admitted was an extract from a speech delivered by him. The hon. Member stated also that he (Mr. Ritchie) had accused him of having been convicted of distributing filthy literature, but had omitted to repeat the remarks made by the Judge. His statement was, that in consequence of a legal quibble the hon. Member escaped punishment for having distributed obscene literature. Mr. Bradlaugh was tried and convicted by a jury, and would have been sentenced had he not raised the question that the obscenity was not recited in the indictment, and it was in consequence of that he escaped punishment. He had nothing to apologize for or to withdraw.
  MR. NEWDEGATEpointed out that if the Previous Question were carried, Mr. Bradlaugh might come into the House late at night when it was nearly empty, and unable to defend its own dignity by vindicating its right to exercise jurisdiction over his case. He would remind hon. Members of the words used in the House of Lords by the Duke of Argyll with reference to a document which Mr. Bradlaugh issued last year, and in which he appealed to the people against the House of Commons. The noble Duke said that, in his opinion, the House would be wanting in regard for its own position if it should fail to repress any such expressions of contempt for the House of Commons which exercised supreme authority over its own affairs.
  SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD: Sir, I think it is very desirable that the House should quite understand what it is doing; and I, for one, desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is a fact that, in the event of the Previous Question being carried, Mr. Bradlaugh will thon be permitted to take the Oath? I can hardly suppose that the great number of hon
  1856
  Members opposite who, on previous occasions, have expressed the highest possible abhorrence of what they have described to be a profanation of the Oath, would avail themselves of the exceptional condition of the House to pass by what it has on several occasions determined, and what last night it determined in no insignificant way to be its will. If forcing a division at once would do that which has been deprecated on both sides of the House, I could understand the impatience of some hon. Members for a division. It is generally understood that the effect of the Previous Question being carried will be that you will permit Mr. Bradlaugh to go through the form of taking the Oath. It is, therefore, very desirable that there should be no doubt about the question before we go to a division. I only wish to say one word in reference to a statement made by Mr. Bradlaugh—to the effect that the recent judgment of the House of Lords was au affirmation by the Lord Chancellor that he was entitled to take the Oath. I need not say I do not concur in that view. There seems to be some doubt whether I am capable of expressing an impartial opinion; but I think that if some hon. Members were more acquainted with Courts of Law they would admit that it was possible for an advocate to argue points of law, and yet to speak sincerely on the question. I only wish to point out that the decision given by the Courts is simply a decision that the person who brought the action was not entitled to bring the action. No other question was raised, and, therefore, I hope that hon. Members will not be misled into the belief that Mr. Bradlaugh would take the Oath with the sanction and authority of the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Launceston, I have to say that, in the event of this Resolution being set aside by the Previous Question, there would be no Resolution before the House adverse to the operation of the law by which the hon. Member for Northampton would undoubtedly be entitled to take the Oath.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, Mr. Bradlaugh had very candidly, but not for himself very judiciously, admitted, in what he had just said, that if the Affirmation Bill had passed he would have taken his seat in a manner more

  1857
  agreeable to himself; but that, as a last resort, he would take the Oath which he abhorred—that was to say, he would go through the form of repeating the words of an Oath which he declared had no binding effect on his conscience. If, in the face of that renewed and present declaration, the House now permitted Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath, it would be passing a condemnation on the Oath itself as being a meaningless form of words.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that a less creditable stratagem was never adopted by any Ministry than that which was now attempted to be played off upon the House. It was quite evident that arrangements had been entered into by the Party who, on due notice, was beaten the previous night, in order to snatch an unworthy victory from a surprised and out-manœuvred Legislature. It would seem that a fore-knowledge—he would not say a guilty fore-knowledge—of what was to be attempted that day had been circulated among the defeated Party of last night; and while a large number of Members who believed that, according to the usual practice of Parliament, a vote of the House of Commons fairly arrived at would be honourably observed, were temporarily absent upon this unexpected occasion, it was clear that the battalions which followed the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian and the non-juring Member for Northampton—those two Leaders of the Liberal Party—were in full force to-night. The Premier, in his statement, had endeavoured to give the House to understand that by voting the Previous Question the House was prejudging nothing, was preventing nothing, was compromising nothing, and that hon. Members could honourably and consistently, with a due regard to the vote of the House, support the Previous Question. However, it occurred to an hon. and learned Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Sir Hardinge Giffard) to ask the Speaker a question; and the result had been to expose, in the clearest possible manner, the nature of the step into which the House was sought to be entrapped. The House had deliberately resolved to reject a Bill by which avowed Atheists would have the option of affirming or taking the Oath; and now, by way of respecting the solemn decision of the House, arrived at after long and careful
  1858
  debate, and after the most surprising and yet most deserved defeat which even they had received in the course of their manœuvres on this question, the Government were desirous of deliberately allowing this avowed Atheist to profane the Oath, and so involve the House in complicity with an abominable impiety. It was incumbent upon the consciences of all honourable men, at least, to give time for the country to express its opinion upon this attempt to force the House to permit such a profanation. He had no doubt of the opinion of the country on the subject. It was evident that the Treasury Benches were in search of new worlds to conquer; and, after having illustrated how to carry on war on the principles of peace, they were now seeking to astonish an enlightened world by advancing religion on the principles of Infidelity. On that side of the House they must decline to follow the Government in that application of their varied ingenuity. There should be limits to the exercise of the option which the Government had taken to themselves of getting off and taking on at their pleasure their Ministerial responsibilities as a Government. This plan of making everything an open question might be a convenient one for a Cabinet that appeared to have no principle but that of sticking to their places; but it was not for the House to lend its countenance to a practice at variance with all Constitutional principles, and also at variance with the honest instincts of the British people. He did not know whether they were now in the presence of that transmigration of spirit in the political existence of the Prime Minister of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke in 1866 after his rejection by the University of Oxford, when he threatened to take revenge on his political opponents; but it was to be regretted that he could not find some means of satisfying his revenge on the great historical Party with which he was once connected without compromising the fundamental principles of Christian morality and of the Constitution. He had risen simply to state that it was his intention, if he could carry it out, to secure that no snatch or snap vote should be taken on this question; and that if there was any fear of last night's decision being overthrown by a species of plot, whether concocted inside or out-

  1859
  side that House, he trusted means would be taken to provide for the House and the country an opportunity of considering this new attempt by means of an evasion, characteristic enough in itself, to overturn the deliberate decision of Parliament.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 271; Noes 165: Majority 106.

  AYES.

  Alexander, Colonel C.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Allsopp, C.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Dawnay, hon. G. C.

  Aylmer, Capt. J. E. F.

  Dawson, C.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Balfour, A. J.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Barne, Col. F. St. J. N.

  Digby, Col. hon. E. T.

  Barry, J.

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Donaldson-Hudson, C.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Beach, rt. hon. Sir M. H.

  Dundas, hon. J. C.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

  Bellingham, A. H.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Beresford, G. De la P.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Elcho, Lord

  Birkbeck, E.

  Elliot, Sir G.

  Blackburne, Col. J. I.

  Emlyn, Viscount

  Blake, J. A.

  Ennis, Sir J.

  Bourke, rt. hon. R.

  Estcourt, G. S.

  Braassey, H. A.

  Ewart, W.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Fairbairn, Sir A.

  Feilden, Lieut.-General R. J.

  Brooke, Lord

  Brooks, W. C.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Filmer, Sir E.

  Bruce, hon. T. C.

  Finch, G. H.

  Brymer, W. E.

  Fitzwilliam, hn. H. W.

  Bulwer, J. R.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Burghley, Lord

  Floyer, J.

  Buxton, Sir R. J.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Callan, P.

  Forester, C. T. W.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Foster, W. H.

  Garden, Sir R. W.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Fremantle, hon. T. F.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  French-Brewster, R. A. B.

  Cecil, Lord E.H.B.G.

  Chaine, J.

  Freshfield, C. K.

  Chaplin, H.

  Gardner, R. Richardson-

  Christie, W. L.

  Churchill, Lord R.

  Garnier, J. C.

  Clarke, E.

  Gibson, rt. hon. E.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Giffard, Sir H. S.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Giles, A.

  Collins, T.

  Glyn, hon. S. C.

  Colthurst, Col. D. La T.

  Gooch, Sir D.

  Compton, F.

  Gore-Langaton, W. S.

  Coope, O. E.

  Gorst, J. E.

  Corbet, W. J.

  Grantham, W.

  Corry, J. P.

  Gray, E. D.

  Cotton, W. J. R.

  Greene, E.

  Creyke, R.

  Greer, T.

  Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Cubitt, rt. hon. G.

  Guest, M. J.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Halsey, T. F.

  1860

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

  Moore, A.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Moss, R.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

  Harrington, T.

  Harvey, Sir R. B.

  Mulholland, J.

  Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

  Murray, C. J.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Henry, M.

  Newport, Viscount

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Nicholson, W. N.

  Hicks, E.

  Noel, rt. hon. G. J.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  North, Colonel J. S.

  Hill, Lord A. W.

  Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.

  Hinchingbrook, Visc.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Northcote, H. S.

  Homo, Lt.-Col. D. M.

  O'Beirne, Col. F.

  Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B.

  O'Brien, W

  Howard, E. S.

  O'Connor, A.

  Hubbard, rt. hon. J. G.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Jerningham, H. E. H.

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  Kennard, Col. E. H.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Kennard, C. J.

  Onslow, D.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  O'Shea, W. H.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Parker, C. S.

  King-Harman, Colonel E. R.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Patrick, R. W. Cochran-

  Knight, F. W.

  Pease, Sir J. W.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Peek, Sir H. W.

  Knowles, T.

  Pell, A.

  Lalor, R.

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Percy, right hon. Earl

  Lawrence, Sir T.

  Percy, Lord A.

  Leahy, J.

  Phipps, C. N. P.

  Leamy, E.

  Phipps, P.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Leeman, J. J.

  Bower, R.

  Legh, W. J.

  Brice, Captain G. E.

  Leigh, R.

  Buleston, J. H.

  Leighton, S.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Lennox, rt. hon. Lord H. G. C. G.

  Bankin, J.

  Bendlesham, Lord

  Lever, J. O.

  Repton, G. W.

  Levett, T. J.

  Bidley, Sir M. W.

  Lewis, C. E.

  Ritchie, C. T.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Rolls, J. A.

  Loder, R.

  Ross, A. H.

  Long, W. H.

  Ross, C. C.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Round, J.

  Lowther, rt. hon. J.

  St. Aubyn, W. M.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Salt, T.

  Lusk, Sir A.

  Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

  Lyons, R. D.

  Scott, Lord H.

  Macartney, J. W. E.

  Scott, M. D.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  M'Coan, J. C.

  Macfarlane, D. H.

  Severne, J. E.

  M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

  Sexton, T.

  Mac Iver, D.

  Sheil, E.

  M'Kenna, J. N.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Macnaghten, E.

  Smith, A.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Smith wick, J. F.

  Martin, P.

  Stafford, Marquess of

  Marum, E. M.

  Stanhope, hon. E.

  Master, T. W. C.

  Stanley, rt. hon. Col. F.

  Matheson, Sir A.

  Stanley, E. J.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Mayne, T.

  Sykes, C.

  Meldon, C. H.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Metge, R. H.

  Thomson, H.

  Miles, Sir P. J. W.

  Thornhill, T.

  Miles, C. W.

  Thynne, Lord H. F.

  Mills, Sir C. H.

  Tollemache, hon. W. F.

  Monckton, F.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  1861

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Williams, General O.

  Torrens, W. T. M'C.

  Wilmot, Sir H.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Wilmot, Sir. J. E.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  Vivian, Sir H. H.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Wallace, Sir R.

  Wroughton, P.

  Warburton, P. E.

  Wyndham, hon. P.

  Warton, C. N.

  Wynn, Sir W. W.

  Watkin, Sir E. W.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Welby-Gregory, Sir W.

  TELLERS.

  Whitley, E.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Whitworth, B.

  Winn, R.

  NOES.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Agnew, W.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Ainsworth, D.

  Flower, C.

  Amory, Sir J. H.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Armitage, B.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Armitstead, G.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Arnold, A.

  Fowler, H. H.

  Asher, A.

  Fowler, W.

  Ashley, hon. E. M.

  Fry, L.

  Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Balfour, J. S.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Barclay, J. W.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Barran, J.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Bass, Sir M. A.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

  Grant, A.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Grosvenor, right hon. Lord R.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Brand, H. R.

  Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

  Brett, R. B.

  Briggs, W. E.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Broadhurst, H.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Brogden, A.

  Henderson, F.

  Brown, A. H.

  Heneage, E.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Bryce, J.

  Hill, T. R.

  Buchanan, T. R.

  Holden, I.

  Buszard, M. C.

  Hollond, J. R.

  Caine, W. S.

  Holms, J.

  Campbell-Bannerman, H.

  Howard, G. J.

  Howard, J.

  Causton, R. K.

  Illingworth, A.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Inderwick, F. A.

  Cheetham, J. F.

  James, Sir H.

  Childers. rt. hn. H. C. E.

  James, C.

  Clarke, J. C.

  James, W. H.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Jenkins, Sir J. J.

  Cohen, A.

  Kensington, rt. hn. Lord

  Collings, J.

  Lambton, hon. F. W.

  Cotes, C. C.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Leake, R.

  Cowen, J.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Craig, W. Y.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Cross, J. K.

  Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

  Davies, R.

  Davies, W.

  Lloyd, M.

  Dilke, rt. hn. Sir C. W.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Dodds, J.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Mackie, R. B.

  Duff, R. W.

  M'Laren, C. B. B.

  Egerton, Admiral hon. F.

  Macliver, P. S.

  Maitland, W. F.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Mappin, F. T.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Maskelyne, M. H. Story-

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  Mellor, J. W.

  Ferguson, R.

  Monk, C. J.

  1862

  Morgan, rt. hon. G. O

  Smith, E.

  Morley, A.

  Smith, Lt.-Col. G.

  Morley, J.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  Palmer, C. M.

  Stanley, hon. E. L.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  Pease, A.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Storey, S.

  Philips, R. N.

  Summers, W.

  Potter, T. B.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Pulley, J.

  Tennant, C.

  Ramsden, Sir J.

  Tillett, J. H.

  Reed, Sir E. J.

  Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Reid, R. T.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Rendel, S.

  Waddy, S. D.

  Richardson, T.

  Waugh, E.

  Roberts, J.

  Webster, J.

  Robertson, H.

  Whitbread, S.

  Russell, G. W. E.

  Williams, C. S. E.

  Russell, Lord A.

  Williamson, S.

  Rylands, p.

  Wills, W. H.

  Samuelson, B.

  Wilson, Sir M.

  Samuelson, H.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Seely, C. (Nottingham)

  Woodall, W.

  Sellar, A. C.

  Shaw, T.

  TELLERS.

  Shield, H.

  Butt, C. P.

  Simon, Serjeant J.

  Labouchere, H.

  Slagg, J.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880, of the 26th April;1881, and of the 7th February and 6th March 1882, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by the Statutes 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72.

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—OUTDOOR RELIEF—THE UNIONS OF GLENTIES AND DUNFANAGHY.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the money value of the outdoor relief (if any) which was actually administered in the Unions of Glenties and Dunfanaghy, respectively, during the last three months; among how many persons it was distributed; and, what proportion the persons so relieved bear to the destitute population of these Unions?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, the money value of the outdoor relief granted during the last three months in the Glenties Union was £145. The average weekly number of persons relieved was 186, and the total number of persons who received relief during the

  1863
  period was 221. It was impossible to say what proportion this number bore to the total destitute poor of the district. The Local Government Board were not aware of any outdoor relief having been granted during the period named in Dunfanaghy Union. A supply of meal was sent to Tory Island to meet any cases of emergency; but no Return had been received as to the persons relieved.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked whether the Local Government Board would urge on the Dunfanaghy Guardians the necessity of exercising their powers in this respect?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that no complaints had been received yet; but the Local Government Board would be glad to consider the question.
  MR. O'BRIENasked whether the Chief Secretary had seen a letter from Father M'Fadden, stating that the relieving officer told him he had instructions from the Guardians to offer nothing but the workhouse?
  [No reply.]

  BRITISH GUIANA—ACTION OF THE QUARANTINE BOARD.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the action of the Quarantine Board of British Guiana, in suddenly altering their regulations so as to enable them entirely to exclude from the Colony a cargo of rice, the staple food of the Indian immigrant population; whether such action was approved by the Secretary of State; and, whether for the guidance of shipowners and importers, he can lay upon the Table any Correspondence showing under what circumstances, and especially on what medical evidence and advice, the cargo was condemned?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, the cargo of rice was brought in a vessel called the Sheila, which had conveyed Coolies from Calcutta to Surinam. In the course of the voyage a serious outbreak of cholera had taken place on board. The Quarantine Board was advised by their medical officer that the cargo was infected and dangerous. They had no power, under their existing laws, to forbid it being landed, or to keep the ship more than 14 days in quarantine;
  1864
  so they, in concert with the Court of Policy, passed a Regulation empowering them to impose and renew periods of quarantine indefinitely. The Secretary of State has expressed the opinion that it would have been better to have taken power to prohibit the landing of the cargo, and to have notified to the owners what they had to expect, and not left thorn in doubt whether the landing would ultimately be allowed or not. The Governor has been requested to forward the medical evidence on which the Board acted; and when this is received the Correspondence will be laid upon the Table.

ARMY PENSIONERS—CASE OF CHARLES M'FADDEN.
MR. KENNYasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is a fact that Charles M'Fadden, late private of the 57th Foot, regimental No. 2076, an out-pensioner of Her Majesty's Royal Hospital at Chelsea, having the Crimean medal and clasps for Inkerman and Sebastopol, the Turkish medal, the New Zealand medal, and long service and good medal, as well as four good conduct badges and a certificate for "very good conduct," and who is now in the fifty-sixth year of his ago, has been refused two years' arrears of pension, amounting to £40 4s., on the ground that he was resident in a foreign country during the accumulation of the arrears, viz., from October 1880 till December 1882; whether M'Fadden is entitled to reckon his service as twenty-one years and nineteen days towards pay and pension, twelve years and five months of which time he served abroad; if, as M'Fadden was over fifty years of ago when he went to a foreign country for the two years mentioned, he was not liable by Statute to have been called out for service at home in the event of a national emergency; and, whether, under all these circumstances, he will be now permitted to receive his arrears of pension, he being at the present time threatened with the loss of the sight of both eyes?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, a Regulation has recently been made allowing pensioners over 50 years of age to reside out of the country; and I propose to apply this Regulation to the case of M'Fadden, who will, therefore, receive the arrears.

PARLIAMENT—CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS—LEGISLATION.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, without delay, to introduce a Bill to give effect to the Resolution arrived at on Friday 20th April relative to the Contagious Diseases Acts; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, pending further legislation, to continue to enforce the Law, or whether they will consider themselves entitled to exercise a dispensing power, and to issue instructions to the authorities to undertake no further prosecutions under the Act?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, in consequence of the Resolution passed by the House of Commons on April 20, in reference to the Contagious Diseases Acts, we propose, as soon as possible, to introduce a short Bill providing for the following main points:—namely, (1.) To repeal all sections of the Acts of 1866 and 1869 which direct periodical or compulsory examination of women, including all police action. (2.) That any woman voluntarily presenting herself at a certified hospital may, at her own request, be examined, and, if it be deemed necessary by the surgeon, may be admitted into such hospital and detained there in accordance with the provisions of the present Acts. (3.) That, in places under the Act where no certified hospitals exist, any woman may, at her own request, be examined by a duly appointed surgeon, and, if it be deemed necessary by the surgeon, may be admitted into a certified hospital and detained there in accordance with the provisions of the present Acts. (4.) That anything in the present Acts not inconsistent with the above should be retained. This is all the legislation which appears to be absolutely requisite in the present Session. It will not, however, exclude a consideration by the Government of the whole question, with a view either to legislation next Session on the lines of the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1871, or of the Bill of 1872, or, possibly, to the introduction of some further provisions into a Bill which is about to be presented in the House of Lords for the amendment of the law relating to the protection of young girls.
1866
As, however, it is uncertain when the Bill the provisions of which I have indicated can be passed, it was necessary to consider what action should be taken at once. It appears that the powers conferred on the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War by the Acts are, in the main, permissive, and not obligatory. The operation of the Acts hinges on the appointment of visiting surgeons at the places subjected to the Acts, and on the employment of the Metropolitan Police. All the expenses of the administration of the Acts are to be defrayed by the Admiralty and the War Office from money to be voted by Parliament. After the vote of April 20, there exists no reasonable probability that the House of Commons will vote the fund necessary for the administration of the compulsory examination sections of the Acts. Instructions have, therefore, been given for the withdrawal of the Metropolitan Police. The visiting surgeons will be for the present retained for the purpose of providing a legal means of admitting women who desire to enter a certified hospital, who are to be subject to detention under the 17th section of the Act of 1866, which authorizes a woman voluntarily to subject herself to examination. Amended Estimates providing for the expenses of the administration of the Acts will be substituted for those now contained in the Navy and Army Estimates; and the discussion of these Estimates on the introduction of the Bill will probably give the most convenient opportunity for entering into any farther details on the subject.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked whether it was not the fact that, in the recent debate on this subject, the noble Marquess had expressed the opinion that the present Acts were absolutely necessary for the efficiency of the Army; whether that was not also the opinion of the First Lord of the Admiralty as regarded the Navy; and, if so, whether it was now the opinion of the War Office and the Admiralty that the Regulation of which the noble Marquess had given Notice would provide for the efficiency of the Army and Navy?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not think the noble Lord had correctly quoted the statement. He did not say that the Acts were absolutely necessary to the efficiency of the Army or Navy, but that he thought

1867
they had tended to increase the efficiency of the Army and Navy.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked when the Bill for the better protection of young persons would be brought in? The removal of the police charged with the execution of the Acts would render the need for the Bill all the more urgent.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the Bill was ready, and would, he hoped, be introduced immediately after Whitsuntide.
MR. WARTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether lately at Cairo, in one battalion about 560 strong, 75 men were laid up at one time in consequence of venereal disease?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Returns of sick at Cairo are not given by battalions; but on the 13th of April the soldiers of the force at Cairo under treatment for venereal disease amounted to 2·65 of the strength, which would only give an average of about 17 to a battalion of 650 men. By a later Return received yesterday, it appears that of the whole force in Egypt those in hospital for venereal disease were about 3½ per cent of the force.
MR. WARTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the Military Authorities in Ireland lately made a strong application to the Government to the effect that the Contagious Diseases Acts be extended to Dublin, on the ground that a large proportion of its garrison was rendered inefficient by venereal disease?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, in December last the military authorities in Ireland represented strongly the great prevalence of venereal disease among the garrison of Dublin, and urged that the provisions of the Contagious Diseases Acts should be extended to that City. It was not considered expedient to propose legislation for such an extension; but I have arranged with the Governors of the Westmoreland Lock Hospital to offer additional accommodation to diseased women; and I hope that this measure may have some result in improving the health of the garrison.

