Sitting of 8 May 1883

MINUTES.
Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure, Mr. Heneage discharged, Mr. Dundas added.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order) — Third Reading— London and North Western Railway (Additional Powers), and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—National Debt *
Ordered—First Reading — Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) (Killar-
194
ney)* [172]; Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order (Saint George-in-the-East) * [173]; Metropolis Improvement Provisional Order (No. 2) (Limehouse) * [174]; Metro, polis Improvement Provisional Order (No. 3) (Lambeth)* [1751; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) (Cheltenham, &c.) * [176]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) (Black-Torrington, &c.) * [177]; Board of Works (Ireland)* [178]* Charitable Trusts* [179]; Trust Funds (Scotland) * [1801.
Second Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cummersdale, &c.) *[163]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 2) * [158],
Third Reading—Municipal Corporations (Un-reformed) [156], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL (by Order).

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    SIR CHARLES FORSTER,in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, said, he found that his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had given Notice of an Amendment, to provide that the Bill should be re-committed. He (Sir Charles Forster) was quite aware that his hon. Friend, in taking that course, was quite within his strict Parliamentary right; but the course was one which was very unusual and inconvenient. No doubt, there had been a precedent, in the case of the Birmingham Sewerage Bill, in the year 1872; but, in this case, the Amendment was substantially the same as that which was moved by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. J. Hollond), and rejected on the stage of the Report. Unless the House was prepared to undergo considerable loss of time in discussing Private Bills over and over again, this was not a course which the House ought to approve or to act upon. This was a Bill which his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Somersetshire (Mr. R. H. Paget), who acted as Chairman of the Select Committee, told them, on the last occasion, had received the unanimous approval of the Committee; and yet the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) now proposed an Amendment almost identical with the one which was disposed of last week. In venturing to make these few remarks, he (Sir Charles

    195
    Forster) did so, because he wished to enter his protest against a course by which the system of Private Bill legislation, which had been so useful in the past, was likely to be seriously impaired in the future. He begged to move that the Bill he read a third time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he would admit that it was his duty to show to the House some reason why he asked them to re-hear this case; and, certainly, his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), who had just sat down, had given him no cause of complaint when he warned the House to be very careful how they unnecessarily called in question the decisions of Private Bill Committees. But there was more than one reason why this Bill should be re-heard on the third reading. In the first place, the Amendment which his hon. Friend opposite the Member for Brighton (Mr. J. Hollond) moved on the Report was not the same Amendment which he was now asking the House to accept. Quite the contrary. Had his hon. Friend's Amendment been carried, a great hardship would undoubtedly have been inflicted on the London and North-Western Railway Company; and the fact that such was the case, no doubt, influenced a large number of hon. Gentlemen concerned in railway undertakings in voting against his hon. Friend in the division. In the second place, not only was the issue he was now raising of a much more limited kind than the issue raised by his hon. Friend opposite, but the division which took place on that occasion was one of the very narrowest description. In rather a full House, the Amendment was only rejected by a very small majority. There was a reason, even stronger than either of those he had given, which made it important that the House should reconsider this question; because a new circumstance had come to light since the Private Bill Committee considered the matter, and since the House itself dealt with it, which had a most important bearing on the due consideration of the case. The House would see precisely what this new fact was, when he recapitulated, in a few words, how the case stood. The London and North-
    196
    western Railway Company came to the Committee for power to buy a small part of a disused burial ground. They could not ask the Trustees, to whom the burial ground belonged, to sell, until they were ready to sell, because, under the Act of Parliament which constituted the Trustees, they had no power to sell. The Trustees said—"We will not sell you the small portion of ground which is absolutely necessary for the enlargement of your Station; but we insist upon your taking three-fourths of the whole of the ground which belongs to us." The Committee made a compromise between the original proposal of the Railway Company and the demand of the Trustees, and they gave one-half of this burial ground to the Railway Company. It would be observed that the Committee struck a balance between the two parties—the Railway Company on the one hand, and the Trustees on the other; but would it be believed that when the Trustees insisted, or, rather, tried to induce the Railway Company to take three-fourths of the land, they were acting in strict contradiction to the wishes of the people they ought to have represented. The House was aware that this burial ground did not belong to the parish in which it was situated. It belonged to the parish of St. James, Westminster, and the Trustees were appointed by the Vestry of St. James, Westminster, who represented the ratepayers; and it was the fact—unknown to the Committee, and unknown to the House, which gave its decision last week—that the Vestry of St. James were indignant with the action taken by the Trustees, who nominally represented them, and were extremely anxious that the burial ground should be preserved, as by his Amendment it would be, as a recreation ground for the people of St. Pancras. The Vestry of St. James, who represented the ratepayers of St. James, wore not desirous that the ashes of their forefathers should be turned into a marketable commodity, as the Trustees appeared anxious to provide. They were prepared to hand over such part as the London and Northwestern Railway required for their new Station; but they were not prepared to see this burial ground, which had belonged to the parish from time immemorial, desecrated by being turned to some purely commercial use. The case, therefore, in favour of the Bill stood

    197
    thus—if the Amendment were carried, the London and North-Western Railway Company would get all they required; while the other parties, the Trustees, were going altogether outside their duties, and did not represent the people they ought to represent. He now came to the other side of the question. Let them look at what they were going to do, if they took away this burial ground from the uses to which it might be put as a recreation ground, and turned it into stables. He could not help thinking that the House of Commons had shown itself, in many respects, slack in preserving these open spaces, notwithstanding the fact that the necessity for them, as open spaces, was a growing necessity. Whatever view they might take of the industrial developments now going on in England; however proud they might be of the increase of wealth it indicated, they could not shut their eyes to the necessary and attendant evils of it. Year by year the population of the country was diminishing, and the population of the towns was increasing. Year by year a larger portion of the population were being driven to lodge in squalid houses, with imperfect ventilation and defective accommodation. People spoke of those who advocated the retention of open spaces, as he was now doing, as if-they were actuated by sentimental considerations only. They gave it a bad name, and then they voted against it. Now, he contended that the retention of open spaces was no more a sentimental object than a good drainage system, or good lodging and good accommodation. The well-being and health of the people, be day and intellectually, were as much be und up in the keeping of these open spaces, and increasing them to the utmost of their power, as any of those vast schemes of drainage and ventilation in which the House was constantly concerning itself. Did hon. Members reflect upon the fact that a vast proportion of the population, in the whole course of their lives, from one year's end to the other, never saw a bit of turf, or a tree, or a flower? Those to whom residence in town was an agreeable incident were unable to understand either the pleasure that was given by parks and recreation grounds, or the absolute necessity they were to the poorer people who inhabited the large towns in this country. A gentleman
    198
    had written to him (Mr. A. J. Balfour) from St. George's in the East, a large and poor parish in the East End of London, where they had turned the burial ground into the sort of recreation ground he proposed in this case, which proposal he hoped the House would assent to so far as this Marylebone burial ground was concerned. The writer said that the old burial ground had proved a source of pleasure to thousands of children and others who were able to obtain fresh air and enjoy their first glimpse of a tree, or a shrub, or a flower from what they saw planted there. They who belonged to the parish, and had relatives buried there, thought there was no desecration even in the frequent football playing of the descendants of the dead on or around their graves, and they looked upon trees and flowers as a pleasing substitute for dingy gravestones. If the Amendment which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had put on the Paper, and now recommended to the attention of the House, were carried, they would, on the one hand, give to the Railway Company, which was the complaining party on this occasion, everything they absolutely required for their station purposes; and, on the other hand, they would confer a be on of great present value, and of increasing future value, upon the district around St. Pancras, especially as it became more and more thickly populated. He earnestly hoped that the House of Commons, by giving a decided vote on the question, would, in future, prevent claims being made by any Corporation, however powerful, to spots' which should be preserved intact for ever for the benefit of the labouring population in the great manufacturing towns. He hoped the House would understand that it was not in a captious or obstructive spirit that he brought forward this Amendment. There was a great question at issue; and he hoped the House would show, by their vote on the present occasion, that the interests of the people of St. Pancras had their attention. He begged to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be re-committed; and, in the event of that Amendment being carried, he proposed to move—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to modify the provisions of the Bill in such a manner that the powers of purchase relating to the disused burial ground in the parish of St.

    199
    Pancras be confined to such portions of the burial ground as may be necessary for the enlargement of Euston Station, and that such purchase be conditional on the laying out of the remaining portion of the burial ground as a suitable place of public recreation."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now read the third time," in order to insert the word "re-committed,"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words ' now read the third time,' stand part of the Question."
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he need scarcely assure the House that he was in sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) with regard to the necessity of retaining open spaces, and the great value they were for the education and refinement of the people. But he would venture to ask the House to look at the question as one which had been already determined. [Cries of "No!"] Hon. Members might decline to accept that statement; but every argument which had been used in the present debate was also heard on the last occasion) and every thing they could say in favour of the scheme had again to be said. Therefore, practically, the re-hearing of the case which the hon. Gentleman demanded was a re-hearing by the same tribunal of precisely the same case which they had already heard and decided. He wished to disclaim, for himself and for those who had served on the Committee, any kind of personal feeling whatever in the matter. They had the whole case fully argued before them; they had before them the Metropolitan be and of Works and the Vestry of St. Pancras, who urged the open spaces' view of the question. All the evidence was heard and cross-examined upon; the Committee deliberated, and alter discussion, but without a division, they came to the conclusion which the thought the interests of all parties concerned best demanded. The House, although, undoubtedly, it had the right of determining eventually whether the decision of a Committee should be accepted or not, was not a good tribunal for going into minute questions. When a particular tribunal had been appointed to inquire into the merits of a Private Bill; when it had heard all the evidence; when it had had the whole case put clearly and
    200
    thoroughly before it; and when it had, after due deliberation, come to the conclusion which it thought best, it was neither fair towards a Railway Company, or to a Private Bill Committee themselves, that the details, with which the Committee had been made familiar in evidence, should be raked up in an insufficient and irregular manner in the House. He would also venture to point out that, in this case, as in other cases, it was open to those who wished to reverse the decision of the Committee, to do so in the usual and regular way before the House of Lords; and he could not see any reason why this particular ease should be singled out to be dealt with in this exceptional way. It would be a matter of extreme inconvenience if decisions arrived at by Committees upstairs unanimously were to be made matters of discussion in the House, especially after they had already undergone one discussion, in which the whole case had been heard, determined, and voted upon in a full House. It was most inconvenient, under such circumstances, to rake up all these matters again upon the third reading of the Bill, with a view of reversing the judgment of the Committee. He trusted that the House would maintain the decision it arrived at the other day, and would send the Bill up to the House of Lords.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, that when he saw this Notice on the Paper, and saw that it was practically raising the same question a second time which had already been discussed and settled, he thought he would endeavour to make himself, as far as he could, master of all the circumstances of the case, and that he would ascertain the way in which this burial ground was affected by the Bill. The inquiries he had made, irrespective of the Company itself, had induced him to hope that the excellent advice given by the Chairman of the Select Committee (Mr. R. H. Paget), and by his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), would have been accepted, and that the House would not be asked practically to undo the decision they had already arrived at. Now, what were the facts of the case? This burial ground comprised about 16,600 square yards. The Select Committee was presided over by his hon. Friend opposite the Member for Mid Somersetshire, and hon. Gentlemen of all shades of politics

    201
    looked upon that hon. Gentleman as one of the most able and experienced Chairmen who could be appointed. The House had beard the hon. Gentleman's remarks in regard to the Bill, and the very good defence he had made of the decision come to by the Committee. The Committee had fully considered the question, and they were of opinion that the wants of the Railway Company would be sufficiently provided for by dividing the burial ground between the Railway Company and the public, leaving that portion not taken by the Company under conditions by which it could be appropriated as a recreation ground for the people of St. Pancras. What the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) now did was to ask the House not to give the Railway Company one-half, but only to give them one-third; and the whole question upon which the hon. Member asked for a decision of the House a second time was a question of 2,200 square yards of land, or very little more than a quarter of an acre. Upon such a paltry issue, the House were asked to reverse the decision of their own Committee. The question originally was not a very large one, and he thought he could show that there was no necessity for it to have been brought before the House at all. With regard to the graveyard, for a period of 30 years it had never been used as a burial place at all; it had not been kept in good order; there were very few tombstones in it; and that portion which the London and North-Western Railway Company desired to take was singularly devoid of tombstones or any other sepulchral decorations of any kind. That portion which it was intended to devote to purposes of recreation did contain tombstones; but, on examining them, he could find no more recent date than 1834, or nearly 50 years ago. A good deal had been said about the feelings of the people of the district. He believed that this burial ground was for some time a parochial churchyard. Of course, he had no wish that the graves of paupers should be more desecrated than those of persons who were better off. Far otherwise. He recollected the time when it was found necessary to take possession of the burial ground of the Society of Friends, in the neighbourhood of Bun-bill Fields. He himself went down to Bee the graveyard, when the bones of
    202
    persons which had been interred there were removed, and he was struck by the careful manner in which the remains were dealt with. The human remains were gathered into cases and conveyed away under the superintendence of an able officer, who saw everything done decently, and in proper order. In regard to this being an open space, there was, perhaps, no part of London so well off for open spaces. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members said "Oh;" but Regent's Park was not far from this spot. Any man could walk the distance in six minutes, and to Primrose Hill in 17 minutes. [Cries of "Oh!" and "No!"] Lot hon. Members who discredited that fact measure the distance upon the map, and they would find that he was right when he said that any man, walking at the rate of three miles an hour, would do the distance in 17 minutes. Within 200 or 300 yards there were Euston Square, Torrington Square, Campbell Square, and various other squares; and, in point of fact, there was not a place in London in which open spaces were less required than the place they were now speaking of. Independently of that fact, for 30 years the public had had no access to this ground; and now, if the decision of the Committee and of the House of Commons was ratified, one-half of it would be devoted to practical and useful purposes of recreation. Certain hon. Gentlemen raised a great outcry against taking this burial ground because it was an open space. But whore had those hon. Gentlemen been during the last 30 years, seeing that the ground had been allowed to remain entirely neglected, although there was an excellent building erected in the immediate neighbourhood of it—the London Temperance Hospital; and he believed the Trustees of that Hospital made no objection whatever to the Bill now before the House. At the present moment there was no thoroughfare whatever through this ground; but the plan provided by the Select Committee did secure a thoroughfare from Hampstead Road, which, at present, the public did not enjoy. But what pressed most upon his mind was that he believed this ground was required for the accommodation of the increasing traffic upon the Loudon and North-Western Railway. It formed part of a large scheme which had been prepared for the enlargement of Euston Square Station,

    203
    in order to case the traffic. Anyone who knew the Euston and Camden Stations knew that the line between those points was a narrow one, hemmed in between high walls, and that it was necessary, in order to relieve the traffic coming into and leaving London, that the space near Euston Square should be largely added to. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had established no case for calling upon the House to undo the decision of their Select Committee; and he, therefore, hoped the Amendment would be rejected.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, that, as a Metropolitan Member, and as one who had long taken an interest in the preservation of open spaces, he trusted the House would allow him to make a very few observations upon this question. He entirely disagreed with his hon. Friend who had just spoken (Sir Joseph Pease) when he said that his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had made out no case for bringing the matter again under the consideration of the House. Now, it seemed to him (Mr. Fawcett) quite impossible to imagine a stronger ease. Hon. Members who were fortunate enough to hear the hon. Member's short and, at the same time, very temperate speech, must have been convinced of the singular strength of his case. Of course, the most difficult case they had to meet was the one put forward by the hon. Member for Mid Somersetshire (Mr. R. H. Paget), who represented the Select Committee to whom the Bill had been referred. No one would doubt for a moment that the hon. Member and the other hon. Members of the Committee were as desirous of doing their duty, and of doing what they thought to be best for the interests of the public, as any other hon. Member of that House; but he (Mr. Fawcett) thought the doctrine of never reviewing the decision of a Committee might be pushed to a very objectionable extreme. He had no wish to pass censure upon the Committee; but the very fact that, after the Bill had been referred to a Select Committee, it must be read a third time in the House distinctly showed that the House considered it of importance that they themselves should retain in their own hands the power of reviewing the decision of their Committee; and it seemed to him that this was exactly
    204
    the case in which it was fitting for the House to interpose. He fully admitted that, as a rule, the only questions struggled over in conflict before a Select Committee were questions between one Railway Company and another, or between some private Corporation and a Railway Company; and in such cases it was possible that all private interests were safeguarded before the Committee. But this was a case involving not simply private interests, but public interests, of which that House was naturally the guardian. Again, it had been said— "Why do you not let the matter stand over, and leave it for the House of Lords to settle?" But what would be the natural remark which the House of Lords would make in such a case? They would say—"The House of Commons, containing many Metropolitan Members, whose duty it is to look after the interests of the Metropolis, have not felt themselves called upon to oppose the third reading of the Bill. They must, therefore, have considered that there was not a strong case for opposition; and how can we be expected to do that which they refuse to do themselves?" Again, it had been urged that this was precisely the same case as that which was decided by the House by a small majority on the last occasion; but, with all respect to his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Somersetshire, he (Mr. Fawcett) contended that it was not the same case at all. What was determined on the last occasion was this. No less than 167 Members of the House thought the case, from a public point of view, so strong that the Railway Company ought not to have any of the land that they asked for. But what was the case presented now? The Railway Company originally asked for one-third of the burial ground; and not one-third, but one-half, was now allotted to them. What the House had to determine was, whether the Railway Company ought to be allowed to obtain more ground, which would otherwise be devoted to purposes of public enjoyment, than they originally asked for, and what they thought was sufficient for their wants. His hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) said that this, after all, was a small and trumpery question, because it only concerned 2,200 square yards of land. Now, he (Mr. Fawcett) thought that if it was a question of 2,200 yards of land, in the midst of his

    205
    own constituents—andhebelievedthatSt. Pancras was not less densely populated than the district he represented—it was by no means a small or a trumpery question. His hon. Friend little knew the needs and wants of the people of London. He little knew how vitally important it was—and each year it was becoming more important—that every foot of open ground should be preserved. He (Mr. Fawcett) had no hesitation in saying— and he expressed the opinion after consulting those who were likely to know-— that if the House was not careful in preserving every yard and foot of what remained in the shape of open spaces in the Metropolis, it would be impossible to maintain the health, and vigour, and welfare of the people of London. Therefore, without wishing to detain the House, he thought he had said enough to show that, though at first sight this might appear to be a small question, it was one which concerned the health and well-being of the people, and was one which the House had pre-eminently the right to decide. With some confidence, he thought he might anticipate what their decision would be.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, the present position of the question was remarkable, inasmuch as the people interested in this land did not propose to acquire it for themselves. It had already been pointed out by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) that the inhabitants of the parish of St. Pancras were themselves opposed to the course which the Trustees had taken in the matter; and lie (Mr. Firth) thought that that fact, which had come to the knowledge of the House since the matter was discussed before, was a point of very considerable importance. How did the case now stand? He found that the Railway Company only asked originally for a small portion of the land, and that very portion his hon. Friend proposed by his Amendment to give them. He (Mr. Firth) regretted that the House could not see its way to preventing the Railway Company from taking any of this open space at all; but the complications of the case were such that there had hardly been any sort of proper representation of the public interests before the Select Committee. He believed that the parish of St. Pancras was anxious to preserve this open space for the benefit and recreation of the
    206
    people. St. Pancras had a population of 250,000. The burial ground, however, did not belong to the parish of St. Pancras at all, but to another parish some distance away. There was an Act passed in 1881, under which the burial ground might have been transferred to the Metropolitan be and of Works or the Vestry of St. Pancras; but, as a matter of fact, it had not been so transferred. The parish of St. Pancras expressed its willingness to take it over if it were transferred; and if it had been taken over it would have been very greatly for the benefit of the people living there. It was suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) that the inhabitants of the district did not require open spaces of this kind; but, as had been well said by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, every inch of open ground was wanted for the benefit of the people of London. If hon. Members would go eastward of this ground they would find many thousands of people to whom open spaces of this kind would be a great be on and relief; and no one could imagine the extent of that be on and relief unless he had gone into the dwellings of the poor and had endeavoured to realize the condition in which they lived. Hon. Members like the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) took up and contested questions of this kind for them; but he was afraid that such Gentlemen too often laboured in vain in defence of the interests of the poor. He trusted the House would see its way to support the proposition now made. Attention had been called to the fact that 55 Railway Directors were in favour of this ground being taken from the people of the Metropolis. He presumed that every Member of the House could become a Railway Director if he thought fit; but he refused to believe that occucupying that important position signified the hardening of the human heart. [Cries of "Oh!"] His hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) said "Oh!" and probably his hon. Friend had had a wide experience as to the hardening of the human heart; but his hon. Friend's experience differed from his (Mr. Firth's). It was a remarkable thing that Railway Companies found the most convenient places for driving a railway through were either open spaces devoted to the

    207
    benefit of the poor, or ground covered by the habitations of the poor. That fact would be found amply illustrated by the condition of things which occurred in this case; and he thought it would be found that no authority appeared before the Committee which was qualified to defend the interests of the poor. It was to be hoped that the Government were about to give them some such authority in the Metropolis; but until they did so he hoped the House would see their way to support Resolutions such as that which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Hertford, and which, if adopted, would do something for the benefit of the poor.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid, he would only make a few observations in regard to the Bill, because they had already had a full discussion, not only to-day, but on a previous occasion. He did not think the House would act wisely if they adopted the Motion of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour); and they ought to reflect upon the consequences which the adoption of the Motion might have upon the proceedings of the House hereafter. He must say he thought it somewhat hard that hon. Members, like the hon. and learned Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth), who had just sat down, should suppose that anyone who did not agree with him on a question like this must necessarily be opposed to the interests of the poor. Now, he begged to say, for one, that he had had more opportunities of giving evidence of his feeling in regard to open spaces in the interests of the poor than the hon. and learned Member himself; but, setting aside altogether the question of open spaces, he would confine himself to the question presented to the House. He thought it would be a very inconvenient course if the House were to determine to refuse to accept the decisions of Select Committees specially appointed to inquire into the merits of Private Bills. He had studied the proceedings of this Committee, and he held in his hand a report of the Evidence taken by the Committee; and he found that all the matters to which hon. Gentlemen had referred had been examined into by the tribunal presided over by the hon. Member for Mid Somersetshire (Mr. R. H. Paget). Among other things, there had been a Report from the Home Office, in which
    208
    no objection was taken to the proposals of the Railway Company in regard to the burial ground. That Report was laid before the Committee, and considered by them; and they introduced provisions into the Bill in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Report. That being the ease, and the question having been fully discussed on a former occasion, and having been fully examined into by the Committee presided over by an hon. Gentleman quite as competent as any hon. Member of the House to be the Chairman of a Committee, he (Sir Arthur Otway) thought the House would do well to adopt the decision of the Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) said the proposition now made was not exactly the same as that presented to the House last week. No; it was not exactly the same; but it was exceedingly like it. In regard to what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), he wished to point out that this was not a case of reviewing one decision of the House, but of reviewing two decisions. They reviewed the decision of the Committee last week, and the House then decided by a majority to support it. If it became the habit of the House, after a Select Committee had been appointed to examine into a Bill, to review the decision of that Committee, and, on a further stage of a Bill, to review the discussion, they would take a course which would not only be highly inconvenient, but would strike a serious blow at the usefulness of Select Committees. If the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford went to a division, he should feel be und to go into the Lobby against him.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he would detain the House only for one moment from the division. He was very desirous of showing what the true facts of the case wore. There was no desire, on their part, to accuse those hon. Members who differed from them of being neglectful of the interests of the poor. He knew that the House was perfectly alive to that matter, and that they only desired to do that which was necessary for the public interests. In reference to the remarks of the Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Arthur Otway), he (Mr. Bryce) asked the House to consider what the Amendment was. The pro-

    209
    posal of the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. J. Hollond) last week was that the decision of the Committee should be reversed, by prohibiting the London and North-Western Railway Company from taking any portion of this ground. [Cries of "No!"] Yes; that was so; and it was from that point that the question was argued. A compromise was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who proposed that a Motion similar to that now made by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) should be adopted; but that compromise was not accepted. His hon. Friend the Member for Hertford's Motion gave now exactly what the Railway Company originally asked for; and his hon. Friend agreed to the request of the Railway Company that it should be allowed to take whatever was absolutely necessary for the purpose of enlarging Euston Square Station. His hon. Friend proposed to move, in the event of the Bill being ro-committed—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to modify the provisions of the Bill in such a manner that the powers of the purchase relating to the disused burial ground in the parish of St. Pancras be confined to such portions of the burial ground as may be necessary for the enlargement of Euston Station, and that such purchase be conditional on the laying out of the remaining portion of the burial ground as a suitable place of public recreation;"
    so that, in point of fact, the Motion of his hon. Friend, if accepted, would give the Railway Company all they argued for last week. Those who supported the Amendment were not so unreasonable as to say that the development of a great station like Euston Square should be checked, even if it involved the taking of part of an open space; but what they said was—"Do not take more than is necessary; spare the open spaces wherever they can be spared." It was the course pursued by the Trustees of the parish of St. James, who desired to make a gain out of this burial ground, that they objected to, more than that of the Railway Company. What the Trustees asked was, that they should be empowered to sell to the Railway Company a large portion of this open space, which, on the showing of the Railway Company themselves, was not required for the enlargement of their Station, but which, no doubt, they said they could find use for if they got it. No doubt
    210
    they would house their omnibuses and stable their horses upon it; but they could house their omnibuses and stable their horses just as well somewhere else within 300 yards of the Station. He thought, therefore, that the adoption of the Amendment would be greatly for the advantage of the poor of the district, who needed some sort of recreation ground in the neighbourhood.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he was sorry to interpose between the House and a division; but it was really not the fault of the Railway Company that the matter was again brought forward, The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), who had just sat down, would forgive him for saying that he had entirely mistaken the way in which the case came before the House. It was quite true that the form in which the Motion was originally put on the Paper by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. J. Hollond) was such as the hon. Member (Mr. Bryce) had stated; but it was purposely altered before it was put from the Chair. Indeed, he (Mr. Plunket) was interrupted in his speech, because he was arguing it as if it were still in the form in which it had stood on the Paper.
    MR. J. HOLLONDsaid, he wished to explain that the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) was not quite accurate. The question placed before the House was simply the re-committal of the Bill, for the purpose of enabling him to move an Instruction such as had been described by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). If that Instruction had been moved, which provided that no part of this open space should be encroached upon, it would then have been competent for any hon. Member to move an Amendment in the same sense as the Amendment of he hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour). The Instruction which he (Mr. Hollond) intended to have moved, if the re-committal had been carried, was that which had substantially been described by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), and it differed altogether from that of the hon. Member for Hertford.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he could not say what the hon. Member (Mr. J. Hollond) might have moved under other circumstances; but the hon. Member distinctly declined to move the Amend-

    211
    ment he had on the Paper. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: No.] He said yes. He was speaking in that sense on the last occasion, when the same right hon. Gentleman who interrupted him now interrupted him then. On the last occasion he had misunderstood what the Motion before the House was; and the right hon. Gentleman interrupted him, very properly, in order to explain what it was that the House was going to vote upon. There was a distinct Instruction to the Committee, on re-consideration, not to give any land to the Railway Company; and the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the first Commissioner of Works was that the Committee might consider what amount of the land was necessary for the enlargement of the Station. He should like to call the attention of the House to the statement which had been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), when the third reading of the Bill was moved, because many hon. Members had entered the House since the hon. Gentleman spoke. The hon. Gentleman had appealed to the House not to depart from its ordinary practice, on the ground that the adoption of such a course would make the conduct of Private Business impossible. He (Mr. Plunket) wished the House to reflect that they had been appealed to, not only by the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall, who moved the third reading of the Bill in his official capacity, but also by the hon. Baronet the Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Arthur Otway), who supported the appeal on similar grounds. The Chairman of Ways and Means asked the House not to interfere with its ordinary practice in this case, he (Mr. Plunket) did not deny, if there really was a special case of some overpowering public importance, that the House might then override the decision of its Committee; but he entirely denied that such a case had been made out in the present instance. On what grounds were they asked to review the finding of the Committee which sat on the Bill? There were two grounds—first, to avoid the desecration of the be dies interred in this disused graveyard; and, secondly, to preserve the open spaces of the Metropolis. No better motive could be put forward, and there were certainly none which would be more sure to get up an agitation. As
    212
    to the desecration of the dead be dies interred in the graveyard, he must say that the argument was inconsistent; because the proposal was, to a certain extent, that these dead be dies should be interfered with for the purpose of giving to the parish a recreation ground. As that proposal was acceded to be the by the promoters and the opponents of the Bill, there could be really no question in regard to the desecration of dead bodies. He found, however, that there was no desecration whatever. The application of disused graveyards for public purposes was a perfectly understood matter; and rules were framed, under the authority of the Home Office, to enable any proposed removals to be properly carried out. In the present case, every one of the rules and requirements of the Home Office had been fully complied with, so as to secure, in the event of the removal of any dead be dies being necessary, that it should be decently carried out. He did not suppose there would have been any objection of the kind if it had been proposed to hand over the graveyard for the purpose of forming a pleasure ground; and it was only because the requirements of the Railway Company were concerned in the matter, that this course had been taken. The second objection was that the ground ought to be preserved as an open space in the interests of the public health. Now, he thought it was as clear as anything could possibly be that, if ever there was a case in which there was no want of open spaces, it was the case of the particular locality of which they were now talking. His hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who proposed the Amendment, in an eloquent and effective speech, had referred to a letter from some person living at St. George's in the East, describing how the children there had made their first acquaintance with fresh air and green trees and flowers in the open space provided by the turning of the churchyard there into a recreation ground. Nothing could be more touching, and if this ground were lying in St. George's in the East, or in some other overcrowded part of London, there would be great force in the argument; but, in point of fact, it happened to be in a district which was among the best provided with open spaces in the Metropolis, and the squares were exceptionally nume-

    213
    rous. [Cries of "Oh!" and "No!"] Hon. Members said "Oh!" and "No!" but what was the fact? Within a very short distance, there were Mornington Crescent, Oakley Square, Torrington Square, Euston Square, and various other open spaces.
    MR. O'KELLYasked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would allow him to inquire how many of these squares were open to the public?
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he was unable to say; but he was dealing now with the question of open spaces, and he need scarcely point out that every one of these places were open spaces, and that they were open spaces of the best kind, carefully kept for the advantage and improvement of the Metropolis. Further than that, this burial ground was within half-a-mile of Regent's Park; and, therefore, the House ought not to be misled, because it was impossible to find a district in London that was better provided with open spaces. He would ask the House to consider what was the alternative. He held in his hand a Paper which had been circulated among hon. Members that morning, entitled "Reasons in support of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hertford." What was it they proposed to do? It was stated in that Paper that the object was to keep these places as open spaces; but the House could not have the smallest idea of what kind of an open space it was proposed to maintain, if it was to be kept up in its present condition. It was one of the most miserable, dingy, and gloomy instances of a disused graveyard which could be possibly conceived. The Railway Company proposed to take over a portion of the graveyard, and the Select Committee provided that they should pay for the whole of it, and that the portion not given to the Railway Company should be converted into an open space properly maintained for the enjoyment of the neighbourhood; and it was also provided that there should be free access to it in the future, which there never had been in the past. He had just one word more to say. The House was told that a great many things had changed since the last time the matter was before the House. They were told by an hon. Member that the people of the parish of St. James, Westminster, had been in a perfect state of fever about this business, that their indignation
    214
    knew no bounds, and that a meeting had been held for the purpose of protesting against the conduct of the Trustees. Now, he had received information, upon the authority of a gentleman who was present at the meeting, and who was prepared, if necessary, to give evidence on oath, as to the facts, should the question be raised before a Committee of the other House. The meeting, which was advertised, was, in point of fact, a very small meeting. It was attended, to a great extent, by persons who were not parishioners; and when the motion was put in opposition to the scheme of the Railway Company, only 18 hands out of the whole number of persons present were held up in favour of the motion. His right hon. Friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett), who always spoke with such authority in that House, said that it was impossible for persons interested in the matter to be fully heard before the Committee. [Mr. FAWCETT dissented.] Well, perhaps it was not his right hon. Friend who said it; but it certainly had been said in the course of the debate. It was, however, an entire misrepresentation. The fact was that the Vestry of St. Pancras was heard by counsel before the Committee. The Metropolitan board of Works were certainly heard by counsel; and the Committee had before them the hon. and learned Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James), who took so great an interest in the matter. Everything the House had heard advanced that day would, no doubt, be found in the Report of the proceedings of the Committee, having been fully discussed, examined, and cross-examined upon, and argued by counsel before the Committee. Nevertheless, the Committee decided unanimously in favour of the Bill which the House were now asked to read a third time; and he contended that they could not possibly have a stronger case, if they desired to raise an issue as to whether they were or were not prepared to sustain the decision of their Select Committees. One word more. This ground was really wanted for the purposes of the Railway Company, not only for the enlargement of their Euston Square Station, which the necessities of the traffic imperatively required, but in order to make provision for the Parcels Post and for other purposes, If this ground were given to the

    215
    Railway Company, the House might rely upon it, with confidence, that it was absolutely required by the necessities of the Company.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had no intention of taking part in the discussion that day, as he had already explained his views on a previous occasion; but, as some misapprehension had arisen as to what took place last week, he wished to say a word in the way of explanation. His hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. J. Holland), on the last occasion, moved that the Bill be recommitted, and he was prepared to follow on with a Motion which would have had the effect of preventing the Railway Company from taking any part of this land in question. In the course of the discussion which took place, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) ventured to suggest a compromise, whereupon the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) immediately got up and said the House had no right to make that compromise, as it was inconsistent with the Motion before the House. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) pointed out that the immediate Motion before the House was the re-committal of the Bill, and that it was quite inconsistent with that proposal to amend the Instruction. Now, he believed that a large majority of those who heard the discussion were in favour of a compromise; and if the vote of the House had been determined by those who had listened to the debate, he had no doubt the decision would have been in favour of the Amendment. But, unfortunately, a large number of hon. Members dropped into the House for the division who had not heard the discussion, but were merely summoned by the invitation of the Bail-way Company. Those hon. Members outvoted hon. Members who had been present during the discussion; and, consequently, there was a small majority in favour of the Bill of the London and North Western Railway Company. He did not complain of their action; they were quite within their right; but what he did say was that the matter was really determined by a majority of persons who were interested in the question. The only question now before the House was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who proposed to give the Railway Company all that they really wanted and all that they asked for. Those who were in favour of the
    216
    Amendment maintained two principles; one, that a disused burial ground of this kind should not be used for building purposes unless the interests of the public demanded it. He was quite ready to admit that the Railway Company had proved a case which showed the necessity of their making use of a small portion of the ground, and that it was demanded by them for the public convenience; but he did not think the public convenience required that any part of it should be laid out in stables. The second principle was that this disused burial ground ought not to be converted into building purposes, and that the dead be dies interred in it ought not to be disturbed without some strong public ground or reason being shown. His hon. Friend the Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) had referred to a similar case—namely, the conversion of the burial ground at Bunhill Fields connected with the Society of Friends. Now, he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had had something to do with that case. He had tried to prevent the ground from being interfered with; and he was sorry that he was unable to do so. He went down to the spot, and saw what took place, when large masses of bones were removed and carted away elsewhere. He should not soon forgot the scene he witnessed. It occasioned a considerable amount of scandal, and he very much regretted what took place. All he could say was, that the principle he contended for was that these things should not take place unless a very overwhelming case could be shown that it was for the public advantage. As, in this case, the Railway Company would get all they wanted, he thought the remainder ought to be devoted to the wants of the public.
    MR. STANTONsaid, he begged to differ altogether from the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). This was not what the Railway Company had asked for. In the first instance, the Railway Company asked for more than the Committee thought fit to give them. The Committee, in the exercise of their discretion, made a compromise, and gave the Railway Company what they thought they were entitled to. He wished, therefore, to state to the House that this was not all the Railway Company asked for; and if the Company did not get the land the Committee decided to give them,

    217
    they would, undoubtedly, be put to very serious inconvenience. It must be remembered that London was increasing every year; and so much excitement was now being got up in favour of the retention of open spaces, that there was a possibility of the Railway Company finding themselves hemmed in on all sides, with, very few places indeed to which they could obtain access. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not refuse the Railway Company now that which they might have very hard work to obtain hereafter, and which they would undoubtedly require. So far as the question of open spaces was concerned, within a radius of half a-mile from this burial ground there were 34 acres of open spaces. He had a list of 18 open spaces within half a-mile of the centre of this ground, and they amounted altogether to an area of 34 acres, exclusive of the wide streets and roads which existed in the neighbourhood, and which might be counted as open spaces. Leaving out the question of the removal of the dead be dies interred in this ground, lie hoped the House would see that it was desirable to support the decision of the Committee, and to ratify the decision arrived at last week.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, he hoped the House would not allow itself to be influenced by the interested views of hon. Gentlemen who supported the Bill, and who told them how many open spaces there wore in this district. Everyone knew that these so-called open spaces were not open to the public, and that, especially, they were not open to the poor. There was not within half-a-mile of this place any open space that was open to the poor. But within half-a-mile of the point which the Railway Company sought to take possession of, there was a large mass of population living in most crowded dwellings. The people in the district certainly required all the air and all the open spaces they could get. He thought it almost indecent that Railway Directors should come down to that House, in order to support a Railway Company in taking possession of every plot of land that belonged to the people.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, he wished to point out that the land did not belong to the people, but to the Trustees of St. James's, Westminster. He had not the honour
    218
    of being a shareholder of the London and North-Western Railway Company; and, therefore, in anything he said, he was altogether independent of the Company. All he desired, however, was to caution the House against upsetting the decision of the Committee upon the Amendment which was brought forward, after the question had been virtually decided a week ago.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the House had been recommended by several hon. Members not to disturb the decision of the Select Committee, and not to attempt to do anything to alter it, because it was a decision of a Committee of the House. Now, that was not an argument which for one moment would hold water. If the House were to be bound by the decisions of its Select Committees on Private Bills, the third reading of a Bill in that House would become a farce. Since this question was before the House last week, a circumstance had come to light which materially altered the state of the case; and that was, that the representation of the parish of St. James, not the churchwardens, but the popular representation of that parish—namely, the Vestry of the ratepayers—were opposed to this transaction. If, then, the ratepayers of the parish, who were most interested in getting the money, and the parish, which was interested in keeping the burial-ground as an open space, were opposed to the Bill, and if the Railway Company—who were the only persons really interested in the matter—were satisfied, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) really proposed to give the Railway Company that which was right and fair—namely, all the space they actually required. If they were not satisfied with that, he did not think any Member of the House—whether he were a Railway Director or a proprietor of railway shares—had aright to say that the House had come to an unjust decision in referring the Bill back to the Select Committee. He had been induced to be present at the discussion for the purpose of hearing anything that might be said in favour of the Company; but he was completely persuaded that their case would not hold water?
    MR. KENNYsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, whether a Director or a shareholder of the London and North-Western Railway

    219
    Company was to be considered as a person having a direct and pecuniary interest in the question at issue; and whether, in the event of any such person recording his vote in the Division, that vote should be disallowed in pursuance of Standing Order 196?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Original Question is, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. KENNY,again rising, said, he had addressed a question to Mr. Speaker, and he thought he was entitled to receive an answer to it. Perhaps he had better repeat the question. It was, whether a Director or shareholder of the London and North-Western Railway Company was to be considered as a person having a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the question at issue; and whether, in the event of such person recording his vote in the Division, that vote should be disallowed in pursuance of Standing Order 196?
    MR. SPEAKER: The question raised by the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) is one for the determination of the House. If the House thinks proper, it may allow a Motion to be made to the effect mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE: After the Division?
    MR. SPEAKER: Yes; after the Division.
    Question put.
    The House divided: — Ayes 173; Noes 157: Majority 16. — (Div. List, No. 85.)
    MR. KENNY: I put to you, Sir, a few minutes ago, a point of Order, which you said it was for the House to decide. I find that in the Division which has just taken place, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) has recorded his vote in favour of the Bill. As he is a Director of the London and North-Western Railway Company, and as I interpret the Rule to mean that a Director of a Railway Company is a gentleman pecuniarily interested in the affairs of that Railway Company, I beg to move that the vote of the right hon. and learned Gentleman be expunged from the list.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Vote of Mr. Plunket be disallowed."—(Mr. Kenny.)
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) has moved that the vote be disallowed. I have to inform the House that any hon. Member having a direct pecuniary interest in the Question before the House is not entitled to vote. But, according to the usual practice, I apprehend that the House will desire to hear the right lion, and learned Gentleman.
    MR. PLUNKET: I rise, Sir, to answer the appeal you have made to me. I will only say that I am not acquainted with the precedents upon this question, if there be any; but my impression was that I was acting within my right in recording my vote. And I think I can reduce the opposition of the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) to an absurdity, by stating that, to my knowledge, a good many hon. Members who voted against the Bill on this occasion are shareholders in the Company.
    [The right hon. and learned Gentleman then withdrew.]
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I wish to say, in corroboration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, that I am a shareholder, and that I voted in opposition to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER: I also am a shareholder, and I did the same.
    MR. CAINE: I should like to know whether or not shareholders are held to have a direct pecuniary interest in this question?
    MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter for the determination of the House. The House will say whether the interest of any hon. Member is such that his vote should be disallowed.
    Question put.
    The House divided;—Ayes 36; Noes 254: Majority 218.—(Div. List, No. 86.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to:— (Queen's Consent signified).
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  INDIA—THE LATE EX-GAIKWAR OF BARODA.
  MR. M'LARENasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether there are any reasons why so much of the money formerly belonging to the late

  221
  ex-Gaikwar of Baroda, and now in the hands of the Indian Government, as will provide for the claims of the English agents and advocates of the late ex-Gaikwar against his estate, for services rendered, should not be paid to such agents and advocates by the Indian Government; and, whether it is the fact that claims of that nature, which the late ex-Gaikwar was desirous of meeting, are still unsatisfied, owing to the delay of the Indian Government in paying the money?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Sir, the unspent balances of the amount annually set aside from the Baroda Revenues for the maintenance of Mulkar Rao are not in the hands of the Indian Government. They have been treated as lapsed to the Baroda State at the close of each year; and it is for that Government to deal, as it may think proper, with claims such as those referred to by my hon. Friend.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—THE BISHOP OF NATAL.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have received from the Bishop of Natal a reply to Sir Henry Bulwer's charges against the Bishop of undue interference in the affairs of Zululand; and, if so, will he include it in the next issue of South African Papers?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, I have received only this day the document to which my hon. Friend refers, and I have not yet been able to read it; but I have no doubt it will be included in the next issue of Papers.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: When will they be ready?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: After Whitsuntide.

  GROUND GAME ACT, 1880—SPRING TRAPS (SCOTLAND).
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government will move Parliament to restore in Scotland the liberty to protect crops from injury by allowing the use of spring traps in rabbit runs; a liberty the people of that country enjoyed prior to the passing of the Ground Game Act of 1880, but of which, under a recent decision of the Court of Session as to
  222
  the meaning of that Act, they are now deprived, while in England and Ireland there is no such deprivation?
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I rise to Order. I wish, before the answer is given, to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the statement contained in the latter part of the Question is not debateable?
  MR. SPEAKER: I see no ground for interposing between the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon) and the House. The part of the Question to which the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) refers contains a reference to a recent decision of the Court of Session with regard to the meaning of the Act. How far that would be correct I am not aware. It may be matter of controversy.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Perhaps the hon. Baronet opposite will allow me to answer the Question. The latter part of the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend is, I think, framed under a misapprehension. The law is the same for all the Three Kingdoms in this respect. My hon. Friend says that the Act of 1880 took away the rights which were previously enjoyed. In one sense that is true; but hardly, perhaps, in the sense which my hon. and gallant Friend understands it. It did not take away really from the tenant farmers anything which, as a rule, they enjoyed; because, under the terms of their leases, they were prohibited from killing game in any way whatever. But, during the progress of that Act through the House of Commons, it was represented to me that if persons, whether tenants or others, were allowed to set spring traps in the open everywhere, they would kill a great many things besides rabbits, which nobody desired to kill. For that reason, and also because I think the use of spring traps at all is a cruel thing, I was very willing to limit the use of spring traps, not as against the tenants only, but as against everybody, proprietors as well. That was what really took place. Accordingly a clause was inserted, by which no person is allowed, whether he be proprietor or tenant, to set a spring trap in the pen, for this reason—that it kills a great many animals which it is not desired to kill. That was the real meaning of the insertion of the clause. As far as I know, certainly in England, there has been little or no complaint of the operation of that clause. There are

  223
  plenty of other ways of killing rabbits besides spring traps, and they have been found efficient. As to the decision to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, of the Court of Session in Scotland, I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is contemplating the introduction of a measure to remove the difficulty which has arisen on that decision.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SECTION 16—SECRET EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that a witness summoned privately under the Act for the Prevention of Crime (Ireland), 1882, before a magistrate, and then and there compelled to give evidence, can have anything suggested to him and put into his mouth, and taken down and attributed to him, and then be threatened with prosecution for perjury unless he swears to what is thus taken down; if there is any Clause in said Act which precluded persons so examined at secret inquiries having the benefit of a solicitor to protect them from misrepresentation as to what their evidence really was, and to protect them from prosecution for perjury; if Mr. P. Sullivan swore, at a recent inquiry at Ennis before Mr. Clifford Lloyd, that he asked over and over again to have his depositions corrected, and that they were not so corrected; and, if the Irish officials or advisers of Her Majesty's Government are prepared to extend the protection of a legal man to witnesses so pressed and examined?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the first part of this Question appears to convey the notion that the responsible magistrates, intrusted by Statute with the duty of conducting inquiries for the purpose of the detection of crime in Ireland, have been, or are likely to be, guilty of misconduct in the discharge of their duty, as imputed in the Question. I must decline to give any answer to that part of the hon. Member's Question, further than to say that there is no foundation whatever for the charge conveyed, and that the Government feels, as Parliament felt when it was passing the Crimes Act, that the magistrates, designated for the purpose by the Statute, may be safely intrusted with the dis-
  224
  charge of the duty imposed upon them. As regards the second and fourth paragraphs of the Question, I have to state that a person examined as a witness under the Crimes Act is not entitled, under the Statute or otherwise, to have a solicitor present on his behalf, and the Government do not intend to propose any alteration in the law in this respect. As to the third paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, I must decline, as I have already done, to enter into a discussion as to a particular statement made by a witness in a judicial inquiry which is still pending.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Might I ask whether one of the gentlemen who was appointed special resident magistrate has not been dismissed for misconduct?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Undoubtedly, Sir, in so large a service as this it has happened that a special resident magistrate has been called upon to resign; but the only deduction to be drawn from that is that the Executive consider that, as a body, their standard of integrity and ability should be very high indeed.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of this Question, whether it has come to his notice that, in a case at Mullingar, in which I was interested, five resident magistrates were present when a witness swore that they had never read his depositions to him, that he had never read them himself, and that, as he stated afterwards, they were not true?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I must ask for Notice of the Question.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—CASE OF PATRICK KENNEDY.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that a man named Patrick Kennedy, of Beltra, near Rathlacken, Ballina, county Mayo, died on the 25th ult. through want of the necessaries of life; whether, on the 13th ult., twelve days before his death. Patrick Kennedy was visited by the Rev. Hugh Conway, the parish priest, who administered the sacrament to him, and, finding him to be in need of sustenance, gave some assistance, and directed Kennedy's wife and son to make known his condition to the relieving officer; whether the wife and son made separate applications, without avail, to the relieving officer; whe-

  225
  ther the first action taken by the relieving officer was on Tuesday the 24th ult. the day before Kennedy's death, when he gave a visiting ticket for the doctor, who paid the visit that evening, certified that Kennedy was dying, and ordered that five shillings should be given; whether the sum of three shillings, eventually granted, was only given a few hours before Kennedy's death, and too late to be of any use; and, what notice the Government will take of the case?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received, by telegraph, Sir, a copy of a Report made by the Clerk of the Union on this case, referring to corroborative evidence, which will be forwarded by post, from which it appears that Patrick Kennedy had occupied between four and five acres of land, and had lived in the same house with his son-in-law, a letter carrier or postboy, in receipt of 12 s. a-week wages, and who states that Kennedy had been unwell for 12 months, and that there is no ground for the assertion that he died from want of the necessaries of life. The relieving officer alleges that the first application he received in the case was made on the 19th ultimo, and that he then gave 3s. and reported the case to the Guardians, who approved of his action. He further states that it was not until the 23rd of April that Mrs. Kennedy applied to him for a medical visiting ticket, which he gave to her, and the doctor visited the man on the next day.