IRELAND—STATE-AIDED EMIGRATION
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Mr. Tuke's
1868
Committee, in conducting the State-aided emigration from Belmullet, have sent away numbers of persons comparatively well-to-do, who took with them considerable sums of ready money, and left unpaid debts due to local traders, and whether the Committee persisted in taking this course, after the facts had been made known to them; whether numbers of other persons, steeped in poverty, who applied to be emigrated, have been left behind, and by what influence it has happened that their claims have been rejected, while the applications of the less poor have been successful; whether it is true that among the persons emigrated by the "Phœnician" on the 27th ult. was a young gentleman, Mr. Richard Bingham, son of Mr. Denis Bingham, J.P. of Bingham Castle, and whether, after the Viceroy, Earl Spencer, had paid a visit to his father, this young gentleman was provided on board the ship with special accommodation, and has obtained his passage gratis; whether thirty-six persons from the Newport Union have been left behind, in consequence of mismanagement by the Committee; and, on complaining, have been threatened with forfeiture of their passage tickets; whether the Government will afford grants of public money in aid of a System so conducted; and, whether inquiry will be made as to the circumstances under which the local relieving officers recommended the persons chosen?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have been favoured with a Memorandum on this subject by Mr. Tuke's Committee. The Committee took every possible precaution to satisfy themselves as to the eligibility of the applicants. It is true that at Belmullet some of the local traders complained that assistance had been promised to certain persons able to defray the cost of emigration; but, on inquiry into these cases, it was found that in no single instance had these persons sufficient means to enable them to pay for the emigration of the whole family. The Committee could not be in any way responsible for the payment of debts of the emigrants. No persons were rejected or refused on account of poverty; but, unfortunately, some of the poorest, by reason of their large and weak families, were so unfitted for emigration that it was impossible for the Committee to undertake the grave responsibility of

1869
sending them to a strange country. With regard to Mr. Richard Bingham, his passage is paid for from private sources; it is in no way State-aided; and the suggestion that Lord Spencer's visit to his father had anything to do with it is wholly without foundation. It is true that 36 persons from Newport Union were left behind on the 27th of April; but this occurred through stress of weather, and through misconduct on the part of the owner of a hooker. They will be embarked to-morrow. Meanwhile, they have been lodged in Belmullet at the expense of Mr. Tuke's Committee. They are not known to have made any complaints; on the contrary, they have expressed themselves as well pleased with their treatment.
MR. O'DONNELL: The right hon. Gentleman states that a number of intending emigrants were rejected in consequence of their being very poor and having feeble families. Have any steps been taken for the relief of those intending emigrants so rejected; and are the Government only anxious to promote the emigration of those who are sturdy, and to discourage the emigration of all whose families which will be a burden to the country in which they remain?
MR. TREVELYAN: I do not know anything in the hon. Member's Question which really requires an answer, except for me to repeat that there are, unfortunately, some families so burdened with small children that it would be cruel to emigrate them. There will be no change in the operation of the Poor Law in consequence of the action of Mr. Tuke's Committee.
MR. O'KELLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these poor people will be compelled to go into the workhouse, or will they be allowed outdoor relief?
[No reply.]
MR. O'DONNELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire whether this refusal to emigrate poor people having families was in consequence of any protest from the United States Government against the wholesale deportation of Irishmen to America? He had seen a statement to this effect in the public Press.
MR. TREVELYANsaid, that that was not so. They considered that it would not be proper to emigrate any
1870
person to the United States who had not letters from friends or relatives already settled there.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORbegged to repeat the Question put by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), whether these poor people, who were admittedly unfit for emigration, would be refused outdoor relief?
MR. TREVELYAN: I have already given an answer to that Question.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: What was it?
MR. TREVELYAN: In consequence of the operation of Mr. Tuke's Committee, no change will be made in the operation of the Poor Law.
Subsequently,
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR, observing the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, wished to ask him, with reference to the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that only those families were sent abroad from Ireland who had able children, while feeble families were left at home to starve, whether any representation had come from the United States Government as to the character of the emigration to America which was being carried on under the control of the English Government?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he required Notice of the Question.
MR. MAC IVERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, whether it was not the fact that the United States authorities absolutely declined to receive infirm people; and whether, if sent to America, both young and old would not be sent back, and only those able to support themselves allowed to remain?
MR. TREVELYANsaid, that a portion of this Question should be addressed to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He would be glad to answer any part that came within his province, if the hon. Member would give Notice of the Question.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had not already stated that the only people who were being emigrated from Ireland were those who had families able to support them in America?
MR. TREVELYAN: I spoke of families which had a due proportion of workers and non-workers.

PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) ACT, 1878, 41 & 42 VIC. c. 52, s. 149—INFECTIOUS DISEASES—CASE OF BARTHOLOMEWROE.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the investigation relative to the outbreak of typhus fever in Jones's Court, Dublin, has terminated, and with what result?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, this matter has been inquired into as fully as possible by the Medical Inspector of the Local Government Board, and copies of his Reports have been furnished by the Government to the Corporation of Dublin. They go to show that, while it is to be regretted that the dispensary doctor, who was a newly-appointed officer, and not familiar with all the provisions of the Public Health Act, did not promptly report the nature of Roe's illness to the officer of the Corporation, who might have taken steps to prevent the holding of a wake, yet there is no reason to think that he was guilty of any wilful neglect of duty; and, as has already been stated, the weight of evidence goes to show that the fever was not spread by the wake, but by concealment on the part of those families in which the disease first appeared. There does not appear to be any manner in which the Government can further interfere usefully in the matter; but they will be interested to know what action will be taken by the Corporation?
MR. GRAYasked if the right lion. Gentleman desired to convey an opinion that the Corporation of Dublin was in any way responsible?
MR. TREVELYANreplied, that the medical dispensary officer ought to have reported the outbreak. He thought this medical officer was appointed by the Corporation.
MR. GRAY: As a matter of fact, the Corporation of Dublin have nothing whatever to do with his appointment.

MERCANTILE MARINE—LOSS OF LIFE AT SEA.
SIR JOHN HAYasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will be good enough to supply some further information in detail of the extraordinary loss of life (shown in Parliamentary Paper, No. 143) of 3,006 of the crews of British
1872
ships during 1881, 1882; and, whether he can say that the rate is increasing or diminishing in 1883?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, the Parliamentary Paper, to which the right hon. and gallant Member had alluded, was itself merely a summary Return annually presented to Parliament, and which contained details of the shipwrecks and loss of life each year. The Return for 1882 was issued about a month since, and that Return would give all the detailed information the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted. The information for the present year was necessarily imperfect; and he did not feel in a position to say whether the loss of life would be as great in proportion as during the last few years.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS FOR THE SHILLELAGH UNION, CO. GALWAY.
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state the result of his inquiries as to the Poor Law election at Shillelagh, and the refusal of the clerk of the Union to accept the nomination of Mr. James Carroll by Mr. Michael Fleming?
MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that last week he stated the Local Government Board had communicated with Mr. Michael Fleming, to see if he could give evidence with regard to the matter in question. Mr. Fleming had not yet replied to the Board's letter, and the matter remained as it was last week.

EGYPT—AHMED BEY KHANDEEL.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a letter from Mr. Mark Napier, in the "Times" of May 3rd, in which, as counsel for Ahmed Bey Khandeel and other prisoners at Alexandria, he describes the obstacles placed in the way of defending his clients, who have already been upwards of six months in prison, on no specified charges, but, as it is believed, on a general accusation of implication in the massacres of June 11th; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to secure for them the same facilities for a fair trial which were afforded in the case of the Egyptian prisoners who were lately defended by English counsel at Cairo?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes, Sir; the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to Mr. Mark Napier's letter; but the facts, as to Khandeel, were already known to him. Khandeel is in prison on a charge of being privy to the murder of certain Europeans on the 10th of June, when he occupied the post of Prefect of Police at Alexandria. His case will come before the Commission sitting at Alexandria, which, after examining into the charges and hearing the witnesses, will embody the conclusions at which it has arrived in a dossier, and send them to the Court Martial at Alexandria which tries the case. The proceedings, both of the Commission and the Court Martial, are watched by English officers, and on the Court Martial there are two European officers, one of them an Englishman. The complaint made by Mr. Napier is that, as counsel to Ahmed Khandeel, he has not been allowed access to his client previous to the preparation of the dossier of the case by the Commission as a preliminary to the trial. The Secretary of State is informed by Lord Dufferin that this would be contrary to the French procedure, which is in use in Egypt; and he has, consequently, declined to interfere in the matter, as he cannot undertake the responsibility of controlling the Egyptian tribunals, when dealing with persons who are accused, not of political crimes, but of murder, arson, theft, and burglary; and his Excellency altogether denies that the cases of Arabi and of Ahmed Khandeel have any connection, or that the instructions received in regard to the trial of the former can be held to apply to the latter.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the noble Lord whether one of the counts in the indictment against Arabi Pasha was not that he was privy to the massacres at Alexandria on the 11th of June, which is precisely the crime with which Ahmed Bey and other prisoners were charged?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes; these charges against Arabi Pasha were carefully gone into, and the inquiry was watched by a distinguished English officer specially deputed for the purpose. The charges not being proved, they were withdrawn, and Arabi was not condemned upon them.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Is it not the case that, owing to the in-
1874
fluence of the Secretary of State, English counsel were allowed to have access to Arabi, to enable him to disprove the charges; and, if Ahmed Bey and the other prisoners were detained under similar charges, why was it the Secretary of State did not use his influence in a similar way?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The noble Lord is under a misapprehension. The trial of Arabi was before a different tribunal altogether. That tribunal has been dissolved, and this is a tribunal which has been carefully arranged, with a view to secure a fair trial; and it is also watched by English officers, as I explained just now, which is owing to the action—I will not say the interference—of the English Government. This tribunal will proceed according to the ordinary law of Egypt.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I should like to ask whether, by the words "carefully arranged," the noble Lord meant the tribunal which is to try these men has been composed under the advice of Lord Dufferin, acting under instructions from the Secretary of State; and why, if the Secretary of State had arranged the tribunal with the Egyptian Government, he did not use his influence with that Government in the same way as in the case of Arabi that counsel should have access to the prisoners?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I did not say carefully arranged; I said carefully arranged with a view to secure a fair trial.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish to ask why the English counsel, the charge being the same as in Arabi's case, were debarred from having access to the prisoners; and whether the Government will or will not interfere to enable Ahmed Bey to prepare his defence?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot answer that Question without Notice; but I have already answered that this tribunal is not the same tribunal. [An hon. Member: What has that to do with it?] It had a great deal to do with it, because Arabi and his immediate associates come fairly under the distinction of being political prisoners. The men now referred to were charged with crimes in no sense political, but murder, burglary, arson, and theft,
MR. GORST: Will the noble Lord state what are the precise peculiarities of the tribunal, as now "arranged," which makes the appearance of English counsel impossible, or does he object to do so?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: If the hon. and learned Member refers to Mr. Mark Napier's letter, out of which the Questions have arisen, he will find the information he desires.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLrose again, but—
MR. SPEAKER, interposing, said. Various Questions have been already put to the noble Lord upon this matter, and many of them without Notice; and though I will not say they have been out of Order, yet I am bound to state that this practice of putting Questions without Notice is inconvenient.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg to give Notice that on Monday I shall put a Question on the subject to the Prime Minister, who is the only Minister from whom we can get information.
MR. O'DONNELL, who rose amidst cries of "Order," asked whether the noble Lord could say whether the British officers of whom he spoke were the same as those who had supervised the trials of the alleged assassins in the Palmer case? [Renewed cries of "Order!"]
[No reply."]

THE NATIONAL LIBERAL CLUB.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, If he is aware that the white ensign has been hoisted over the premises of the National Liberal Union at Charing Cross; and, whether this has been done by permission of the Admiralty; and, if not, whether he will give directions to prevent the regulations being violated by this and other convivial institutions?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps, Sir, I may be allowed to answer for my hon. Friend. Not having had occasion recently to pass the building occupied by the National Liberal Club, I was not aware of the fact stated in this Question. But if it is the case that the white ensign has been hoisted, I can only express, as a member of the Club, my regret that any decoration should be used which hurts the feelings of the hon. Baronet, This regret is, under Regula-
1876
tions, the only punishment which members of the Club may suffer, as the penalties provided by the Merchant Shipping Acts only apply to the improper use of flags afloat, and there is no restriction as to the flags which anyone may hoist on shore.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he might be showing his ignorance; but did not the Regulations of the Admiralty apply to seaport towns?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he did not wish to add to the answer he had given, which correctly expressed the state of the law upon the subject. If the hon. Member had any further information he wished to obtain, perhaps he would be good enough to give Notice.

THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION COURT—COURT VALUERS.
MR. SEXTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with respect to the inability of the Irish Land Commission Court to deal with the mass of appeals before it, Whether he has considered, as a matter of public policy, the probable effect of continuing, in connection with the Appeal Court, the present system of Court Valuers, some of whom, after having themselves been unsuccessful applicants for the place of Sub-Commissioners, and all of whom are dependent for continued employment as Court Valuers upon such a level of appeal valuation and such a course of appeal judgments as may continue to encourage the presentation of appeals by showing a general increase of the rents decreed by the Sub-Commissioners; and, whether, with a view to restrict the number of appeals, and thereby assist the Land Commission Court to meet the demands upon it, the Government will consider the expediency of discontinuing the employment of Court Valuers in connection with the Court of Appeal, and will enable that Court to consider and decide appeals upon the material afforded by the Sub-Commission Courts, namely, the sworn evidence of the parties and their respective valuers, and the valuation arrived at in the case of each holding by the Sub-Commissioners who inspect it?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the First Lord of the Treasury wrote to the Land Commissioners on the subject of this Ques-

1877
tion; and he received a Memorandum which, perhaps, I had better read. It is as follows:—
"The system now adopted by the Land Commissioners in re-hearing cases is to have each holding, the rent of which is the subject of appeal, valued by one or more of the Court Valuers, who are all persons selected for their special knowledge of the value of land. A special Report on each holding is made by the Valuers for the information of the Commissioners when re-hearing the case; but the Commissioners are merely assisted, not in the remotest degree bound, by this Report, in coming to a decision, and the fact that they are provided with it in no way delays their proceedings; on the contrary, it expedites them. The Commissioners re-hear all the evidence in each case given in the Court below that is presented to them, and the Report of their own Valuer materially assists them in arriving at a correct judgment. What the effect might be on the number of appeals of discontinuing the system of valuations by Court Valuers, whether to increase or diminish them, cannot possibly be estimated; but the result of such discontinuance would be that the Commissioners would be deprived of the most important aid in carrying on their work—aid which is essential to the satisfactory discharge of their functions, and which they, therefore, cannot dispense with."
The principal point in the Question, which is not adverted to in the foregoing Memorandum, appears to be that the Valuers have a personal interest in fixing rents high, in order that landlords may be induced to appeal. It might, on the same principle, be argued that Sub-Commissioners, being appointed only temporarily, have an interest in fixing rents low, in order that tenants might be induced to bring their cases into Court. The Government cannot admit either point of view, and do not see any reason to interfere with the present system on the ground suggested by the hon. Member.

PARLIAMENT—MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If any opportunity, other than that offered by the Estimates, will be given to the House for discussing the scheme under which the Lord President of the Council will, in addition to his existing duties, become the Minister for Agriculture?
MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to say, in reply, that he was not aware that any other opportunity than that mentioned in the Question would be given. An Order in Council had been passed in connection with this subject,
1878
and would be laid on the Table of the House. Legislation would not be necessary.

WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC—AUSTRALIAN COLONIES—ANNEXATION OF NEW GUINEA BY QUEENSLAND.
MR. O'KELLYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any representation has been made to Her Majesty's Government by the Government of Holland on the subject of the proposed annexation of New Guinea?
MR. GLADSTONE: No communication has been received from the Dutch Government on the subject to which the hon. Member refers.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to announce that we propose to take the Navy Estimates on Monday and the Civil Service Estimates on Thursday, when we shall propose to break off from their consideration sufficiently early to enable my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make the necessary introductory statement in laying on the Table of the House the Landlord and Tenant Bill. We propose, too, that the first day after the Recess shall be devoted to the Civil Service Estimates. I will make, before the Recess, such further statement as I may be able with regard to the course of Business.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now fix a day for the conclusion of the debate upon the Transvaal? The state of things appears to be this—The Motion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) is the Main Question, upon which an Amendment has been moved by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright). Several other Amendments are to be moved upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire should it become the Main Question, among which is one to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), which expresses dissatisfaction at the policy adopted by the Government with reference to previous events. It was understood that if the debate could

  1879
  be simplified and a single issue could be presented, the question might be settled in one debate; and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government gave us to understand that he would be prepared to fix a day for the debate. I think that, with such information as I have been able to collect, both from answers given in the House and from such communications as I have boon able to hold, that there is every reason to believe that all the Amendments now upon the Paper, and the original Motion, might be withdrawn, if the right hon. Gentleman, who has given Notice of an Amendment himself, would allow that Amendment to be taken as the Main Question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire would be prepared, in that event, to move an Amendment upon the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman. Such Amendment would run somewhat as follows:—
  "That the House is unable to regard the course which the Government have announced their intention to pursue with reference to the Chiefs and people of Bechuanaland as an adequate fulfilment of the obligations contracted by the Government in regard to the Native Tribes in that part of South Africa."
  If the Prime Minister is able to adopt that course, a definite issue would be presented to the House, and a debate will be raised which will admit of a speedy conclusion.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman presents this matter to me in an entirely new light. What I have understood to be the case was this. First of all, the statement is correct that I have referred to the simplification and the presentation of a single issue as the condition upon which I was prepared to say that the Government would endeavour to make some arrangement for the purpose of ending the discussion. At that time I certainly understood that the issue to be discussed was to be the issue raised by the Amendment on the Paper of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)—namely, the case of the Convention, which formed the basis of the present state of things in the Transvaal. Now, as I understand, the question is an entirely different one. It is proposed that my Amendment should become the Main Question, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucester-
  1880
  shire should move another Amendment, which has not yet appeared upon the Paper, not relating to the Transvaal Convention, but to Bechuanaland. That is a new question, which I must take a little time to consider, for I am not prepared to admit at this moment that it lies within the compass of the answer I previously gave.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would repeat the Question on Monday. He wished to know if it was then proposed to take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the Bill would not be taken until Monday.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—LORDS ALCESTER AND WOLSELEY ANNUITIES BILLS.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONinquired whether the Government would proceed with Lords Alcester and Wolseley Annuities Bills before Whitsuntide?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not give a positive answer; but the change which the Government had proposed—namely, that of giving a lump sum—would probably require another preliminary Committee; and he thought it would be the most convenient plan that the preliminary Committee should sit and take the Bill pro formâ, in order to insert the alteration. The debate on the Bill could then be taken on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. If that were found to be the most convenient course the debate would probably not be taken before Whitsuntide.

  POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
  In reply to Mr. Sexton,
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that, as he understood there was a desire to raise an important discussion on the second reading of the above Bill, he would consult the convenience of hon. Members from Ireland as to the hour at which he would move the second reading.