  STATE OF IRELAND—AGRARIAN OUTRAGES IN MILTOWN MALBAY, COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state how many outrages of an agrarian character have been committed within a radius of seven miles of Miltown Malbay, County Clare, during the past three years; if he will state the number of men from that district at present under arrest charged with conspiracy to murder, &c.; if he will state the number of witnesses which have already come forward to give evidence against these men; whether one Francis Egan has already been twice committed to gaol for refusing to give evidence; if it is a fact that Egan has declared he has no evidence to give; and, if so, whether the Government could accept
  226
  any information from Egan, the trustworthiness of which would be thus so questionable; and, if there is no evidence to criminate any of the prisoners, they will be immedietaly discharged from custody?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am informed that the number of agrarian outrages committed within the time and radius specified is 32, and that 10 men have been arrested in the Miltown Malbay district on the charge of treason-felony and conspiracy to murder. Three witnesses have been examined. I have already, in reply to a former Question, stated the facts as to Egan. He was a witness who swore an information, and subsequently refused on two occasions to be sworn again, and was committed to prison. It is for the magistrate before whom the inquiry is held to decide as to the trustworthiness of the evidence adduced. The Government have no intention of interfering with the course of the inquiry.
  MR. KENNYasked how it was, when only one murder was committed, that 10 men were still detained in custody on such a charge, when they could not possibly have taken part in it?
  [No reply.]

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS (WELLS UNION).
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, seeing that eighteen out of twenty parishes composing the Wells Union (including a thickly populated parish of an urban character) have adopted, under the sanction of the Education Department, the 4th Standard as the Standard for exemption from school attendance, and, seeing that the purely agricultural parish of Meare has experienced great inconvenience from the adoption of a higher Standard, he will favourably consider an application from that parish to place its Standard of exemption on a common footing with a large majority of the parishes of its union?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, there are 16 parishes in the Wells Union, four of which are under boards and the rest under school attendance committees. Three out of four boards, of which Meare is one, have the 5th Standard for total exemption; the remaining parishes have the 4th. The bye-laws in Meare were

  227
  passed in 1877; and, if the attendance of the children had been regularly enforced, they would have had no difficulty in passing the 5th Standard by the time that they were fit for labour. It would be quite impossible, in a case such as this, to lower the Standard fixed so long ago, and that by the school board itself. There is, no doubt, inconvenience attending inequality of Standards; but the proper remedy, in the interests of the children and of the schools, is to level up, and not to level down. Children under 10 years of age are passing the 4th Standard in increasing numbers every year; and complaints are coming in from the clergy, school managers, and teachers, which are confirmed by our own Inspectors, that, owing to the low Standards adopted by so many school attendance committees, children are leaving school earlier than heretofore, and that the schools and the children are suffering in consequence.

  SUNDAY TRADING (LONDON)—LEGISLATION.
  MR. GRANTHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, Whether the Government has any intention of introducing any Bill for the restriction of Sunday Trading and Hawking in London?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, Sir; the Government has no intention of introducing a Bill on the subject at present.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ABSENCE OF A SENIOR EXAMINER.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is a fact that a "Senior Examiner" in the Education Office has been absent on full-pay sick leave for more than 12 months (£800); whether, during the entire absence, this officer has been receiving an extra "acting" personal allowance (£100); and, if he will state how much money the same officer has received for work done during the period referred to in the Wreck Court and elsewhere?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the gentleman referred to in the hon. Member's Question, after a service of nearly 35 years, was disabled by illness, and had six months' sick leave allowed him, no failure of health having, during the whole
  228
  of that time, ever interfered with his attendance at the office. At the end of his sick leave he returned to his work in the Department, when his health again broke down; and as, during the whole of his long official career, he had been a most valuable and efficient public servant, charged with important and onerous duties, another absence of six months on sick leave was granted to him. He received full pay during his absence, including an allowance of £100 granted to him by the Treasury, "as strictly personal to himself." I understand that, at the close of his first absence of sick leave, he was employed for three and a-half days as an assessor in the Wreck Court, for which he received a payment of 35 guineas. The hon. Member is probably aware that he was specially qualified for the employment, as he was a distinguished mathematician, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and formerly Principal of the Government School of Naval Architecture. I regret to say that he has now retired from the service.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to know whether the consent of the Treasury had been obtained for this arrangement?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I would rather have Notice of that Question, and answer it to-morrow; but I believe that whatever has been done has been done in the usual course.

  IRELAND—THE DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE AND THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the Report of Evidence taken by the Committee of Inquiry on the Dublin Metropolitan Police (which evidence appears to have been completely taken when the Committee addressed their letter of the 18th of October last to the Under Secretary for Ireland), and also the Report of Evidence taken by the Committee of Inquiry on the Royal Irish Constabulary (which Evidence, according to the Report of that Committee, was closed on the 20th of October last), have not yet been circulated among Members of the House; and, whether the Government will ask the House to take up the Motion for the Second Reading of the Constabu-

  229
  lary and Police (Ireland) (Pay and Pensions) Bill before the evidence taken relative thereto is placed in the hands of Members?
  MR. TEEVELYAN: Sir, these Reports and Evidence were not originally prepared for presentation to Parliament, but for the information of the Government. It is only recently—comparatively recently—that they decided to circulate copies of the Evidence; and, since then, no time has been lost in pushing forward their preparation. The Reports were presented and circulated in advance, as that could be done without the delay which would have been involved in waiting for the preparation of the very voluminous Evidence. The Government hope that the second reading of the Bill will be taken before Whitsuntide; and they hope that hon. Gentlemen will get sufficient information as to the principle of the measure from the very able Eeports—which I cannot but think are very able—to enable them to decide on the principle of the Bill on the second reading. It is fully expected that the Evidence will be put in the hands of hon. Members before the Bill is brought to its Committee stage. I may, for the convenience of hon. Members, state that I do not propose to ask the House to take the second reading of the Bill tonight.
  MR. GIBSON: In reference to this matter, perhaps this would be a convenient time to put a Question regarding it, as I believe there is considerable misconception in Ireland on the subject. I wish to ask, Is it a fact that this Bill contains all the proposals that the Government intend to put forward for the amelioration of the condition of the Irish Constabulary and Police?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, that certainly is a very important question, and I am very glad to have an opportunity of stating my views on it. The scheme of the Government, with some very slight exceptions, is what was recommended by the two Committees of Inquiry. The part of that scheme which requires legislation is embodied in the Bill now before the House; but the rest of the scheme, including the very important provisions for raising the men's allowances, and for carrying out those details in the promotion and discipline, which, perhaps, as much as anything else, will enhance the comfort of the
  230
  corps, will be communicated to the men, I presume, by Circular from the Inspector General and the Chief Commissioner, and embodied in the Rules of the Force. But, by legislation or otherwise, it may fairly be said that the entire scheme, as put forward by the two Committees of Inquiry, will be adopted by the Government.

  EGYPT (RE-ORGANIZATION)—MR. SHELDON AMOS.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the event of taxes being sought to be raised to enable the Egyptian Government to carry out the views of Mr. Sheldon Amos (now alleged to be a member of a Committee to arrange measures for carrying out Lord Dufferin's Constitution), that the coupons on the debt "must be paid at all hazards," Her Majesty's forces now in Egypt will not be allowed to interfere should the Egyptian peasants refuse to pay such taxes, until they shall have been voted by their own duly elected representatives?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, I regret that the alleged appointment of Professor Sheldon Amos should cause so much disquiet to the hon. Member; but it is impossible for me to reply to a purely hypothetical Question, and to say what Her Majesty's Government will do under circumstances which have not arisen, and which are not likely to arise.

  COMMISSION ON TECHNICAL EDUCATION—THE REPORT.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the second portion of the Report of the Royal Commission on Technical Education, especially the part relating to Ireland, will be published?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the Commissioners still have evidence to collect in Ireland; but I expect that the second part of their Report will be prepared before the end of the Session.

  SOUTHPORT FORESHORE.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether his conference this afternoon with the local authorities of Southport has altered his views with respect to the

  231
  sale of the foreshore; and, if he will state what course he proposes to take under the circumstances?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, I have not yet had time to consider the arguments addressed to me by the deputation from Southport, which left me only about two hours ago; and, until I have done so, I can scarcely be expected to answer the Question. But, at the same time, it must be understood that there can be no question of receding from a binding contract. I may add, however, that I am willing to use my good offices as a mediator between the Corporation of Southport and the riparian proprietors; and I have good reason to know that the proprietors will gladly avail themselves of those good offices as far as concerns the foreshore opposite the town of Southport, and the terms on which it should be given to the Corporation. I have stated this to the deputation which was with me this afternoon; and I am not without hope that reasonable counsels may prevail, and that an amicable arrangement may be arrived at, especially if the subject be left to be treated, as it should be, as a matter of business.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's answer referred to the foreshore of the be rough of Southport, which was a very small part, or to the foreshore of the whole of the town, marked brown on the map, with which the right hon. Gentleman was acquainted?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, I have stated that I have offered my good offices as mediator between the parties, and that I am willing to use those offices of mediator between the Corporation and the riparian proprietors; and, therefore, I mean to use my good offices, not applying them to one or to another particular part of the foreshore. I have reason to know that, so far as opposite the town of Southport is concerned, the riparian proprietors will be glad to avail themselves of the Corporation offer.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: But that is a very small portion of the foreshore. ["Oh, oh!"] I am sorry to ask the Question again. ["Order!"]
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I presume, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite speaks of the offer of his good offices, he did not confine them to any one particular part of the foreshore, but
  232
  extended them to any part in regard to which there was any question between the two parties.
  MR. DODSON: Certainly.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE — DRAINAGE CONSOLIDATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. MARUMasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in order to submit the Drainage Consolidation (Ireland) Bill to the consideration of the Country during the Whitsuntide Recess, he will introduce the same before Friday next; and, whether it will contain Clauses, as suggested, providing for the collection of Drainage Rates by Poor Rate collectors similar to provisions to that effect contained in section 16 of "The Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act, 1882?"
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I hope to introduce the Drainage Consolidation Bill before the House rises, and that it will be circulated, so as to be considered during the Recess. The suggestion in the second paragraph of the Question has been considered; but its adoption would, it is believed, involve more trouble, expense, and friction in collection than the present system of receivable orders.

  EGYPT (RE-ORGANIZATION) — THE EARL OF DUFFERIN'S DESPATCH.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is in a position to state what facilities would be given to the House for the discussion of Lord Dufferin's Despatch and of the new Egyptian Constitution?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, I am not in a position to reply to the hon. Baronet's Question, which should be addressed to the Prime Minister.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am not aware what basis there is for this Question. It seems to me to be proposed on the supposition that it is the duty of the Government to afford, out of its own share of the time of the House, opportunities to Members, who may be so disposed, to discuss every question of public interest. That is not my understanding of the relative positions of the Government and of private Members. My understanding is, that a certain por-

  233
  tion of time is allotted to the Government, in order that they may lay before the House the consideration of those questions upon which they require the aid of the House; and that another portion is allotted to private Members, in order that they may bring forward any questions connected with the conduct of the Government or otherwise which they may think deserve the attention of the House. I have no doubt my hon. Friend feels that the portion of the time of the House appropriated to private Members is very much crowded; but, then, that is exactly the case with the Government. We are likewise very much crowded; and, out of our poverty, we are not able to afford him any portion of our time.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: In explanation, I may be allowed to say that I asked the Question because, on the occasion of the last debate, we were told by the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) to wait for Lord Dufferin's despatch.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SECTION 16—PRIVATE EXAMINATIONS AT DUBLIN CASTLE
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether "The Metropolitan Police Office," in Dublin Castle, in which the secret investigations under the 16th section of the Crimes Act have been held, has been within the last fifteen years used as a "police office" in the sense of a court in which police charges are ordinarily entertained; and, if not, whether it satisfies the requirement of the 16th section, that persons summoned to give evidence in this way should be examined "at a police office, or the place where the petty sessions for the district in which the offence has been committed are usually held?"
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, in reply to this Question, I have to say that police charges have not been ordinarily entertained at the Metropolitan Police Office as mentioned in the first paragraph. As to the concluding paragraph, I have to state that I am advised that the Metropolitan Police Office does satisfy the requirements of the Statute, as a place where inquiries authorized by it may be held.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell the House whether Mr. Curran had examined, in Dublin Castle, a number of witnesses from places outside Dublin, as, for instance, Curraghmore and Mullingar. Did not the Statute require the examination to be conducted before the Resident Magistrate of the district in which the offence was alleged to have been committed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I must have Notice in answering in the House of Commons for any officer of the Executive Government.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen the report in that day's papers of the imprisonment of two gentlemen in Cork, for refusing to answer questions having no reference to the offence specified in the summons?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I thoroughly understand that case, Sir, which the hon. Gentleman gave Notice of, at length, yesterday, and I think it would be more convenient if I deferred answering the Question until then.

  ADJOURNMENT—THE DERBY DAY.
  MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the prospect of advancing the Bills mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech has now improved, he will propose that the Whitsuntide Holidays should extend over the Derby Day, thus giving to the House three more days holiday; and, whether he would consider whether an arrangement might not be made by which the Government might take Friday the 25th as a Government night in compensation for Monday the 21st, which would be the only day they would lose by meeting the wish of the House for a longer adjournment?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in regard to this Question, my wishes are in one direction, and my necessities, I am sorry to say, are in another. I am afraid it would not be compatible with the duty of the Government to advise an extension of the Vacation. It is possible that some hon. Members of the House may find means of extending it for themselves; but I am afraid we cannot assist them further. As to the latter part of the Question, I quite appreciate the object with which it is put, and I acknow-

  235
  ledge its equity. But I think, if the right hon. Gentleman has observed what has lately taken place, he will find that any proposal on our part to alter the Standing Order as to the course of Business on Fridays would probably be made the subject of a not very short and not agreeable discussion; and I am bound to say I do not think it would be a desirable course to raise it.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL —RECOMMENDATION OF PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government have any intention in the Corrupt Practices Bill of providing against interference with the freedom of constituencies by declaring that the recommendation of candidates through political agencies or persons unconnected with a constituency shall be considered an attempt to exercise undue influence?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in this Question, I have no doubt the hon. Member has in view officious, and what may be called impertinent, interference; what the constituency might resent as dictation—and if he can discover any means of defining that kind of operation by words suited to an Act of Parliament, and will propose them and put them on the Paper, in all probability my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General will be glad to give them his best consideration. But I am bound to say I think his words, as they stand in the Question, are a great deal too wide, because he proposes to enact that any recommendation of a candidate to a constituency by a person not belonging to the constituency shall be considered an exercise of undue influence. It appears to me that that would be a distinct prohibition to every constituency to seek any information whatever outside that constituency about any person whom they might think of making a candidate which it might be very desirable that the constituency should have.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, "Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose a Vote in
  236
  Supply for the purpose, described in his Notice of Motion, of making "adequate provision for the interests of any South African Chief who may have just claims on them;" and, if so, whether he will give the same undertaking, with respect to such a Vote, which he has given with respect to that for the salary of the Transvaal Resident, viz. that it shall be brought forward at a convenient period of the Session, and, if necessary, taken out of the regular course?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I believe that the latter part of this Question describes correctly what has taken place with regard to the Transvaal; and I should say that, if occasion arises to ask for money for the purposes indicated in the first part of the Question, it certainly would be asked by the method of submitting an Estimate; and we should submit that Estimate at the earliest moment, when we were able to form a judgment of what would be required. We should also consider that Estimate to fall under the same regulations as that for the salary of the Resident in the Transvaal; but the time has not arrived when we shall be able to say whether money will be required for that purpose or not. It is possible that the arrival of Sir Hercules Robinson in this country, which is expected to take place shortly, will advance our decision on that subject.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).
  MR. LEWIS: Sir, I wish, as a matter affecting the Privileges of the House, to call your attention to a paragraph which appears in all the papers this morning, in reference to Mr. Bradlaugh. It refers to the Resolution passed by the House last Friday, and it states—
  "Mr. Bradlaugh's position is, that the Resolution is absolutely illegal, and he will disregard it and disobey it in the same manner as on February 21st last year. He will do this in such a way as may be most convenient to himself."
  Further on, the paragraph states—
  "He is advised that he has a clear right to take and subscribe the Oath by himself. Mr. Bradlaugh will previously hold as many large meetings as possible, and these meetings will culminate in a large London meeting. In any contest that may arise with the House, he will be always ready to submit to an arrest, without questioning the grounds; but he is advised that the use of physical force by the House to prevent his obeying the law is unlawful: and, as it

  237
  appears, from Mr. Justice Field's decision in Bradlaugh v. Erskine, that he has no legal remedy for such unlawful physical force, he will take sufficient means to protect himself against what he terms the disgraceful force used against him outside the House on August 3,1881."
  I venture respectfully to ask you, Sir, Whether, having regard to the alleged threats of Mr. Bradlaugh to "disregard and disobey the Resolution of the House," and to "take sufficient means to protect himself against what he terms the disgraceful force used against him outside the House on the 3rd of August, 1881," you will communicate to the House whether you will take the necessary steps to protect the House and its Members from the consummation of the outrage threatened, and which may take place at any moment?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Before you answer that Question, Sir, will the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lewis) allow me to ask him whether or not he is aware that the paragraph he has read emanates from Mr. Bradlaugh? The hon. Member states that it appears in this morning's papers; but I did not understand him to say that it is signed by Mr. Bradlaugh.
  MR. LEWIS: I did not state positively that it came from Mr. Bradlaugh. I used the words "alleged threats." The copy I have read appears in The Times and all the morning papers. It has also appeared in the newspapers throughout the country. In Manchester, where I was this morning, it was published in exactly the same terms. My Question was carefully guarded by the use of the words "alleged threats."
  MR. SPEAKER: The House has recently passed a Resolution bearing on the claims of Mr. Bradlaugh, and it will be my duty to see that the Resolution is observed. With regard to the contingency contemplated by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), I think the House will probably be of opinion that it is not for me to take notice of what appears to be an unauthorized report. If any further action on the part of the House should be necessary, I have no doubt the House will, in its wisdom, give me such instructions as may be required.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Is it in the power of Mr. Bradlaugh, as at present circumstanced, to repeat his action of last year, when he advanced to the Table without being called
  238
  on by you, Sir, went through the form of taking the Oath, and threw on the Table a piece of paper, signed by him, which circumstance led to a very unpleasant and disgraceful scene. I want to know, Sir, if it is possible for Mr. Bradlaugh, by so advancing to the Table, again to disturb the proceedings of the House, and to repeat the scene of last Session?
  MR. SPEAKER: I should consider that Mr. Bradlaugh would be disobeying the Rules and practice of this House if he were to come to the Table to take the Oath without having been called upon to do so by the Chair.
  MR. LEWIS: I beg to give Notice that, having regard to the answer with which Mr. Speaker has just favoured the House, I will put a Question to the Prime Minister on Friday, as to whether the Executive Government have, or will provide, sufficient strength to prevent the outrage contemplated?

  EAST INDIA (EXPENDITURE).
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he would ask permission to call attention to the Notice of Motion which stood in his name for that evening. He desired simply to move that it was necessary that early steps should be taken to reduce the expenditure. The concluding part of the Resolution, which suggested the appointment of a Committee, was not contained in his Notice; but it was an addendum to be moved by some other Member, which, by mistake, had been printed as part of his Motion.
SOUTHPORT FORESHORE.

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the Sale of the Southport Foreshore to the Lords of the Manors.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he rose to Order. He wished to know whether the sale of a piece of land by the Government was a matter of such urgent importance that it was necessary to move the Adjournment of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. Jesse Collings be now heard? [Cries of "Aye, aye!" and "No, no!"]

  239
  The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported that Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen in their places:—
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid: I have to apologize to the House for the course I am taking; but when the House has heard the statement I have to make, I think hon. Members will be disposed to agree with me that no apology was necessary. Looking to the urgent importance of the question I am about to discuss, I was in hopes that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) to the Question I put to him earlier in the evening would have been of such a character as to have made it unnecessary for me to bring this matter before the House in such a way; but, unfortunately, such is not the case, for the right hon. Gentleman is positive that he will not recede from the partial sale which has been effected; and he will only promise to use his good offices with the Lords of the Manors, so far as a very small portion of the foreshore is concerned.
  MR. DODSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to repeat that my good offices were not offered in respect to one part of the foreshore only, but on the question in general.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS,continuing, said. It is only a stronger way of putting my case. The right hon. Gentleman has reason to know, as I am informed, that the Lords of the Manors, who have supposed rights over a small portion of this foreshore, can now be forced to come to terms; but that if once the purchase is completed, these landowners, whose title is now doubtful, will have a clear title from the Duchy of Lancaster, and will refuse to come to terms, in which case the Corporation will have to fall back upon the good offices of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not for a moment doubt that those good offices will be used in the most rightful manner; but the case is one of the greatest urgency, and if this sale is carried out against the wishes of the Corporation, it will mean disaster and partial ruin to the town. The case is one of very great difficulty, I know; but if the right hon. Gentleman likes to make an effort, he will be able to stop this great disaster which is
  240
  impending over the borough of South-port. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in times gone by, use strong, but not exaggerated language, as to the benefit and the glory, and the credit which municipal and local governments bestow upon the country at large. I am inclined to think that the municipalities, and all those who are engaged in the task of local self-government, should receive the very strongest consideration from the Central Government; and I am, therefore, glad the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is present, because it has been said to me during the past week—"If we could only get the Prime Minister to know the merits of this case, we are sure he would not allow us to be victimized in this manner." For this reason, as I have said, I am glad to see the Prime Minister in his place to-night. Now, I have had nearly 20 years' experience of local government and municipal government in almost all its phases, and in almost all kinds of work connected with it; and I say, in all my experience, I have never known treatment so cruel and so much to be lamented as that to which this municipality is now being subjected. Southport is an important town, and has within 30 miles of it 4,000,000 of persons. It has been described as the sanatorium of the district; and in the town itself, there is a population exceeding 40,000 persons, while the increase is more rapid than in any other part of England, for it has twice doubled its population within the last 20 years. The local government of the town and the municipality are very popular, for they have done a great deal for the town in the way of establishing all sorts of institutions, such as gardens, baths, libraries, and an aquarium; and they considered it absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the town that the land of the foreshore should not go from them. To use the words of the Mayor of the town—
  "It will be a sad thing for us to have to rely on the tender mercies of the representatives of the landowners in any improvements we have to make."
  To put the case plainly, the local authorities have published a map of the foreshore. They divide it into two parts— one part coloured brown goes all along the front of the town, and is about 4,000 acres, the frontage to the sea being

  241
  several miles. The land adjoining belongs to the borough of Preston, and contains about 5,000 acres. These two lots of 9,000 acres have been sold by the Duchy for £15,000, about 5,000 acres to one landlord and 4,000 to another, and it seems to me there is only one way out of this compact. The Mayor and Corporation are willing to give almost anything for the foreshore in front of their town. In order to prevent the sale being carried out, they are willing to give a premium on the price paid for the land to the extent of 5 or 10 per cent. They are even willing to give £15,000 for the one plot of 4,000 acres, leaving out altogether the larger plot of 5,000 acres, which is agricultural land. I just want to refer to the correspondence which has taken place in this matter, and I will detain the House as briefly as I can. I will quote no more than is absolutely necessary. The question was first raised by the Corporation of Southport in October, 1880, on their application in regard to the land to the Duchy. The Duchy sent a surveyor to survey the land they proposed to buy, and Mr. Cartwright, the surveyor, named a sum of £9,000, and wished to know if the Corporation would purchase on these terms. On the 19th March, 1881, an additional piece of land was asked for, and correspondence went on regarding it until April, 1881, when a letter was addressed to the Duchy, asking for some information as to the claims made on the foreshore by the trustees of the two landlords in question. On April 13, 1881, the Town Clerk wrote and stated that the reason the Corporation wished to have this information was because the trustees of those two landowners claimed to be the owners in fee of the whole of the foreshore, coextensive with the borough of South-port. On May 24, 1881, the Town Clerk further wrote, and speaking on the Southport and Cheshire Railway Bill of 1881, then before Parliament, said they had petitioned against it, giving the authority of Mr. Whitaker that the foreshore belonged to the Duchy. The Attorney General of the Duchy, in evidence given on the Bill, disputed the rights of those two landlords, but declared that the Duchy had full rights. There was, therefore, the opinion of the Attorney General of the Duchy and Solicitor General of the Duchy in support of the
  242
  contention that those landowners had no I claims to the foreshore in question, and that the Duchy had full powers over it. On July 4, 1881, the Town Clerk wrote to the Surveyor General of the Duchy, and asked the very pertinent question whether, as the purchase of this piece of land would probably involve a lawsuit, it could not be obtained at a lower price than the sum named? A few days afterwards, the Surveyor General, in acknowledging the receipt of the letter, said that the town authorities appeared to lay too much stress on the validity of any claim which might be set up adverse to the Duchy in regard to the piece of land in question; but added that the Town Clerk was quite at liberty to use such arguments, in order to get the price of the land reduced; and, having regard to the fact that the land was to be used for public purposes, he was prepared to advise the Chancellor of the Duchy to let the Corporation have it for £10,000. The Corporation then endeavoured to get from the representatives of the landowners an abstract of their title, or something upon which they founded their title. The Duchy complained of the delay on the part of the Corporation; and that delay could be explained by the fact, which was perfectly well known, that Corporations in general referred those matters to Standing Committees, and that was the course followed in this case. On August 26, 1881, the Town Clerk wrote, saying that the Council had decided to purchase the foreshore from the Duchy. That letter was acknowledged by the Surveyor General, who, in his reply, on the 29th of August, said the terms of the agreement would be drawn up by the Solicitor of the Duchy. On the 9th of September, the Town Clerk wrote, and asked for an interview, in order that they might discuss certain matters arising out of the subject, prior to the business being referred to the Solicitor. The next letter from the Town Clerk was of September 15, and said that he was instructed by the Sub-Committee to recommend the Town Council to purchase the rights of the Duchy in the foreshore for £9,500. On the 14th of October, he wrote again to the same effect; and asking if it would not be better to send a proof of the agreement, embodying the terms of the purchase, for perusal? Mr. Whitaker, writing