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

RAILWAY COMMISSION.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. B. SAMUELSON* rose to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on Railway Rates and Fares; and to move—
  "That it is expedient that the Railway Commission be made permanent and a Court of Record; and that, in general conformity with the recommendations of the Committee, the powers of the Commission be extended; and that, on application by a Railway undertaking for Parliamentary powers, a locus standi be afforded to Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture, and similar bodies, and to persons injuriously affected by the rates and fares sought or already authorised in the case of such undertaking."
  The hon. Gentleman said: We were so frequently reminded, by those Members of the Select Committee of 1881 and 1882 who represented the railway interest, of the large amounts invested in the railways of this country, that I think that, at the outset of the observations which I have to make to the House, it should be stated that I am satisfied that I, and every Member of the House who has paid any attention to the question, must be well aware of the importance of that interest. We know that the amount of property in railways is close upon, if it does not exceed, the amount of the National Debt; and we know, also, that the income amounts to something between £36,000,000 and £40,000,000 sterling. I think it is impossible, therefore, to imagine that the importance of this interest can be underrated either by this House or any portion of this House. But, on the other hand, the income of this property is, in point of fact, derived from the payments of the people of this country; and if the income of the shareholders and bondholders of railways is something like £40,000,000 sterling, the contributions of the traders and passengers who frequent the railway is something between £66,000,000 and £70,000,000. The question, therefore, is one of very great importance, not only to railway shareholders and bondholders, but also to the public; and I think that, when the composition of the Committee of 1881 and 1882 is considered, it will be seen that all the interests were fairly represented on that occasion. At any rate, if there was any want of representation, it was not on the part of the railways. There were on it
  1882
  eight or nine Gentlemen who were either Railway Directors or who were connected with the railway interest. I do not say, as my hon. Friend reminds me, that those Gentlemen directly interested in railways were in a majority of the Members of the Committee; but they were not constant in their attendance. I think that this was very praiseworthy on their part, and only what might be expected from them. In the course of the evidence, also (we sat 64 days, and called more than 100 witnesses), there was an amount of organization on the part of hon. Gentlemen defending railways, and on the part of the witnesses whom they presented to the Committee, which was perfectly within their right, and of which right they took full and proper advantage; and it may be said with truth that the railway interest was not only fully represented on the Committee, but by their skilled witnesses who were called before us. I make these observations because I do not wish it to be thought that there was not every opportunity for them to be fully heard on the question. Therefore, that being the case, we find that the Resolutions which were adopted, and to some of which I shall call attention, met with the approval of the Committee; and I think that, when these Resolutions met with the approval of the Committee, they may be fairly asked to meet with the approval of the House. It would be tedious, and would detain the House to an unnecessary length, to go into the whole of these Resolutions; but I shall go through the principal ones, and the Motion which I shall make in concluding my observations will be founded chiefly upon these. When I say that I shall deal with all the principal ones, I must make one important exception, and that is the question of the Irish Railways. I believe that to be a most important one, and think it is desirable that it should be taken up by those more competent to do so than I can possibly be. When I state that the Irish Railways, with a capital of £36,000,000, or half that of the Great Western Railway, are ruled by 270 Directors, 37 Secretaries, 20 Managers, and a corresponding number of subordinate officers, whereas the Great Western Railway, with double the capital, has only 18 Directors, one Secretary, and one General Manager, I think it will be admitted that there is

  1883
  something there which requires some I looking after; and I shall be glad to find that hon. Members from Ireland, amongst their other duties, will not neglect looking after a matter of that importance. The Resolution to which I shall have to call attention may be summarized under two heads. The first is that which deals with the Railway Commissioners; and the second, that which deals with the questions coming before a Select Committee of this House. Now, with respect to the first, it consists mainly of this—"That the Commissioners shall be appointed permanently, and that they shall be made a Court of Record." I am sorry that my legal knowledge is not sufficient to enable me to define precisely what will be the effect of making them a Court of Record; but in the course of my observations I may be able to point out some disadvantages that Court now labours under, and which I am told will be removed by its being made a Court of Record. But, in addition to that, the Committee recommended, and the effect of my Resolution will be to insist, that the Railway Commissioners, being made permanent as I have described, shall thereafter have jurisdiction not only of matters coming under the general Railway Acts, but also under the special and private Acts of the Railway Companies. And it is further recommended, and I think that is also a Resolution which the House will adopt, that traders should have a locus standi before the Railway Commission. The second group of recommendations affects Railway Rates, and I think it may be summarized in this way—that it is desirable, in the first place, that the existing classification, or rather non-classification—and I think I am justified in saying it, and shall be glad to show it by-and-bye—that the classification of rates shall be revised, and in fact that it shall be made, as far as possible, conformable with the classification which the Railway Companies already observe in settling matters amongst themselves. It has been recommended that the Board of Trade should take a more active part in watching the affairs of railways—and on this also I shall have a word to say by-and-bye. Perhaps this is the matter with which I shall have the greatest difficulty in dealing, not on account of some opposition on the part of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board
  1884
  of Trade; and I may say at once that that opposition is not unnatural, under the circumstances of the case. These circumstances I shall also allude to in the course of my observations. Now, Sir, as to the Railway Commission being made permanent. The Railway Commission, as the House is aware, was instituted on the Report of the Committee of 1872, in place of the Court of Common Pleas, which was previously the Court for dealing with railway matters. The former was found not satisfactory. I shall not go into the reasons, but it was settled in favour of a new Court. That Court has existed now for 10 years. For five years it was established as it were on its trial, and it has since been renewed from year to year. I think, if it is to exist at all, that it ought to be a permanent Court; and my opinion that it should continue to exist rests upon the belief that it has given satisfaction to traders, and that the Railway Companies have not succeeded in bringing any charge against it, or shown any reason why it should not be continued. Now, the Railway Companies, or rather the witnesses brought by gentlemen representing the railways, did certainly attempt to show that this Court was not satisfactory to them; and one most extraordinary charge was made against the Court, and that was, that the Railway Companies, when they appeared in it, were dealt with as if they were in a Criminal Court. Sir Frederick Peel explained that that could scarcely be otherwise, because the Railway Companies could only appear in that Court on some complaint; and therefore it is natural that, being always accused, they should have some sort of feeling as if they were in the position that accused people were placed in. But, beyond this, the matters brought against the Commissioners were very far from being proved. I use no stronger term. It was said that the tendency of their decisions was such as was prejudicial to the trade of the country. It was proved that if these decisions were prejudicial to the trade of the country, they were such as had been previously given on previous cases in the Court of Common Pleas; and it was further proved that in all questions, or at any rate in the majority of cases dealing with questions of fact, where an appeal had been granted, their decisions had been confirmed, and

  1885
  not only so, but by far the great majority of cases which were questions of law were also confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The main exceptions wore those where their jurisdiction were concerned; and it was perfectly true that there were some cases where the Superior Courts held that their jurisdiction did not extend to these cases. But with regard to them I may say this—that it was simply that their jurisdiction did not, but ought to have extended to them. I do not think that it was shown that in any case their decision would not have been confirmed if their jurisdiction had so extended. Now, it was also said that there had been few cases brought into their Court. Well, that is very true; but it was avowed—I think, at any rate, it was not contradicted when statements were made by witnesses—that numberless cases which would have arisen in which the public had reason to complain about the Railway Companies were settled before they were brought into Court, because the Railway Companies preferred rather to settle than to come into Court. Still, with all that, many grievances remain; and it is with regard to these grievances that I shall have to speak this evening. But I should like to allude for a moment to some of the cases which were decided by the Commissioners within the last year. They appeared in the Report of the Railway Commissioners, recently circulated, for 1882. It has been laid on the Table of the House, and it is to be found in the Library. Now one of these cases was a large Company's refusal to allow the public to use their railways as a continuous line of communication with another, a smaller line which had been recently opened; in fact, the case was between the Great Western Railway and the new line from Swindon to Andovor. It appears that the reason, and the only reason, which could be alleged why the public were not to avail themselves of this communication between those two lines was because the two Companies differed as to what was to be the Act under which the arbitrator was to give the award. They did not pretend that it was not possible to accommodate the public; but it was simply a question of what was the Act of Parliament under which the arbitrators were to be appointed, and to give their award. The Railway Commissioners very soon set-
  1886
  tled that matter, and immediately the public had full advantage of the facilities of which they ought not to be deprived. Then there was an Irish case, to which I shall not allude; and there was a second Irish case, in which certain facilities which one Company had given to another were withdrawn. There, again, the decision of the Railway Commissioners settled the matter, and settled it in the interests of the public. I mention these cases because they are cases in which it is peculiarly desirable that the Court should have the advantage of an expert. These are cases in which, if, instead of an expert judge, we had had expert witnesses, and if there was any discrepancy in the evidence, the question is, whether the matter would have been settled in the best way? Then there is another case where two Railway Companies refused to carry traffic by a certain route. Between those two Railway Companies another small Railway Company was, to use an expression which has become classical of late, sandwiched; and when the small Railway Company applied for a through rate, they were told, in the first place, that they were not entitled to ask the through rate because they were not a terminal Company; and, secondly, because there was an arrangement between the two great Companies which prevented their granting the rate. Now, one of the powers of the Commission is to control the traffic agreements between railways. That, again, is one of those matters in which it is peculiarly desirable that the Court should be continued in its powers. And there are various cases—one especially, the Corporation of Huddersfield, opposed against two Companies, I think the Great Northern and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railways. In the case above referred to, the arrangement made by the Railway Commissioners has been of the greatest public advantage. Now, I do not think it is necessary for me to pursue this matter further in order to prove that it is desirable that this Railway Commission should continue to exist. I may here refer incidentally to some evidence given by Mr. Balfour Browne. I do not know whether I should call it given on behalf of the Railway Companies. It related to the question why Railway Companies did not avail themselves of the power of using the Railway Com-

  1887
  mission as arbitrators; and this is what Mr. Balfour Browne said. He said that Railway Companies object to go before the Railway Commission as arbitrators between the Companies, because the Commissioners can use their knowledge acquired as arbitrators on every case that goes before them. Subsequently, in cases of complaint of undue preference, I think that that really was a most valuable piece of evidence, which slipped out quite unawares. I say that the number of cases decided is no criterion of the value of the Court; and I do not think that it is necessary for me to labour this question any further, because, if the Railway Companies did show a little animus against the Commission, it must disappear when they see that there is no chance of their getting rid of it. And I think I need also scarcely ask my right hon. Friend whether or not it is his intention to make it permanent. I think that I may take it for granted that, so far as my Resolution follows that recommendation, he will be with me. Well, now, as regards the extension of the powers of the Railway Commissioners to the Private Acts of the Railway Companies, and having all the usual powers of a Court of Record. My hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex is, I see, in his place, and he probably will be able to explain what will be the effect of making the Railway Commissioners a Court of Record. But I would just say this—that, if I understand the matter aright, the Railway Commission may now decide that a Railway Company is giving an undue preference, and that this undue preference should not be given. But, in the meantime, in this Court the successful plaintiff receives no damages. I believe that it is not in the power of the Railway Commissioners to award any damages to the plaintiff in such a case as the law now stands. I am told that there is a case of undue preference proved in 1880, where the plaintiffs are now litigating in the ordinary Courts, in order to get damages for the undue preference which was proved in the Court of the Commission. That has now gone on for three years outside the Railway Commissioners' Court, after they have given their decision, and when it will be determined nobody knows. But, under the special Acts of the Railway Companies, the Commissioners have no power
  1888
  whatever; and this is, perhaps, the most important point with regard to the Railway Commissioners which we have to consider. They may give an award in case of undue preference; but in case of overcharge, no matter how flagrant, they have no power. With regard to passengers, a railway passenger may be overcharged to any extent by a Railway Company, and the Railway Commissioners have no power to say you have charged this man too much; but they have power to say—"You deprive him of undue facilities;" and it is only in this roundabout way that the Railway Commissioners have jurisdiction with reference to that matter. Now, I think that if there be any case for the necessity of a Railway Court, it is as necessary as to the special Acts as to the general Acts, and I confess it is extraordinary how this was overlooked when the Court was established. Now, as to the charge against the Railway Companies. I believe that the Railway Companies, on the whole, do their duty to the public—that they do their duty according to their lights; and that, in general, they are well advised in their dealings with the public. But if, in the majority of cases, the Railway Companies could be shown to act in the public interest, there are also numerous cases in which the public are sufferers at the hands of the Railway Companies. I do not say that traders are not unreasonable, It is natural that they should be, because they look only to their individual interest; but Railway Companies also look properly to their own interests, but they do not look always far enough as to what is their permanent interest, and, in order to secure temporary revenue from traffic, permit injustice to be done. Now, this is the case especially with regard to preferential charges; and I believe that those who have complained most of the preferential charges are the agricultural community. It was in the evidence before us that Railway Companies, who cannot generally be accused of unfair dealing, have certainly arranged their rates for traffic in agricultural produce in such a way as to bear very hardly indeed upon the British as compared with the Continental producer. According to Mr. Rowlandson's evidence before the Committee, with reference to the rates for cattle from Newcastle to inland towns—and I

  1889
  believe also to one of the seaports—it was stated—and his evidence, I think, was not controverted—that cattle imported from abroad were conveyed from Newcastle to inland markets at rates considerably less than those charged for the same termini for English traffic. His evidence went to show that from Newcastle to Manchester foreign cattle in small waggons are charged £2 4s. 3d., home cattle £3 7s.; in medium waggons, foreign cattle, £2 9s. 9d.,home £3 13 s. 6d. From Newcastle to Leeds foreign cattle are charged £1 11 s., home cattle £2 8s. 6d., in small waggons; and in medium waggons foreign cattle are charged £1 16 s., and home cattle £2 4s. 9d. From Newcastle to Wakefield foreign cattle are charged £1 11 s., and home cattle £2 10 s. 6d., in small waggons; and in a medium waggon foreign cattle £1 16 s., and home cattle £2 17 s. 3d. Now the same thing occurs with regard to cattle imported as against British cattle, and also as to dead meat, between Glasgow and London. Foreign cattle are charged £1 19 s. 6d. per truck less than the Scotch cattle to London. With regard to dead meat there is a difference of 25 s. per ton—foreign dead meat is charged 45 s. per ton, whereas the Scotch dead meat is charged 70 s. per ton. If I am not mistaken, that applies not only to foreign dead meat when it is imported, but actually to the meat of foreign cattle when they are slaughtered in Glasgow. ["No, no!"] I am not quite certain of that. At any rate, I do not think it is necessary to press that point, because the principle is involved as much in the one case as in the other. I now understand the hon. Gentleman says that it is the case that foreign meat is charged 45 s.; I mean that the dead meat slaughtered on the wharves in Glasgow is charged 45 s., whereas the dead meat taken, not from the wharves but from stations not a great many yards from the wharves—a mile and a-half or two miles—is charged 77 s. Well now, there is the case of hops. No doubt, hon. Members opposite will have something to say on the subject of hops. Evidence has been given, and it was not contradicted, that German hops from Flushing viâ Queenborough, that is to say, a distance of 155 miles, including 50 miles by rail, are charged 25 s. per ton. But if those hops, or similar hops, are put into a truck at Sitting bourne, which
  1890
  is on the same line, but three or four miles nearer to London than Queen-borough, the same line over which the hops from Flushing have to pass, then that, instead of the charge of 25 s. per ton for those 47 miles out of 50 on the same line, is charged 36 s. as against 25 s. on the whole distance. Then we were told that if Bradford goods are sent to London and exported from London, that they are charged at a considerably lower rate than if sent into London to the wholesale warehouses. This is a peculiarly hard case, because we know that the competition between Bradford and the Continental manufacturers happens, in this instance, to be rather in the home trade than in the foreign. Those soft foreign goods, which have recently been used so largely and have become so fashionable, meet the Bradford goods in the home market—in the London market—and, in spite of that fact, the Railway Companies charge higher rates upon goods to be delivered in the City of London than they do if taken to the wharves in the City of London. Well, similar complaints were made with respect to wire to and from Belgium. It was shown that if you sent wire to a port in Belgium it was charged more than from Belgium, first by ship and then by rail to this country. And the same complaint was made about glass; another complaint was made with regard to coal. It was one which was urged by Mr. Muspratt. He stated that the coal was raised from a pit and taken past the manufacturer's door to a shipping port at a lower rate than he is charged for the shorter distance. And there was a number of similar cases. Some defence was, of course, made that it was the desire to encourage the import trade, and it was attempted to be proved that no one was hurt by this, but that some people were benefited by it; and the plea generally—and I am sorry to say that it was supported by one witness from the Board of Trade, Mr. Farrer—was this, that if the Railway Companies wore compelled to charge the same rate in all cases, they would not level down, but level up. I think that that is very easily met, because the Railway Companies already charge as high a rate as the people can pay. That is their guiding principle—they charge as much as the traffic will bear; but if the traffic

  1891
  will not bear more they cannot increase their rates—that is, they cannot level up. But this thing has been attempted. When the Denaby Main Colliery Company got a decision against the Sheffield and Lincoln Railway, there was an attempt to level up; instead of lowering the rate, they raised the Denaby Company and raised the rate to other parties. What was the effect of that? The traffic was enormously diminished in three months, and they had to level down again after having tried levelling up; and the same with other cases, I believe. But my answer, apart from what may be expected as to whether the Companies will level down or level up, is that the railways are the public highways of the country, and it is not to be tolerated that the Railway Companies should be able to arrange the rates in such a way as to favour one trade, or one country, or one district against another. So long as this is in their power, without any check, railway managers may be capable and may be honest, but they may be incapable or corrupt. I do not accuse any man; but I do say that that state of things which permits men, who may be incapable, to influence, for good or evil, the trade of the country by arbitrary acts, is not a state of things which can be tolerated, and that some remedy must be provided. But it may be said, with regard to the case of undue preference, that there are already sufficient powers—why do not traders go before the Railway Commissioners? I think Mr. Farrer put that well. He said that the London Tavern is open to everyone, but that it is a very expensive place to go into. But it is not only a question of expense. And moreover, with regard to that, it is hardly to be expected that individuals will fight cases by which all their neighbours will profit. But it is not only a question of expense. Individual members of the public are afraid to encounter Railway Companies; and this was specially emphasized by Mr. Balfour Browne. He said that the Railway Companies have opportunities of making traders suffer, which prevent them from coming into the Railway Commissioners' Court. I can give instances, but I will not do so. But I see my Friend the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. Howard). He had a little encounter with the Midland and North-Western Companies, the proceed-
  1892
  ings of which may be instructive if he should think fit to bring them before the House this evening. Now I should have been glad if the Board of Trade had been disposed to take up this question in the public interest; but we are told that it is difficult to decide what are public and what are private interests, and we are told also that the Board of Trade are not always able to do as they would like, and that the Treasury sometimes puts a veto upon proceedings which might otherwise be taken; and on this subject Mr. Farrer gave some very valuable evidence, which, however, I do not think it necessary to for me to quote. But I believe that, even as regards this, we may hope that a change will come over the spirit of the Board of Trade. They have already assumed the responsibility of calling the attention of the Railway Companies to cases where Railway Companies ask for rates which are unusual. I think that that is a step in advance, and I should not be surprised if my right hon. Friend, although he may not express his concurrence with me in what I think ought to be done this evening, I should not be surprised if, with a little gentle pressure, the new Minister of Agriculture may be inclined to take cases before the Railway Commissioners which are really of public interest. But this I do recommend, and this I am prepared to support, and it is that associations like Chambers of Agriculture and Chambers of Commerce should have a locus standi before the Railway Commissioners in the interests of the traders who are members of their associations. I have presented some 20 Petitions in favour of that course from Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture, and some other Petitions have been presented by other hon. Members. There is one recommendation which the Committee made, and about which there was considerable contest, and that was the recommendation that there should be an appeal on questions of fact from the Railway Commission to another tribunal. Now that really means dragging traders from one Court to another, and we have had instances of how far that has been carried by Railway Companies which should make us hesitate before giving that power. At any rate, if they are to have that power, I think that the Railway Commission should be entitled to say

  1893
  that, in any circumstance, the costs should be borne by the Railway Companies. There may be questions of great public interest which have to be decided. If the decision has been come to on a question of fact against a Company, and they elect to appeal on account of the case being a typical one, I think that the Railway Company should pay the costs of the further litigation. But this is, after all, a minor point. There is another way in which the Railway Companies punish the public, and that is the claim to charge for terminals. I believe that terminals have been exacted in cases where they were not entitled to charge for terminals at all. That is a very complicated question; but, at any rate, they have in some cases so strained the claim for those terminals as to more than double the rate which they were actually authorized to charge. They make such an unauthorized charge as 15 s. 6d. up to 36 s. or 37 s., and they account for the remainder of the charge as terminals. Now that question of terminals wants looking into. I am not prepared to say how it is to be settled; but it is a question well worth the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. But then there is another question, and that is the last with which it is for me to deal with in reference to these recommendations, and that is how Railway Companies are enabled to make such great variations on different parts of their lines, and how it is that Liverpool was able to come before the Committee and say we are placed at a great disadvantage by the differential rate which is charged us as compared with Barrow and Fleetwood. Well, the reason is this, that the only protection that the traders have in these cases is by the maximum rates, and these maximum rates are really in point of fact obsolete. They wore established at a time when people did not know what the cost of conveyance would be, and what the traffic would be able to bear, and the rates which were first established in 1840 or 1844 have been continued by a sort of tradition in subsequent Railway Acts. It also has arisen in a natural way. The contests before the Railway Committees have only been between Railway Companies; but whenever it has been said, "The preamble is proved," the opponents have withdrawn. They have never ob-
  1894
  jected to the tolls or rates being unfair. It was not to the interest of any opposing Company that the railway applying for powers should have the tolls lowered; on the contrary, the higher the tolls the better their old opponents, when they had squared, were satisfied. I think that there should be a revision of the tolls and rates, and there should be a revision, in the first place, of the classification. I wish to show how complicated this is. I would, in the first place, mention that the London and North-Western Railway Company had no less than 105 Acts—for I took the trouble of going over them—authorizing tolls and rates of various kinds, and it is so with the other Company. Now as to the classification. In the Great Eastern Act of 1862, the following articles are charged in the same class—hay, straw, tea, and silk. In one of the Great Western Acts—I am sorry I have not got the date—grain, dung, and sheet iron are in the same class. In other cases—as the Midland Railway—to show how obsolete these railway rates are, manufacturers are charged in the manufacturing district 3d. to 5d. per ton per mile; and so for cotton also, on the North. Western I believe, the maximum charge is 2½d. to 3d. per mile. When these Acts were passed neither Parliament nor the customers knew what the rates should be. In many cases they were taken from the old Canal Company's tolls, and they have been stereotyped in the Acts, and they are really of no use now but to enable the Railway Companies to manipulate the rates in any way they please, to the detriment, it may be, of the public. Then, that being so, I think that whenever a railway undertaking applies for powers, the traders affected should have a locus standi, and that they should have an opportunity of complaining of the existing rates. I say nothing about new Companies, because their rates, as a matter of course, are subject to this control now, but in the case of old Railway Companies asking for new powers; and if the Railway Companies will take this matter of the revision of the rates into their ownhands, and not wait till the public make them, it would be better for them. There is just one other point—although I am not prepared to go into it except to say that this question of the claim of the public to make representations to the Commit-

  1895
  tee with regard to the rates should not be lost sight of—and that is with regard to the much higher rates charged on many articles carried by the English railways than by the railways abroad. I think I can find one or two cases which will establish that point. In France coal is charged under 4/10 d.; in Belgium, 3/10 d.; in Germany, ¼d. per ton. Sheet iron is charged ⅔d., and hardware ⅘d. In England the maximum rates are very much higher, and not only the maximum rates, but the rates actually charged. Another thing is that the railways—I do not say on the pretext, but in consequence of the rise of coal—increased their rates very considerably after 1870; but in most cases they have taken care not to lower them again. I will give you a very curious example, and at the same time of the curious mode with which they deal with rates generally. In the case of Dockyards, evidence was given before us that the traffic rates from Staffordshire to the Dockyards increased 50 per cent some years ago, and that whilst the rates to other places about the same distance were lowered, that these rates never had been lowered. Since this was before the Committee some modification has taken place; but up to that time it was simply this—that private traders have done what they could to get a reduction and the Dockyard had not paid any attention to the matter, and the consequence was that those rates were not reduced, and they were 50 per cent, on the average, higher than for similar distances to the trading ports. Well, Sir, I think it is not necessary that I should go any further into the evidence. I believe that no one in this House desires to do anything that should shako the confidence of railway shareholders in the good faith of Parliament; but I do feel sure that it is necessary, for the sake of the maintenance of our position as traders in this country in competition with other countries, that those matters should be strictly looked into. For that purpose it is necessary that the utmost facilities should be provided for redress in cases in which the Railway Companies have been justly complained of, and it is necessary that the classification, and in many cases that the rates, should be revised. That is the scope beyond which I shall not go—that is the scope of the Resolution which I shall submit to the House, I bag to move—
  1896
  "That it is expedient that the Railway Commission be made permanent and a Court of Record; and that, in general conformity with the recommendations of the Committee, the powers of the Commission he extended; and that, on application by a Railway undertaking for Parliamentary powers, a locus standi be afforded to Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture, and similar bodies, and to persons injuriously affected by the rates and fares sought or already authorised in the case of such undertaking."
  If the House should think fit to adopt this Resolution, as I hope it will do, it will be necessary to give effect by a Standing Order to that portion which relates to the locus standi of traders and others before Railway Committees. With respect to that matter, I shall be only to glad to communicate with the Chairman of the Committee on locus standi, and also with the President of the Board of Trade as to the best way of giving effect to this Resolution.
  MR. GREGORY, in seconding the Motion, said, the public were indebted to the hon. Member for Banbury for having called the attention of the House to this question, which was undoubtedly one of great importance. To the agricultural interest of the country it was at least as important as the questions of Local Taxation and of County Government, for it was obvious that by equitable rates of charge and proper facilities for traffic, that great interest must be deeply affected. The Committee of 1881 took a mass of evidence as to the constitution of the tribunal, and as to the subjects to be submitted to it, and there was no doubt there were many defects in its constitution. The judgment of the Commissioners could only be enforced by an action brought in another Court, they themselves being absolutely powerless to enforce it. The Commissioners wore also subject to the prohibition of the Courts of higher jurisdiction, and it had been the constant practice of the Railway Companies to move for a writ of prohibition so as to remove cases into the ordinary Courts of Law. Again, the Act of 1873 only gave power to Local Boards and Municipal Authorities to appear before the Commissioners on anything like a general question. It was true that individuals might make complaint, but matters of public interest could only be promoted by Railway Companies inter se or by some Municipal Authority. He was of opinion that the Commissioners had discharged their

  1897
  functions with great ability; they had had something like 100 cases before them, and they had decided them, on the whole, in a very satisfactory manner.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. GREGORY, resuming, said, he contended, therefore, that the Commissioners should be constituted a permanent Body with extended powers. The question of railway rates was a very serious one for the agricultural interest. Hops, for instance, had to pay 36 s. per ton for carriage between London and Ashford, but they were brought from Boulogne for 21 s. That was a very considerable extra charge; but when the difference between the distances was considered, English hops would be found to pay nearly double the amount paid by foreign hops. So again with cheese. American cheese came from Liverpool to London for 25 s., while English cheese paid 45 s. from Chester to London. Railway Companies justified these charges partly by the competition they had to contend with by sea, and partly in terminal charges. They charged for the money expended on stations and sidings on the assumption that they wore special works to which the rates imposed by Parliament did not apply. But the Railway Companies were not authorized to levy terminal charges at all, except a reasonable sum for loading and unloading, and for services incidental to the trade of the carrier, and he contended that the construction of stations and sidings was part of the railway itself, and that the maximum rates authorized by the Special Acts were intended to cover these, whilst the Railway Companies made a heavy addition to their terminal charges on account of the money laid out on these works. It was clear that the charges to which he had referred were prejudicial to the commercial interests of the country, and that there ought to be some fixed tribunal to regulate these matters. It was very difficult for an individual to go before the Commissioners and contend against a Railway Company; it might seriously prejudice him in his business, and to meet this, it was proposed by the Resolution of his hon. Friend that the Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture, and similar associa-
  1898
  tions, should have that power, and that proposal, as well as the other proposals of his hon. Friend, he cordially supported.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is expedient that the Railway Commission be made permanent and a Court of Record; and that, in general conformity with the recommendations of the Committee, the powers of the Commission he extended; and that, on application by a Railway undertaking for Parliamentary powers, a locus standi be afforded to Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture, and similar bodies, and to persons injuriously affected by the rates and fares sought or already authorised in the case of such undertaking,"—(Mr. B. Samuelson,)
  instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that the hon. Members for Banbury and East Sussex had urged so many conclusive reasons in favour of the Motion that it was unnecessary for him to go fully into the question. As, however, his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury had referred to him, he would explain that the firm of which he was a member had, some four or five years ago, a claim for terminals against the Midland and London and North-Western Companies, and that, after much fruitless negotiation, upon the firm giving notice of their intention to proceed before the Railway Commissioners to have the question settled, the Companies retorted by raising the rates payable by the firm most enormously, a course which, when the case was before the Commissioners, Mr. Pope, Q.C., the counsel for the Midland Company, denounced most emphatically. In his opinion, the Commission should not only be continued, but its powers should, in the interests of the trade, the commerce, and the agriculture of the country, be greatly enlarged. Experience had proved the necessity of the measures shadowed forth in the Motion of his hon. Friend, which he had much pleasure in supporting.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he felt satisfied that his hon. Friend was perfectly justified in bringing this matter

  1899
  before the House, and at the same time that he did not intend to bring a general indictment against the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom; for when he considered the mode in which the enormous business of their undertakings was conducted, as compared with the manner in which similar undertakings in foreign countries were conducted, he was strongly of opinion that those Companies deserved well of the country, and he did not think that it would be desirable, in the interests of the community generally, to render uncertain the investment in these undertakings. His hon. Friend had spoken of the large amount of capital risked in these undertakings; but he had not stated that the return even now was, on the average, only a fraction over 4 per cent. He did not think a less return would justify investment in this kind of property. His hon. Friend was, of course, aware that the nature of the tribunal before which Companies should go had been the subject of consideration by the present Government and its Predecessors for a number of years, and that the settlement of the question had only been delayed by the presence of other Business. He thought he might now say that the question was now within a measureable distance of solution; and if he should have the honour of holding his present Office next Session, he might see his way to introduce a measure dealing with it. Looking at the Resolution of which his hon. Friend had given Notice, he might say he saw nothing in it to which he could take exception; and, therefore, speaking on behalf of the Government, he would offer no opposition to its acceptance by the House. His hon. Friend proposed that the Railway Commission should be made permanent. To that proposition he gave his unqualified adherence. The Commission had done its duty uncommonly well, and its work was thoroughly appreciated by the public. The only questions which he would reserve were questions of detail—as to the salaries to Railway Commissioners, and the exact character of future appointments. What he pledged himself to was a permanent Court, with such powers and conditions as would make it a Court of Record. The next point in the Resolution was that, in general conformity with the recommendations of the Committee, the powers of the Com-
  1900
  missioners should be extended. He was glad the hon. Member had used the words "in general comformity," because he did not wish at that stage to pledge himself to the details of a Bill which might be introduced hereafter; but, speaking generally, he could fairly accept the recommendation of the Railway Committee with regard to the proposed extension of powers. The question most open to doubt was as to a power to order through rates on the application of traders. That was a matter in regard to which there would be considerable difficulty; but still lie was not altogether without hope that it might be arranged in practical accordance with the suggestions of the Railway Committee. The cases to which the hon. Member referred had been cases in which traders generally and individuals were injured by existing railway rates, and chiefly cases arising out of the inequality of rates which undoubtedly existed. But inequality of rates did not necessarily involve anything in the shape of undue preference. To take the case of the agricultural interest, cattle and agricultural produce brought from abroad, and especially the United States, were conveyed over English lines for lower rates than were charged for exactly the same produce when carried entirely within the United Kingdom. It was urged, however, on behalf of the Railway Companies, that if they were not to make these special rates the goods would be conveyed exclusively by sea. It was also urged that in the case of foreign produce it frequently happened that the quantities conveyed were very much larger than in the case of homo produce, and was, therefore, entitled to special rates. He did not offer any opinion on the validity of this defence; but it was evident that the matter was one for separate and full investigation, because, though there was an unequal rate, they must not necessarily assume that there was an undue preference. He agreed, at the same time, that the question as to whether an undue preference had been given was a proper subject for inquiry by the Railway Commission. By whom, then, were these matters to be brought before the Commission? He agreed that as a rule it was not a duty that ought to be thrown upon private individuals. The expense would be such that a private individual could

  1901
  hardly be expected to undertake it; and, under those circumstances, it did appear fair that representative bodies which were authorized to speak to some extent in the name and on behalf of commerce should have, ex officio as it were, a locus standi before the Railway Commission. If that wore the case, he had no doubt that many questions would be taken up and decided which were not at present raised at all. But his hon. Friend went a little further in his speech, and expressed the hope that the time would come when he (Mr. Chamberlain) would be persuaded that it was expedient for the Board of Trade or some Public Department to take up these questions on behalf of the public. He confessed he did not think that time was likely to come soon. His experience showed that wherever the duty was thrown upon a Public Department of undertaking prosecutions, the action of the Department tended to wear the appearance not so much of prosecution as of persecution. Speaking especially of his connection with shipping legislation, where this duty had been thrown upon him, not in the interest of property, but of life, he was bound to say he did not think the result had been so satisfactory as to justify any large extension of the practice. His hon. Friend proposed that individuals affected by alleged unequal and unfair rates should also have a locus standi; but, of course, he would not wish that whenever a Railway Company applied for powers, even when they were in the nature of an extension for the public benefit, that every private individual should have the right to harass them by going into every single rate or fare. Therefore, it might be necessary to protect Railway Companies against frivolous complaints by a restriction similar to those in the case of criminal prosecutions where the fiat of the Attorney General was required. In conclusion, in regard to the Amendment on the Paper by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), he would say generally that the terminal charges constituted a question of importance. He believed that the maximum charges now established were in many cases altogether unsuited to the existing requirements of the traders. They were extremely arbitrary, and the classification undoubtedly required revision. He did not think it necessary to say more
  1902
  on this occasion; but he hoped in a subsequent Session to be able to give effect to the pledges he had given in regard to the subject brought before the House on the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that, considering the course of the debate and what had been said by the President of the Board of Trade, he did not think it would be necessary or desirable that he should move the Amendment which stood in his name in favour of one uniform classification of goods and the recognition of terminal charges subject to their publication by Railway Companies. He entirely accepted the view of the right hon. Gentleman as to the immense importance of the question of terminal charges. He had occasion to consider the question practically, having been personally interested in the due apportionment of these charges. But, like the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), he had been a litigant before the Railway Commission, and, as a result of the litigation, had succeeded, to a great extent, in inducing the Companies to allot him proper terminals. He was, therefore, now affected by them in the same way that his constituents were. He concurred in the suggestion that the Commission should be made permanent, and that it should be a Court of Record. But it was an expensive Court, a fact that was due to the necessity of calling skilled witnesses, who were required on account of the uncertainty of the law. The mere reconstitution of the Court would do little to reduce the grievance of undue cost. With reference to the question of an unlimited right of appeal, or what might more strictly be called a right of rehearing, he thought it ought to be pointed out that this was a provision made entirely in the interest of the Railway Companies. The suitors in the Railway Commissioners Court were, on the whole, very well satisfied with the decisions of that Body, and when appeals had been allowed it had generally been at the instance of the Railway Companies. By the Act of 1873 the right of appeal was limited on account of the great abuse which had been made by some Railway Companies of that right. It was, therefore, desirable that the right of appeal should continue to be in some way limited. The difficulty of dealing with rates, on account of

  1903
  their number, of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken, would be diminished, if, instead of considering all, attention were fixed on the maximum charges, as to which it would be useful to introduce something like certainty and simplicity. The question had been partly dealt with by the Standing Order moved by the hon. Member for North Hants, which affected new Companies, and old Companies seeking to increase their rates. Under the Standing Order the Board of Trade was called upon to report on the question of rates, before a Bill was read a second time. In a similar manner Companies seeking fresh powers might be called upon to simplify their rates. The practicability of this was illustrated by a Return made some years ago to the House of Lords, in which the charges of some Companies oocupied several pages, and those of others only as many lines. Preston was peculiarly affected, because it was at the junction of two great systems, and inconvenience and loss resulted from uncertainty as to the railway charges. If he found he were supported by the feeling of the House, he should move a Standing Order requiring the Board of Trade, in the case of existing Companies seeking further powers, to make a similar Report to that which they were now required to make with respect to new Companies, stating whether their existing rates required simplification. A great deal of ambiguity seemed to prevail as to terminal charges, which sometimes were taken to mean the charges a Company was entitled to make over and above the maximum rates and fares, but had a totally different signification under the Clearing House system. It was his belief that the public would never be fairly dealt with under the Clearing House system until the arrangements which the Companies found it convenient to make among themselves were made binding as between them and the public. It might be worth while considering whether, when the Railway Commission was reconstituted, there should not be a Department of an administrative kind established, to which some of the functions of the Railway Clearing House with reference to classification should be attached. The Railway Clearing House was a voluntary association, to begin with; but it had since obtained Parliamentary powers.
  1904
  The result had been the formation of a great monopoly, which it was not conducive to the public interest to leave without public control. He thought, also, there ought to be some inexpensive method of bringing before the Railway Commissioners questions which could be easily settled by reference to the Company's books, and for that purpose an office something like that of the Chief Clerk in the Court of Chancery might be established. He agreed with a former speaker that this question of the relations between the public and the Railway Companies was of as vast importance as any of the great questions before the House this year. At the same time, after what had boon said, he did not think it necessary to press his Amendment, although it was his intention this Session to move the Standing Order of which he had given Notice.
  MR. CRAIG: I think, Sir, after the very satisfactory and fair way in which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) has received this Motion, that there need be little more said now on this subject. This is a very important question, though it has been brought forward in a thin House. At the same time, I am quite sure that there is no question which has excited the attention of the country generally more than this. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson) stated that the Committee on Railway Rates examined something like 100 witnesses. There might have been three or four times that number, if it had been necessary to call them. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, in his speech, made reference to competition, and he said that that was sometimes brought about by the Railway Companies very fairly, and that it benefited the consumer. Well, that, generally, may be so. At the same time, I think that the hon. Member for Banbury is quite correct when he sets forth the view that it is wrong to give to any body of men the power to induce competition between traders, without some public control. There is just one case to which I would call attention, in order to show how unfairly that power is sometimes exercised. It is a case which is stated in the Report of the Railway Committee, and that is the carriage of sugar from Greenock to something like 39 towns, at a distance of 292 miles, and the same

  1905
  charge is made for carriage as from London, at a distance of 150 miles—in other words, the Railway Companies are carrying sugar for the Greenock refiners at something like one-half of the cost per ton per mile that they are carrying for the London refiners. We have it on the highest authority—and the trading public generally accept this view—that the power to construct a railway is actually a contract between the Railway Companies and the public, and that, although it is carried out by the machinery of an Act of Parliament, it is yet understood that the powers granted, and by which alone they can become business Companies for their own profit, are to be exercised fairly and for the public good—that is, that they will give no undue preference, and that they will give equal advantages to all traders similarly circumstanced. Now, it is impossible to say how far these Greenock refiners have an advantage in the labour market and in other items which affect the cost of refining sugar; and, if they have an advantage over the London refiners, it is clearly wrong to disturb the trade of the latter by bringing the Greenock people into competition with them by carrying their sugar 292 miles at the same rate as they carry the London sugar 150 miles. Well, there is, again, the case of meat from Glasgow to London. The same Railway Companies charge, as was said by the hon. Member for Banbury, 77 s. per ton for home-grown meat from Glasgow to London, and only 45 s. per ton for meat which is brought from America, landed at Glasgow, and carried to London under precisely the same conditions as to quantity and other circumstances. Well, Sir, that seems to be a violation of the spirit of the law, at any rate, which, prohibits the giving of undue preference. Now, unless the Railway Companies can show that the producers in each case are similary circumstanced when equal rates are given for unequal distances, or dissimilar when unequal rates are given for equal distances, it is clearly a wrong inflicted upon the traders, either individually or in classes, to disturb their trade by bringing this competition upon them. The contract, as it were, between the public and the Railway Companies is, at present, in a most unsatisfactory state. We had it before the Committee that
  1906
  the Railway Companies considered themselves entitled to charge anything that was belew their maximum rate. They also said that they had a right to carry for different consignors at different rates, although the article was the same and under similar circumstances. Well, that seems to be a wrong—it seems to be inviting competition and to disturb trade; and although it may, in a sense, benefit the consumer, yet it cannot be a permanent public benefit, for it disturbs trade arrangements made by private traders, and causes uncertainty to every class of producers. I think, therefore, that the Railway Companies, before they ought to be entitled to make those great differences in charges, should be required to show before the Court the circumstances which justify such departure from the spirit of the law, and that they are inflicting no injustice upon any class of traders. The whole question is in a very unsatisfactory state; and it would be much more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman had been able to have promised some Bill this Session upon the subject, for it is a long time to wait for another Session, and we cannot tell what may take place before then. But this is a question which is most urgent. Trade continues in a had state throughout the country, and we know that the condition of agriculture could not possibly be worse; and yet we have this, what many believe to be a cause of great injustice, continued at least for another Session. Now, with regard to those terminals to which the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) has alluded. This is one thing which affects adversely the whole question. So far as the trader is concerned, it is perfectly impossible for him to ascertain his position with regard to terminals, or even to rates. If he goes to the railway station to ask what any particular rates are, he finds that he is confused with alleged terminal charges. Again, classification ought to be dealt with, because it is impossible to derive from any one rate book what the trader wants to get at. He is referred not only to a rate book, but also to a classification book, and this classification is exceedingly imperfect. Therefore, it is to be hoped that, when the Government takes this up, they will not leave too much power in the hands of the Railway Companies,

  1907
  because, although, generally, they may fairly be said to work honestly, yet they are not a class of people different from the generality of mankind—they are liable to the same passions and the same feelings; and we have abundant proof that they often allow feelings rather than deliberate judgment to dictate their actions, as in the case of the disputed coal rates between two Railway Companies in 1871 and 1872. This was a case of coal rates between the Midland Counties and London; and we know that this dispute between the Midland Company and the Great Northern in 1871–2 raged for a considerable time, and the rates were reduced 2s. per ton less than what they are at the present time. Well, supposing that the Railway Companies were induced to compete against the sea carriage, or against each other, for this foreign trade, and that they lowered that rate proportionately, what position would the English farmer be in? They are had enough now by being charged 77 s. against 45 s. to the foreigner; but the Railway Companies might, to secure foreign traffic, with as much justice, still further reduce the rates on these articles 3s. or 5s. per ton, as was done with the se coal rates in that battle between the Midland and the Great Northern. It is, therefore, clearly the duty of the Government to take this question up as early as possible, and to place it beyond the power of any Railway Company to injure any class of traders upon the plea that competition is cheapening the article and benefiting the consumer. Consumers are producers; and when any class of producers is injured, the wages of the workmen are, by consequence, reduced, the whole condition of things is thrown into confusion, and it cannot be regarded as a permanent good to anyone. I thank the House for the patient manner in which they have listened to my observations.
  MR. HICKSwas glad that the Resolution had received the approbation of the Government, the ugh he failed to understand that portion of the speech of the President of the Board of Trade which declared that differential rates were justified by the superiority of English over foreign railways. The President of the Board of Trade also said that, the ugh the differential rates on foreign corn might be unjust, still they did not injure the English farmers, inas-
  1908
  much as the foreign corn would get to London, whether carried by rail or sea. Well, that might be so; but, on behalf of the agricultural interest, he was ready to take the chance, and he only desired that both should be healed alike, and that justice should be done. He would now come to the main question. Some years ago he sat on a Railway Committee, dealing with railways South of London, and it appeared in evidence before it that a Railway Company, who said they were then desirous of giving increased facilities to the inhabitants of Kent of visiting Maidstone, were charging 3½d. per mile for local passengers for short distances to that town, and 2½d. a mile for through passengers for long distances. He suggested at that time that a rate should be uniform throughout the whole extent of the railway, but was told such a provision was beyond the scope of the Committee. Had these Resolutions been in force, he would have been able to enforce that system on the Company. He trusted that before long they would see their way to prevent further injustice being done by Railway Companies to British producers whether agricultural or manufacturing.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, as the Representative of an agricultural constituency, he wished to express his satisfaction at the manner in which the President of the Board of Trade had received the Resolution of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson). He only trusted that the right hon. Gentleman's definition of a measurable distance within which the solution of this question was to be reached was a right one, the ugh, considering the state of Public Business at present, he feared agriculturists would have to wait some time yet before their interests were considered in connection with railway rates. The recommendation of the Railway Commission to inquire into the existing rates and fares was one which was virtually essential to the agricultural community. With regard to differential rates, it would be far more equitable and fair that the foreign producer should be charged more than that the home producer should. He was glad that the Government had accepted the Motion, more particularly the latter portion of it. He thought it extremely desirable that in each case which came