  243
  the next day, said he thought it would be better to prepare a draft agreement, embodying the terms, and that it should be sent to him for his approval. Then there is nothing of importance in the Correspondence until we come to the 7th of September, when Messrs. Prior, the London Agents of the Southport Corporation, wrote to Mr. Whitaker, enclosing the proposed agreement for the purchase of part of the foreshore on the part of the Corporation. I may say, in passing, that the agreement has never boon formally rejected. It was not returned to the Corporation, and it is in the hands of the Duchy at the present time. I am told that all agreements, when they are done with, are returned, and that the legal advisers of the Corporation lay great stress on this point. There was in the terms of the agreement a clause to the effect that, subject to the authority of Parliament being obtained, the vendors agreed to sell, and the purchasers to purchase, certain portions of land, being part of the foreshore, for the sum of £9,500. If the Act of Parliament was not obtained by the 1st of September, 1884, then it would be void; and it was signed by the London Agent of the Corporation and the Town Clerk, and addressed to Mr. B. Inglehardt on the part of the Duchy. Coming down to the 4th of January, 1882, the Solicitor to the Duchy wrote to say that it would be impossible to deal with the draft agreement until he had had an opportunity of conferring with some of the heads of the deputation on the 27th of January, 1882. Mr. Whitaker, writing to the Town Clerk, said that, although he had had no definite instructions, he had had the opportunity of forming an opinion on the subject, and that he felt some confidence in stating his belief that sanction might fairly be anticipated of the arrangement provisionally; and, in the interview which was to take place with the Chancellor, he thought the representatives of the Corporation ought to be prepared to state the sum that could be paid down as whole or part of the purchase money. That was a very serious alteration; and the representatives of the Corporation asked that they should go back to the original agreement, as they were not prepared to pay down the purchase money. I now come to the letter of the 21st February, 1882, which is the most important of the whole
  244
  correspondence, and which the Duchy set great store by, as they say it put an end to the whole correspondence. But there is not one word in the letter putting an end to the correspondence, and I venture to say that no hon. Gentleman who hears it read will dream that any such thing as breaking off the negotiations was intended in it; the Town Clerk simply wrote to Mr. Whitaker, to the effect that it was of vital importance to the town that the foreshore in front of it should be in the hands of the Corporation; and that accordingly the Committee had decided to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy to receive a deputation, in order to show him that it was impossible for them to enter into anything but a provisional agreement, and to ask him also to sanction such an agreement, after showing him the desirability of the foreshore being in the hands of the Corporation. That deputation was never sent to the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), and reasons why it was never sent have been given by the Corporation. There are other letters; but in none of them is there any question of putting an end to the negotiations. They wished to try the claim of the landowners to the foreshore before they purchased it; and, in fact, there is a letter from the Town Clerk to the Corporation to the trustees of the landowners, to the effect that he would accept, service of a writ in order to try the matter, as the Corporation were anxious to have the matter settled. Other correspondence followed, which brought the matter down to the present time. On March 29, the Town Clerk wrote again to the Solicitor to the Duchy, saying he hoped, at an early date, to wait upon Mr. Bright; but all these things showed that there was simply a hitch in the negotiations. Then there was a letter calling Mr. Whitaker's attention to a debate that had taken place in the Southport Town Council, when a Town Councillor had said that the Duchy had offered to sell the whole of the foreshore for a sum of less than £15,000. In reply, the Solicitor to the Duchy wrote, saying it would be time enough for the Duchy to commence litigation when its rights were infringed. On January 4, 1883, there was a letter from the Solicitor to the landowners, furnishing the Corporation with the long-

  245
  expected abstract of title, comprising some 136 folios, with maps, &c.; and the Town Clerk, having examined it, reported, on the 24th March, that the landowners had no title to the foreshore. In fact, the right of the Duchy to sell the foreshore has never been contested. They agreed to a clause; but the Duchy felt their full right of sale, or they would not have considered the question of selling. This was on the 6th of April, and on the 7th, the Mayor of Preston, in cross-examination, was asked by the landowners' counsel to whom the foreshore belonged, and he replied—"To the Duchy of Lancaster." "But," said the counsel, "you are aware that we are the owners," to which the Mayor replied— "No; I am not." No doubt, the landowners were somewhat frightened at the position which the Duchy were taking with regard to its rights in the sale of this larger portion of the foreshore to the Corporation of Preston; and also by the evidence of the Mayor of Preston, a man of great standing and influence in the locality. Therefore it was that, on the same evening, they opened negotiations with the Duchy. This was on the 6th April; and without troubling the House further, I may say that, on the 9th, the Mayor, who happened to be in the Committee Room of the House, heard, almost by accident, that the foreshore had been sold to the landowners. I am sure that, on such a matter, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister will extend the sympathy which I know he feels for municipalities to this Corporation, placed, as they are, in this unfortunate position. The Town Clerk wrote to Mr. Whitaker, Solicitor to the Duchy, expressing a desire to avert a state of things which those members of the Corporation who were in London considered would be disastrous to the best interests of the town of Southport. They claimed the right to regard the original offer of the Duchy, to sell the foreshore to the Corporation, as still open; but, at the same time, they offered, if necessary, on their own responsibility, to vary the terms which they had offered. This, in my opinion, shows the earnestness and public spirit of these men, who, as members of the Corporation, without profit to themselves, but with that patriotic feeling which has made England what it is, take part in managing the affairs of the community
  246
  in which they live, and give their services for the good of their fellows. This is a spirit which has long distinguished the English people, and which, in the case of Municipal Corporations, produces as good and earnest work as is done by any body of men, however well paid they may be, or however high the honours which they may receive; and I say that such men, who represent authorities best in English life, should receive the hearty care and consideration of the Government. These gentlemen knew very well that they must run risks, as members of other Corporations have done. They knew there was no time to go to the Corporation; and, therefore, they were prepared to sign a contract, making themselves personally responsible for the payment of the purchase money, in the event of the Corporation declining to endorse their action. They knew the landowners had their creatures in the Council, and that others of the body, under fear of threatened litigation, might sway the Corporation into backing out of any contract that might be made, as the Town Clerk, in the letter which I am paraphrasing, said—
  "The members of the Corporation then present in London, consisting of the Mayor, an Alderman, and two Members of the Council asked for a favourable answer from the Duchy, on the ground, if on no other, that the public interest was of no less interest and solicitude to the Crown than to the Corporation."
  That was on the 9th of April, and on, the 15th there came out certain elaborate heads of an agreement between the Duchy and the landowners, for the sale and purchase of the foreshore for £15,000, £2,000 of which was paid down almost immediately. On the same day the Town Clerk received a reply from the Solicitor to the Duchy to his letter of the previous day, to which I have referred. Mr. Whitaker, the Solicitor, said that the proposal of the members of the Corporation had been submitted to the Duchy authorities, who had decided upon accepting the offer of the landowners. This resulted in further negotiations, based upon a protest on the part of the Corporation of Southport, who maintained that they had been promised the first refusal, and demanded that no other offer should be entertained until theirs was disposed of; and in reference to this point the interviews between the authorities of the Duchy and

  247
  the representatives of the Town Council are worthy of attention. To those representations Mr. Whitaker replied that all negotiations were off; but added that he would entertain an offer if made before 3 o'clock in the day; this communication being received at 1 o'clock. The representatives of the Council retired, and, after consultation with the Town Clerk, they returned and made an offer of £9,500, with an offer, if necessary, to go up to £10,000. The Surveyor General and the Solicitor to the Duchy declared, however, that that amount was useless; and when the Corporation's representatives tried to ascertain what would be taken, one of those two gentlemen took out a pencil and figured down £12,000 as the amount that would be accepted. That was at 3 o'clock. At length they got the time extended to 5 o'clock, and ultimately until 7 o'clock, as if they were criminals asking for a short respite because they hoped a reprieve would arrive, instead of being the representatives of the Corporation of a great town. I feel somewhat warmly about the treatment of these gentlemen, for I believe in Corporations and in representative local government. The deputation then offered £12,000 on their own personal responsibility. They came down to this House at 4 o'clock, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) expressed his sympathy with them, offered his assistance, and asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy to give them an interview. Surely, this was a cheap enough thing; but it was refused. Later in the evening the request for an interview was renewed, after the arrival of the Mayor of South-port, who had posted up for the purpose again. It was again refused, and I will not trust myself to say what I think of this refusal. The excuse of the right hon. Gentleman for his refusal was, that there was a point of law involved; but I would ask what had any question of law to do with the Duchy of Lancaster? These gentlemen wore willing to buy certain lands from the Duchy, and, in doing so, to take the risk of whatever legal proceedings might be instituted against them on that account; and the Duchy was not asked, or expected, to protect the Corporation against any lawsuit on the part of the representa-
  248
  tives of the landowners. It turned out, howover, that the question of law had to do with the matter in another and more objectionable way, because it was announced in the Committee on the Ribble Navigation Bill, on the next day, that the foreshore had been sold by the Duchy to the landowners, and the counsel, in stating the fact, said that the Duchy had sold, "Peace instead of war." What, as a matter of fact, had they done? In a conflict between 45,000 people and their rights the Duchy had taken the side of the two landowners against the 45,000, and had given them a legal and an unquestionable title to the foreshore; and they had done this, with the original agreement between themselves and the Corporation in their possession. It had never been returned or annulled in any way. The Town Clerk of South-port wrote a further letter to Mr. Whitaker, on the 12th of April, renewing his protest against the right of the Duchy to sell the foreshore, in face of the non-cancelled agreement to sell to the Corporation; and to that he received the somewhat off-hand reply that Mr. Whitaker declined to make any reply to inquiries which he deemed "wanting both in pertinence and propriety." Then, on the 19th, there was a letter from the representative of the landowners to the Duchy of Lancaster, in which it was stated that the landowners owned 19–20ths of the land within the borough of Southport, and had, therefore, far greater interest in the welfare of the town than the Corporation. The fact, however, that, because they already possess 19–20ths of the land in the borough, therefore the remaining twentieth should be given them is a position I venture to dispute. The Corporation also protested against this, because they knew that if the remaining twentieth was handed to the landowners, they would become masters of all the position relative to the progress and improvements in the town. An offer has been made of the good offices of the Duchy with the Lords of the Manor, as regards the treatment of the Corporation in this matter; and, as an illustration of that treatment, and how little those good offices may avail, may I mention that in 1878 the Duchy of Lancaster sold to the Corporation 120 acres of land for £340 for the purpose of making a carriage I drive and other improvements; but the

  249
  landowners claimed for the rights in the same land no less than £21,000, and it was only by threats of litigation that they were induced to abate their demand until it reached £7,000, which the Corporation paid. It is, after all, a sort of Rule of Three sum; if, in 1876, the landowners claimed£21,000 for 120 acres of land, with a defective title, or no title at all, what are they likely to demand for 4,000 or 5,000 acres, over which they have a full title conferred by the Duchy of Lancaster? The whole sea front of the town will be in the hands of two people, and the Corporation, before they can make their intended gardens and other improvements in that direction, will have to buy back this land for some fabulous sum; while, as the Mayor had said— "Parliament has no idea how we are ground down from the same quarter." There is yet another very serious matter. Last year a scheme was promoted for the making of a railway along the foreshore —in fact, along the whole front of that town. One of the landowners is favourable to that scheme, which may be brought forward again; so that the town stands in danger of having this railway made at no distant date, to the utter ruin of the community. I would, therefore, renew my appeal to the Prime Minister and to the Chancellor of the Duchy, that, even at the risk of a small loss to the Duchy, they will secure the foreshore to the inhabitants of the town. I bog of them to remember that the public interests of a great borough of 45,000people, rapidly increasing, a town which, as the sanatorium of a large district, is worthy of far more consideration than the interests of two landowners, who, however respectable they may be—and I have no word to say against them in that respect —have no right to control the interests of the large population of the borough. I can only say, in conclusion, that if the Government persist in ratifying this bargain, they will not only commit a blunder, but they will turn a blunder into a disgrace.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I am bound to say, Sir, that I have never seen a greater blunder than has been made in this case by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy
  250
  of Lancaster; and I can only assume that it must have occurred, or, at any rate, originated, in the interregnum between the resignation of his Predecessor, the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and the appointment of the present Chancellor. What the Government have done has simply been to place a monopoly in the hands of two landowners, as against the public and the Corporation of Southport. Is it to be supposed that these contracts entered into suddenly, and to some extent in the dark, should be carried out without Parliament having any knowledge of them at all? The House is made cognizant of most contracts by their being laid on the Table; and I would ask whether it is to be assumed, for a moment, that the Chancellor of the Duchy is to be allowed to make a contract vitally affecting the interests of the 45,000 inhabitants of Southport, and millions of people outside it, without the House having any control over the transaction? It is time the House should show its authority over these contracts, made for the Duchy by a single Member of the Government. There are places where the Board of Trade hold that the foreshores should belong to the country; and I maintain that, if they are alienated at all, it should be in the interest of the public, and not of private individuals. One Department responsible to Parliament is protecting the interests of the country in this direction; while a practically irresponsible Member of the Cabinet is bartering them away. In this case a bargain appears to have been made with the landowners, without notice to persons with whom the Duchy had previously been treating; and it seems to me to have been an act of the grossest bad faith. At any rate, it would be so regarded among common sense men of business. It is a bad bargain in itself, and ought to be reconsidered; and I hope the House will stop in, as far as it can, and insist on an inquiry being made, with a view to having the whole matter put right.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he would suggest to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) to use his endeavours with his hon. Friends, in order that they should shorten their speeches in relation to this question, or they might lay themselves open to the

  251
  charge of Obstruction. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) thought that a great deal of unnecessary fuss had been made about the matter, and that it might safely be left in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the case to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings) had called attention was, no doubt, one of great hardship to the town immediately concerned; but a much wider question than the interests of Southport was involved in it, because it had reference to the rights and interests of many towns throughout the Kingdom. The question was, whether the Crown, as a Corporation, ought to have regard solely to its private interests; or whether it should have regard to the interests of the public? He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) unhesitatingly maintained that those who acted for the Crown, as a Corporation, ought to have no regard for the private interests of the Crown to the exclusion of public rights. The question was one of vast and far-reaching importance. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) had acted in strict accordance with the traditions of the Office of the Duchy of Lancaster— that was to say, he had endeavoured to make as much money as he could, to be transmitted to the particular purposes of the Duchy. In doing so, he must be held to have acted in accordance with the policy of those who conducted the business of the Duchy. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) could only regret the impotence of the House in this matter. He wished to call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was the only servant of the Crown in that House over whom the House had absolutely no control. He was the only Member of the Government over whose administration the House had no authority. The House did not vote his salary, which came from the income of the Duchy; and it was open to question whether the House ought to recognize and give Parliamentary title to the acts of an officer over whom it had no control. That was a subject which, he thought, was fairly open to discussion; but he thought it was beyond question that the sale to the Lords of the Manors of this foreshore was a transaction which the House should condemn. He hoped the House
  252
  was not disposed to approve the transaction, and he could only say for himself that if his hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich thought it right to go to a division, he should vote with him, as a protest against the action of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with regard to this matter.
  MR. DODSON: Sir, the hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this Motion (Mr. Jesse Collings), and the two hon. Members who have spoken since, have all of them spoken as if the Duchy of Lancaster had been the absolute or undisputed possessor of this foreshore; but I must remind them, when they talk of the hardships of the foreshore being in the hands of riparian proprietors, that they were claimants, and strong claimants, to the exclusive possession of the foreshore. It was a legal question whether they were not the owners of it; therefore, if the Duchy had sold their interests to the Corporation, the Corporation would still have had to deal with these riparian owners, and they would have had either to fight it out with the riparian proprietors, or make terms with them. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion made very light of the claims of the riparian proprietors, and, in one part of his speech, said that Mr. Whitaker, as Solicitor to the Duchy, had declined to admit them; but there was practical proof of the difficulty created by the claim of the riparian proprietors. What took place in 1878, to which the hon. Member has himself adverted, and to which I called the attention of the deputation who waited upon me this afternoon? In 1878, the Duchy sold its interest in part of the foreshore to the Corporation for a sum of about £300, or a little more; and the Corporation had next to negotiate with the riparian proprietors, and to pay them some £7,000 or £8,000 for their titles to the same part.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Since then, the abstract of title has been given; and, that having been examined by the Corporation, it has been found that no title really existed at the time. The Corporation would have sued the landlords to get that money back, but for the fact that they are precluded by some formality. Therefore, what occurred in 1878 has been proved to be a different matter, and the case does not apply at all.
  MR. DODSON: The abstract of title was furnished to the Duchy. It showed, at all events, a fightable claim. But I will put it upon still higher grounds. The Corporation were perfectly aware of the difficulty which they would have with the riparian proprietors if they acquired the interest of the Duchy; for there is a letter, written in 1881 by the Town Clerk to the Solicitor to the Duchy, in which he uses this phrase—
  "The Corporation, in purchasing the foreshore from the Grown, will be most certainly purchasing a heavy lawsuit with it."
  Had they acquired the interest of the Duchy, they would have still the claims of the riparian proprietors to deal with, and the Corporation had learnt by experience that it is a very serious question to deal with. The hon. Baronet who spoke from the Bench above (Sir Edward Watkin) said it was a matter of bad faith on the part of the Duchy officials. Having held the Office for so short a time, the expression does not apply to me, for I was not Chancellor? when the negotiations took place; but, on behalf of the officials of the Duchy, who are gentlemen who discharge their duties loyally and faithfully, I must protest against any imputations of bad faith raised against them because they interpreted certain documents differently from some other people, the representatives of the Corporation. The hon. Member who introduced this question went, at great length, through the Correspondence, and gave a résumé from his point of view. I trust I may be allowed very briefly to point out the view of the Duchy. The position is this—About two years ago the Surveyor General of the Duchy and a Committee of the Town Council of Southport entered into a verbal arrangement for the sale by the Duchy of their rights in the foreshore to the town. The terms of the arrangement were, unfortunately, not reduced into writing, as they ought to have been, and there is a question between the parties concerned as to what they really were. As a sample of the inaccuracies which have, unfortunately, become current in consequence, I may refer to a letter which the hon. Member himself has brought forward and quoted. It was stated, at a public meeting, amongst other things, that the Duchy had offered to sell the whole of the foreshore for a sum of less than £15,000, and to guaran-
  254
  tee the town from all lawsuits in any shape or form. Now, the fact is, that it is the practice of the Duchy never to enter into covenants for title, and, therefore, it never gives a guarantee; and the Corporation had knowledge of this, for it had been so informed on a recent purchase of part of this very foreshore. This shows how loosely the negotiation was conducted, and how little reliance is to be placed upon the recollection of anything not reduced into writing. But the contention on the part of the Duchy is this—that whatever were the terms of the verbal agreement, it is admitted, on both sides, that they were to be subject to the sanction of the Chancellor of the Duchy on the one side, and the Corporation on the other. Further, it is quite clear, from the letter of the Town Clerk on the 14th of October, 1881, that in his view the price and the area were the only terms agreed on, and the other terms were to be arranged between himself and the Duchy Solicitor afterwards. A dispute afterwards arose, as to whether the agreement was to be a provisional one or not. When the draft agreement, formulated by the Committee, was sent to the Duchy Solicitor, he found it was to be provisional only, upon the Corporation asking, if they thought fit, for Parliamentary sanction at any time within three years—in other words, that the Duchy were to be fast bound for three years, while the Corporation remained, free. The Duchy Solicitor objected to that, stating that he was not prepared to accept an agreement involving the proposition. In February, 1882, the Town Clerk wrote to the effect, that he must adhere to the proposal laid down, or that the negotiation must come to an end. Surely that was breaking off the negotiations. Then he goes on to say—
  "Inasmuch as it is of vital importance to the town that the foreshore should he in the hands of the ratepayers, it is proposed to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy to receive a deputation from the ratepayers, and request him to sanction an arrangement similar in principle to the draft already sent."
  No copy of the draft was sent as proposed to the Chancellor. No application was made to receive a deputation, and, as a matter of fact, no such deputation took place. Then there came the letter which the hon. Gentleman referred to—namely, the letter of the 29th March, from the

  255
  Town Clerk to the Solicitor of the Duchy, in which he said he was informed that the solicitors to the Lords of the Manors proposed to submit their claim to a Court of Law, and that the Corporation, "as intending Purchasers," were anxious to know what course it was proposed to pursue, and asking to be informed at an early date.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the letter referred to by the right hon. Gentleman described the Corporation as intending purchasers, and yet he said that the negotiations had been broken off.
  MR. DODSON: Yes; I say so; for the letter of the 29th of March is not a renewal of negotiations with the Duchy officials; but, on the contrary, it re-states the intention of the Corporation to appeal to the Chancellor. The Solicitor to the Duchy answered, on the 19th of April, to the effect that he had no information to give. The position, therefore, was that, in February, the Town Clerk, on behalf of the Committee of the Corporation, broke up the negotiations, and said he would appeal to the Chancellor, and on the 29th March he wrote to ask for certain information. The date of the letter in which they broke off negotiations with the Duchy officials was the 21st of Februan1, and the letter to which he had just referred was the 29th of March, 1882. After this letter they took no steps to approach either the officials or the Chancellor in any way. After 12 oils months had elapsed, surely the Duchy were entitled to consider not only that negotiations were at an end, but that there was no intention of re-opening them. I have a further confirmation of that, and that is that the view taken by the Town Clerk and the Corporation themselves was to the effect that, by their letter of the 21st of February, negotiations were broken off. The Town Clerk, in March, 1882, distinctly stated to the solicitors to the landowners that the negotiations between the Duchy and the Corporation had terminated. In May, 1882, the Corporation gave practical proof of this, for they entered into an agreement with the landowners for the purchase of an easement over part of the shore; although, in February, the Town Clerk had said he could enter into no agreement with them, unless the Duchy would waive its claim to the foreshore, neither could he settle with the Duchy unless the landowners would
  256
  waive their claim. This, again, was a further confirmation of the fact that the Corporation did not look upon the title of the trustees as valueless. Our contention is that not only were the negotiations with the Duchy admittedly terminated, but that the Corporation were absolutely in treaty with persons claiming adversely to the Duchy to purchase from them a part of this very foreshore. In this state of the case the Duchy and the landowners were brought together in a Committee Room in which the Ribble Navigation Bill was investigated, and the representatives of the Corporation were there in the Committee Room for several days, sitting side by side with the representatives of both. They made no effort to re-open negotiations with the Duchy, nor any attempt to deal with them for the foreshore till the 9th of April. The riparian proprietors made an offer to the Duchy on the morning of that day; and on that day the Corporation, whether they had heard of that offer or not, I do not know; but they came forward with an altogether new proposal, and not with a suggestion to revive the old negotiations. They made us an offer in the afternoon. The two offers were very carefully considered; and we concluded that the offer of the landowners was, on the whole, the best, and it was attended with the great advantage that it closed the door against litigation. The Duchy were perfectly free to deal with either party, or with neither of them. ["Oh, oh!"] That is the position we take up. We maintain that, inasmuch as the negotiations with the Corporation had failed, we were entirely free to deal with anyone. Now, it has been said we ought to have specially considered the interests of the Corporations as a public body, and that, in dealing with such matters, we ought not to forget the claim of public bodies. My answer to that is that it is the practice of the Duchy in such matters to weigh and consider such claims on the part of public bodies; but we do not think that they are to outweigh all other considerations. In this particular case, if we had given a preference to the Corporation, and accepted from them what we thought an offer, on the whole, less good for the Crown than that made by the riparian proprietors, we should still not have placed the Corporation in the position of being masters of their own fore-

  257
  shore, because they would even then have had to deal with the riparian proprietors. It is said the latter have asked a largely-increased price for their right above that which they had themselves given to the Duchy. I am not aware what they have asked; but if they have demanded a larger price than they gave to the Duchy, they did so for the very simple reason that they now own the whole title to the foreshore. The Duchy, as it were, formerly held one-half, and the riparian proprietors the other half. Of course, when the two halves are put together, whoever has got them will ask for the whole considerably more than one party would ask for his half. The hon. Member said I had refused to give an audience to certain members of the Corporation on the evening of Monday, the 9th, when we had decided to close with the offer of the landowners, and the matter was placed in the hands of the agents of the Duchy on the Ribble Navigation Bill, to settle with the landowners upon the basis of that offer. After the Committee had broken up that evening I was asked to go out into the Lobby to speak to some gentlemen connected with the Corporation. I felt it would be quite impossible for me, having intrusted the matter to the agents of the Duchy, behind the backs of those gentlemen, personally, to enter into negotiations with anyone.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: What I complained of was that a simple request for an audience on the part of the Mayor and Corporation of Southport was refused by the Chancellor of the Duchy; and I complained of the want of courtesy and of the want of appreciation of the position the Corporation occupied.
  MR. DODSON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman there was no intention to display a want of courtesy or want of appreciation of the Corporation's position. The reason why I declined to see the representatives of the Corporation was simply the one I have mentioned. In conclusion, I can only say I greatly regret that there should have been any disappointment felt by the Corporation at the conclusion arrived at. I cannot, however, see that their position would have been so very materially better if they had acquired our disputed title to the foreshore. I can only repeat what I said to the deputation which waited upon me
  258
  this afternoon—namely, that if I can, by using my good offices as mediator, in any way bring about an amicable settlement between the two parties concerned, it will afford me very sincere pleasure to do so.
  MR. SLAGG: As one of those who know Southport very well indeed, and also as one acquainted with the cir-stances of the case, I feel bound to say a few words with regard to this very serious grievance. Southport is a most enterprizing place. It has an energetic Corporation; and the very essence of its success as a watering-place is that it should have control of this foreshore. In that respect I consider they have received very terrible injury indeed. It must be dear to the House that there is a very great difference between the position Southport now holds and that which it would have occupied if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had treated it as it ought and deserved to be treated. The difference is this—that the riparian proprietors have now got possession of that valuable, and to Southport indispensable, foreshore; and whatever is spent upon it will be for the substantial benefit of those proprietors, instead of for the benefit and advantage of the town and public at large. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman had, at one time, an opportunity of dealing with the Duchy's rights in a manner advantageous to the Corporation of Southport; but that opportunity was lost. He had, in fact, a golden opportunity of dealing with all the interests involved in a way which would have been satisfactory to each of the parties; and I fail to gather from the right hon. Gentleman's answer whether he was tempted from that rational course by a desire to avoid a law suit, or a desire to get more money for the Duchy property. It seems to me that there was no difficulty in so treating the question of the transfer of the property, that the rights of the Corporation might have been absolutely and entirely safeguarded. The Corporation of Southport were perfectly prepared to buy the property with all the risks attaching to it, and I am sure they would have confronted the legal difficulties with confidence and success. The case of the Corporation is one which, to my mind, has really no avenues of explanation open to it. The people

  259
  of Southport have a great grievance, and I hope it is not yet too late to reverse the policy of the Duchy in this matter. I understand that the affixing of the seal to a document is the culminating act in transactions of this character, and that the seal has not yet been attached in this case. I hope, therefore, that the strong representations made to the right hon. Gentleman will induce him to exorcise all the influence in his power in order to avert what threatens to be a great disaster to the town of Southport.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I admit that, apart from the method in which this matter is introduced, the question is one which may be fairly brought under the discussion of the House. There are two lights in which the matter may be viewed. The one is the conduct of an administrative Department of the Government, and the other is to obtain the utmost possible advantage for the Corporation of Southport that the present situation will admit of. There may or may not be grounds for what has been done by the Government. My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Slagg), expressed a hope that the strong representations which have been made to the Government will be allowed to have an important bearing upon the agreement which have been virtually made. Now the question of affixing a seal to a legal agreement is not a question which, it is very easy to say, could be determined by statements made in the House of Commons. However worthy the attention, these statements in themselves might be most obviously dealt with, mainly upon the position the negotiations have attained, and on the duties attaching to the parties between whom the stage has been reached. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) has said that he is most anxious to afford all the assistance he can towards a settlement of the matter in a way that should be satisfactory to all parties. I have no wish to say anything in extenuation of the moral conduct of the Government, because that is not a matter which at this moment we have in view. I take it that my hon. Friend (Mr. Collings) will do the best he can for the Corporation and people of Southport, and I know enough of Southport to be able to understand the great interest and importance of this
  260
  question to the people; but my right hon. Friend stated that he was most anxious to offer all the assistance he could, by mediation, towards securing a just settlement of the matter. I do not think, even if my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich had shown that there had been some defect in the conduct of the business on the part of the officers of the Duchy — which I cannot for one moment admit is the case—that it would justify my right hon. Friend in doing less than fulfilling the obligations honourably attaching to him in the present state of the negotiation. I am acquainted with one of the riparian owners of these estates. It is a great, and a most important estate; and I am quite convinced that such people as the trustees of the Scarisbrick Estate ought to be well aware that they would be pursuing a most unwise course, in the interests of the locality generally, in their own interests also, if they were to attempt to make an extreme use of any rights they may have acquired. My right hon. Friend and myself are under the impression that it is the desire of those parties to deal equitably in the matter. If that be so, can the hon. Gentleman do better than endeavour to strengthen the hands of my right hon. Friend in the offer of mediation he has made for the general good and general advantage of both parties? His offer is by no means limited to one particular part of the foreshore. He is perfectly ready and desirous to be of use with respect to the whole question. Therefore, there can be nothing better than endeavouring to strengthen the hands of my right hon. Friend in giving effect to the offer which he has made. Let my hon. Friend by all means censure anything which has been done; but, in the present case, no one can say in honour, by usage, nor by law, it is possible to arrest a regular negotiation for the sale of property, when everything has been agreed upon, and when nothing remains but the formality of affixing the seal. I cannot certainly see the advantage of pressing upon my right hon. Friend that which is morally beyond his power to do. I hope it will be seen that I am not acting as a partizan. I sincerely desire that the best that can be done should be done. I will not enter into any question as to the nature of the very long and complicated correspondence which has

  261
  taken place; but I am certain my hon. Friend will do wisely if he endeavours to aid my right hon. Friend in his purpose of working in the best way he can to secure the equitable settlement of the question.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he felt bound to say a word or two on the question, seeing that the principles which were raised interested not only the people of Southport alone, but all municipal boroughs which possessed a seashore. The Prime Minister, unfortunately, gave the go-bye to these principles; for speaking persuasively, as he always did, his speech simply amounted to the statement that there was no use in crying over spilt milk, or adopting a policy of recrimination, and that the best thing was to rely upon the good offices of the Duchy. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman, instead, had given only one or two words of sympathy, and of the extreme impropriety of using these ancient rights of the Crown to make money, it would have been more satisfactory to many hon. Members. He (Mr. Stanley) contended that these ancient rights possessed by the Crown should never be severed from the Crown unless they became vested in public bodies such as Corporations or Harbour Trustees; and as the Duchy stood in the same position, it ought not to be allowed to traffic in these rights. There might be those who thought the Duchy of Lancaster had the right, as well as any other person, to put the money in its pockets regardless of public necessity. Let thorn look at the position of Southport, held in the grip of these lords of the manor; in future they would not only be lords of the land, but lords of the sea also. Although they were told that the trustees of the Scarisbrick Estate would act desirably in the matter, it was not always found that the owners of large estates went in a large-handed, generous manner towards the public; but the larger the estate, the greater the territorial power. The mere fact of the Scarisbrick Estate being so large, made it all the more dangerous to give to them the power to hamper all the improvements of the borough. He should rather think that the town of Southport would be better off if the soil belonged to 50 people than to one. At present it was in the power of that one possessor to impede the development of the town,
  262
  and he would necessarily be afforded many new weapons for extortion. The town would be bound over hand and foot. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what he would think, if such an attempt had been made on any town in which he was interested? He (Mr. Stanley) had been told that the foreshore of Scarborough also belonged to the Duchy. How would the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman feel, if the owners of the soil were to come in, and behind the back of the town of Scarborough buy the rights of the Crown? How would the right hon. Gentleman like to see all the activity and development of Scarborough, as a seaside resort, fettered by such foreshore powers? He (Mr. Stanley) was sure, if such a question should arise in reference to Scarborough after this debate, that there would be no fear of Scarborough's rights being bartered away for a few thousand pounds to the Duchy. He protested strongly against making use of these ancient rights for the private profit of the Duchy; and he hoped one good result would follow from the debate—that the House would never again see a Minister of the Crown promoting a private bargain, with respect to the Crown's property, which would put a large and growing town under the thumb of a landowner, without consulting the wishes of the people who were principally interested in the matter.
  MR. LEAKEsaid, he should have preserved the studious silence he had hitherto maintained, had he found that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had taken up the interest of his constituents in this subject; but as he (Mr. Leake) had waited in vain, he felt that, as the Representative of the adjacent division of the county, it was his duty to say a word or two. He regretted to hear the Prime Minister say that the negotiations had gone too far to be broken off. The only consolation they got was the promise that the best efforts of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would now be used to repair what was undoubtedly a disaster. Personally, he wished the right hon. Gentleman had still in his hands the power which he possessed in April, and that it might be used to enable the rival claimants

  263
  to come to an amicable settlement. He had parted with that power; and he (Mr. Leake) could only trust that the right hon. Gentleman would still find the resources of reason and persuasion as powerful and successful as they would have been then. He did not complain of bad faith as regarded the Duchy; but what he did complain of was, perhaps, quite as fatal in a Public Office—namely, the bad policy of the Government in using the ancient powers they possessed, not in defence or support of the growing wants and necessities of large communities in their midst, but in aggrandizing and perpetuating those comparatively obsolete rights of lords of the manor, which were almost an anachronism now; that was certainly bad policy, and he was the more distressed that it should proceed from a Liberal Administration. He trusted that from that discussion and from that incident a very different policy would be adopted in the future in all such Offices as were not directly responsible to the House, and that they would consider that, though those rights were of antique foundation, their use had, in the present time, ceased, and they must be adapted to modern requirements.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he rose, not to prolong an already too long debate, but to protest against the deliberate manner in which the Radical Party had that evening wasted the time of the House. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), having asked a series of Questions about a purely local question, and expressed dissatisfaction with the answers, had called upon his Radical Friends to support a Motion for Adjournment. The hon. Member was also supported by hon. Members below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House; but that was not to be wondered at, for one of their number had declared that their policy was a policy of Adjournment. The hon. Member for Ipswich had detained the House for an hour and a-half with an enumeration of the grievances of some wretched watering-place in Lancashire, which might, no doubt, be of considerable interest to the place concerned, but which did not, in the least, interest hon. Members who represented other places in that House, and who had come down to listen to matters of far greater importance. He did not forget—indeed, he wished to call atten-
  264
  tion to the fact—that the hon. Member who had so occupied the time of the House with that Motion was the same hon. Gentleman who asked the Prime Minister the other day, whether he would not consider the propriety of keeping the House sitting through the autumn, until all the measures of the Government mentioned in the Queen's Speech should have been passed. He was astonished, under those circumstances, at the unblushing effrontery of the hon. Member in bringing on the Motion he had done that night. He objected in the strongest manner to these Motions for the Adjournment of the House. He had never made that Motion at Question time, nor had he ever supported any Motion of that kind himself; and he would recommend the Prime Minister and Lord Granville, when next they should feel inclined, at the Aquarium or elsewhere, to animadvert on the Obstruction of the Conservative Party, to look nearer home, and to call attention to the tactics of hon. Members of their own Party below the Gangway.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MOTION.
  EAST INDIA (EXPENDITURE).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. E. STANHOPE,in rising to call attention to the increased expenditure of India, and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary that early steps be taken to reduce the expenditure of India; and with this view it is necessary in the first place that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the working of the Act of 1858, for the better Government of India (21 and 22 Vic. c. 106),"
    said, that the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat clown had rightly interpreted what would be the feeling of the country with regard to the action of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings). That hon. Member seemed to think that the subject to which he had drawn attention was of far greater importance than a question of great difficulty and intricacy affecting our Indian Empire and to desire to postpone an issue which the Government themselves were ready to meet. It was not his in-

    265
    tention to discuss the subject which he was bringing forward in a Party spirit, and though he believed that the figures which he should lay before the House would prove conclusively that the present Viceroy of India was very much the most extravagant of all those who had held the Office, he was of opinion that a fair and impartial consideration of the subject would lead to the conclusion that, of all the Viceroys who had recently been in India, there was not one more entitled to credit for patient and persevering attention to details and for an anxious desire to reduce expenditure than Lord Northbrook. Nor did he intend to discuss generally the recent Budget Statement of the Indian Finance Minister. He intended to address himself exclusively to two points. The first he would formulate thus—Had there or had there not been an increase of expenditure in India? And the second was —Were there any special reasons why the increased expenditure, if any, was specially dangerous to India? The last time that questions of this kind were seriously taken in hand was in 1879, when the present Postmaster General placed a Motion upon the Paper, and showed a most sincere desire to reduce the expenditure of India. He was followed by the right hon. Gentleman now the Governor of Madras, who laid down certain views with regard to the reduction of the expenditure of India, which were taken up shortly after by the present Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister said—
    "My hon. Friend the Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff), who is by no means given to exaggeration in his views of Indian policy, but whose reputed disposition is, on the contrary, to colour it too favourably, has fixed the measure of retrenchment he considers necessary to give solidity to Indian finance at £4,000,000 a-year. That is a very grave statement, and I do not believe it is an exaggerated one. It means that there must be a reduction of what we may call 10 per cent, or from 10 to 12 per cent all round in the real Expenditure of India."—(3 Hansard, [246] 1748.)
    If that was the opinion upon the other side of the House, upon the Conservative side opinion was no less unanimous. The late Government anticipated any discussion on the subject by announcing that the time had come when increased and vigorous efforts should be made to reduce the expenditure of India wher-
    266
    ever it was possible. They were prepared to deal with the home charges, although it was his duty to inform the House that the total amount of these charges over which the India Office had any real control was only £275,000. They appointed a Committee at the India Office to go into every single item, and that Committee for months investigated every detail on which they thought a reduction of the expenditure might be made. The Government of India also took the matter up and announced their intention, so far as they could manage it, to carry out a reduction of expenditure in all branches. No one could doubt that a great effect was produced by these measures of 1879 on the ordinary expenditure of India in 1880. It would probably be a controversial point if he were to endeavour to state the exact effect of the measures taken by the Indian Government. Nor did he desire to pay special credit to Lord Lytton and his Government; but he did want the House to consider what had happened since 1880. Everyone who had looked into the figures must be aware that the expenditure of India had gone on steadily and continually increasing from that time. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, when Secretary of State for India, speaking upon the subject last year, referred to a statement recently made by him (Mr. Stanhope) in that House. He said—
    "The hon. Member (Mr. E. Stanhope) is reported to have said that since 1880 the Expenditure has been raised £3,500,000. I cannot, of course, tell what were the exact figures on which the hon. Member based that statement; but I presume that his calculation was somewhat as follows:—I may probably take him to mean that, deducting from last year, 1880–1, the charge for War Expenditure and the Frontier Railways, and deducting, also, the charge for the present year for Famine Insurance, and adding the sums to be drawn from the provincial balances, the excess of Expenditure in the present year over that for the year 1880–1 would amount to £3,600,000. Taken that way, I believe the statement is substantially correct." —(3 Hansard, [273] 1707.)
    Let the House ponder the effect of that statement. No war was going on in India, no famine was extending its ravages throughout the country, and no exceptional circumstances existed, crops were fairly good, and the general prosperity of the country was about the average, and yet, in two years, the ex-

    267
    penditure of India had been raised by £3,500,000. But it was not his intention to limit his remarks to the last three years. Let them make a comparison of a wider character. And, in order to compare fairly the ordinary expenditure of different years, it was necessary to exclude all items of an exceptional character, or which fluctuated from causes wholly independent of the State. For these reasons, he deducted all the expenditure incurred in different years for famine, loss by exchange, the Egyptian and Afghan Wars, and frontier railways. He also eliminated those most disturbing items, the provincial surpluses and deficits, and also the very fluctuating results of our expenditure upon productive public works. The ordinary expenditure arrived at in this way for the 10 years up to 1880–1 averaged £36,500,000; in 1881–2 it amounted to a little over £39,000,000; and this year, 1883–4, it was estimated at £39,500,000, showing an increase of ordinary expenditure of no less than £3,000,000 sterling. No one could doubt that that was an enormous increase. No doubt, this increase might be in part due to exceptional circumstances, and, indeed, it was mainly accounted for by one item; but it was none the less enormous. If the House would allow him, he would analyze it as shortly as he could. If anyone would take the trouble to examine the different heads of expenditure he would find a considerable increase in almost every case of importance with one significant exception. It was one which they should all gladly recognize. There was no substantial increase under the head of ordinary Army expenditure. The net average cost of the Army during the 10 years ending with 1880–1 was just under £15,000,000. About the middle of the period it was at its lowest, mainly owing to the great exertions of Lord North-brook. In 1883–4 it was estimated at £15,198,000. It was also quite true that the increase would have been converted into a large decrease in India if it had not been for the rapid growth of the charges for the non-effective services in England over which the Government of India had no control, and many of which had been imposed without consulting them. The causes of this increase could not be better
    268
    expressed than they had been by Sir John Strachey—
    "This increase has, for the most part, been caused, directly or indirectly, by changes of system which have been introduced at various times, and has fallen chiefly on the non-effective charges, the growth of which has more than swallowed up the important economies carried out in the effective charges. The additional payments in the shape of pensions at their capitalized value, which have been unavoidable consequences of the abolition of the old Indian Army, have increased the yearly non-effective charge by £750,000, and the increase in payments on account of European troops who have served in India amounts to about half that sum. The increase of military expenditure, which from its nature has been beyond the power of the Government of India to control, is the most unsatisfactory part of the financial history of the last few years."
    Therefore, in his opinion, the Government of India could not be justly charged with neglecting serious attempts to reduce Army expenditure. But the most important step was taken by Lord Lytton, who appointed a Commission, including such distinguished authorities as Sir Ashley Eden and Sir Frederick Roberts, to inquire into the whole subject. The Commission reported in the year 1880, and made suggestions which would, if carried into effect, have reduced the cost of the Army by £1,250,000. Some few of their minor proposals had been carried out, and as criticism had been a good deal expended upon them, he hoped the House would allow him to read the short passage in which General Wilson, the able military Member of Council explained and justified the changes which had been made. He might add that his whole Minute was well worth careful perusal. General Wilson said that he approved the present Army Estimates—
    "Because they maintained the British Army at its normal strength in batteries and regiments, and they provided for an addition to the aggregate strength of the Army, had provided each regiment with an additional British officer, and had effected a change in organization which had brought about the elimination from the ranks of the Bengal Army of the non-fighting classes, while adding to the establishments of the regiments retained men of the warlike classes. This had been done, and improvement in establishments had been gained at a considerable reduction of expenditure, while, consequent on the liberal concessions sanctioned by the Secretary of State to the men discharged, and the care exhibited by the military authorities, the changes had been carried into effect without a murmur, and without any of the disquieting effects which were by some anticipated."

    269
    No one could read that Minute without feeling the greatest satisfaction at the result of carrying out one of the proposals of the Army Commission. But all the principal proposals of that Commission — and especially that as to the Presidential Armies in India —though the recommendations of the Government of India had been received upon them, had not yet been dealt with, and the question he should like to put to the Government was this— How long did they mean the present deadlock to continue? The recommendations of the Commission on this head had been substantially adopted by the Government of India; but they had been opposed, obstructed almost—if they understood rightly the speech of the Secretary of State last year—by the Council of the Secretary of State. In the midst of this divergent opinion the Secretary of State had been unable to make up his mind. It was, however, a serious matter, for these views had been before the Government at home since 1880, and yet they had been absolutely unable, up to the present time, to arrive at any decision on a question which was one of a most pressing character. The House had to deal with the question absolutely in the dark, for no Papers were before them, and he urged upon the Government, if they could not make up their minds in this matter, to have the courage to publish some part of the Report of the Royal Commission and see if they could not gain the support of the country. He would take next the main heads of increase, the largest of which was, of course, that of public works. He hoped they would not to-night wander into any general discussion upon the merits or demerits of public works in India. Everybody admitted that the extension of public works was of paramount importance to the development of the resources of India, and most people would also gladly recognize the fact that that outlay, notwithstanding many mistakes and some waste, had been substantially a successful outlay, which was year by year bringing, upon the whole, good returns into the Exchequer. But should they not all admit also that any such outlay must not be increased beyond what India could safely bear, and that it ought to be made upon fixed principles, not liable to constant variation? The increase of expendi-
    270
    ture on this head was best shown by the Return for which he had recently moved, and which was known as No. 142 of the present Session. It showed at a glance what was the net charge upon the Revenue of the year, in respect of all classes of public works. With the permission of the House he would summarize its results, which were most remarkable. In the first six years—that was, between 1873 and 1879—the average net charge upon the Revenue of the year was £5,348,000. Then two favourable circumstances occurred. The net result from the irrigation works then, for the first time, began to show a profit instead of a loss; and, secondly, the purchase of the East India Railway Company by the State then first began to bring in to the Imperial Exchequer, as its share of the profits of the undertaking, a sum which had since averaged more than £1,000,000 sterling. These favourable circumstances ought at once to have produced a marked effect in reducing the net charge upon the Revenue; and this they did. In 1879–80, the net charge was £3,774,000—a diminution of £1,500,000; and in 1880–1 it was £3,408,000. But in 1881–2, the first year for which Lord Ripon was responsible, it rose at once to £4,934,000—an increase of £1,500,000; in 1882–3 it went up £700,000 more; while in 1883–4 the total net charge on Revenue was estimated at £6,615,000. Making allowance for a peculiar mode of entering the expenditure upon protective public works during the last two years, he was still entitled to say that the net cost to the State of all classes of public works was now greater by £2,700,000 than it was in 1880; or if they took the single item of public works ordinary, it would be found that the cost of these works was £1,750,000 higher than it was in 1880–1. Sometimes he had heard it said that these works were unfairly cut down in the latter year. Let them then compare the figures of the present year with the average of the five years before 1880, and even then it would be found that the increase was no less than £1,500,000. And he would ask the House to remember, if it should occur to anyone that £6,500,000 was not, after all, a large sum to be expended on public works out of Revenue in so large a country as India, that the real question was whether India could afford

    271
    to pay that amount, and also that it was entirely exclusive of the capital expenditure upon public works, which, taking one year with another, might be put down at about £8,000,000 annually. Part of this increased expenditure on public works was of course due, as the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War had told the House, to the activity of the provincial Governments and local bodies in the construction out of funds at their disposal of minor local improvements very necessary for the progress and development of the country. But here again there was great danger. He observed that the provincial Governments had in April, 1882, accumulated very large balances, owing to restrictions put upon their expenditure in previous years. These balances were being spent at the rate of £1,500,000 a-year, and though this expenditure was perfectly legitimate, and an essential consequence of the contracts entered into with the provincial Governments, it was evident that in another year these balances would be exhausted, and they would of necessity have to curtail their expenditure on this head to an enormous extent, or to devise some fresh means of raising revenue. And the new system of local self-government was likely to add to this danger, because it must involve new establishments and contingent expenses. He now came to the great bulk of Civil Service expenditure. Passing over items which he knew were capable of satisfactory explanation, he found that, comparing 1880–1 with the present year, and speaking in the language of the new forms of account, the "direct demands upon the revenue," which comprised to a large extent the cost of the collection of revenue, had increased by £465,000; the Post Office and Telegraph Services by £274,000; and the "salaries and expenses of Civil Departments" by £536,000. Almost every head in the last class showed an increase, and one only a substantial decrease. But he would take a wider ground. Instead of making the comparison with 1880–1 only, which might have been in some respects exceptional, he would take four groups of years, the first group of four years comprising Lord Mayo's Viceroyalty, the second and third groups the Viceroyalties of Lord Northbrook and Lord Lytton.
    272
    Each of these groups consisted of four years. The last group he took comprised the three years of Lord Ripon. He borrowed this mode of comparison from the well-known work by Sir John Strachey. He would take first the Effective Civil Services, which included 14 main heads of expenditure. The average annual expenditure under Lord Mayo was £11,750,000; it rose to £12,400,000 under Lord Northbrook, to £12,457,000 under Lord Lytton, and to no less than £13,439,000 under Lord Ripon. In the first year of the whole series, 1869–70, it amounted to £12,100,000; in the present year it was estimated at £ 13,689,000, or an increase of over 12 per cent. A few items were remarkable. He found it took £409,000 more to administer law and justice, £311,000 for police, and £118,000 for law and printing than, in 1869–70. Taking next the Non-Effective Civil Services, the average annual expenditure started in Lord Mayo's time at £1,278,000, and had risen in Lord Northbrook's time to £1,660,000, in Lord Lytton's time to £1,995,000, and in Lord Ripon's time to £2,081,000. In the first year it was £1,151,500, and in the last £2,104,500, or an increase of over 80 per cent. The House would, he felt sure, while pardoning him for detaining them on matters of detail, admit that his case, as regarded a large increase of expenditure was abundantly made out. He now came to the second part of his argument. Why was the increased expenditure of which he had spoken especially dangerous to India? The House would anticipate that he referred, in the first place, to the subject of famine. Fortunately, for the last few years India had been remarkably exempt from famine. But they might look with mathematical certainty to a recurrence of that visitation before many years were past, not less disastrous than former ones or less difficult to cope with. What was the effect of a series of famines upon the finances of India? All their resources would have to be directed to the saving of life, and the Government would be compelled to borrow on a large scale for the purpose of meeting the famine expenditure. Nor could the borrowing be confined to India, whose means of borrowing in any single year were narrowly limited. The borrowing would have to be in England, and it would have to be in gold. He would be told