  1909
  before the Commission an inquiry should be made, and that they should decide whether the charges were excessive or not. The President of the Board of Trade appeared to have overlooked one very important recommendation of the Royal Commission relating to the uniform classification of goods over the whole railway system. If that recommendation were adopted, he thought it would help very materially in carrying out the other objects to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred.
  MR. MONKwas glad that Her Majesty's Government had consented to deal with this subject, although legislation for the purpose of making the Railway Commission permanent had been promised before and had come to nothing. The Railway Commission had given great satisfaction to the commercial community; and, therefore, he considered it was highly desirable that it should be made permanent and a Court of Record. With regard to the recommendation of the Committee that Select Committees should have some authority to deal with the existing rates and fares of Companies coming to Parliament for further powers, he thought it was open to the criticism of the President of the Board of Trade, that it would be quite sufficient to give Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture a locus standi before the Railway Commission on all questions affecting rates and fares, he the roughly agreed with the recommendation that there ought to be one uniform classification of goods all over the country. With respect to differential rates, he could not see the justice of charging lower rates to the foreign than the home producers and manufacturers. Foreign corn, cattle, timber, and many other commodities from abroad were thus carried cheaper than home-produced articles. For instance, foreign hops from Boulogne were now brought from Folkestone to London for 17 s. 6d. per ton, while hops from Ashford to London, half the distance, were charged double that amount—35 s. per ton. Railway Companies justified these anomalies by saying that they were for the advantage of the consumer. In his opinion, the se differential rates should be abolished.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. MONK, continuing, observed that great anomalies also prevailed in passenger rates. He thought it most desirable to adopt the recommendation of the Committee that the Commissioners should have power to decide questions of passenger fares, and this power might be conferred upon them by the measure that was to be introduced by the Board of Trade. He would also suggest that the passenger fares should be printed on the railway tickets. This was done all over the Continent, and was found to be a great check against fraud. Evidence that this could be done without difficulty, beyond the necessary expense at the outset, had been given by railway managers before the Committee. He was glad the House was prepared to accept the Resolution.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYpointed out that the manufacturers of Sheffield had great reason to complain of the unfair rates charged by the Railway Companies, and practically the foreign manufacturer gained advantages in the matter of carriage at the expense of the English manufacturer. The manufacturers of Sheffield had to complain of the differential rates charged on certain railways, by which iron ore and pig iron were conveyed from Cumberland to Goole and Hull for shipment to Germany at a cheaper rate than they could get it at Sheffield from the same mining district. He did not think it for the benefit of the community that railway shareholders alone should be considered, or that the preferential rates should he maintained to the detriment of the home manufacturer.
  MR. DUCKHAMthought that no difference should be made in the rates for artifical and ordinary manures. Home agricultural produce paid much higher rates than foreign; and now it was attempted further to handicap the British farmer by doubling the rates for his manures.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he congratulated the hon. Member for Ban-bury on the success of his Motion, and assured the President of the Board of Trade that this was a great and a growing question. Owing to the depression and suffering in late years, farmers and traders generally had looked very closely into the matter, and they found that the Railway Companies were acting in an anomalous and arbitrary manner in the

  1911
  fixing of their rates. Every one of the railway managers who gave evidence before the Committee on Rates and Fares stated that the Companies did not know what was the cost of any particular service, or when they were charging too much or too little, and that the system—or rather no system—which guided them was that they should take all they could get, so long as they kept within their maximum rates. There was no other business in the country carried on upon such a principle. The farmers did not ask the Railway Companies to carry for them at a loss; but they complained that they wore charged 3d. per mile for service for which other traders were charged only Id. The Railway Companies had endeavoured by low rates to divert the trade from its natural channel; but this was for them an unfortunate policy, because it led to the crowding of their lines, and to heavy outlay for additional stations and rails. In some cases the difference between their charges for home and foreign produce was equal to 10 s. an acre additional rent to the farmer in this country. He could have wished that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could have gone a step further and brought in a Bill to carry out the views of the Committee, so far as they wore embodied in the Resolution now before the House. The only point he wished to refer to was that with reference to granting an appeal to the Companies upon questions of fact as well as of law. If that were done, it would have the effect of abolishing the Railway Commission altogether; and therefore he hoped, before any new Bill was introduced, this matter would be carefully considered. He should be glad if the Board of Trade would go further, and take up the question of enforcing the law, and seeing that the Companies did not exceed the powers conferred upon them. The public should not be charged in excess of the rates which the Companies were authorized to charge. The necessity for some body taking cognizance of the charges made by Railway Companies was become more and more clamant. He hoped the Railway Commission would be made permanent, with extended powers to enable them to deal with all questions arising under their Private Acts.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONremarked, that this was a very complicated
  1912
  question as well as a very important one. What the farmers and traders objected to was seeing a protective or preferential rate put on the foreign producer—not only corn, cattle, fruit, and vegetables, but timber and iron. He recommended the right hon. Gentleman to consider it well before next year, with a view to the introduction of a Bill which would be satisfactory to all parties.
  MR. BOLTONsaid, the debate had proceeded pretty much on the assumption that railway managers were entirely ignorant of their business, and the hon. Members who had taken part in it had spoken as if they alone knew how to conduct railway business. He did not rise to oppose the Resolution, because he was perfectly satisfied that when this question came before the House in the shape of a Bill, railway Representatives in the House would be quite able to prove that they had managed the railway business of the country in a manner which would meet with the approval of the House. But he rose to correct certain misstatements that had been made with respect to the Railway Commission, and with respect to what were called preferential rates, which misstatements, if they went forth uncontradicted, would lead to great misapprehension. Hon. Members had shown, or tried to show, that preferential rates were the rule, and equal rates the exception. As the Railway Commission had complete power to correct the preferential rates, and they had not done so, how could it be said that it was desirable that the Railway Commission should be made permanent? He believed the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion inadvertently said that the Railway Companies entered the Commissioners' Court with an animus against the Commissioners. [Mr. B. SAMUELSON: I did not say that.] He was glad to hear the denial from the hon. Member, because he begged to assure the House that the only animus that the Companies had against the Commissioners was the fact that there was not a light of appeal. He would now say a few words as to the so-called preferential rates. Take the rates for beef from New York as compared with Glasgow. As a matter of fact, Glasgow was not a place where beef was grown, but for the sake of argument it did not matter. It was true that the rate for home-grown dead meat from Glasgow to London was

  1913
  very much higher than for foreign meat; but how did that affect adversely the farmer who grew beef in the neighbourhood of Glasgow or anywhere else? It was not competition with the homegrown meat in any sense whatever, because if foreign meat was not sent to Glasgow, to be afterwards conveyed to other ports, it would be sent direct from New York to the various ports. By whichever route the meat went the rates would be exactly the same. Sugar was another article, and it was said, as one of the iniquities of railway management, that sugar was carried from Greenock to towns in England at a lower rate per mile than it was carried from Liverpool to the same town. That simply meant that if the sugar was not taken by railway from Greenock to those inland towns, the sugar from Greenock would not go at all, or if it went, it would go by sea to Liverpool, and thence by railway to the Midland Counties. The fact was, that the railway rates for sugar from Greenock to the Midland towns was identical with the rate by sea to Liverpool and thence by railway to its destination. And who was injured by that? Certainly it was not the refiner in Greenock; it was not the consumer in the Midland town; it was not the refiner in Liverpool, for there was the same competition by sea. The fact was that no one was injured. Another hon. Member referred to timber, and said that foreign timber was carried at a lower rate than homegrown timber. But the articles were not the same. The foreign timber was cut and stowed easily, whilst the home-grown timber was as it fell, and therefore was carried at a very great cost. That was the reason for the difference of charge between home-grown and foreign timber. Another hon. Member spoke of manure, and said that artificial manure was charged a higher rate than the common manures. Now, the artificial manure that the hon. Member wanted to be carried at the same rate, and at the risk of the Companies, was an article worth nearly 200 times as much per ton, and required great care in the carriage in order to keep it dry and in good order. Under such circumstances, was it strange that Committee after Committee upstairs had authorized Railway Companies to charge higher rates for artificial manure than for street sweepings and common manure?
  1914
  He merely rose, however, for the purpose of correcting the misstatements which had been made that evening, and to express his belief that the Railway Companies would not object to a Bill founded upon the Report of the Railway Rates Committee of 1881–2, and that they would not object in any sense to the Railway Commission being made permanent, provided they had the right of appeal.
  MR. RAMSAYthought that his hon. Friend had failed to recognize the ground of complaint. The reasons assigned might explain, but could not justify, the charges complained of. The farmers round Glasgow, and the people whom they supplied, did not see why the Railway Company should be allowed to charge them more for the conveyance of articles of home produce than for goods of the same description coming from New York or other foreign ports. With regard to manures, the object was to secure that all kinds of manure should be conveyed into the country at the same rate of charge.
  MR. FINDLATERsaid, the Commission had ably and impartially discharged their duties, and hoped that powers would be given them to enforce their orders. The necessity of having this power was brought home strongly to his mind by the action of the Midland Great Western Company of Ireland towards a small Company, the Dublin and Meath, of whose line they were lessees. The Midland Company had consistently pursued a policy of starving the leased line, with the object of being able to purchase it at a reduced price. An order was recently made by the Railway Commissioners, directing the Midland Company to accelerate the trains upon the; leased line by 20 minutes, and the way in which they obeyed the order was by slowing them for the same time. He cordially supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Banbury.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That it is expedient that the Railway Commission be made permanent and a Court of Record; and that, in general conformity with the recommendations of the Committee, the powers of the Commission be extended; and, that, on application by a Railway undertaking

  1915
  for Parliamentary powers, a locus standi be afforded to Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture, and similar bodies, and to persons injuriously affected by the rates and fares sought or already authorised in the case of such undertaking.

MOTION.

  SUPPLY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."—(Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked why the Government had departed from the practice carried out every Friday since the House met this Session—namely, to move at once that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply? If this new practice were continued, it would he in the power of the Government to burke every Motion on the Paper, and the rights of private Members would be reduced to a perfect farce. The present occasion was a strong case in point, because before dinner that evening the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave hon. Members expressly to understand that the Government would endeavour to get some Votes in Supply, and several Members had in consequence come down to take part in the discussions upon those Votes. It was against all understanding on which it was possible to carry on the Business of the House that certain arrangements should be made, and that late in the evening the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury should rise and upset them without Notice. It was, he repeated, perfectly understood that the Government would endeavour to get Votes in Supply up to a certain hour that night, and it was too bad that that understanding should be upset, because, probably, some little thing had occurred which was not satisfactory to the Government. He therefore moved, as an Amendment, that the House at once resolve itself into Committee of Supply.
  MR. WARTONseconded the Motion, on the ground that the House ought to have had some intimation of what the Government really meant to do, and because he was exceedingly anxious to get the opinion of the House on the way Business was done with regard to Bills brought down from the House of Lords.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "upon Monday next," in
  1916
  order to insert the word "immediately,"—(Lord Randolph Churchill,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'upon Monday next' stand part of the Question."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he declined to endorse the doctrine that the Government were bound to renew the Motion to go into Committee of Supply. It was not supported by authority, and no precedents had been adduced. On the present occasion there was a strong reason why the Government, so far as they could control the time of the House, should now proceed with other Business. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland desired to proceed with the Motion for introducing the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Bill, the debate on which had been adjourned after the important division that morning. This was a matter of great importance at present, and it was the absolute duty of the Government to take the earliest opportunity of laying it before the House. The engagement the Government entered into had been strictly kept. It was that the Government would endeavour to obtain Supply if they could do so before 11 o'clock, which hour had passed. The time was named with the object of consulting the convenience of hon. Members from Ireland who were specially interested in the Bill. He hoped the noble Lord would see the reasonableness of conforming to the understanding which had been come to so distinctly, even to the naming of the hour.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKthought he could cite authority in support of the doctrine repudiated by the Prime Minister. This question of the obligation of the Government to repeat the Motion for Supply was one he had raised on former occasions. In 1861, under the Leadership of Lord Palmerston, arrangements wore made which were favourable to the Government, and which abrogated the rights of private Members. Up to that time, Thursday night was a private Members' night, and they had the right to raise any question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Lord Palmerston took Thursday nights for the Government, and provided by Standing Order for the adjournment from Friday to Monday, so

  1917
  that no discussion could take place on the Motion to Adjourn; but, as a compensation, he gave private Members fuller rights on Supply. It was distinctly held out to private Members that Government should be bound to renew the Motion of Supply. It was obvious that if the Government assented to an Amendment, and did not renew the Motion for Supply, as they abstained from doing both now and last week, private Members were deprived of the opportunity of bringing on Motions. He voted against the change then proposed, but the Opposition were defeated. Some years afterwards, when Mr. Denison was Speaker, the Prime Minister endeavoured to encroach on the rights of private Members, and the Speaker distinctly decided that it was the custom of the Government on Friday to repeat Motions of Supply. It was very singular that the debate on this point did not appear in Hansard, although it was in The Times. He did not wish to use un-Parliamentary words; but he must say that the sharp practice of the Government in bringing in Bills from the House of Lords without Notice, and putting them on the Paper without any power of discussion, was very unusual. He should be slow to impute sinister motives to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, but there could be no doubt that he had a strong idea of limiting the rights of independent Members. If this were permitted, the rights of private Members would be at an end, and all that would remain for them to do would be to register the dictates which proceeded from the Ministerial Bench.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the Prime Minister displayed a most remarkable anxiety to take the Police Bill at a very early hour that night, in order to give an opportunity for its full discussion, although they were quite ready to rush it through at a late hour on the previous night, when no person could discuss it. Of course, it would not be right for him to say that the Prime Minister wished to suppress a discussion on jury-packing in Ireland, a Motion in reference to which stood in his name; but as the right hon. Gentleman was not generally supposed to be a statesman without guile, persons would be inclined to regard his Motion in that light. Only this week the Government, interfering with private Members' nights, made a
  1918
  seizure for a purpose, the true value of which was duly appreciated on a recent occasion. They now came down and at tempted to appropriate Friday. They must take this present proposal of the Government in connection with the other proposal to take Tuesday night. To night, however, was a private Members' night, and the course taken by the Government in refusing to set up Supply again would be regarded both within and outside of Ireland as a device to prevent the discussion of an important branch of maladministration there. Talking of Government maladministration in Ireland might be very inconvenient to the Ministry at the present time; but there was no doubt whatever that in Ireland the policy of Her Majesty's Government—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the subject before the House.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I was using the argument that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the subject before the House.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, it was quite evident that the Premier, with the evident concurrence of his Chief Secretary, was most anxious to press forward this Police Bill now, at a time when the Irish Members would have had an opportunity of bringing forward some important grievances, of which Notice had been given. Of course, if the discussion was now suppressed, they should take another opportunity to bring those grievances under the Notice of the House. In his opinion, the time had come for private Members to form combinations to defeat the continual conspiracies which, if not hatched on the Treasury Bench, were certainly hatched in its immediate vicinity.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he must protest against this additional manœuvre on the part of the Government. The Government, which had itself passed Rules for the better transaction of Business, was obliged to resort to a trickiness which was unworthy of it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to Order. The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are obliged to resort to trickery. I ask, Sir, if that language is in Order?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, on the point of Order, asked whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire had not the other day charged the Government with having resorted to a despicable trick, and not been ruled out of Order?
  MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to hear the expression of the hon. Member, but I cannot say that he is out of Order.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFthought that the Government wore rather thrown off their balance by recent events. In Sir Erskine May's work it would be found laid down that Fridays were reserved for private Members. Now they proposed to postpone Supply, on which the discussions of private Members usually took place, until Monday, when, under the Now Rules, no subject not connected with the Navy Estimates, which wore then to be brought on, could be discussed.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, it was most unreasonable that Supply should be put off when there was an opportunity of discussing it. The effect of this would be that after Whitsuntide a Minister would come down and ask for Votes on Account.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the House ought to consider the situation without regard to the special Motion or measure which was affected. If the Government wished, to introduce an important Bill, they had sufficient facilities, by means of a Morning or Evening Sitting or a Saturday Sitting, of doing so without interfering with the rights of private Members or infringing the Standing Orders. It was a dangerous principle to set up that it was desirable to do evil that good might come, and the Hon so were bound to protect the safeguards which secured to private Members their few remaining rights and privileges. He could conceive no occasion which would justify the Government in setting at nought the Standing Orders of the House. The House were willing to assist the Government in pressing forward any measure of public importance; but the Government ought to avail itself of facilities they already possessed without infringing on the Standing Orders.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONdeclined to follow the right, hon. Gentleman into a discussion as to the boundless amount of time at the disposal of the Government. That time consisted
  1920
  of Monday, Thursday, and as much of Friday as they could get. Moreover, although the Government had the power to settle the order in which the Business should be taken on their own night, they had no control over the amount of time which the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends might occupy in discussing that Business. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if the Government were doing something in. transgression of the Standing Order; but, surely, he could not have read it, as, in point of fact, it said nothing about the necessity of renewing the Order for Supply after it had been superseded by an Amendment. Again, Sir Erskine May's work, to which reference had been made, went against the contention raised on the other side, inasmuch as it stated that it was the exception, and not the rule, to set up Supply again on the same night. As to the particular case, he would point out how much foundation there was for the assertion that the Government were attempting to deal unfairly with the House. If it had not been for the special exertion of the Government no House would have been kept that evening at all. The Government had been simply endeavouring to carry out the undertaking given by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland last night to bring forward, at a reasonable hour that evening, the discussion on his Motion for leave to introduce an important measure relating to Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought it very unfortunate that this question had come up in so unexpected a manner in a very thin House. The action of the Government really amounted to a second attack in the course of the week on the rights of private Members. The usual practice was perfectly well understood. The Government put down Supply on Friday as the first Order of the Day, and up to any reasonable hour of the night private Members wore allowed to discuss Amendments on the Motion for going into Committee. If the Government, by the mere fact of accepting the first Amendment, had the right to burke private Members' Motions, he should like to know what the privilege of private Members was worth? It would be convenient if some Member of the Government not only gave them a general view of this question, but also cited the precedents on which that view was founded. He un-

  1921
  derstood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it had been the habitual practice of the House. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Then he repeated his challenge to the Government.
  MR. CAUSTONsaid, hon. Members opposite came down to the House, and from time to time expressed their anxiety to preserve the rights of private Members. He (Mr. Causton) was a private Member, and he was anxious his rights should be preserved; but he was bound to say that, in his opinion, the way to preserve his rights was not to abuse them. Night after night, and week after week, the rights of private Members were abused by those who professed a desire to preserve them. He wished to ask any Member of the House whether the rights of private Members had not been abused that night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) and the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), and also by hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway opposite? The hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. A. J. Balfour) came down to the House, and, without having heard at all what was going on, charged Her Majesty's Ministers with great neglect, and with abusing the rights of private Members. He (Mr. Causton) trusted that the time of the House would not be wasted by such unsatisfactory discussions as now proceeded night after night; and that, if they did continue, the Prime Minister would, at the earliest possible moment, take away some of the nights which at present belonged to private Members, and devote the time to the benefit of the public: service.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, Her Majesty's Government must be very much encouraged by the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton), because it evidently marshalled them in the way they were going. They were interfering that night with the habitual rights—he did not say the rights as defined by the Order when it was read, but with the habitual rights of private Members on Friday nights; and they were doing it at a time when they had, by their own action, provoked an examination of their conduct. On Tuesday evening, by an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the majority, the rights of private Members
  1922
  were taken away. The Government were complaining that they were unable to make progress with Public Business. They had themselves deliberately wasted four nights in discussing a Bill which they knew had no chance whatever of being placed in the Statute Book; and now they came down on a Friday, and, early in the evening, when there were two matters of considerable importance down for discussion, suggested that the House should pass to the discussion of a Government Bill. The Bill might be a good one, and of considerable importance; if so, let it be brought on in Government time. It was clear that, if the present Motion were adopted, Friday would go the way Tuesday had already gone. The Government had more than half the House amongst its followers, and it only required that in the ballot one or other of their supporters should get first place, in order that a Friday should be useless so far as private Members were concerned. It was not a question respecting the relative importance of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill and the Motion on the Paper with regard to jury-packing in Ireland; it was not a question affecting that night only, but one affecting every Friday night. He hoped a division would be taken, in order that some distinct and definite protest would be made by the House against the action of the Government.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he thought it would occur to the Speaker that they were now entering upon one of those technical discussions upon the Rules of the House which generally ended in making the Rule more doubtful than before, without any satisfaction resulting to either side of the House. Looking at the matter from a practical point of view, he had come to the conclusion that, so far as Business was concerned, there was very little chance of any good purpose being served by the present Sitting being prolonged. Holding such a view, and considering the late nights they had all kept of late, he thought it would be well for them to seek rest, and stop this useless discussion upon old and new Rules, which, he freely admitted, he never did understand, and never could. With that object, he would move the Adjournment of the House.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion,

  1923
  There were many reasons why the House should now adjourn. A chief reason was that last night the Government were in a small minority; and it was only fair and proper that the Prime Minister should have ample opportunity of consulting his Colleagues, between now and Monday, as to whether the House should be asked by them to transact any other important Business. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland might introduce his Bill to-night; and, for all they knew, on Monday they might find that he and they had simply wasted their time.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is the Adjournment of the House. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to that Question.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to afford Ministers an opportunity of consulting, between now and Monday, as to whether or not they would ask the House to support any other measures which they had introduced, or which they intended to introduce during their tenure of Office, which they must now expect to be very short.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Molloy.)
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he supported the Motion for Adjournment; and he was extremely glad that the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) had, by the Motion he had made, afforded the Opposition an opportunity of putting its foot down at once against the tyrannical proceedings of the present Government. It was a long time since they had had an opportunity of endeavouring to resist the manner in which the Government arranged the Business of the House, and for that reason he was inclined to support the Adjournment. He supported the Adjournment, too, because the Prime Minister had proposed to the House a course which was unprecedented, for which the right hon. Gentleman had not cited a single precedent. The Prime Minister was content to give his own ipse dixit to the House, and to say—"You must take that at my bidding." He (Lord Randolph Churchill) supported the Adjournment, because the House of Commons was not accustomed to be treated in such a way until the advent of the present Parliament. The
  1924
  Prime Minister must learn, and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) must learn, that the House of Commons might be led, but that it was not to be driven. ["Question!"] That was the Question, and that was the reason he was giving to the House for supporting the Adjournment. He supported the Adjournment for another reason; and that was, that it was extremely questionable whether hon. Members on his side of the House were not thoroughly justified in resorting to all the Forms of the House in order to prevent Her Majesty's Government proceeding with Business after having been placed twice in a most discreditable and disgraceful minority. He supported the Adjournment, because it had been proved that, for the last three months, on no question of public importance could the Government command the confidence of the House of Commons.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he wished to give his reasons why he should vote against the Motion for Adjournment. He should oppose the Motion, in order that they, on his side of the House, might enter their protest against the unholy alliance which had been formed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. There were three Parties to that unholy alliance, and the present Motion for Adjournment was one of the consequences of that alliance. He should take the liberty of reverting to a few facts that had taken place within the last week. On Monday last—
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONErose to Order, and submitted that the hon. Gentleman was not talking to the Question before the House.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, he was endeavouring to give his reasons for opposing the Adjournment; he was endeavouring to show that the policy of the Party opposite was the justification of the opposition to the Motion. On Monday last, they listened to a speech from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill)—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is bound to confine himself to the Question before the House.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid, his reason for opposing the Adjourment was that it was one of the consequences of the alliance formed on the opposite side of the House. That unholy alliance con-