    273
    that the proposal made a few years ago, with regard to a Famine Insurance Fund, met all difficulties. He did not underrate the value of that proposal which had been made by Sir John Strachey and Lord Lytton, for they deserved the gratitude of India for what they had done. So far as they proposed to lay aside £750,000 annually as a famine insurance, they had given great strength to the financial position of India. He did not think he could say so much for the protective works, because, though they might do much to diminish the suffering of small localities, they did not greatly diminish the burdens of the Government of India in the event of a widespread famine. But it had not always been possible to lay aside even the annual £750,000; and this led him to touch upon the second great danger caused by a large ordinary expenditure in India. It lay in the enormous remittances which had to be made to this country, and which amounted to£18,000,000. The effect of those remittances was not fully felt till 1871. Since that time it had been felt more and more until the enormous amount to be remitted had resulted in forcing down the price of silver to a point which caused great difficulty to the Indian Government—one of the greatest, indeed, with which that Government had to contend. The loss in a single year by exchange had been as much as £3,000,000 or £4,000,000. In 1881–2 the Secretary of State had said that the bills amounted to £18,000,000 sterling, and, in order to satisfy the demands necessarily made in this country, the Government had had to sell silver to the extent of 22 crores of rupees. That was an operation of gigantic magnitude, greater probably than any other Government had to undertake, and which, depending as it mainly did upon the condition of the silver market, it was hazardous to assume could be always effected in any particular year. And, indeed, experience showed that it had not been effected. During the last 10 years of which the accounts had been published, the aggregate amount that ought to have been remitted was £153,000,000. The amount actually remitted had been£129,000,000. That left £24,000,000, which had to be borrowed; and though, of course, it was not all unproductive expenditure, yet it had increased the future annual burthen
    274
    of the remittances, and in this way they had grown, and would go on growing, unless immediate steps were taken. And he ventured to say that in his opinion the only way of grappling with that grave danger was either to develop trade in India, or to reduce the debt in England. [Mr. J. K. CROSS: Hear, hear!] He was glad to hear that cheer from the Under Secretary, because in 1879 the hon. Gentleman was doubtful about the policy of reducing the Indian Gold Debt. But whether we desired to develop trade, or to reduce debt, a surplus was equally necessary. Where was the surplus to come from? Sir John Strachey had, by a policy which included some increase of taxation, provided a surplus of £4,000,000. But that surplus was given away last year, no doubt in a manner most beneficial to India; but the result was that no surplus was left. And though it was true there was some slight elasticity in the Revenue, its result was not large, and as it was hardly possible to increase taxation, it was difficult to see how any increase of Revenue was to be obtained. It was doubtful, indeed, if you could rely on the existing Revenue, and especially on the opium revenue, as fresh fields were being opened in China and elsewhere for the cultivation of that drug. Therefore, the only remaining means of obtaining a surplus was by economy; and in his opinion the policy of reducing expenditure ought to be continuously and steadily followed. But the possibility of doing so unfortunately depended on each successive Viceroy. One Viceroy cut down expenditure, and another, to gain popularity, increased it again. Take, for instance, the post of Public Works Minister, which, was abolished by Lord Lytton on the specific ground, admitted by everybody, that you would thereby obtain a more complete financial control over public works, Lord Ripon had immediately re-established. The result of this sort of change was apparent. One important item was that of superannuations. There had been an increase of 80 per cent in recent years in that item. That increase was a monument of fluctuations of policy. But, after all, it was not the Viceroys who were so much to blame as the House of Commons. In 1879 it was recognized in that House that the reduction of Indian expenditure was a matter of paramount necessity.

    275
    But in 1882 it was increased by £2,000,000. That was not the way to carry out economy, or to instil into the minds of the Government of India the necessity of doing what was, no doubt, unpleasant and, at the same time, exceedingly difficult. But the importance of the question could hardly be exaggerated, and on his responsibility he declared without hesitation that unless some decisive step were taken in the direction of economy a crisis must arise. A cry for reduction would spring up, and then, perhaps, a demand for a sudden reduction of Expenditure would be forced upon the country in a manner most injurious to the welfare of India. Then, in the panic which would arise, a cry would be made for the dissolution of the tie between India and this country, lest, as had very rarely happened, India should become a burden on the finances of this country. The only way of establishing on a firm basis the connection of India and this country was by boldly grappling with the question, and by recognizing to the full the paramount necessity of a reduction in the Expenditure of India. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. R. T. REID,in seconding the Resolution, remarked, that the Debt of India, which was only £30,000,000 in 1840, had risen to £106,000,000 in 1872, and to £156,000,000 in 1882. The Prime Minister had pointed out a short time ago that the cardinal rule of finance was to keep the expenditure within the income; but, as a matter of fact, there had been within the last 10 years five surpluses and five deficits in Indian finance, showing a balance of some £4,000,000 to the bad. In one of his Mid Lothian speeches the Prime Minister had stated that the Expenditure of India was rapidly increasing, it being then £58,978,000 a-year, and that if it continued to increase at the same rate for a few more years the people of England would be called upon to take upon their own shoulders the £135,000,000 of East Indian Debt that then existed. But in 1882 the Indian Expenditure had risen to £70,000,000 per annum, and the Debt had increased to £156,000,000. Was there any reason to suppose that India could bear that amount of Debt coupled with such an enormous Expenditure? It had been declared many years
    276
    ago by eminent men that she could not do so. In considering the power of the country to bear these heavy burdens, it must not be forgotten that India was subject to recurrent famines, and that in the course of the 10 years ending in 1871 5,240,000 of her inhabitants had died from famine, while in the 10 years ending in 1881 that number had increased to 6,250,000. But, quite apart from these recurrent famines, a large portion of the inhabitants of India were miserably poor and were always in a state of semi-starvation. But in the face of all this he found that the Superannuation and Pension Fund of the country had increased from £1,450,000 in 1872 to £2,150,000 in 1881, that the cost of collecting the Revenue had increased from £6,050,800 in 1872 to £8,250,000 in 1881; that, whereas the land revenue had only increased from £20,520,000 in 1872 to £21,112,000 in 1881, the cost of collecting it had increased from £2,435,000 in 1872 to £2,983,000 in 1881. During the same period the cost of administering law and justice had increased from £2,273,000 to£3,230,000, although the whole value of the property in dispute was only £15,500,000. The hon. Gentleman, though he had made a very valuable speech, had not made any suggestions as to the method that ought to be adopted of reducing Expenditure. He put it to the House whether it was likely that, as long as there was no real control at all over the gentlemen in India, who were responsible for the financial government of that country, any real reduction of expenditure would take place? Sir Charles Trevelvan put the matter very tersely when he said—"When people spend other people's money, they are generally inclined to be liberal," and that was what had taken place here. At present the control of the Government of this country was far from satisfactory, and by no means complete. He quite agreed with what had been stated by high authorities, that the House of Commons was the place to which alone the people of India could look for support against the extravagance of the officials who were set over them; but he asked what the House of Commons did or what it had done for the purpose of checking the official expenditure? Why, even when the Indian Budget, which, afforded an opportunity of discussing

    277
    the details of Expenditure, was presented, the House was not permitted to enter upon that discussion owing to the late period of the Session. Surely some steps ought to be taken to investigate the working of the Act which was the charter of the Indian people, and see whether some method could not be adopted to effect some real check upon Expenditure. He did not, however, believe there would be any reduction of a substantial character in Expenditure until something was done for the purpose of putting a check upon the able and skilled but autocratic Native officials who had charge of the finances of India, and who seemed to revel in extravagance.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary that early steps be taken to reduce the expenditure of India."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
    MR. J. K. CROSSsaid, he was quite sure the Government, and certainly he, as a humble official of the Government, had no reason at all to complain of the tone of the debate. But he thought the speeches illustrated very well the truth of the old proverb, which said—"One tale is good until another is told;" and though he could not follow fully the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope), still, so far as the account he gave of expenditure on public works, he had been unable to verify the statements, or confirm any single set of figures which the hon. Gentleman had quoted. So far as he could make out, the expenditure under this head in 1881–2 was £2,725,000; in 1882–3, £2,631,000, excluding the cost of the Madras irrigation works; and the estimate for 1883–4 was taken at £3,820,000, including £424,000 for the East India Railway.
    MR. E. STANHOPEexplained that he had dealt only with Return 142, which he had in his hand, and which showed the net charge on the Revenue of the year for public works.
    MR. J. K. CROSSproceeded to say, that he thought it well the House should thoroughly understand the object of successive Governments in India, in decentralizing the finances of India, and the exertions they made to carry out that policy for a considerable number of years. For that purpose he would go back to the period immediately suc-
    278
    ceeding the Mutiny, and trace the history of the financial arrangements of India from that time downwards. He would point out that, after the Mutiny, it was seen that the centralization which had been continued up to that time was a very great detriment to the financial arrangements which then existed. It was seen that the attempt to administer, from one centre, the finances of that Dependency, covering an area of 800,000 square miles, and including a population of 200,000,000 of people, was an absolute impossibility. As time went on, various Finance Ministers, one after another, suggested changes of one sort or another, but they did not succeed in getting them carried out. So far as his observation went, it was only under the pressure of very grave anxiety that anything was ever done by any Central Government. The change in the system, therefore, was slow and painful, notwithstanding the urgent representations of the greatest of our Indian officials and the efforts made by Ministers at home from time to time. It was not till 1870 that an attempt was really made to deal with the difficult problem on well-defined lines, when Lord Mayo took the matter in hand. Sir John Strachey said that—
    "To Lord Mayo belongs the only effectual remedy for these serious evils. He resolved to give to Local Governments the local standard which they required; to make over to them a certain income by which they might regulate their local expenditure, and to leave to them, subject to certain rules and conditions, the responsibility of managing their own local affairs."
    The control of gaols, police, medical services, printing, roads, and civil buildings were accordingly transferred to the local governments. This decentralization was further developed under Lord Lytton; and other services were placed under local supervision, and the management of some of the railways and all the canals was made over to the local governments. The object of that was to throw on the local governments the management of these services and the accompanying revenues. This development of local and provincial life was, according to the testimony of Sir William Muir, Sir Ashley Eden, and others of the best of India's servants, whose ability and impartiality would not be questioned by anybody, succeeding beyond expectation, when to the troubles

    279
    of famine and exchange was added the outbreak of the Afghan War. This complication of evils could not be escaped except by a heavy reduction of expenditure which was insisted upon. What was the effect of that reduction? He found it alluded to in a Resolution of the Government of India in September, 1881, and the local governments were called upon to contribute during the years 1879 and 1880 a very large sum from resources made their own, the result of which, in the suspension of improvements and works in progress, was very prejudicial. The advantages to India of the plans that had been adopted were very great, and many men who would be supported by the hon. Member opposite had borne testimony to this fact. In proof of those advantages of decentralization, he would refer to the evidence of Sir Ashley Eden, who showed that—
    "The revenues had been increased, useless expenditure had been curtailed, and that funds had been made available for great improvements under all branches of administration."
    By placing the funds under the control of the local authorities, they had been able to administer, in a satisfactory manner, those revenues which they were not able previously so to administer. It was not necessary to go into details which would weary the House; but very large sums had been taken away from the central authority, and placed in the hands of the various local authorities, to use for their own purposes; and if any attempt was made to disturb those arrangements, or to curtail them, the result would certainly not be particularly good. He had ventured to lay before the House the reasons which were at the root of this decentralizing system, and he had tried to explain some of the advantages derived there-from; but he was bound to say, at the same time, that when they denuded themselves of income, and gave over to others the power to control it, it was not quite so easy, as hon. Members seemed to think, for the Central Government of India to exercise any very definite control in the matter. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) had gone, at some length, into the subject of the general expenditure, and he had taken various periods for the purpose of comparing them. He (Mr. J. K. Cross) was unable to follow all the figures the
    280
    hon. Member quoted, from the rapidity with which he spoke; but he had not a word of complaint to make with regard to those he did hear. Now, in dealing with the matter of expenditure, he would take the last 12 years, and divide them into four triennial periods—first, the three years ending 1874; the second period ending 1877; the third ending 1880; and the fourth ending 1883; and the figures he gave were from Papers 267 of 1881, 214 of 1882, and 139 of 1883. The net expenditure of those periods, leaving out certain balances as the hon. Member opposite had done, was, in the first, £118,000,000; in the second period, £121,000,000; in the third, £132,000,000; and in the fourth, £136,000,000. The hon. Member had said that, in order to make fair comparison, it was necessary to exclude certain items, and he (Mr. J. K. Cross) quite agreed with him. He said it was necessary to exclude the items for famines, war, frontier railways, exchange, public works, and certain balances; but there were two other items which it was equally necessary to exclude, in order to make a fair comparison of the expenditure over which the Government of India had control—namely, superannuation and Army non-effective charges. The hon. Member must admit that those charges were equally out of their control. [Mr. E. STANHOPE: Not of the English Government.] Of the Government of India, he meant. If they had to consider the effect of the proceedings of the Government of England on the finances of India, they would have to go over a very large field indeed. He was speaking of the Government of India; and if they took off the charges for frontier railways, for the Afghan War, subsidized railways, exchange, famine, &c, they must also take off superannuation and Army non-effective charges. Those charges for the period ending 1874, were £35,642,215; for the period ending 1877, £35,830,803; for the period ending 1880, £46,693,780; and for the period ending 1883, £46,191,080; leaving the controllable expenditure in the first period £83,114,490; in the second period £85,239,651; in the third period, £86,006,389; and in the fourth period, £90,719,579. But it must be remembered that, in the last period, £2,965,000 charged to famine expenditure was really in hand, in comparison with

    281
    former periods, being partly in productive public works, and partly in redeemed debt. Bearing in mind that they had this backset in hand, the increase in charge on controllable items was in the last triennial period, as compared with the 1880 period, £4,713,190, or £1,571,066 per annum; as compared with the 1877 period, £5,479,928, or £1,826,642 per annum; and as compared with the 1874 period, £7,605,089, or £2,533,029 per annum. The hon. Gentleman had complained that some of the charges had unduly increased. Let them take the Post Office charges, for instance. In 1876 there was a great decrease in receipts from official postage. The Postal Union had been joined, throwing a large expense on India. The business of the Post Office had greatly increased. In 1871 there were 2,800 offices in India; in 1877, 3,400; and in 1881, 4,600; and the letters carried had increased from 89,000,000 in 1871 to 158,000,000 in 1881. Other additional expenses had occurred, over which the Government had not had very much control—for instance, the allowance under Treaties; and in the last period—that was, from 1880–3—it had been necessary to make some extraordinary payments to the State of Rajapootana, which had absorbed a sum of £269,000. But, taking all these charges, and including the charges for police, law, and justice, stationery, educational, and medical charges, public works and navigation, the total increase in the period ending 1883 over that ending 1874 was £7,600,000. He must ask his hon. Friend the Member for Hereford to correct one of the figures he had quoted. He (Mr. J. K. Cross) thought his hon. Friend had said that the cost of the collection of the land revenue amounted to £2,400,000 in 1872; but if he referred to the corrections, he would find that that charge came to £2,800,000. Then the charge for police had been alluded to; and he might say that it was necessary that that charge should increase; but what was the charge after all? The total charge for police in India was, nominally, £2,300,000. But was the House aware of how many policemen there were in India. There were 151,000; and, if their cost were compared with the cost of the English police, it would be found that the latter cost about £100 a man, while in India they cost only £16 a man. The charges
    282
    for stationery and printing had been alluded to, and they had certainly gone up during the last 12 years; but they had increased in nothing like the ratio shown in the statistical abstract. The hon. Gentleman would see that they appeared to have fallen in 1872 to something like half what they had been before, this being an error in the accounts which would be remedied next year. With regard to the development of ordinary public works—an item of considerable importance—he thought he should be able to show that, so far from their being any evil effects connected with it, it was one of the most profitable items of expenditure in which they could possibly indulge. In 1878–80, public works had been, to a great extent, practically stopped, owing to the necessity of reducing the amounts allotted to that account, under the pressure of war, famine, and exchange. He would now go a little further. Having spoken of the items over which the Government of the day in India had a sort of direct or indirect control, he would ask the attention of the House to what he considered by far the most serious items with which they had to deal, and over which they had no direct control—namely, the extraordinary increase in the non-effective charges both civil and military; and respecting this, the statement he had to make was so grave that he would have to ask for serious consideration upon what he might state regarding it. In the triennial period ending 1874, the net civil superannuation charges were £2,575,673, and the military superannuation charges £5,787,441, or, together, £8,363,114; in the triennial period ending 1877, the civil charges were £3,453, 577, and the the military £6,494,919, or, together, £9,948,496; in the triennial period ending 1880, the civil charges were £4,284,373, and the military £7,978,527, or, together, £12,262,980; and in the triennial period ending 1883, the civil charges were £5,534,480, and the military charges £8,541,000, or, together £14,075,480. That was an increase of charge of £5,712,366, on an original charge of £8,363,114, since 1874. But that was not the worst of the case. There had been a very great error in the estimation of the amounts annually required to meet the military charge for pensions; and, year by year, these charges had been very much more than

    283
    they were estimated by the War Office, and a great deal more than they had been estimated and paid for by the India Office; and there had grown up a debt due to the Treasury, which, at the present time, amounted to no less a sum than £2,000,000, the charges having been underrated or underpaid by £96,831 in the 1874period; by £711,072 in the 1877 period; by £697,000 in the 1880 period; and by about £514,000 in the 1883 period. If that debt should be converted into a Ten Years' Annuity, and if the first annual payment towards it should be made during the coming year, requiring about £260,000, the total superannuation charges—civil, military, and medical—to be discharged next year, would require a payment of 129 lacs of rupees in India, and about £3,922,000 in England; the total cost to India to provide this payment being 60,000,000 rupees, or one-seventh of the net Revenue of India. Before he sa down he should try to say something more about these charges; but, at present, he would turn to a pleasanter feature in these accounts. The abnormal war expenditure charged to account in the 1880 period was £5,442,343, and in the 1883 period, £7,853,241. We might hope that that would not recur; and, if we escaped the necessity of making any railways in Afghanistan, we should also save a charge which was in the 1880 period, £1,334,350, and in the 1883 period, £2,799,797. On these two heads India might hope to escape a payment of some £15,000,000, besides our own contribution of £5,000,000, which would be saved to us. The Government had, in the meantime, paid the expenses of the Afghan and the Egyptian Wars, charging in the latter 73 lacs of rupees to India, as she had derived immense advantages from the keeping open of the Suez Canal. There remained but four items of charge to mention—namely, exchange, interest, productive public works, and famine charges. The nominal loss by exchange had greatly increased; but really that should be added to the cost of the Home Charges, as it arose from the necessity of remitting the equivalent of the sterling payments which had to be made in England. That was a charge which was entirely outside the control of any individual Government of India. The change which had taken place in the interest and public works charge on the
    284
    Revenue was the one bright spot in the picture of Indian finance, and it did much to relieve the sombre colours which he had been obliged to use. The interest paid on ordinary Debt had been, in the 1874 period, £15,345,224; in the 1877 period, £12,907,376; in the 1880 period, £13,054,591; and in the 1883 period, £10,631,654, showing the satisfactory reduction of £4,700,000 between the 1874 and 1883 periods. But it was to the productive works to which he must direct their attention as the essentially satisfactory feature. The charge on the Revenue for these works was, in 1874 period,£6,822,992; in 1877,£4,771,255; and, in 1880, £1,912,110. But in the last period there was a gain of £1,708,007. Taking the interest on ordinary Debt and the interest and charges of productive public works together, they found that what was a charge on the Revenue in the 1874 period of £22,168,236 was in the 1883 period £8,923,647, or a reduction of no loss a sum than £13,234,589 in the last triennial period as compared with that of 1874. He had said little about the Famine charges. In the period ending 1874 they were £3,883,217; in that ending 1877, £4,990,358; in that ending 1880, £5,784,285; and in that ending 1883, £3,034,469; but in the last period they had the advantage of some £900,000 spent on protective works, and they had reduced the Debt by £2,045,000. With regard to famine, they could only hope for the best, and prepare as well as they could to meet the calamity when it came. He had said that he should speak more fully on the superannuation charges. He had said that that year they would require 60,000,000 rupees, and they were growing still, and would grow for some years yet. There was an idea afloat that the Homo Charges for pensions and other Home Charges which had to be annually remitted from India might be easily reduced. It was his painful duty to dispel that delusion. For the next year Home Charges, for pensions and superannuations of one kind or another, would be £3,900,000; the other charges were, in 1881–2, furlough accounts, £501,000; interest on debt, £2,510,000; dividend on guaranteed railways, £6,240,000; passage of troops, £309,000; miscellaneous, post office, &c, £151,000; India Office and Store Department, £218,000; remittance transactions, £502,000; Army effec-

    285
    tive charges, £615,000; Array stores, £1,332,469; Public Works Department stores, £585,591; total, £16,864,050. Here they had a total of nearly £17,000,000, requiring 204,000,000 rupees, which had to be paid in England. And, so far as he could see, these charges were so well established that the only point of attack was upon the effective Army charges paid here and the stores. With regard to the superannuation charges, they were completely manacled, handed over, bound hand and foot; these charges were planted by law, they grew by custom, they were fostered by the House of Commons, but they were paid by the people of India. They were paid, not in coin, but in kind, like all the other Home Charges; no money came to pay them; they were paid in cotton and corn, in jute and rice, in teas and indigo, and many other products of the soil of India; and as they grew year by year, so year by year they demanded more and more of the produce of Indian soil to meet them. What were their most potent means of meeting these charges? They were trustees for India in this matter; they were bound to do the best they could with their trust. How could they better promote the welfare of that trust than by developing local means of making wealth, the making of roads and bridges, wells, and tanks, making their gaols healthy too? And for these things a generous local expenditure was the first requisite. But not only should they try to meet these charges, they ought to try to check their growth. No one had more emphatically endorsed his opinion than the hon. Gentleman the Mover of this Resolution. How could they so well prevent the growth of these charges as by the employment of more Natives and fewer Europeans? Far be it from him to say a single word against those splendid men who had spent their lives in India in the service of the State; the country recognized to the full the services which they had rendered and were still rendering; but they were costly, very costly, to a poor country, and besides that, when their active work was done, they did not stay in their adopted country. Whereas, if they employed Natives, they were less costly; they did not come home on pensions at 50 years of age, and by employing them in the service of the State, at least they hoped to make their loyalty to English
    286
    rule more active. He did not speak without authority on this subject; he had the high authority of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire himself. But there were other and very cogent reasons why they must develop by every means in their power the resources and the wealth-producing power of the people of India. Debt was not so easy to pay as it formerly was. The Debts of the world were paid in kind. A pound of Debt was discharged by a remittance of a sovereign's worth of produce. But, unfortunately for the debtor nations of the world, the absorption of gold by Germany and America and other countries, which had adopted gold as their standard of value in place of silver, had caused gold to be harder of acquisition than formerly, and a good deal more produce had to be remitted to discharge a pound of Debt than was the case when most of the Debts of the world were contracted. That told heavily against India. During the average of the last 25 years she had discharged a pound's worth of debt to us by a remittance of 34 lbs. cotton, or 168 lbs. wheat, or 123 lbs. jute, or 192 lbs. rice, or 13 lbs. tea, or 3½ lbs. indigo; but so much harder had it now become for India to discharge that debt, that the pound of Debt which required 34 lbs. of cotton now required 44 lbs.; in place of 168 lbs. of wheat, it required 224 lbs.; in place of 123 lbs. of jute, it required 185 lbs.; in place of 192 lbs. of rice, it required 288 lbs.; in place of 13 lbs. of tea, it required 20 lbs.; in place of 3½ lbs. of indigo, it required 4½ lbs. His right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had alluded to the strain on gold as a disturbing cause before, and it was one which might well make debtors tremble; But it was a warning to us in India to mend our means of production and improve our roads, to render access to our ports from the interior easier, and, therefore, cheaper, and by every means in our power to aid India in her effort to pay her way. You could not do that by binding ligatures upon her limbs; you might paralyze her, but you could not stimulate her by such a process. From the speeches they had heard that evening, it might be thought that the finances of India were in a rather mournful condition; but it must be remembered that circumstances were very different now from what they were in 1879, when the

    287
    hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire made his Indian Budget speech. Then there was war and famine; but since then the salt tax had been reduced 25 per cent, the Customs had been reduced £1,250,000, £2,000,000 sterling had been set aside for famine purposes, and there had been spent on productive and protective works £3,600,000 in the last triennial period more than in the corresponding period ending in 1880. He did not think, therefore, they should regard India as growing poorer and poorer, when they could reduce taxation to that amount, and increase the amount spent on public works, and yet have a fair surplus at the end. From 1871 to 1883 there had been an average increase in exports from India of 30 per cent, while the expenditure had increased during the same period only 7 or 8. During the same period India had absorbed a considerable quantity of bullion and merchandise, the latter being £49,000,000 worth a-year; so that, taking all things together, India, so far from being in a state of poverty, was getting on pretty well under the circumstances, and they were justified in looking forward to the future with hope. Certainly, there was no need to curtail expenditure; indeed, he wished that we had more men in the House who could tell them, by their own experience, of the means and wants of India. He sometimes thought that, if the Council of the Secretary of State were not so numerous, more of the best Indian servants would find places there, and so would keep them more in touch with our Eastern Empire. At that Council Table there sat 15 eminent men, whose collective experience of India must approach five centuries; at least they might spare them a century of knowledge to leaven the ignorance of the House of Commons. And if any eminent Administrator who had left India within the last five years would take his place there, he would tell the House not more earnestly, but with infinitely more effect than he (Mr. J. K. Cross) could, that it was by a generous development of her resources that we might alone hope to make India prosperous. He had tried to put before the House a plain statement of fact; he had pointed out items of charge which seemed to be excessive, and which he would gladly see more fully justified; and he could assure hon. Members that no exertion on his behalf
    288
    should be wanting in that direction; but with regard to the main items of local expenditure, which he looked upon as the very lifeblood of Indian provincial progress, he must ask the House not to put any obstacles in the way of such generous spending from the income of the year, as would, in the opinion of the Local and Provincial Governments, be productive of profitable results. He must repeat to the House the points he wished to urge—first, there was a great growth of expenditure in several items which might well be earnestly pressed on the Government of India for consideration, but these items were more matters of detail of administration than principles of finance; secondly, there was an enormous increase of superannuation and pension charges, which it was the duty of this House to check by every means in its power, the only means suggested was the increased employment of Natives; thirdly, in order to lighten the burdens of India it was necessary to develop her productive resources, and this would require an increase, rather than a decrease, of expenditure on public works. The Resolution of the hon. Gentleman opposite was too sweeping and too indefinite. He (Mr. J. K. Cross) was as anxious for economy as the hon. Gentleman; but it must be economy which should not fetter progress, and, therefore, he was unable to accept the wording of the Resolution in its present form. But, as both of them had the best interests of India in view, though approaching them by somewhat different means, he asked the House to accept a slight alteration in the Resolution, and he begged to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, these words—
    "This House is of opinion that every effort should be made to effect economy in the expenditure of the Government of India."
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out all the words after the word "House" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "every effort should be made to effect economy in the Government of India,"—(Mr. J. Kynaston Cross,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he could not see that there was any material difference between the Motion

    289
    of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) and the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross), except that the Motion actually pledged the House to effect some reduction in Indian Expenditure, whereas the Amendment only stated that the House ought to do its best to effect that object. For himself, he preferred the plain and straightforward Resolution of his hon. Friend; and, if necessary, he should support it. The necessity for effecting any considerable economy rested upon the narrow margin of Revenue which the Indian Government had at its disposal. At the same time, he thought that the hon. Gentleman, in his speech, had clearly shadowed forth a further reduction in taxation. Many persons had been afraid that the abolition of the cotton duties would be pernicious to Indian trade and manufactures. But there had been an increase of 44 per cent in the exports to China, and of 11 per cent in the imports from England. Thus, the abolition had been beneficial to the population of India, both as producers and consumers. Then, the decentralization which had been so largely effected had diminished the resources of the Imperial Government by transferring them to local centres. When the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. K. Cross) spoke of the surplus during the last two years, it should be remembered that there had in that period been no wars or famines; but as wars and famines might at any time occur, and the Opium Revenue was likely to fall off, it was most desirable to reduce Expenditure so as to be able to meet an exceptional emergency which might arise. His hon. Friend had pointed out the enormous increase in the superannuation allowances and in the non-effective charges, and he had asked how they were to be kept down in future. The only way to keep them down was to reduce our establishments in India. The Under Secretary of State for India had intimated that it was the intention of the Government to expend more and more in public works. He (Lord George Hamilton) had sat on a Committee which investigated that question, together with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Postmaster General, and the present Under Secretary of State for India. After 18 months' inquiry, they came to a remarkable unanimity, and one re-
    290
    commendation was, that in no one year should more than £2,500,000 be borrowed. But, in 1883–4, it was proposed to borrow £3,820,000, or more than £1,300,000 in excess of that amount. The proposed expenditure upon works made out of Revenue was £1,800,000 in excess of that of three years ago. Moreover, £1,350,000 were, in addition, to be spent upon works classified as protective. Thus, nearly £5,000,000 in excess of the amount recommended by that Committee was to be expended this year on public works. When the cash balances increased, it was customary to embark in engineering schemes, which necessitated the creation of new establishments; and thus a heavy additional charge was imposed, which was severely felt at the next period of financial depression. In time of prosperity the Indian Government were told they could afford to enlarge their establishments; and in time of depression they were told they could not get rid of material that had been accumulated. He looked with diffidence upon what were called protective public works; that generally meant that they were non-productive, and that, not being remunerative, they had been pressed upon the Government as protective. The Report of the Select Committee on Public Works said that financial results were generally the best test of public utility. Unless an irrigation work benefited its immediate locality, it could not be of use to an outside district; if the cultivators close to it did not take advantage of it, it did not accomplish its main purpose His experience as Under Secretary of State for India was that the House of Commons was always ready to support an abstract Resolution in favour of economy, but not ready to support the Minister in resisting any concrete demand for increased expenditure. He realized that on two occasions on which the Government of which he was a Member was defeated in the House. The Government must take advantage of a fit of economy, when it was on, if they desired to act on the Resolution now before the House. As regarded superannuation and the non-effective charges, the rights secured to officers under what was called the Guarantee Clause, which was carried when the Government of India was transferred to the Crown, had hampered the Government in every scheme of Army

    291
    reform, and it had cost India millions, besides conducing to inefficiency. A Governor General might go out with the best intentions and several schemes of reform in his mind. He knew that he must secure the co-operation of the Services, to whom the changes might be unpalatable, and gradually he found it expedient to abandon his schemes. If the Government wanted to overhaul the administration of India for the purpose of effecting economy, the motive power must come from that House, and from the India Office. The only way by which they could give practical effect to an abstract Resolution such as this would be for the Secretary of State here to intimate that, in deference to the wishes of the House of Commons, he proposed to appoint a small Commission. The Commission ought then to go out to India, and there investigate and supervise each branch of the Civil Service Expenditure. While in India, they should be under the complete control of the Viceroy; they should have power to call up and examine witnesses; and their Reports, tempered with the opinions of those practically responsible for the government of India, should be forwarded to the local, as well as the Imperial Government. The mass of information thus collected would enable the Indian Government to effect the desired reforms, which, he believed, they were anxious to do. He hoped his hon. Friend would carefully consider this proposal. It was one which he knew the preceding Viceroy looked upon with favour. As to the Military Expenditure, Sir Ashley Eden's Commission recommended the abolition of the triple system of military administration as a means of saving £1,250,000 a-year. Successive Viceroys supported that view. Last year the Secretary of State for India summed up the merits and demerits of the proposal. It was important to notice how the present system had stood the test of the late war in Egypt. War was, after all, the only thorough test of a military organization, and every military authority in Europe had had to alter its arrangements in consequence of the experience of actual campaigns. Now, what were the difficulties which the present treble system had caused during the last few months? The Indian Government had had to perform a very simple operation—namely, to select, equip, and embark 5,000 men for service in Egypt—and if there had
    292
    been one central authority, the duty would have been done with the utmost ease. As things were, the most enormous strain was put upon the various authorities who had to carry out the operations, for they had to work night and day. The reason for that was that there were three separate military authorities in India, so that as soon as the Government began to select recruits for the Expedition, they had to consult three Governments, three Commanders-in-Chief, three Adjutant Generals, three Quartermaster Generals, three Clothing Agents, three Inspector Generals of Ordnance, and a host of minor officials—a necessity which multiplied, to a perfectly absurd extent, the correspondence with the chief military officers. According to the present system, any soldier who passed from one Presidency to another was under the jurisdiction of the Commander-in-Chief of the Presidency in which he happened to be. Sir Herbert Macpherson was sent by the Government of India to superintend the embarkation of goods at Bombay. The consequence was, that all communications to him had to be sent from the Government of India to the Government of Bombay, and from the Commander-in-Chief at Calcutta to the Commander-in-Chief at Bombay. This led to the sending of despatches that were often identical with one another, and to the more serious inconvenience of occupying unduly the time of the officials and of delaying the operations. Again, when articles were wanted at Bombay for a Bengal regiment, they had either to be sent for from Bengal, or to be supplied at Bombay, to the great confusion and complication of the accounts. That was absurd enough; but nothing better illustrated the defects of the present system than the fact that a considerable part of the Madras Army was, at that moment, out of the jurisdiction of the Madras Government. Surely it was high time to establish a central military authority, and that the Government of this country took steps to put an end to this treble system of military administration, which, sooner or later, might lead to disastrous consequences. Objections might, no doubt, be taken to any course that would diminish the importance of the minor Presidencies; but those objections were of no consequence compared to the risks involved in the maintenance of the exist-

    293
    ing state of things. The treble system largely added to our Indian Army Expenditure, and, in the opinion of many of the most competent authorities, actually endangered our Indian Empire. Could not, he would ask, the India Office enter into some compromise, by which the Commanders-in-Chief of the three Presidencies might be retained, and sweep away the triplicate War Office system that hampered all our military operations? He did earnestly trust that the Government would pluck up courage and insist upon that all-important reform being carried out. They were pledged to retrenchment and reform, and ought now, therefore, to express definitely their intentions as to the change which he advocated.
    MR. PUGHsaid, that if the Government were prepared to appoint either a Commission to go out to India, and by personal examination see how a more efficient control could be exercised over the expenditure, as the noble Lord opposite the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had recommended, or a Committee to inquire into the subject, as he (Mr. Pugh) would himself suggest, then they might arrive at some real and practical means of enforcing economy. Both sides of the House were agreed as to the necessity for economy; but he thought the difference between the Resolution and the Amendment was very like the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. The result of the one or the other would be absolutely nil. With respect to the Amendment which he had put on the Paper, but which he had as yet been unable to bring forward, it was, he thought, amply justified by the speech of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India. The House was desirous to enforce economy; but it had no means of bringing pressure to bear for that purpose. The Commission that sat at Simla was the very best proof they could have of the impossibility of effecting any practical improvement unless they had a spur from that House. If any Viceroy in India were to propose to materially diminish the charge under the head of administration for the Civil Service, it would be perfectly idle for him to attempt to carry a scheme for the purpose, because of the pressure which would be brought to bear against him both in England and in India. The Army Commission sat at
    294
    Simla a long time, at great expense, and made an elaborate Report. That Report had to be considered by the Viceroy and his Council, by the Secretary of State for India and his Council, then by the War Office, and then by the Horse Guards. What chance had any scheme which had to run the gauntlet of all those authorities? The Council of the Secretary of State for India appeared to him a very unsatisfactory body. It was composed, no doubt, of Gentlemen of the highest ability and the greatest experience, who performed their duty conscientiously and well. But they had no power effectively to control expenditure, or to initiate reforms. They could not expect the Secretary of State to initiate reforms unless he was spurred on by the House or by some other authority; and it was impossible for the Viceroy to carry reforms involving a large reduction of expenditure into effect unless he was supported and urged thereto by that House. It was, notwithstanding what his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India had said, high time that there should be some control over the non-effective charges. Both sides of the House were in favour of the appointment of Natives, as far as they might be competent, to discharge the duties required; and, from the steps which the Government were taking for their education, more Natives would be in time found competent. But for many years the employment of Natives would not bring down the non-effective charges. Europeans would still have to be employed to a very large extent; and they would earn their pensions, and return to England to live upon them. The employment of Natives would not, therefore, afford an adequate solution of this part of the question. Neither the Resolution nor the Amendment of the noble Lord would be of any use unless the House insisted upon the appointment of a Committee to inquire into these matters. He had no doubt that the policy of decentralization had done good; but that result arose from the fact that, under that system, the public money was better spent. It was idle, however, to say that actual economy was caused by decentralization. He approved the step taken by Lord Ripon's Government with reference to the purchase of stores in India, which, though not noticed by the Under Secretary of State for India, was a very important and

    295
    beneficial reform, and one much appreciated by the people of India. He hoped it might yet be carried further. One change which he would like to see was the adoption of a system by which the real not Imperial Revenue would be shown in the Returns. At present the Returns of net Revenue contained items which ought not to find a place in them; for they did not, in fact, constitute net Revenue, and including them only made the net Revenue larger than it really was, and so encouraged increased expenditure. As regarded the Revenue derived from the administration of law and justice, there was great necessity for reducing the cost to the suitors; for the fees now charged gave justice to the rich and denied it to the poor. The export duty on rice was also a subject that demanded the attention of the Indian Government. The rice trade was checked, and the profits reduced to an unremunerative amount, by the combined influence of the cost of transport and the export duty. In the same way, the increase in the wheat trade, which was one of the most cheering prospects in India, though materially encouraged by the Government of India, was stopped in consequence of the difficulty and cost of carriage in remote districts. Major Baring had declared that it was absolutely necessary, for the development of India, that British capital should be largely attracted to the country. The Bill brought in by the Indian Government with regard to the trial of Europeans by Natives had a bearing on that subject; and there was great danger that, if that Bill was passed, it would discourage very much the introduction of British capital into India. Almost all the great works in India were carried on by British capital, and the capitalists insisted upon their undertakings being superintended by Europeans. If Europeans were in any doubt as to their security in out-of-the-way places, it would be difficult to get European management at the price at which it could now be obtained. He would not go into the question as to whether the alarms in consequence of that Bill were well or ill founded; but they constituted a great danger, which should be carefully watched and studied.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross) should have been placed on
    296
    the Table of the House before now. The Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. E. Stanhope) had been before them for some weeks, and the Amendment which he himself (Mr. Onslow) had put upon the Paper, to add at the end of that Amendment the words—
    "And this House regrets the decision arrived at by Her Majesty's Government to cast a further burden upon the Revenues of India in order to meet the extraordinary charges incurred by that Government on account of the Military expedition to Egypt,"
    had also been in the hands of Members for a considerable time. What happened? They all came down to the House feeling they might have to vote on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope); but, at the last moment, the Under Secretary of State for India interposed with what he called an Amendment, but which was very little different from the Motion. This was a question of great importance, not only to this country, but to India. It was idle and useless for the House of Commons to adopt general abstract Resolutions like the present if, at the same time, the Government at home acted diametrically opposite to the known wishes of the Viceroy and his Council in fastening on the Revenues a burden which they had themselves condemned as unjust, and which they ought not to be called upon to pay. If they were to pass Resolutions of this kind, and if the finances of India were to be left entirely in the hands of the Government at home, and if they placed burdens on India—burdens which India could not be properly required to bear—discussions such as they had had on the present occasion were waste of time. It must be evident to the people of India, from the present decision of Her Majesty's Government, that, however anxious they might be for economy, it was competent for Her Majesty's Government, at one fell swoop, to frustrate the whole of their financial arrangements. The subject came before the House last year on the Motion of the noble Lord who was then Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington); and so strong was the feeling exhibited on all sides of the House that at the last moment the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Guilders) interposed words which left it subject to the future consideration of the House whether India should be called upon to

    297
    bear any of the extraordinary charges of the war lately undertaken in Egypt; and he (Mr. Onslow) believed that, had it not been for the insertion of the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Government would have sustained a defeat. From that time to this they had had no opportunity of bringing the question before the House so as to elicit a vote. He (Mr. Onslow) had put certain Questions to the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington); but the answers he had received had always been unsatisfactory. As long ago as the 11th of June last year he asked the Prime Minister if India was making preparations for the contemplated war, and the right hon. Gentleman replied it was not consistent with public policy to disclose what was going on. Continually he put Questions to the Secretary of State for India; but from him he could get no definite statement. On the 1st of March this year the noble Lord refused Papers on the subject; and on more than one occasion he said he did not think it was to the interest of the Public Service that Papers should be produced. Last year the noble Lord often said that Papers would be produced on the subject when the correspondence with the Indian Government was closed. It was only after great pressure was put on the noble Lord that he produced the Papers which he (Mr. Onslow) held in his hand. Those Papers commended themselves to Members. If the Government of India had been consulted in any way in the matter he should not have raised his voice; if the Government of India had approved of the policy of this country there might have been something said for the imposition of the tax upon India. From the first moment, however, of Her Majesty's Government contemplating war in Egypt the Government of India was never consulted. The first intimation which the Indian Government had on the subject of the expenses of the war was the telegram from the noble Lord, on July 24th, last year—namely—
    "Subject to final decision on any representation you may desire to make, we propose Indian Revenue shall bear all expenses of the Indian Contingent serving in Egypt."
    Immediately on receipt of that telegram the Viceroy replied—
    "We beg unanimously to protest very strongly against the proposal that Indian
    298
    Revenue shall bear all expenses of Indian Contingent serving in Egypt. As soon as possible we shall address a despatch to your Lordship on the subject."
    The Government took some time to consider what their change of policy should be, and the first intimation the House had of the amount which the Government were going to give India on account of the recent war was when the Supplementary Estimate was laid on the Table shortly before the Easter Recess. In that Supplementary Estimate they had a Vote of £500,000 to India for the war. Of course, to India, half a loaf was better than no bread. Hon. Members at the time had not the Viceroy's despatch before them; they had no means of knowing what was the opinion of the Viceroy and his Council. He did not believe that any definite policy was involved in the grant of £500,000; but that, in reality, it was a sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought would fit in with the Budget. It was said the Government of India had accepted the policy of Her Majesty's Government. He could assure the House there was no foundation whatever for such an assertion. The only thing in the Papers which could possibly be construed into an acceptance by the Government of India of the policy of Her Majesty's Government was the congratulatory despatch from the Viceroy. In reply to the telegram of the Secretary of State announcing the grant of £500,000, the Viceroy said it was with satisfaction he received the telegram, and asked the Secretary of State to convey the thanks of the Government of India for the important assistance which Her Majesty's Government had granted. That had been construed into an acceptance of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. It was no acceptance at all, but was merely an acknowledgment for some small assistance that had been rendered the Government of India. There was nothing in any of the despatches to show that the Indian Government was satisfied with the decision arrived at by Her Majesty's Government. His principal contention against India paying any of the extraordinary charges of the war was that the employment of Indian troops in Egypt was on a very different footing from the employment of Native troops in any other part of Her Majesty's Dominions in which they had had to fight,

    299
    It had been alleged that there was some analogy between this war and the Afghan Wars as far as India was concerned. There was, however, no analogy between the two cases. In the case of the Afghan Wars India knew everything that was going on; the Viceroy was aware of every despatch that was written; from the time of Dost Mahommed until the present Ameer was put on the Throne it had been the policy of the Viceroy and his Council to be cognizant of everything that went on in Afghanistan. The Viceroy and his Council knew nothing of what was going on in Egypt. It was all very well to say that we had undertaken the war for Indian interests and for the protection of the Suez Canal. Last year the Prime Minister himself said that the ends of the Government in Egypt were well known to consist in the maintenance of all established rights in Egypt, whether those of the Sultan, the Khedive, or the people of Egypt, or of the foreign, bondholder. There was not a word in any speech of the right hon. Gentleman to show that this war was undertaken in the interest of India. The right hon. Gentleman had, over and over again, said in that House that the object of the war was to put down anarchy in Egypt; he never said it was for the protection of the Suez Canal. However great a ruffian Arabi might be, he had never once attempted to stop the communication through the Suez Canal; and, in point of fact, our communications with India had never been practically interrupted from the time of the bombardment of Alexandria to the end of the war. If India was to be called upon to pay for the protection of the Suez Canal he failed to see why our other Colonies should not be required to do the same. India had, no doubt, a vast interest in the maintenance of a free passage through the Canal, and he admitted that she had a much greater interest in it than any other of our Colonies; but he asked the Prime Minister and the Government if Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Ceylon had not a very considerable interest in the passage through the Canal? If they were to call upon India to contribute towards the maintenance of that passage, he asked the right hon. Gentleman why India should not be called upon to pay some of the cost of a European war, during which it would be
    300
    necessary to preserve our possessions in the Mediterranean? The Viceroy asserted that Egypt lay wholly within the sphere of European politics; and he (Mr. Onslow) thought he was right in saying that that had always been the case. He maintained that there was no precedent whatever for the course which the Government were pursuing in this instance. There was the case of the Persian War, in which, he believed, half the extraordinary charges were paid by India. But, in that instance, India was consulted throughout; she knew what was going on, and it was for the benefit of India that we did not allow Persia to get to Herat. As regarded the first Afghan War, the Government at home knew nothing of what was going on at the time, the whole of it having been managed, or mismanaged, by the Governor General of the day. He failed to see any analogy between those wars and that which had been recently concluded in Egypt which could suggest a precedent for calling upon India to pay a portion of the cost in the latter case. With regard to the war in 1878, it was not for India to come to us in formâ pauperis. India never asked for the money that was given to her; she never wanted it; the money was thrust upon her, and at the time she was quite willing loyally to pay every atom of the cost of the war, because she felt it was a war in which she was interested. It might, indeed, be called a war of her own creation, and it was perfectly legitimate for her to pay the expense of that war. If this policy was to be carried out; if we were to tax India at a future time for any particular war which might be undertaken by the Imperial Government, he failed to see where such a policy was to end. By all means let India pay every farthing of the cost of wars for which she was responsible; let taxes be imposed and even money borrowed by her for that purpose if necessary; but he maintained that the principle which the Government had laid down was totally uncalled for and totally unneeded. Finally, he maintained that it would be a great misfortune if the Government, in the face of everything th6 Viceroy had said, and in the face of the strongest opposition in India, were to outvote the Supreme Council of India in the decision they had arrived at, and at some future day call upon India to pay for that which she thought she was not bound to pay