  1925
  sisted of hon. Gentlemen sitting above and below the Gangway, of the Irish Members, and of that small Party led by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock himself. The Irish Members had lent a helping hand to the Opposition, and so had discharged their duties in the alliance. Now the noble Lord, in return, had come to the assistance of his Irish Friends, and was about to fulfil his part of the compact.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, that, to justify himself in opposing the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Buchanan) referred to what he was pleased to call an "unholy alliance" which had been formed on the Opposition side of the House. Doubtless, the hon. Gentleman had forgotten the very unholy alliance to which he and his hon. Friends had been parties of late. If the hon. Member had no better argument for opposing the Motion before the House than the fact that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House were for once united in resisting the continuous encroachments that were being made upon the rights of private Members, he did not go far to look for arguments. The Motion made by the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) was a very rational one, and must commend itself to the judgment of the House. He (Mr. Harrington) had no doubt whatever that, if it was put to the vote of the House, the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) would find that the alliance to which he had pointed was a very powerful and formidable combination, and that, no matter how widely hon. Gentlemen in that quarter of the House might differ on political questions, they still had some respect for the rights of private Members. The hon. Member would find that the different Parties composing the Opposition, or the "unholy alliance," had some contempt for the alliance that had been witnessed during the past few weeks between the Government and Mr. Bradlaugh. He would find, too, that there was a great contempt for the efforts which were being made, from time to time, to deprive private Members of every right they had of drawing attention to their several grievances.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is the Motion for Adjournment. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to that Question.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he was about to appeal to the Government to agree to the Motion that had been made. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government must see that, instead of gaining time by the manœuvres with which of late he had surprised the House, he would only lose time, and that the most rational course to adopt with the view of promoting Public Business would be to agree to the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had charged the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) and himself with being parties to some alliance. He desired to give the statement the flattest contradiction. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh had been in the House when he (Mr. Cavendish Ben-tinck) addressed some observations to the Chair, he would have heard that he simply argued that, according to precedent, the Government were bound, on Friday nights, to renew Supply when it had been once negatived. He recommended hon. Gentlemen opposite to study a question before they expressed an opinion upon it.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTE, as a Member of the House of over 30 years' standing, trusted that the House of Commons was no longer to be a bear garden. He had no desire to impute motives; but hon. Gentlemen who came in late and only heard a few moments' discussion did impute motives to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) tried to throw some oil on the troubled waters; but, at the same time, he endeavoured to sting the Government. He (Colonel Kingscote) did not believe that what the Government had done that night was at all unprecedented, and yet an hour and three quarters had been wasted in discussing what they had done. The motives of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the course they were pursuing, was quite evident. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland desired to introduce a measure regarding the Irish Constabulary, and that was the real reason why hon. Members from Ireland were now opposing the Government. He blamed those hon. Members above the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House who,

  1927
  on that occasion, had supported the endeavours of the Irish Members, and thus added fuel to the fire. At 10 minutes past 10 o'clock, when the debate on the Railway Rates Question was brought to an end, no one was ready to bring any other Motion forward; and between that hour and the present (10 minutes past 12) the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would have had ample time in which to introduce his measure. Some work would then have been done. He believed the Government were quite right on the present occasion, and that there was precedent for what they were doing.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Kingscote) that it was most desirable the House of Commons should not lapse into a bear garden; but he could not conceive any better means of avoiding that undesirable contingency than a scrupulous adherence to the practice of Parliament. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) had charged him (Mr. J. Lowthor) with having misled the House as to the Standing Orders of the House. The noble Marquess said the Standing Orders of the House contained no dictum upon the question now under consideration, and he proceeded to say that the interpretation of the Standing Orders to which they were in the habit of refer ring—["Question!"] He was perfectly in Order in referring to the Standing Orders in replying to the observation that the interpretation—
  MR. SPEAKER: The observations of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) were made in the debate on the Main Question. The Main Question is not now before the House, therefore the right hon. Gentleman is not in Order. The Question now before the House is that of Adjournment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would endeavour to confine himself to the Question, and would not further allude to the speech of the noble Marquess. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Kingscote) talked of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House being actuated by the object of retarding the introduction and passing of a measure which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland desired to bring forward. So far as he (Mr. J. Lowther)
  1928
  was concerned, that was a most unwarrantable charge. The hon. and gallant Gentleman could scarcely have been in his place, when he (Mr. J. Lowther) most emphatically said he should most earnestly support Her Majesty's Government in promoting, in any legitimate manner—in a manner in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Orders of the House—the measure to which reference had been made. He thought he was in Order in repudiating in terms, he would not say of indignation, but certainly in terms which could not be open to misconstruction, his emphatic repudiation of the charge which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made, no doubt unwittingly, so far as he (Mr. J. Lowther) was concerned. He trusted the House would consider the question wholly apart from the merits of the particular proposals which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) and of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and would regard it entirely as a Question of Adjournment, as a protest against the unprecedented action of Her Majesty's Government in setting at naught the letter and spirit of the Orders of the House.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry the example of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Kingscote) was not as good as his precept; for, while complaining of the imputation of motives, he imputed motives to hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House. The principal motive the hon. and gallant Gentleman imputed to the Opposition was a desire to retard the introduction of a certain Bill, to which he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) could not now allude to in detail. He would tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that as to the Irish Constabulary Bill hon. Gentlemen from Ireland had expressed no opinion whatever. At the proper time they would be prepared to discuss the merits of the Bill. They were fully aware that the Bill would be introduced at some hour of the night, and that, in what they were now doing, they were only keeping themselves a little longer out of bed; for they would be obliged, in the performance of their duty, to wait until the measure was introduced. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and his hon. Friends were not, intentionally, at least, retarding the introduction of

  1929
  any particular Bill; but they were resisting what they considered an attempt on the part of the Government to filch away whatever opportunities private Members had of discussing what were to them matters of importance. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Question!] He was surprised the right hon. Gentleman should give an example of bad manners.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Galway Borough has made use of an expression which is un-Parliamentary, and will probably wish to withdraw it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he begged to withdraw the hasty expression which had been used by him. He thought, however, the right hon. Gentleman was not justified in interrupting him by cries of "Question!" at a moment when he was endeavouring to address himself to the subject under discussion. Were they not then discussing the power of the Government to take away the right of private Members, in respect of bringing forward their Motions on Friday?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is addressing himself to the Main Question, which has been superseded by the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, under those circumstances, he would reserve his observations.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF, in answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), said, he repudiated the accusation that he and his hon. Friends had concluded a kind of Kilmainham contract. The Prime Minister had interrupted his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), when he said that the word "general" did not imply that the practice had been habitual in the House. His (Sir H. Drummond Wolff's) object in rising was to find means of avoiding the Adjournment if possible. If the right hon. Gentleman would point out to the House whether it had really been habitual for the Government to act in the way they had done that night the question was at an end. The right hon. Gentleman, in interrupting his hon. Friend, said that the practice was habitual. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) merely asked the right hon. Gentleman to state whether it was to be a permanent arrangement of the Government to take precedence after one Motion
  1930
  had been disposed of, or whether the Act of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Baitington) was merely accidental or exceptional? And he thought if some assurance were given on that head it night tend to allay the excitement which existed.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 83: Majority 34.—(Div. List No. 83.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words 'upon Monday next' stand part of the Question."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, a short time ago, when he was called to Order by Mr. Speaker, he was endeavouring to point out the serious consequences of the precedent now being set up by the Government. As he understood the effect of the action which the Government were now urging on the House, it would be that the Government could, on Friday nights, absolutely destroy those rights of private Members which the Rules of the House bestowed upon them. The Motions of private Members were brought forward on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply; and all that the Government would have to do was to propose that they should be postponed to another day, which was, practically, to postpone them till the Greek Kalends. He could not understand why they had adopted the course they were taking that evening, unless it was that they were anxious to defer the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Dun-garvan (Mr. O'Donnell). But why did they shrink from meeting the charge of jury-packing in Ireland? The Government had trampled on the rights of private Members by taking last Tuesday away from them for the purpose of the debate on the Affirmation Bill; but, then, that had been done in accordance with precedent, because due Notice was given, and the Prime Minister rose in his place and moved, and his Motion was subjected to discussion. But, on the present occasion, without any precedent, at least of any importance, in recent times, the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to destroy the rights of private Members as to Friday night. That appeared to him (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) a most improper and pernicious course for the Government to adopt. ["Oh, oh!"] It was all very

  1931
  well for the thick-and-thin supporters of the Government to affect political warmth, and try to divert the House from the real point of discussion. The reference to an "unholy alliance" by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) was an instance of that. But he would remind the House that hon. Members opposite, and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, had been very indignant when they were accused of the alliance known as the "Kilmainham Treaty;" and, therefore, it would seem that all hon. Members on those Benches were to be treated as political lepers, whom all decent politicians were to avoid. His only reason for rising, however, was to ask for some sort of reply from the Government on this matter. The real question was as to whether they were to allow the Government to set up a precedent for filching away the rights of private Members; and, on that question, hon. Members were perfectly justified in making a firm and determined stand against the action of the Government. The course taken by hon. Members on those Benches was based solely upon the merits of the particular question before the House—it was dictated solely by the desire to preserve the rights of private Members. They had no ulterior object with regard to any measure which the Government might have to bring forward; they were quite ready to discuss that measure fairly, and upon its merits; but they would not allow it to be reached until the House had had an opportunity of discussing fully the extraordinary action of the Government.
  MR. WILLISsaid, that hon. Members from Ireland had made several attempts to dissolve the House in the course of the evening. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had asked him (Mr. Willis) to stay away, for the purpose of putting an end to the debate.
  MR. BIGGAR: Sir, I rise to Order. The hon. Member promised to stay away.
  MR. WILLIS: I did not stay away.
  MR. BIGGAR: You promised.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call on the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) not to interrupt.
  MR. WILLISsaid, for a few minutes he had been inclined to acquiesce in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who told him there
  1932
  was a private reason why the House should not continue. But as soon as he found what the object of the hon. Member was—
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Sir, I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Willis) have anything to do with the Question before the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say that the hon. and learned Member is wandering from the Question.
  MR. WILLISsaid, in that case, he would conclude with one observation. From what he had noticed that evening in the House, he thought the Government had earned the right to select a particular subject for consideration; and he trusted the House would assent to the Motion for Supply being taken on Monday.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was not sufficiently informed in the niceties of technical manœuvring to offer any opinion on what an hon. Member had described as a "trick" on the part of the Government. But, on the ground of the rights of hon. Members generally, and particularly the very limited rights of Irish Members, he thought hon. Gentlemen on those Benches had every justification for protesting, in any way open to them, against this proposal of Her Majesty's Government. On Tuesday evening last, they had been deprived of the opportunity of discussing one Irish subject; and to-night an attempt was made to deprive them of an opportunity—a clear right—to discuss another question of the very highest importance and urgency. It was all very well for the Government to assume an air of injured purity; but if it was to be said that the Irish Members wanted to rid themselves of the Police Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Trevelyan) was to introduce tonight, they might fairly retort that this was a deliberate attempt on the part of Ministers of the Grown to shirk the discussion of a very inconvenient Irish subject, and that they would have had a discussion on the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) only that their complaint was much more easily made than answered. There was only one other subject to which he wished to refer. He desired to say that if this Motion were persisted in, what-

  1933
  ever might be thought in the House, the people of Ireland would think that they preferred the interests of the Irish Police to the privileges of the Irish Members, or to the rights of the Irish people in a very important matter; and that there was an attempt, at one and the same time, to obtain better pay for the policemen, and to guard their officials from the charge of jury-packing.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member (Mr. O'Brien) that he is not adhering to the Question before the House.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he was sorry to have wandered in any way from the Question. He only desired to say, so far as the excuse went, that if the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland wished to do some Irish Business—even though it were Police Business—he could only say that the Irish Members were willing to wait up to any hour to take it. They were there to do the Business of the Irish people, and were prepared to take these measures at any hour; but they were, at the same time, entitled to remind the House that there was Irish Business to be done more pressing and more important than giving more pay to policemen.
  MR. E. S. HOWARDasked how they were to believe what hon. Members opposite were saying? ["Order!"]
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member (Mr. E. S. Howard) is entitled to attribute falsehood to other hon. Members of this House?
  MR. E. S. HOWARD: I attribute none.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member intended—which I cannot imagine he did—to impute want of truth to any body of Members of this House, of course he is out of Order.
  MR. E. S. HOWARDsaid, he did not wish to attribute untruth to anyone; but he would ask if hon. Members from Ireland were in earnest in saying they wished to discuss the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), seeing that no less than four of them had that evening endeavoured to count out the House?
  MR. GRAYsaid, the House had been occupied t we hours on this subject, showing the marvellous capacity of the present Government for starting propositions which wasted the time of the House, with the intention, or under the pretext,
  1934
  of saving time. He would not go into the arguments which had been very strongly urged and fairly put in defence of the rights of private Members; but he would like to ask the House to consider for a moment what the precise position was with regard to the Business upon the Paper for discussion that evening. If the Motion of the Government were carried, all the Notices of Motion which stood on the Paper for discussion, of course, went by the board. They knew the anxiety of hon. Members to secure evenings for the discussion of their Motions. They balloted for them month after month, and a Member considered himself extremely lucky if he secured even a chance of bringing forward a Motion. The Motions which would, in the natural course, have come on that day would practically disappear, not only for that night, but for the Session, if the proposition of the Government were carried. If the proposal were withdrawn, or negatived, would the course of Public Business be delayed by one single day? Certainly not. All that hon. Members could be possibly deprived of would be a full statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. They would have a concise statement, instead of a full one, as the period of the night would render brevity desirable. Last night the right hon. Gentleman had been perfectly prepared to introduce his Bill without any lengthened statement, and if he could have secured a first reading he would have done so. Tonight, however, no matter how late the period at which it was brought on, it would not be in the power of the small section of the Members who might be opposed to the measure to prevent its being proceeded with, and to prevent the right hon. Gentleman securing for it the only stage he could secure. It could be taken, therefore, at whatever hour it was brought on; while the effect of the Motion of the Government would be to stifle discussion, and prevent a subject coming on which they could not deny was of the greatest importance, however unpalatable it might be to the right hon. Gentleman, and however embarrassing it might be to find an answer to what might be said upon it. The Government had not ventured to deny that the Notice of the hon. Member for Dungarvan was of great importance; and

  1935
  whilst the Government Motion would stifle discussion on it, the resistance of the Irish Members to the Government Motion, if successful, would not interfere in the least with the progress of Public Business. Let that be thoroughly understood. The hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote) declared that, from his 30 years' experience in the House, he knew perfectly well what the motive of the Irish Members was. It was, he said, to prevent the bringing on of the Police Bill. Well, that certainly was not his (Mr. Gray's) motive. He desired to see the Bill brought in. He did not want to discuss it; but he had no hesitation in saying that the position of the police in Ireland required improving, and he should be glad to see it improved. It was not right to impute unworthy motives to hon. Members as the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire had done; but, even assuming that they desired to impede the Bill, it was not in their power to do so. The Government did not wish to take t we stages of the Bill that night—they did not wish to pass the first reading, suspend the Standing Orders, and pass the second reading that night. And it could not be contended by them that they did not desire to take the measure at a late hour because the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not be reported. At whatever hour the right hon. Gentleman spoke he would be reported. Everything that fell from his lips was always well reported. The position he occupied in the House was such that he was certain of full publicity for any statement he made. The proposal of the Government was not merely a serious device—perhaps not unprecedented, although it was unusual—but it was one involving an interference with the privileges of hon. Members, and involving a stifling of discussion, without securing any sufficient advantage. The Government, if they carried their Motion, only wanted to deal with the Police BUI. Well, let them deal with that after the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungar-van had been disposed of. No blocking Notice could prevent them taking it at a late hour. It could be taken at 2 o'clock in the morning as easily as at 7 o'clock in the evening. If the Government had not started the present debate,
  1936
  in all probability the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan would have been disposed of by this time, and the House would have been considering the Police Bill. That was not the first time he had known the Government provoke angry feeling by Motions of this kind, and then complain of waste of time, which was solely owing to their own want of discretion. He would appeal to the Government to leave to the Irish Members the privilege and right they should enjoy of discussing an important question, particularly seeing that that discussion would not delay the matter the Government wore interested in.
  MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he wished to offer a few observations upon the importance of insisting upon the privileges of Irish Members not being done away with in the manner in which it was now proposed to do away with them. He had hoped that if the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had had an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion that evening, they would have been able to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a state of things existing in Ireland which, no doubt, he would not sanction if he were only as intimately acquainted with it as hon. Members from Ireland were. ["Question!"] He would not endeavour to speak on the Motion of which the hon. Member for Dungarvan had given Notice; but he must protest against the persistent manner in which Her Majesty's Government endeavoured to stifle discussion on every subject which was raised in the House of Commons by Irish Members. Irish Members now could only raise matters affecting their country by putting Questions occasionally to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and it very often happened that the information they received in that manner was of so scant and untrustworthy a character that it conveyed anything but an accurate impression to the House of the state of things in Ireland. If they were further advanced in the Session, there would be some reason for the proposal which was now made on behalf of the Government; but, as they were at a very early period, he confessed he could see no justification for the course which had been adopted. He did not see the urgency of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was to in-

  1937
  troduce that evening, m regard to which, for himself and for his hon. Friends sitting near him, he wished to disclaim any spirit of opposition. It was not the intention of hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies to offer any opposition to the introduction of the Government measure. All they were protesting against now was the continued interference of the Government with the rights of the Irish Members. They were in no way animated by a spirit of opposition to the Police Bill; on the contrary, they were anxious to see it discussed; but they would be unfaithful to the interests of their constituencies, if they allowed the Government to filch away their rights, and stifle discussion on matters of importance to Ireland, without strongly protesting. It was the duty of hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies to seize every opportunity to enter their protests against the action of the Government in endeavouring to stifle discussion, and slur over the present Administration in Ireland, which, he (Mr. Harrington) firmly believed, if it were properly explained to the House and examined into, and the attention of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government were called to it, would neither receive the sanction of the House, nor that of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 40: Majority 36.—(Div. List, No. 84.)
  Main Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished to confirm the accuracy of what he had previously said with regard to the practice of the House. On the 5th of May, 1871, a precisely similar case occurred. The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) was about to proceed with a Notice of Motion which he had on the Paper; but he was stopped by the then Speaker, and, the Motion having been negatived, he did not proceed. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) himself then rose to Order, and advanced similar arguments to those he had put forward tonight; and, in consequence of the arrangements made, the Government were bound to renew the Order. The then Speaker stated that—
  1938
  "The adoption of the Amendment supersedes the Question that I now leave the Chair. But, certainly, it is a course which has "been followed on previous occasions, that under such circumstances the Government should revive the Motion for the Committee of Supply."—(3 Hansard, [206] 323.)
  In pursuance of that decision, he proposed to give Notice that, on going into Committee of Supply, if, on a Friday evening, an Amendment was carried to the Question that the Speaker should leave the Chair, it should be obligatory on the Government, before proceeding to other Business, to move that the House should again resolve itself into the Committee of Supply. He now, therefore, wished to propose again that the Speaker should leave the Chair, as he thought it was necessary to make a stand in support of the small residuum of independent Members' privileges that still remained, before the time had passed for Members to raise objections. He was very sorry to see that the independent spirit had gone from hon. Members below the Gangway, and that they were nothing but mere followers of the Government.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), having begun his observations in a very becoming tone, should have ended by making a most unnecessary reference to hon. Members on this side of the House; and, after we have spent t we hours and a-quarter in this discussion, he should propose to make a Motion which would commence another wrangle of the same kind. With regard to the citation the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made, I must trust to my recollection; but I think I have a recollection of what occurred. He says that Mr. Speaker declared that, under such circumstances, it was the duty of the Government to set up Supply again on Fridays. But under what circumstances? Everything turns on the meaning of that phrase, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not able to throw any light on that point. My impression is, that that judgment was given by Mr. Speaker Denison at an early hour of the evening. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not appear to recollect that; but that is a most material point in the case. There is a very recent declaration from the Chair on this subject; for, so late as April 6th, 1883,

  1939
  you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that you were not aware of any Order or practice which, rendered it obligatory on the Government to set up Supply a second time on Friday, any more than on any other day. That is what I stated early this evening; and I again convey, in perfect consistency with that ruling, and, as I think, with the ruling of Mr. Speaker Denison, that there is no fixed Rule on the subject, and no absolute or habitual practice. I fully admit that it would be an abuse on the part of the Government if they were to so manage this matter as to deprive private Members of their opportunities on Friday evenings; but there is no fixed Rule as to the hour at which it would be right for the Government to set up Supply when there is important Business to be begun. We gave full Notice that at 11 o'clock we should cease to prosecute the Order for Supply, and it was three minutes before 11 before the Motion was made. I will not refer to this debate of this evening; for, although it may be necessary to do so on a formal occasion, I do not wish to adopt a retaliatory tone. We have no intention of assorting that the main portion of Friday evenings ought to be taken from private Members; but I am bound to say I think this is a case in which, as Notice was given, we were right in proposing that this important Irish Business should be taken. But whether we were right or wrong has nothing whatever to do with the supposition that, at an early hour of the evening, we intended to avail ourselves of our advantage.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had given very ample justification for the protest which had been made that night. He had made it perfectly clear that the use of the Friday evenings for setting forth grievances depended wholly on usage, and not on Rule; and the Government, when they chose, might come and take away the whole of private Members' time by a Motion of their own. That being so, it was essential that the House should make an emphatic protest against any innovation on the custom and tradition of the House. Every Government might not be so well disposed to recognize tradition as the present Government; and they must contemplate Governments which would be arbitrary, and would
  1940
  not listen to the claims of private Members. Supposing that time not to have come now, there yet was a very significant phrase made use of by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) in the early part of the evening. He endeavoured to define the rights of the Government and the rights of private Members. The noble Marquess said the time of the Government was Mondays, Thursdays, and as much of Friday as they could got. Exactly—as much time as they could get; and he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) thought he saw in this attempt to-night the beginning of an attempt to got a great deal more time than they had previously got. But the noble Marquess had not quite accurately described the amount of time they already got. They had Monday and Thursday, and as much of Friday as they could get; but they had frequently taken Tuesdays. After Whitsuntide, they would probably annex all the time of private Members; and if, under those circumstances, they were to be allowed, without a protest, to take as much of Friday as they could get, private Members would be unworthy to have any time of their own, or any claim on the hearing of the House. He thought hon. Members were justified in making vigorous remonstrance against the action of the Government, if only in order not to allow innovation to become usage.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped that when the Motion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) came on that day four weeks, the Government would not try to get rid of it by a manœuvre.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, a fair reason for extending the Rule that Friday should be given to private Members, and for the Government setting up Supply a second time, when they had accepted an Amendment, was that, since that ruling was given, all the other opportunities of moving Motions on going into Committee of Supply had been taken away. That was a reason why they ought to oppose all possible resistance to what they considered the shortcomings of the Government. They had no longer any opportunities; and when the Government now attempted to appropriate Fridays, by applying a Rule which they might have applied

  1941
  with a certain amount of colour in past years, hon. Members felt that the Government wore trying them by a Rule which was no longer applicable. They had monopolized other opportunities, and private Members must insist upon maintaining their rights.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House will, on Monday next, resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.

CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) (PAY AND PENSIONS) BILL.
  ADJOURNED DEBATE ON MOTION FOR BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [3rd May], "That a Bill be brought in upon the said Resolution" (from Committee on Constabulary and Police (Ireland).
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he understood, on the Motion for leave to introduce this Bill, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give some explanation of its provisions. He was surprised that the Government had so far forgotten themselves that the question was about to be put without any explanation.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that, when his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland spoke in the debate upon this Motion, it was impossible for him to make a speech in explanation. His right hon. Friend would be glad to reply to any questions; but he would not be able to make a second speech.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, it would be very difficult for any hon. Members to put questions, seeing that they did not know anything about the provisions of the Bill.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, he would move the Adjournment of the House, in order to obviate this difficulty.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. O'Brien.)
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to make a suggestion which, he thought, might provide a solu-
    1942
    tion of the difficulty. It was very usual, when there was a Bill of this kind, for the House to allow an hon. Gentleman to speak twice; and he was sure the House would, on this occasion, extend its indulgence to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MR. SPEAKER: By the general indulgence of the House, the right hon. Gentleman may speak again.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, in that case he would not press his Motion for Adjournment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was very much obliged to the House for its indulgence. He had endeavoured to deserve that indulgence the other night by briefly running through the leading provisions of the Bill, and by consenting to an Adjournment, when he found that was the wish of those hon. Members most interested in the subject. The object of the Bill was the carrying out of the recommendations of the two Committees of Inquiry respecting the Dublin Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary. With regard to the proposed increase of pay for the Constabulary, at the present moment that pay was regulated by an Act of 1874, which made permanent a rise of pay given by an Act of 1872. The main principle on which the present proposal for a rise of pay was founded was this—that, in the opinion of the Committee—an opinion which was quite endorsed by the Government—the pay for the unmarried men in the Force was already sufficiently good. But the Irish Force was a permanent Force, and, amongst the other qualities of a permanent Force, it had the quality of domesticity. It was essentially a married service, and when the men were married they began to be a little pinched, sometimes very considerably. Marriage, therefore, was not recognized in the Constabulary until after seven years' service, because then the men began to receive increased rates of pay. A man in the Constabulary of under seven years' service got 21 s. a-week under the old scale; but he would get 22 s. under the now scale, which was really no rise, because as long as a man lived in barracks he had 1s. deducted from his pay. A man of from seven to ten years' service would get a rise nominally of 2s. a-week, but actually of 1s. if he lived in

    1943
    barracks. If the man was married and lived out of barracks be would get the full 2s. rise. After 15 years' service a man would get a rise of 3s. if be lived outside barracks, and 2s. if he lived in barracks. A sub-constable, instead of getting 24 s., would get 27 s.; an acting constable would be risen from 26 s. to 27 s.; a constable from 28 s. to 29 s. and 31 s.; and a bead constable, who, under the old scale, received from 32 s. to 38 s., according to his length of service, would, under the new scale, get from 35 s. to 40 s. These increases of pay were only given to men over seven years' service, and to those men they were very large increases. After the increases of pay, they came to the increase of allowances, which allowances, by the way, hon. Members would not find in the Bill. In the first place, the Government proposed to give to every constable £1 6s. a-year for boot money. To married men of 10 years' service, in addition to the other great advantages given to them, the Government proposed to give Is. a-week, or £2 12 s. a-year, in lodging allowance. There would be a reduction in the marching allowance, for, instead of 2d. a-mile, it was intended to give 1s. for eight miles' march. This reduction would amount to about £4,000 a-year in all, or about one-fourth of the boot money. Summing up the matter, the net result of the increases of pay and allowances would be such that a married man, living out of barracks, would, on an average, be £11 a-year better off than at present—a very large and substantial improvement in his position. There were 3,500 married men in the Force, of whom 2,000 lived out of barracks; and it was rather a satisfactory circumstance to recognize that, in the Royal Irish Constabulary, four-fifths of the men ultimately married. There was another advantage which must not be lost sight of. While three out of four men in the English Force remained in the low ranks, the condition of the Irish Service was such that three sub-constables out of four became constables. Although, in the earlier period of his service, a man of the Constabulary was very well off, when he began to feel the expenses of a family he would receive the increases of pay he (Mr. Trevelyan) had indicated. He now came to the question of pension. Pension was, on
    1944
    the whole, the subject upon which the men had been most anxious, because, hitherto, there was a sense of injustice and inequality about it which they felt very keenly. Under the scale laid down in the year 1847, a man of over 30 years' service could get full pay. A typical age for retirement was after 28 years' service; and after that period of service, under the old system, a constable got nearly three-fourths of his pay in pension. In 1866 a new scale of pension was set up, and a pension of 5–50ths, going up to 30–50ths of a man's pay, was given. He would not enter into the details of that particular system, but simply say that the men who were pensioned on the full pay got very largo pensions; whereas the men who entered the Service, perhaps, a year after them found a great drop in their pensions. It was now proposed to make a great improvement in the pensions of the Irish Constabulary, and this would be done by t we means. One was by a change in the scale, in the nature of which he would only enter so far as to say that if a man left the Force his scale would be very much the same as now. Between 21 and 25 years' service the scale would rise very rapidly; a man would get 2–50ths a-year instead of 1–50th; and by the time he had served 28 years he would receive two-thirds of his pay. But not only would he receive a larger portion of his pay; but his pay, as already explained, would be very much larger. He (Mr. Trevelyan) would give the financial effect. In 1847, when the scale was on the old pay, a sub-constable of 28 years' standing got about £21. Then there came a great rise of pay, and the sub-constable of 28 years' standing got £46 16 s. That was a desirable pension, which these men wished to get. Then came the new scale of pension, and the 28 years' men got, not £46 16 s., but £34 18 s. 10 d.; he saw his comrade retiring on 4s. or 59 s. a-week more than himself, and he felt aggrieved. By a circumstance which, in regard to the details, was a coincidence which the Committee endeavoured to arrive at, the sum which, under this Bill, a sub-constable of 28 years' standing would get, was exactly £46 16 s. The causes of that were, higher pay and the introduction of the Metropolitan Police pension system. He now came to the case of the Dublin Police. The Dublin Police,

    1945
    as was very well known, were very much better off than the Royal Irish Constabulary. The change proposed in their position was very much less than that proposed in the case of the Constabulary, really consisting, to a great extent, in taking away those vexatious conditions in their lot which the men felt a great deal. But in taking away those conditions their pecuniary position was improved. The most important change was that a sub-constable in the Dublin Police Force would henceforth rise in pay according to his length of service. Before this, they were divided into classes, and they got from one class to another by competitive examination, and they were far too liable to reduction in rank and pay for misconduct. The Committee thought that when a man was fit to be a constable he was fit to rise to the top of the rank. The Committee, he was glad to say, did not seem to disapprove of the system of competitive examination; but they thought it should have its limits. When a man was once judged fit to enter the Service he should rise by professional capacity, and by the acquisition of professional knowledge. When a constable got to the top of his class, he would get 30 s. a-week instead of 29 s. The increase in pay was not large; but the increase in pension was more considerable. The result of the legislation which was now proposed would be that a constable in the Dublin Police Force of 28 years' standing would get, instead of a pension of £45 a-year, about £52 10 s. The financial effect of the whole scheme was as follows:—The increase in the pay of the Constabulary would amount to £30,632—that would be divided, as hon. Gentlemen knew, between about 13,000 men; the married men's allowance would come to £5,000 a-year; boot allowance, £17,000; and other charges would bring the total up to £53,500. There were expected savings, including the savings in lodging money of £7,000. That would bring the charge to £46,500. The net increase in the Dublin Metropolitan Police for pay was small—it was not quite £2,000 a-year. There was a saving in the salary of the Assistant Commissioner, who had been reduced to £1,200 a-year. The entire increased cost of the active service, therefore, was £47,280 a-year. It was much more difficult to calculate what
    1946
    the increase in the Pension List would be. The present amount of the Pension List was £220,000 a-year; but the amount which the Pension List would reach, when the full effect of the Act of 1866 was experienced, would be £280,000 a-year. If the later men had been pensioned on the lower scale, the amount would have come down to £190,000 a-year. It had been calculated that, under the present scheme, the amount of the Pension List would rise to £260,000 a-year. Taking the increase of pensions in the Dublin Police and the Irish Constabulary together, they had come to the conclusion that the increased burden on the country, in consequence of the changes proposed in the Bill and laid down in the General Order, would amount to £90,000 a-year. There were certain very great moral and social advantages which were given to the men. First of all, their promotion in the Royal Irish Constabulary would be very much equalized. A man, before he could be put on the selected list for promotion, would have to serve eight years, except in cases of extraordinary merit, so that the disadvantage of being on the out-stations, or the advantage of being close under the eye of those who had to dispense patronage, would not be experienced as at present. In the next place, those unfavourable records which the men regarded with greater anxiety and uneasiness than anything else, which, in their own words, followed a man to his grave and injured his wife and children, would not quite cease, but would be brought within limits. An unfavourable record used to follow t we fines by the County Inspector, t we admonitions by the Inspector General, and one fine by the Inspector General. It was now proposed that there should be an unfavourable record only in the last case, that of a fine by the Inspector General; and that then it should be by special Order. The length of time during which an unfavourable record was to last should be fixed by that Order, and should not last, in any case, more than five years. It was proposed that an unfavourable record should only be a bar to promotion, and should not diminish the man's pension, or injure his wife or family at his death. The amount of fines, both in the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force and the Royal Irish Constabulary, had been reduced.

    1947
    In the Constabulary, the fines were never to amount to more than £3, instead of £5, as at present; and, in the case of the Dublin Police, the fines might not be higher than £1, or one week's pay. The men off duty wore to be allowed to enter public-houses like other members of society; their wives were to be allowed to carry on a trade or business, the men were allowed somewhat longer absence from barracks; they would be allowed wider points within which they could wander when off duty; and, altogether, their life would be made pleasanter; while all the essential conditions of an efficient Service would be fulfilled. The Royal Irish Constabulary were now raised to a position above that of the average County Forces in England and Scotland, and received higher pensions than the Scotch Force. The Metropolitan Police Force of Dublin was before in the last class but one; but these changes, small as they appeared to be, had placed it in the highest class next to that of the London Police Force. He was anxious that it should be known that these proposals had been considered with very great care; they had been examined and revised by men who were extremely conversant with the organization of Services, both Civil and Military; and the intention of the Government was that the proposed changes should be both permanent and final. They believed they would attract good men of the class from which the Dublin Police and Royal Irish Constabulary had been drawn hitherto with such very good results, and that when they had been so attracted they would remain contented with their position. For these reasons he trusted the House would assent to the introduction of the Bill.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that, no with standing the great care, attention, and labour, on the part of the t we Commissions which had been appointed by Her Majesty's Government to consider the question of the pay and discipline of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force, and the great attention which Her Majesty's Government had also given to the circumstances, they were brought face to face with the certain knowledge that the scheme of the Commissioners, which had, practically, been adopted by the Government, had not given satisfaction to those interested in it. They knew that abundantly by
    1948
    the communications which had flooded the public Press since the publication of the Report. Looking at the question, however, from the broader standpoint of the interest of the men themselves, they were forced to the conclusion that attention was not paid to the complaints of those persons, until they had been forced by methods of a very disagreeable character upon the notice of the Government. All must know that the grievances of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the vexation and worry to which the Metropolitan Police of Dublin had been subjected for years, had been pressed on the attention of the Government over and over again, and treated with absolute contempt. It was only when the Constabulary struck at a certain place, and threatened to strike in other parts of the country, that their complaints were attended to; and it was only when the Police struck in Dublin that it was discovered that the men were subject to all sorts of vexatious fines and treated like children. He thought it was a lamentable thing to confess that, even in the case of their own servants, not the slightest attention or respect could be had from the Government for claims now acknowledged to be legitimate, until those claims had been pressed upon them by something very little, if at all, short of physical force. But there were other classes of men in the Government Service in Ireland who had similar grievances to complain of. The prison officials had been subject, for the last t we or three years, to the same strain as were the Police and Constabulary; and they had similar grievances to complain of, both with regard to pay, hours of labour, and general treatment, as the officials holding analogous positions in England. But they could not organize or communicate with the Government, without being discharged one by one—they could not strike; and their grievances were therefore set aside, and nothing had been, or probably would be, done for them, until they made use of the methods which had been adopted by the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. With regard to the latter Force, he thought something more was required in reference to the pay of the men than what he might call the re-arrangement of bookkeeping proposed by the Government. He gathered, from the figures

    1949
    of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, that the total increase in the pay of the Police in Dublin was to be the sum of £2,000 a-year. He had already heard so much, and it was no wonder that dissatisfaction existed in the Force, when it was found that, after all the outcry they had heard, this paltry sum was proposed. Then the right hon. Gentleman told them that the Pension List, which amounted to £22,000 a-year under the present system, would he increased, but subsequently reduced. But here, he (Mr. Gray) was unable to follow the right hon. Gentleman. He could not get at what the new Pension List was to be, so as to know the total amount that would be given in the way of increase. The younger men, of course, composed the enormous majority of the Force, and they found that nothing was to be done for them; they were the men the Government had to look to most; and they were just the men likely to throw up their profession, and go to America, or to join in any movement to get any matters redressed that they believed they had a right to complain of. But the Government had given them no redress. They had devised a system which would give a certain minority of the Force a small increase of pay and allowances, and they had relaxed, to some extent, the iron discipline which was even more vexatious than deprivation of pay; but as to the vast majority of the men, both of the Constabulary and Police, it appeared to him that they were going to pay them little more than the compliment of having appointed a Commission to inquire into their grievances; leaving them, in fact, in nearly the same position as they were in before. Again, he did not think anything like a fair comparison could be instituted between the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force and the Police Forces in England. The men in England were exceedingly well paid—both the Police in London and in the Provincial boroughs—for the duties they had to perform. As a rule, their duties in the Provinces were by no means irksome; everyone in England looked upon the Police as the friends of the community; their duties in the rural districts and in the towns were simply the detection of crime, and so they won the goodwill of the population. Now, the
    1950
    duties of the men of the Constabulary and the Police in Dublin were of a totally different character—they were of an odious character, and repugnant to the feelings of the men themselves. He himself, some time ago, had read some letters received from members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, describing the duties which they had to perform in the case of evictions. They stated how their hearts were wrung by the terrible scenes of suffering they witnessed in the performance of their duties connected with the eviction of their neighbours and others. They felt these to be most repugnant, for they were all sprung from the small farmer class; and, therefore, he said that, if such duties were cast upon them, they ought to be paid extra for the work. There was, then, clearly no comparison between the Constabulary and Police Forces in Ireland and those in England. With reference to the Metropolitan Police, the right hon. Gentleman said they cost already £53,000 a-year, which sum, for certain purposes, was to be reduced to £46,000; and this he proposed to increase by the sum of £2,000 a-year. He (Mr. Gray) regarded that sum as extravagant, and thought that the Bill should be utilized for the purpose of putting the expenditure incurred for the Police into a more reasonable form than the present. The Dublin Metropolitan Police were employed for a double purpose. They were used as police, and also as a species of semi-military force, for the purposes of the Government. He was informed that the tax upon the people of Dublin for the Police Force amounted to 1s. 2d. in the pound, a sum which he did not think was paid in any town in England. And not only were the citizens of Dublin mulcted in that sum, but they had nothing whatever to do with the control of the Police; and when this was complained of the reply of the Government was—"You do not contribute anything like the amount you ought to pay; you ought to thank us for taking the burden off your shoulders." As a member of the Corporation of Dublin, he (Mr. Gray) could assure the House that this question affected the people of Dublin very keenly, because it touched their pockets; and he contended that they should be allowed to maintain their own Police as a Municipal Force, and that the Government should maintain, for their own purposes,

    1951
    a force which should be paid for out of Imperial funds. In England the Police of every town and district were under the control of the local authorities; and they were also, for the purposes of the Public Health Act, under the control of the sanitary authorities. But they in Dublin had no control of the Police in that respect. When necessary, they had to apply to the Government for a certain number of police for sanitary duty; and the reply to their application was—"Certainly; if you pay for thorn." They had, therefore, to pay not only 1s. 2d. in the pound for the maintenance of the Force, but they had to pay over again when they wanted them to discharge any sanitary duties. The sanitary work of the city was interfered with, because they had no Police Force under the control of the Civic Authorities. It was, perhaps, useless for him to suggest that the Corporation of Dublin were fit to discharge the minor duties which local authorities were entrusted with in England and Scotland. If the Government did not think they were to be trusted, let them keep as many police in Dublin as they pleased; but let the citizens of Dublin maintain their own Police Force. The present system not only touched them in their pockets, but in their health and lives. The Lord Provost of Edinburgh once asked him (Mr. Gray) if the Corporation of Dublin had the control of the Police of the city; and, on his replying in the negative, he said—"You will never get Dublin into a proper sanitary condition until you have. Every policeman in Edinburgh is a sanitary officer." In conclusion, he ventured to hope the point he had suggested was a practicable one, and that, as it concerned the City of Dublin, it would receive some share of attention.
    MR. MOOREsaid, he desired to point out that there was no provision made in the Bill for the officers of the Force. During the last year or so a large sum of money had been allocated to the rank and file; and he could see no reason why the officers in the Service should not experience an improvement in their position. The officers had had to suffer great hardships, which the men under their command could not be said to have shared with them. Comparatively speaking, the position of the officers was much inferior to that of the men, in regard to pensions as well as pay; and this was a matter to which
    1952
    it would be wise for the Government to devote attention. There was no better way of rewarding the Force than by increasing their pensions; and, in that respect, he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) on the whole scheme of his Bill. The scheme for increasing the payments in regard to long and continued service introduced the element of domesticity, which seemed to be the most valuable element in the Bill. The scale of pensions of the officers required revision; and it should always be borne in mind that, by increasing the pensions, they gained t we very important advantages. They, in the first place, gained increased efficiency, as they did by all increase of pay; but, more than that, they offered an inducement to old men who were no longer fit for the Service to retire. He hoped this question would be considered by the Government. He endorsed all that had been said by the hon. Gentleman who had preceded him (Mr. Gray) as to there having been, throughout all these transactions, one pre-eminent argument—namely, the argument of clamour—the argument—"Only make sufficient noise, and you will obtain all you require." The officers were not in a position to follow this advice; and he hoped the Government would not put too severe a strain upon them, but would inquire into their case, without requiring them to do that which would be unbecoming or unsuitable to their rank in the Service. There was one point in the right hon. Gentleman's observations he had heard with anxiety—namely, that it was considered an important concession to the men that their wives should be allowed to take part in businesses. The House should be given clearly to understand whether it was intended to allow the wives of constables to hold licences for the sale of spirituous liquors.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, there was one point he should like to have made clear; and that was, whether the Bill proposed to make alterations in the higher organization of the Force, or whether it was confined entirely to improving the condition of the men?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the measure made no alteration whatsoever in what they might call the higher organization of the Forces. Those officers who, in the Army, might be described as commissioned officers, were not at all affected by the alterations.
    MR. SEXTON: The Assistant Commissioner is abolished?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that was so. He might fairly say there was no change in the higher organization of the Forces, and no change that was effected in that higher organization would affect the pay and pensions of the men.
    MR. CALLANasked whether there was any attempt made in the Bill to change the present system of promotion?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that promotion would be more advanced by good and regular conduct. An important step had been taken in the Constabulary for the purpose of equalizing promotion, and removing any suspicion of unfairness.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the House heard a great deal about keeping down the general expenses of the country. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) was in his place. Had he been consulted about this Bill? That hon. Member and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to take into account the consequences of the measure next year, or the year after; and therefore, perhaps, it would be as well for them to offer an opinion about the Bill before it was pushed much further. There was a great tendency on the part of Members of Parliament, when these Motions came up, to make themselves exceedingly pleasant at the public expense, by allowing advances of salary to men and officers of all kinds. He (Mr. Biggar) was inclined to think that the Police were liberally paid at present, and he did not think this Bill was called for. He was disposed to offer to it as strong an opposition as he possibly could.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. TEEVELYAN, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 171.]
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he proposed to put down the next stage for Monday.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that before the Bill was proposed for second reading, he, and many other Irish Members, would like to see it in print.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that if hon. Members thought they would not be prepared to take the second reading on Monday, he should be quite willing to defer that stage until Tuesday.

MOTIONS.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Aldershot and Farnborough Tramways Extensions, Bradford Corporation Tramways, Hartlepool Tramways, Liverpool Corporation Tramways, Macclesfield Tramways, and North Staffordshire Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 167.]

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) (BIRMINGHAM AND WESTERN DISTRICT, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Birmingham and Western District Tramways, Edgbaston and Harborne Tramways, North Birmingham Tramways, Oldham, Ashton-under-Lyne, Hyde, and District Tramways, South Birmingham Tramways, and Southend-on-Sea and District Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 168.]

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) (COLCHESTER, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Colchester Tramways, Halifax and District Tramways, Highgate Hill Extension and Archway Road Tramways, Oxford Tramways Extensions, Rhyl Voryd and Plastirion Tramways, Spen Valley and District Tramways, Wakefield Tramways, Woolwich and South East London Tramways, and Yarmouth and Gorleston Tramways (Extensions), ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN HOLMS and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 169.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) (BETIIESDA, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Improvement Act District of Bethesda, the Borough of Darlington, the Evesham Joint Hospital District, the Faversham Joint Hospital District, the Improvement Act District of Kington, the Lower Thames Valley Main Sewerage District, the Boroughs of Maldon and Sandwich, and the Local Government Districts of Torquay, and Wanstead and Woodford, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Sir CHARLES DILKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 170.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Medical Act (1858) Amendment* (52); Local Government Provisional Orders* (54).
Committee—Representative Peers (Scotland) (5–53).
Committee—Report—Isle of Man (Harbours) (50).
Report—Court of Chancery of Lancaster* (43).
Third Rending—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Orders Confirmation* (33), and passed.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 5.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
REPRESENTATIVE PEERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 5.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in the discussion on the second reading of this Bill, I stated to your Lordships that I would give respectful attention to all Amendments which might make it more acceptable to any noble Lords who had special interest in the subject. I am happy to inform your Lordships that I have been in communication with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, who presided over the Committee of 1882, and I hope that we have come to a substantial agreement as to those points that were thought of importance. I will state to your Lordships the particular modifications in the Bill to which I think I can properly assent, and I will then ask your Lordships to allow it to be passed pro formâ through Committee, and to be reprinted, with the Amendments which I propose to introduce. My desire has been to deal with this matter in a manner which would secure the greatest amount of concurrence and meet all reasonable suggestions on the part of noble Lords from Scotland. Some of the proposed modifications I have already given Notice of, and the only material one, I think I may say, is this. I have adopted that part of the Amendment of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly) which is founded on what fell from my noble and learned Friend (Lord Watson) on the second reading of the Bill—namely, that the power of reference to the Court of Ses-

  1829
  sion should not be quite so limited as I had proposed to make it. I had proposed that the Court might, if the Committee of Privileges thought fit, be consulted on matters of law, or for the purpose of taking evidence of facts. But my noble and learned Friend (Lord Watson) suggested that it would be better to leave it more wide, and to enable the Committee, in what it might think a proper case, to refer the Petition itself for consideration and report to the Court of Session, the House of Lords still reserving its own jurisdiction. This does not appear to me to affect the principle of the Bill, and I accordingly propose to adopt, in substance, that portion of the Amendment to the 7th clause of the Bill of which the noble Marquess has given Notice. The only other material point is this. I have proposed by the 5th clause to adopt, in substance, the same mode of determining the right of succession to Peerages on the death of a Peer which Parliament thought fit to adopt with regard to Irish Representative Peerages in the year 1857. The reference to Ireland was, I think, misunderstood. I stated, on the second reading, that I would substitute for any such reference words distinctly specifying the manner of proceeding intended, which was that in those cases where an application might be made by a person claiming to be the successor of a Peer, the House should cause inquiry to be made by the Lord Chancellor or Keeper of the Great Seal. But in certain communications which I have since had with the Lord Justice Clerk, he has led me to understand that it would be acceptable to many Scottish Peers that the mode of proceeding should undergo a modification which, in my opinion, involves no principle, and which, therefore, I shall willingly adopt, since it is acceptable to noble Lords from Scotland; and that is, in the same cases of succession for which my clause was intended to provide, an application should, in the first instance, be made by the successor to the Lord Clerk Register, accompanied by the production of a decree of service, finding the applicant to be heir to the person or persons through whom he professes to make out his title, together with the evidence on which such service has proceeded, and also a record, duly authenticated, of the proceedings. The
  1830
  Lord Clerk Register, on receiving such application, will refer it to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords will refer it to the Lord Chancellor, and he will report. These are the principal Amendments, and I now beg to move that the Bill be committed pro formâ, and reprinted with Amendments.
  Moved, "That the Bill be committed pro formâ, and reprinted with Amendments."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, it seemed to him that Clause 7, as it was proposed to be altered in regard to reference to the Court of Session, would be open to very great objection; and he wished to know if it would be competent to discuss the clause when the Bill again came up?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he wished it to be understood that the clause would be entirely open to consideration after it was reprinted.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he was sure that he might state, on the part of a large number of Scottish Peers, that the announcement made by the Lord Chancellor was a most satisfactory one. He did not now consider it necessary to proceed with the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES), said, he must express his dissent from the modification proposed by the Lord Chancellor with regard to dealing with succession claims. He believed there had been a misunderstanding among the Scottish Peers as to what the proceedings had always been upon the subject. The practice hitherto observed was much less expensive than that would be which was now proposed. In the case of successions it was absolutely necessary that precautions should be taken against anyone but the proper successor being admitted.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he should like to hear a clear statement from the Lord Chancellor as to whether the effect of the Amendments he was to propose would be to give the Court of Session any jurisdiction in the matter of Peerage eases?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas understood to convey that this would not be the effect of his Amendments.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he was glad to be assured on the point, because he thought that giving such jurisdiction to

  1831
  the Court of Session would be a most unwise step.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee (according to order); amendments made; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 29th instant; and to be printed as amended. (No. 53.)

BRITISH POSSESSIONS ABROAD—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government could give any assurance that they were taking any measures with a view to carrying into effect at an early date the recommendations of the Royal Commission "for the defence of British possessions and Commerce abroad?" The Commission, he explained, of which he had the honour to be Chairman, was appointed nearly four years ago, and consisted of Lord Camperdown, Sir Henry Holland, Sir Alexander Milne, Sir Lintorn Simmons, Sir Henry Barkly, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Hamilton (now in Dublin), Mr. Childers, and Sir Thomas Brassoy—gentlemen eminently qualified to conduct an inquiry of this kind. They eat for throe years and reported at very considerable length, as was known to the Government. They reported by instalments in order to enable the Government to take action upon those questions which they considered to be of the greatest and most urgent importance. The Report of the Commission had not been laid on the Table of the House. It was of a strictly confidential character, and he should not be justified in bringing the recommendations before the House, nor in saying anything to induce the Government to take that course. But those recommendations, based as they were to an extraordinary extent on professional evidence, were very important, and it was with regret that he had not seen any action taken by Her Majesty's Government on the subject. He trusted that he was mistaken in this, and that the Report had not been consigned to the pigeon-hole. At any rate, the time might come when it might be said to the Members of the Commission—"Why did you, knowing the vast interests involved and what the recommendations were, sit absolutely silent and passive while you thought or saw no action was being
  1832
  taken?" He would not have that on his conscience, and after this he should place the whole responsibility on the shoulders of the Government. There were some things which he might say without indiscretion, because the facts to which he should refer were already in a great measure public property. He would not read many figures to the House, but he would lay a few before their Lordships in order to show the enormous stake which the country had in this matter, although those figures would hardly convey a full impression of it. In 1878, since which year there had, no doubt, been a considerable increase, the value of British shippings—ships alone—was estimated at £88,000,000, and of Colonial shipping £20,000,000, a total of £108,000,000. To that must be added the annual value of the foreign trade of the United Kingdom, which amounted to the sum of £620,000,000; and of the Colonial trade, exclusive of trade with the United Kingdom, £190,000,000, or a total of £810,000,000 sterling. It might be added that a great deal of trade nominally foreign was English, and that some of the shipping that was nominally foreign was also English. In round numbers, £900,000,000 might in 1878 be taken to represent the value of our stake in commerce abroad. No other country had such a large stake in commerce. But, enormous as the figures wore, they barely represented the entire value of the interests at stake. The value of the trade of the United Kingdom, and of the ships engaged in it afloat at one time, was close upon £150,000,000 sterling, and not only was there no other country or people in the world which had as large a stake as this, but it was a stake so large that, as he had said, the figures gave really little idea of it. Further, he would compare the merchant navy of England with that of the rest of the world in 1880, the latest figures he had. The total tonnage of the British merchant navy was 6,500,000 tons, of which the steam tonnage amounted to no less than 2,700,000 tons. On the other hand, the total foreign tonnage of ships of every nation included amounted to only 8,000,000 tons, and their steam tonnage was considerably less than ours. He would go one step further and remind the House of that which was no secret, that during

  1833
  the last few years sailing ships had been to an enormous extent superseded by steamers. The increase that had taken place in steam vessels during the last 20 years would be seen from the followingfiguros:—In 1860 the total of British tonnage engaged in the home and foreign trade was 4,250,000 tons; and of that only 400,000 tons represented steam. In 1879 the total tonnage of British ships in the home and foreign trade had increased to 6,250,000 tons, of which steamers represented no less than 2,300,000 tons. It was no exaggeration say that a complete revolution had been effected by this supersession of sailing ships by steam. Many questions arose on this matter, into which he need not enter; but there was one point the vital importance of which no one would dispute who had looked into the subject—the defence, at all events, of our coaling stations abroad. It was vitally necessary for this reason, that unless our coaling stations were in an effective state our fleets could not operate against an enemy, we should not be able to shelter our merchantmen, to repair and refit our ships, and, in short, we should not be able to make use of the superior powers of steam which we possessed as a nation. The House would remember the amount of mischief that was done by a few ships, such as the Alabama and Florida, in the time of the American War; but great as that mischief was, it would be nothing compared to that which might be done to our shipping in a time of war if those coaling stations were not properly cared for. We stood in a totally different position in this respect from any other nation in the word. Trade was the sinew of this country, and our trade, unlike that of every other nation, was scattered over the surface of the globe. Germany had few or no Colonies. Spain had Colonies and little commerce. Italy had a small foreign trade, and Russia had not much. France was the only country besides ourselves that had Colonies and a considerable amount of commerce, and he would point out to the House that the French had thought it expedient to take steps for the defence of their coaling stations at Senegal, La Réunion, and other places. At Martinique also they had spent considerable sums, and were building a dry dock there capable of holding the largest ships that passed through the Suez
  1834
  Canal. He would read to the House an extract from a speech made by the French Minister of Marine two or three years ago, when he brought his Estimates before the French Chamber, and their Lordships would see that it was very applicable to the matter in hand. He said—
  "Our Colonies ought to be rendered safe from insult, by which I mean that a single ship should not he able to place itself in front of one of the towns on the coast and summon it to furnish either coal or provisions on pain of bombardment. If there were no works capable of resisting and replying with guns to this sort of requisition we should be obliged to submit, even though we were masters at sea. It is said that ships of war should supply the want; but they could not be everywhere, and it is possible that a hostile cruiser taking advantage of their temporary absence might descend upon an important port and levy contributions which would far exceed in value the cost of the defences we propose. In conclusion, it is necessary for you to decide whether the Colonies are or are not to be defended; and let me say that if you decide that they are not to be defended, you will probably lose far more by the disasters which may ensue than the cost of the fortifications. I have done my duty by laying the matter before you as I thought was right, and thus relieved myself from the responsibility which must have rested upon me if by my silence I had been the cause of an insult to the French flag, You wish to keep the Colonies. You are right—but I consider it is absolutely necessary to defend them,"
  Those words might be applied to our own case. If the French Minister thought it right to speak in those terms, he thought this was a question which, at all events, might engage the attention of Parliament. There was one other point to which he would like to call the attention of the House. There was a constant tendency out-of-doors to confuse the Colonies with merely stations; but he thought the Colonies were doing their duty very fairly in this matter. In Australia, at Sydney, at Adelaide, and at Melbourne, very large works were being constructed, and so keen were they upon the subject that they had anticipated some changes in the construction of guns, and in addition to that many of them had already created considerable land forces. The responsible Colonies were doing all that was necessary in the matter, and were doing it without putting us to one shilling of expense. The principle on which they were acting was, that if we with our squadron protected them, they, on the other hand, would give shelter to our ships by placing their ports in a state of

  1835
  defence. He now went to the military stations, and of them, of course, a principal part of the expense fell, and must fall, on this country; but, at the same time, they were absolutely essential, and if they were placed and kept in a sufficient state of defence, there was every reason to hope we might clear the sea of our enemies. He considered that he should say nothing with regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commission; only he would say that some of those recommendations made involved comparatively very little cost. And this further he would say, that in any recommendations they made they were most careful to avoid recommending any multiplication of garrisons or forces. He would only add one word more, to get rid of the idea that because we held Egypt we were therefore to dispense with taking any other securities. He believed there could be no greater mistake or a more dangerous one than that. There were many contingencies even in lime of war, which would make it absolutely essential for us to maintain the Cape route to India, and, therefore, he trusted that whatever her Majesty's Government did, there would be no saving or false economy in placing the Cape station in a thoroughly effective state of defence. He would now ask the noble Lord the Question he had put upon the Paper.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that in answering the Question he should like, in the first place, to state that Her Majesty's Government felt greatly indebted to the Royal Commission, over which the noble Earl had presided, for the very able manner in which they had performed the confidential and important duty intrusted to them by the late Government. He could assure his noble Friend that he had read the Report with the greatest attention, and that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to give it that consideration to which the importance of the subject entitled it. In respect to the Question put by his noble Friend, he assured him that the Board of Admiralty, being, he might say, more interested in the matter than any other Department, had followed, and were still following, in one or two important particulars, the lines which the Commission had indicated. With regard to the part of his noble Friend's Question which referred to fortifications, he thought that
  1836
  he must feel that such recommendations required very careful consideration. The recommendations had, therefore, been referred to practical authorities for consideration, both with respect to the works themselves and to another most important matter, the strength of the garrisons required for the works recommended by the Commission. He could only say that the labours of the Commission would not be fruitless, and he hoped his noble Friend would be satisfied with this answer. He would like, however, before sitting down to express his hearty concurrence in the manner in which the noble Earl had spoken in respect to the Australian Colonies, for the great public spirit and great wisdom they had displayed in providing both sea and land defences for their most important ports.

EGYPT (EXPEDITIONARY FORCE)—FIELD ALLOWANCES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDrose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the officers of the 1st Battalion Manchester Regiment (late 63rd) and the 1st Battalion Seaforth Highlanders (late 72nd), having received six months' field allowance during service in Egypt, in common with officers of other regiments, had since been called upon to refund the same; and whether those officers ceased to receive the usual rates of Indian pay and allowances after their arrival at Suez in August last, although the regiments to which they belonged were not placed upon the English establishment till the 10th of October? The noble Viscount said, these two regiments landed at Suez in the latter part of the month of August, and on the 10th of October were placed on the English establishment. It was contended that they should not receive higher pay and allowances than other officers; but they had received six months' pay and allowance for duty in the field as well as the other officers who formed part of the Egyptian Expedition; but the six months' field allowance which was issued to the 63rd and 72nd Regiments had been withdrawn. With regard to the 63rd Regiment, he was informed that although the quartermaster had in his hands six months' allowance for the officers, it was not issued to them; but the officers

  1837
  in the 72nd Regiment had received the six months' pay and allowance and had since been compelled to refund it. Either these regiments were entitled to receive Indian pay and allowances, or they were entitled to receive six months' field allowances. He was quite certain that an unintentional oversight had occurred, and that there was no intention on the part of the Government to deprive the officers of these two distinguished regiments of any allowances to which they were justly entitled.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the fact is the officers referred to were not considered entitled to the field allowance on quitting India, because up to the date of their landing in Egypt they continued in receipt of those higher rates of Indian pay and allowances which include the provision of field equipment, to meet the cost of which the advance in question was given to officers proceeding on service from England. From the date of their landing in Egypt, however, they received the War Office daily rate of field allowance. The regimental authorities of the Seaforth Highlanders drew the whole of the six months' field allowance, and have been called on to refund. A similar claim by the Manchester Regiment has been disallowed. On representations, however, subsequently received, the India Office has under immediate consideration the claims of the officers to the whole six months' advance.

FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it would be possible to obtain returns of the number and valuation of the Scotch coast and river salmon fisheries; and, if so, whether instructions would be sent to the Scotch Fishery Board in accordance with the 5th section of the Fishery Board Act, 1882, to procure and include these returns and valuations in their annual report to be presented to Parliament; and when the report would be presented? The noble Lord said, there were certain districts which were not under the District Salmon Fishery Boards; but he believed that that difficulty would be obviated if the Home Department sent instructions to the Fishery Boards to get the valuations
  1838
  from the assessors in each county in Scotland. If the complete Report could not be obtained this year, he hoped the Under Secretary would be able to state when it was likely to be ready. He thought it was most important in dealing with questions connected with salmon fisheries that the most complete information should be given to Parliament.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he could answer the Question of which the noble Marquess had given Notice, but he could not answer the Question of which the noble Marquess had not given Notice. On seeing this Question on the Paper, he wrote to the Secretary of the Fishery Board in Scotland, who informed him that the returns of the number and valuation of the Scottish coast and river salmon fisheries could only be obtained in those fishery districts where there were District Boards, but that it would be impossible, or nearly so, to obtain them were there were no Fishery Boards. There were three-fourths of the fishery districts in Scotland without Boards. The Secretary added that it would be very desirable to procure these returns, and that they would be given this year, but only to a certain extent, as the rivers on the East coast alone had as yet been inspected, and a Report thereon was in preparation. He was unable to answer the Question of the noble Marquess as to when the Report would be presented.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he should like to be quite certain as to what the noble Lord understood by the word "valuation." He did not think there was anything in the 5th section of the Fishery Board Act that had to do with valuation.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYreplied, that he took it for granted that the secretary of the Fishery Board, on whose authority he relied, meant the rental of these Scottish fisheries; but he spoke under correction.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was an unusual proceeding to go behind a valuation roll, which was the basis for rating, and was open to everyone. To give returns of the annual rental of private property was entirely without precedent. If these were granted it would be found that questions of a very inconvenient character would follow.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, there could be no difficulty in giving the returns from the valuation roll. The difficulty, he thought, was in ascertaining the rental.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he did not think that the noble Earl had quite apprehended the point. It was whether the information which was to be given in accordance with the 6th section of the Fishery Board Act was the valuation according to the valuation roll? That, of course, was a public document. If it was meant that inquiry was to be made into the rental and value of the different fisheries in Scotland, then it struck him that that would be a most inquisitorial proceeding, and one to which he should certainly object if any application was made to him.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYwas understood to say that he only wanted the returns from the valuation rolls.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORGES)—THE MUSKETRY REGULATIONS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEasked the Under Secretary for War, Whether it was intended to revise the musketry regulations of the Volunteer Force? The noble Lord said, that the War Office Committee had lately reported on the whole question of musketry instruction, and had made recommendations, most of which had already been adopted in the Regular Army. They stated in that Report that although the Volunteer Forces exhibited excellent shooting at Wimbledon and elsewhere, they believed that the majority of the Force were not superior to the Line as marksmen. He fully endorsed this opinion, and attributed this to a great extent to the system which enabled them to earn the capitation grant by merely firing the regulated number of rounds. They often fired off nearly the whole of this number without the supervision of an officer. The consequence was that they knew they could earn nothing extra for their corps; they fired carelessly, and failed to get into the 2nd class. He thought a portion of the grant might be made to depend on their getting into the 2nd class, or else that some additional inducement should be given. He was sure the noble Earl would agree with him that it was abso-
  1840
  lutely necessary to encourage good shooting amongst all branches of the Auxiliary Forces.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKasked whether there might not be some difficulty in applying the new regulations to the Militia?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, with regard to the Question of the noble Earl (the Earl of Limerick), they were anxious to keep the Militia at as high a standard as possible. The only solution of the difficulty referred to by the noble Earl was by extending the period of training; but that would mean a considerable increase of expenditure, and would cause great inconvenience to the men and those who employed them. As to the Question of the noble Viscount (Viscount Hardinge), he was ready to admit its great importance. It was essential that the Volunteers should be efficient, not merely in drill, but also in shooting. From statistics of the shooting of Volunteers for the year before last—the latest he could obtain—he found that out of 154,000 efficients in Infantry Volunteer Corps, 16,000 men shot away their 60 rounds each, and failed to get into the second class. That was about 10 per cent of the whole number of efficients; 70 per cent passed into the second class, and 20 per cent into the first class. Those figures did not give so unsatisfactory an account of the shooting of Volunteers as he was led to expect. There were several questions affecting this part of the Volunteers' training. In the first place, they were very anxious to do nothing to press unduly upon the time and labour of Volunteers. In recent years they had increased the qualifications required for efficients, and he was bound to say that to all the new demands they had made the Volunteers had responded in a spirit of the greatest loyalty and energy. They were, therefore, unwilling, unless it were absolutely necessary, to press the qualification to an extreme length. In the second place, he thought that if all Volunteers were required to reach the second class before they could obtain their qualification of efficiency, it would act somewhat unequally on different corps, because while some corps had adequate and convenient ranges, others might have have to go long distances, and could only shoot as occasion offered. Another difficulty was with regard to supervision,

  1841
  It was impossible that they could have the same supervision in the case of the firing in the Volunteers as they had in the Line. He mentioned these facts to show the difficulties which surrounded the question; but he admitted that the present test was unsatisfactory, and he thought it very desirable that a greater number of Volunteers should be encouraged to take sufficient trouble with their shooting to enable them to obtain a place in the second class. When the Martini-Henry rifle could be issued to the Volunteers—and he could give no definite information when that would be—the present musketry regulations for Volunteers would require revision, and that would be a very convenient time for also taking up the question to which the noble Viscount had called attention.

ISLE OF MAN (HARBOURS) BILL.
(The Lord Sudeley.)
ISLE OF MAN (HARBOURS) BILL.

  (NO. 50.) COMMITTEE.
  Order for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)asked for some explanation as to the object and scope of the measure.
  LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to enable further duties to be levied on vessels using the harbours of the Isle of Man. By the Isle of Man Harbours Act of 1872 full power was given to impose harbour dues on all vessels using the port; but as these tonnage dues would act as an import duty, and raise the cost of everything throughout the Island, and, at the same time, act prejudicially on vessels merely calling on their way across from Ireland, it has not been found desirable to impose duties in this form. About £300,000 has been spent in improving the harbours, and as further sums will have to be spent for the special purpose of improving the harbours for passenger steamers bringing tourists, it has been decided to obtain additional powers so as to place a tax of 1d. to 3d. on each passenger carried. As there are now about 120,000 persons visiting the Island in each year, it is intended, by means of a tax of 1d., to raise £1,000 a-year towards the repairs and the interest on the loans. This tax will practically be paid by the steam companies. The House of Keys has
  1842
  passed a strong resolution in favour of this Bill, and the feeling of the Island is strongly in favour of it.
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3ª on Monday next.

  MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Medical Act (1858)—Was presented by The Lord O'HAGAN; read 1ª, (No. 52.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.