    301
    for. He had himself the strongest views upon this subject, and, speaking from his knowledge of some of the opinions with regard to India entertained upon the opposite Benches, he felt sure that if the Conservative Party had adopted the policy of the present Government, the first person who would have risen to condemn it would have been the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). Although the Forms of the House prevented him from moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice, he had felt it his duty, in the interests of India, to address these few words to the House.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he agreed with the spirit of the observations made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow); but he failed to see what was the Constitutional provision by which India could express her views on this subject, or how she would ever be able, judging by the expressed policy of both Parties in that House, to impose an effective check upon any kind of misapplication of her Revenue. The House had always, within his recollection, been practically unanimous in recommending economy in the Indian Administration, in condemning the increase of her Expenditure, and in recommending a return to the moderate Estimates of past times. The House might go on passing abstract Resolutions until the end of the 19th, or even the 20th century; but the Expenditure in India would go on increasing, and the heads of the spending Departments in India would go on laughing at the Resolutions of the House of Commons. There was no Member of the Government Service in India who did not know the exact value of these declarations of good intentions on the part both of individual Members and the House generally. It was the essential character of Indian administration to be like the administration in Ireland in the worst times before the Union—that was to say, along with a considerable amount of honest endeavours to reform the Public Service, there was a vast alliance of family parties, and an enormous nation practically without any power whatever to impose any obstacle to the grossest misapplication of its Revenues on the most cruel enhancement of its burdens. Everyone in the Public Service in India had a cousin, a brother, a father-in-law, or some other relative, who would be assisted, directly or in-
    302
    directly, by the increase of the public burdens; and they would, therefore, be increased. The great principle of Indian administration was that in every Department there should be a great number of officials paid for doing nothing, and a great number of paid officials assisting them. The Army was a vast nest of jobbery. In the Native Army, there was from 20 to 50 per cent of the I European officers of the Native regiments continually separated from the duties of their posts, far away from, and utterly neglectful of, those regiments, but appointed to every kind of office in the Accounts Department, in the Political Department, and other Departments, each of these officers enjoying a post remunerated in proportion to the amount of private influence which he possessed in the highest circles of the Indian Government. In the European Army, in the same way, the expenditure was puffed up and bloated in every possible manner and on every possible excuse. The number of European officers—those peculiarly expensive exotics—was artificially increased; and posts were created for them throughout India, in the Public Works or in the political Departments, exactly as in the case of the European officers attached to the Native regiments, according to the amount of influence which they possessed in the highest circles of the Government. The hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh) had suggested the advisability of appointing a sort of Supervision Committee for the purpose of trying to carry into effect the Resolutions of the House of Commons. Such a Committee might be of some use; but he could not see that it would be able to effect any reduction of the charge saddled on the Revenues of India for the salaries of the Secretary of State, Under Secretary of State, Members of the Council of India, Secretaries and officers of the Secretary of State, which formed part of the charge for salaries, and amounted to £140,000.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he hoped it would be recorded in India that the hon. and very Liberal Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), a most devoted supporter of Her Majesty's Government, had attempted, although unsuccessfully,

    303
    to cut short this debate upon the Indian Expenditure. He was about to observe, when the interruption of the hon. Gentleman took place, that if the salaries of the Secretary of State for India and his staff were thrown upon the Home Estimates, which they ought to be, because it was for the information of that House and the country—if there was any advantage whatever in that Office—that the Secretariat of India existed, they could secure, year by year, a certain opportunity of discussing the administration of India. It would then be impossible for any Government to evade a regular annual discussion of Indian Expenditure, and equally impossible for zealous Liberals like the hon. Member for Stockton to try to check such discussion by the expedient of counting the House. Nothing more unjust, unfair, and politically dishonest could be mentioned than that this Indian Secretariat was saddled on the Revenues of India. Why should not the Colonial Secretariat be saddled on the Colonies in the same way? The Government did not saddle Australia and Canada with the salary of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, because they dare not. But in India they had a vast slave Empire, infinitely exceeding in numbers and in helplessness the population of Russia in its most servile days; and, being able to do as they liked with India, they saddled upon India the expenses of these officers, who were solely useful in their relation to that House, who were solely useful through the position they held in the House, and who were maintained for the advantage which that House derived from them. He believed the Government saddled India with these expenses in order to deprive the friends of India in that House of the opportunity of discussing the grievances of India which would be open to them if the salaries of these officers were thrown on the Home Estimates as the salaries of the Secretaries of State for the Colonies were. When they talked of introducing economies in India they ought to commence by reducing the expenditure by such items as these, which were strictly in our own control. They ought to insist upon the Secretary of State for India being paid from the Revenues of this country, and not allow it, by a sleight of hand, to be juggled on to the already over-burdened people of India. Why was the cost of the British Missions at the Court of
    304
    Pekin and in Persia saddled on the people of India, seeing that those Missions were as strictly and rightly a part of the general Imperial burdens as were the expenses of the British Embassy at Constantinople or the Legation at Washington? But, after all, these items were only as drops in the vast ocean of expenses which India had to bear; and the only reason why he had laid stress upon the iniquity of throwing the expense of the Secretary of State for India upon the Indian Revenue was that he saw in that fact a deliberate purpose to avoid discussion which otherwise would arise in the ordinary course upon the Estimates. There was no hope or chance of introducing anything like a substantial reduction in Indian Expenditure until some means were found of curbing the existing nepotism—the favouritism, the wholesale creation of unnecessary posts, the wholesale enhancement of salaries already swollen and bloated, the wholesale payment under any pretext of the money scraped from the people of India, to the foreign officials who swarmed in India. He would mention a specimen of the reckless lavishnesss with which Indian officials, and even ex-officials, were remunerated. In the Accounts for last year he found an item of £5,828 for bringing the Earl of Lytton and his family home from India. That was a public—a national disgrace. He made no imputation upon Lord Lytton, simply treating him as an ex-official; but the idea that a first-class saloon passage, even on rather exorbitant terms, would not suffice to bring him and his family from Calcutta to Charing Cross was simply monstrous. It was a monument I of nothing less than political dishonesty. He found that even English newspapers in India, like The Englishman, were commenting on the extraordinary extravagance of the more than Regal progress indulged in not only by Viceroys, but by more ordinary officials. The Englishman stated that a Viceroy could not travel from Calcutta to Simla by a first-class ordinary train, but must have a special saloon carriage, expensively furnished and adorned with silver, at a cost of 12,000 rupees. If that cost came out of the Revenues of India, he (Mr. O'Donnell) thought Members of the Council might be admonished that their salaries were sufficiently high, and that they might travel without disgracing themselves from Calcutta to Simla by

    305
    ordinary rates twice in the year, and so avoid this reckless extravagance of saloon carriages at a cost of 12,000 rupees each. A large item in the expenditure of Madras would be found to he the costly progress of Mr. Grant Duff—the most grandiloquent Lieutenant Governor probably that was ever known. Some time ago the Government, not being able to hit upon any other way of remunerating a most deserving supporter of the Administration and a generally respected Gentleman, sent the late Mr. Adam to India and made him the Lieutenant Governor of Madras. He was, however, unfortunately taken away.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. O'DONNELL,resuming, said, he was afraid that in face of what had occurred, and of the concerted Obstruction on the Ministerial Benches, he should not be allowed to conclude his remarks. However, for the purpose he had in view—namoly, pressing on the people of India that their only hope was in taking care of themselves and in organizing in their own self-defence—he was by no means sorry to see these continued instances of Liberal intolerance of discussion and Liberal hostility to the interests of India. He wished to point out that there was a legislative change in India which would undoubtedly have the effect of reducing the expenditure. He referred to the change which would alter the present character of the land assessment in India. The Members of Her Majesty's Government might be supposed to have sufficiently recognized the evil, from every point of view, of an unsettled state of agrarian relations, and must have realized how uncertainty in the rent and land tax in India, and the prospect of having the land tax raised in proportion to the expenditure of labour by the cultivator, must dishearten the cultivator, and lead him to prefer to drag on a miserable existence, rather than expend labour, and capital, and skill, only with the result of increasing the demands of the tax gatherer. He would not now go into detail on a matter of that kind; but during the last six or seven years he had received hundreds of letters from all parts of India, from Europeans as well as Natives, recommending in the strongest way the regularization of the
    306
    system of settlements and its extension to the whole of India. If the land tax were once settled on a permanent basis, all that large portion of the expense in connection with assessment caused by continual survey would be out of the Budget. No Resolution of that House would have the slightest effect until the House hit upon some way of controlling the despotic and unchecked action of the official classes, who at present, to a large extent, ruled India neither for the Indian people nor for the English people, but simply for their own Anglo-Indian selves, their families and their connections, even to the 10th generation.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question again proposed.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he rose to Order, and asked whether the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) intended to move his Amendment?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is too late.
    MR. ONSLOW,rising to Order, said, he had concluded that the Amendment of the Under Secretary of State for India would be carried; and he certainly thought he should have been in Order in moving his Amendment at the end of that Motion. It was not really an Amendment; it was an addendum; and, if in Order, he intended to move it. It was an addition referring to increased expenditure in India.
    MR. SPEAKER: The words of the hon. Member for Guildford being in the form of an addition, it is competent to him, if he thinks fit, to move them as an addition.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he would, therefore, move these words as an addition.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Question, to add the words "and this House regrets the decision arrived at by Her Majesty's Government to cast a further burden upon the Revenues of India in order to meet the extraordinary charges incurred by that Government on account of the Military expedition to Egypt."—(Mr. Onslow.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, there was so little difference between the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) and the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, as has been pointed

    307
    out by previous speakers, that the Government did not think it necessary to press the Amendment; but the proposed addition of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) is one which it is impossible for the Government to accept without a division, inasmuch as it is a Vote of Censure. At this time of night I do not propose to enter at length into the subject, after the reply of my hon. Friend, especially as I think it was unfortunate that this subject should have been introduced on an Amendment to the Motion, and interpolated into the discussion on the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope). The hon. Member obtained an opportunity, which is very rare, of having a discussion, not of a Party character, on a question of great importance connected with Indian finance; and the hon. Gentleman referred entirely to the question of the policy of expenditure, and not to a matter of Party difference. The addition proposed is one which raises many of those questions of Party politics which it was the intention of hon. Gentlemen originally to discard from the discussion. It is unnecessary to follow the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) through the speech he has made, because the difference between the Indian Government and the Home Government, which was very slight, and may now be said to have almost completely disappeared, was greatly exaggerated. The House will observe that the Government of India never did intend, and, in the despatch which has been referred to to-night, stated that they did not intend, that India should not bear some portion of the expenditure of this war. The only contention they raised was that India ought not to be called on to bear the whole expenses of the Contingent. There was very little difference between the view taken by the Government of India and the Government at home. As I explained in a despatch when we made the proposal, it was made in the full belief that a comparatively small share of the expenses of the Expedition would be thrown on the Revenues of India. That was the view I expressed to the House in August last. When we found how much larger the probable cost would be than we had anticipated, we acknowledged that the proposal we had made would, on after consideration, have to be modified; and, in consultation with the Indian Govern-
    308
    ment, it has been modified. The Indian Government thought their share ought to be limited to the ordinary expenditure of the Contingent; but we thought they ought to pay a somewhat larger share. After that admission on the one side and the other we came to a friendly arrangement, not one which could be argued on general principles or be confirmed by precedent, as there are no parallels between the despatch of this Expeditionary Force and the despatch of Expeditionary Forces to the Indian Frontier, the cost of which everyone admits ought to be paid by India alone, and to Malta, the cost of which everyone equally admits ought not to fall in any degree on India. There are many cases varying in character, some of which have been quoted by the Indian Government. There was the Persian War, where all the ordinary, and part of the extraordinary, expenses were paid by India. There was the Abyssinian War, where the extraordinary expenditure was paid entirely by this country. In my opinion, without going into the circumstances of that war, it is far more than to question whether India ought not to have been charged with even the ordinary expenditure of the troops during that campaign, in which she had not the smallest interest, to question that she should be called on to pay the proportion of the cost of the Egyptian Campaign which she is called on to pay. No one denies that India had an interest in the pacification of Egypt, and in the maintenance of the security of the Suez Canal; and no one denies that the pacification of Egypt and the security of the navigation were two of the objects for which the British Government entered into hostilities with Egypt. There may be a difference as to the necessity for these operations; but the Imperial Government must be held responsible for the policy not of Great Britain alone, but of India also; and there can be no doubt that material Indian interests were involved. There were other considerations beyond this which made it desirable that India should pay some substantial proportion of the cost of the Expedition. The House cannot have overlooked the immense costliness of the Expeditions fitted out in the present day, and it is fair to assume that the costliness would be augmented when the Indian Government knows that no portion of the expense falls on their shoulders. The House must re-

    309
    member the immense cost of the Abyssinian Expedition; and, bearing that in mind, it is very doubtful whether, under similar circumstances, Indian troops will ever be employed again. It is desirable where Indian troops are employed, and where Indian interests are involved, that the Indian Government should have before it some motive for the exercise of economy such as that of bearing a proportion of the cost. There has been nothing in the arrangement come to inconsistent with the general principles upon which the relations existing between the two countries are based; and, considering that the proposal made by the British Government has been accepted by the Government of India, and is considered fair by a great number of those who have the interests of India at heart, and who were at first inclined to believe that India should bear the whole cost of the Expedition, I trust the House will not consider it necessary to divide on the question, or censure what has been done.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he would appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) not to persevere with his Amendment, and would give his reason for so doing. It was true his hon. Friend had been hardly treated by having another Amendment interposed before his; it was true he had a great right to complain; but he must know that a large number of Members had left the House under the belief that his important Amendment was shut out, and that they would not have an opportunity of discussing it. Without entering into a discussion of the question raised, he (Mr. E. Stanhope) hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in his Amendment.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that, before the Motion was put, he desired to point out to the House the very serious nature of the question, and what the results would be should the policy indicated by the Amendment be adopted by Parliament. The Estimates of the finances of the year had been laid before Parliament; and according to these Estimates a very small balance indeed remained, after providing for the reduction of the Income Tax by 1½d. in the pound and for other remissions of taxation. He would point out to the House that if this Amendment should mean that India was to be repaid not only £500,000, but a further sum of £600,000 or £700,000,
    310
    there would be a considerable deficit in the year's account; and it would be necessary for the Government—the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill not having been yet passed—to take some measure in that Bill to increase taxation. He did not say how much the additional charge would represent, if raised by Income Tax or otherwise; but, if the whole of this £600,000 or £700,000 had to be paid, there was no question about it that an increase of taxation was necessary. If that was the case, was the House prepared, with barely a quorum present, and between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning, to adopt the Resolution. ["Yes!"] Was the House prepared, at such an hour as this, and in such a manner, to increase the taxation of the country. ["Yes!"] An hon. Member said "Yes," as though it were a very trivial matter to increase the taxation of the country. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), on the other hand, however, thought the House, in its present condition, should pause—having, practically, approved of the Budget arrangements of the year—before disturbing those arrangements. He would not go over the ground traversed by the noble Lord, and deal with a subject which the House had thoroughly discussed earlier in the Session, when the opinion of a full House was, so far as could be gathered from the expressions of Members, that the adjustment between this country and India was a fair one. The Budget was based on that adjustment, and the Budget Bill had been read a second time; and he could not imagine a more violent course than for Parliament, within a week or two of that adjustment, suddenly to turn round and, by a vote involving an increase of taxation, to upset the arrangement which had been entered into. He urged not those who looked on this as a light matter, but those who looked on it as a serious matter, to combine with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope) in his appeal to the hon. Member for Guildford to withdraw his Amendment, or, if they would not do that, to join with the Government in voting against it.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSprotested against the ground on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to the House to reject the Motion. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would not say whether the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) was right or wrong; but the

    311
    whole argument why they should reject his Motion, which was that the Government had made several proposals to the House, and they would be upset by the adoption of the Motion, was the most monstrous that was ever put before the House. The right hon. Gentleman said the House had settled the amount of taxation for the year. They had done nothing of the kind—they had never had an opportunity of discussing it. They had not had an opportunity of discussing the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill even.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): We passed the second reading and have disposed of the Revenue Clauses.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was aware of that; but what he said was that they had had no practical opportunity of discussing the measure on the second reading. The conduct of this Bill altogether was somewhat extraordinary. They were told on Monday night that the Bill was so essential to the Government—so necessary in the interests of the Public Service—that it would be taken at whatever hour it was reached. At Question time to-day they were told it was necessary that this matter should be settled to-night, and now they were told the Government were not going to bring it forward. It seemed as though they were never to have an opportunity of discussing this question, and they never had had an opportunity of discussing it on the present particular ground. Was this a real argument that, because they had passed a Financial Statement, there was to be no review of the proposal to put a portion of the charge on India? He saw some communications passing between the noble Lord who acted as one of the Whips to the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—communications, no doubt, which had had something to do with the course of Business this evening; but, putting that aside, he was bound to protest in the strongest manner against the proposition that, because this Motion had been on the Paper for some time, they were not now to discuss it and come to a decision on it. That proposition was a most monstrous one.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that, as this was his Motion, he trusted the House would allow him to say a few words upon it. He denied that there had been a com-
    312
    promise on this question. He and his friends some time ago had said that they could not discuss the matter because they had no Papers; and they asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them an opportunity further on. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman think of all this when he inserted the words—"Subject to the future decision of Parliament?" They had not been allowed to bring this matter forward during the Autumn Session. He had taken every opportunity of endeavouring to bring it on; and so strongly did he feel with regard to it that, no matter what any right hon. Gentleman said on the subject, he should insist upon dividing the House.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT(who, on rising, was received with cries of "Divide!") said: Hon. Gentlemen cry "Divide!" but surely they will agree that the decision they are asking the House to take is a serious one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) said we have not settled the financial arrangements of the year. Everyone knows they have been settled, practically speaking. If it had been intended to contest them, the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would not have been read a second time. It is quite plain that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not intend to contest the arrangement proposed to the House with reference to the financial settlement of the year and the taxation to be imposed. What answer has the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point? Does he assert that if a new charge is to be imposed on the Exchequer, it will not be necessary altogether to re-cast the Budget? That it will be necessary to do that cannot be disputed for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that at this time—at 1 o'clock in the morning, with the House in its present condition—we can determine upon the making of a new Budget. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the course now proposed is one which will involve an increase of taxation beyond that which has been submitted to the House. It was quite plain that was not a decision which ought to be come to on a Motion like the present. If a question of such a grave character was to be introduced and decided upon, it ought to be introduced and decided

    313
    upon in a very different manner than that now suggested. It was quite impossible that they could play ducks and drakes with the Revenue of the country in the way proposed. After 1 o'clock in the morning, it was proposed to overthrow the whole of the financial arrangements of the year, or, in other words, to pass a Resolution which involved an entire re-casting of the Estimates. Against such a course he must protest. It was not the manner in which finance had hitherto been dealt with in the House; and he could not believe that Gentlemen who were in a condition of responsibility would do anything to involve the finances in serious irregularity, and to overthrow the solidity they had been in the habit of employing upon questions of this description. He could not believe that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) would be supported by those who were anxious to give solidity to the finances of the country.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONconsidered the whole question was now within the power of the House of Commons, irrespective of the financial arrangements which had been made on the other side of the House. The question before them was a very simple one—namely, whether the Indian finances were to bear any part of the expenses of the Egyptian Expedition? His own mind had long been made up on the point. He was strongly of opinion that India ought to bear a part of the expenses of the late war; and, therefore, he should record his vote against the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Onslow).
    MR. SLAGGsaid, he cordially agreed with the Opposition that India should bear no portion whatever of the war charges; but, at the same time, he considered that a vote taken at this time, and under the present circumstances, would be most unfair and altogether meaningless. He was perfectly convinced that a great number of Members had left the House under the impression that this Amendment could not possibly be put. Therefore, a vote taken upon it now would express no conviction whatever. Under the circumstances he could not support the Amendment. It was impossible to conceive that any financial steps could be necessitated in consequence of a vote taken under such conditions as the present.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he did not think the present was at all a proper time to take a division upon the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow); and, therefore, he begged to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
    MR. THOMASSONsaid, he desired to ask the Government if, in the event of the debate being adjourned, they would afford the House another opportunity of discussing the question?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the application of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomasson) was most reasonable. There was only one interpretation to be put upon the Amendment—namely, that it amounted to a Vote of Censure upon the Government. That being so, he did not see how the Government could refuse to give an early opportunity for discussing the matter.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross) was not, in the least, intended to prevent his (Mr. Onslow's) Amendment being moved. If the debate had come on early in the evening and been concluded, the Government hoped that the Amendment of the Under Secretary of State for India would have been accented by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope). No doubt, a great number of hon. Members had left the House under the impression that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Guildford could not be moved; and, therefore, a vote taken now would be taken under very unfortunate circumstances, and would not, in the least, represent the real meaning and intention of the House. It was very desirable that the debate should be adjourned—indeed, it would be the duty of the Government to adjourn it to a most favourable occasion. ["When?"] In the absence of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he could not say what opportunity would be given for the discussion. He trusted it would not be a discussion which would last very long, and he should certainly think it his duty

    315
    to represent to his right hon. Friend that an opportunity should be given on an early day.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, the noble Marquess had made a fair offer; but he would, nevertheless, like to ask one question. The noble Marquess said that an early day would be given. They all knew what that meant. Did it mean that a day would be set apart some time about the beginning of August?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, if this debate was adjourned, the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill must also be adjourned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the House was not competent to express an opinion upon the point at issue, if the taxation of the year was once fixed. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, must agree to postpone the proceedings of the Customs Bill. As to the immediate subject before the House, he deemed it right to point out that the House had not had an opportunity of discussing it. The House last year expressed an opinion hostile to calling upon India to pay the whole cost, and in the Supplementary Estimates a sum of £500,000 was voted to India in regard to the war expenses. That sum was accepted by the House because they had no option or power of increasing it. He hoped it was understood that if the debate was now adjourned, it would be resumed before the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill was passed.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he would remind the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) that the taxation clauses of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill had been agreed to. The only portions of the Bill now remaining for settlement were questions of collection—questions of a minor character.
    MR. PUGHtrusted the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) would withdraw his Amendment. The offer made by the Government was a very fair one.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he had omitted to say that the Government would undertake to find a day for the debate before the middle of July.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 17: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 87.)
    Debate adjourned till Thursday.

QUESTIONS.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
  MR. HICKSasked whether or not this Bill would be brought forward on Thursday? He trusted the matter would be placed beyond doubt, because hon. Members had been brought down, day after day, and remained sitting on those Benches night after night, in the vain expectation that the Bill would be discussed. The House was informed, at Question time, that it would, in all probability, be brought forward in the course of the evening; and it was not until after 12 that the announcement was made that the Bill would not be taken. He submitted that it was a great hardship upon independent Members that that practice should go on so long, without any opportunity being afforded them of discussing the provisions of the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, no one was more anxious than himself to proceed with the Bill; but he was unable to resist the appeals made to him not to take it at a very late hour. He believed he was acting in accordance with the general wish of the House in proposing to take the Bill next Thursday.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) were justified by the facts of the case. Certainly, a great number of hon. Members had come down daily who were interested in the provisions of the Bill; and it was not until past 12 o'clock that they learned that it would not come on. He trusted that the same reasons as those just stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not operate on Thursday next, and that the Bill would be taken on that day, if possible, at an early hour.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he would take the Bill on Thursday, at as late an hour as the House would permit. He did not, however, wish it to be understood that he meant by that 2 o'clock, for he had already explained to those who had made communications to him upon this subject that, in view of the importance of the Bill, it would not be

  317
  respectful to the House to take it at an unduly late hour.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (UNREFORMED) BILL.— [BILL 156.]
  (Sir Charles Dilke, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Mundella, Mr. Hibbert.)
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (UNREFORMED) BILL.— [BILL 156.]

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, that the titles of High Admiral, High Ranger, and Lord Lieutenant of the Isle of Purbeck, were enjoyed by the Lord of the Manor, under the Charter of Corfe Castle. He asked if those privileges could not be retained under this Bill?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, he could see no objection to that, and if any words were necessary to be inserted he would confer with his hon. Friend upon the subject.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    1. Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the conversion, from time to time, of Perpetual Annuities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, on account of Trustee and Post Office Savings Banks, into Terminable Annuities, and to provide for the payment of such Terminable Annuities out of the Consolidated Fund.
    2. Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the conversion of an amount of Perpetual Annuities standing to the account of the Postmaster General, on behalf of the Court of Chancery, not exceeding, in the whole, forty million pounds capital stock, into Terminable Annuities, and to provide for the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any loss that may arise by means of the conversion of Perpetual into Terminable Annuities, and to provide for the payment of such Terminable Annuities out of the Consolidated Fund.
    3. Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the exchange of a portion of Annuities, terminating in the year 1885, for longer Terminable Annuities, and to provide for the payment of such Terminable Annuities out of the Consolidated Fund, and also to extend the period for which a Terminable Annuity maybe granted under "The Savings Bank Act, 1863."
    4. Resolved, That it is expedient to redeem a portion of the Terminable Annuity created under "The Indian Loan Act, 1881," and held by the National Debt Commissioners, on account of Post Office Savings Banks, by the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of one million pounds to the said Commissioners.
    5. Resolved, That it is expedient to make provisions as to the conversion, creation, and application of Terminable Annuities.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

  MOTIONS.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. TREVELYAN, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Waterworks in the town of Killarney, ordered to be brought in by Mr. TREVELYAN and Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 172.]

    METROPOLIS IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for the improvement of an unhealthy area situated at Saint George-in-the East, within the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 173.]

    METROPOLIS IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for the improvement of an unhealthy area situated at Lime-house, within the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 174.]

    METROPOLIS IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 3) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for the improvement of an unhealthy area situated in Lambeth, within the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 175.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Borough of Cheltenham, the Local Government District of Croydon, the Borough of Dorchester, the Rural Sanitary District of the Hendon Union, and

    319
    the Local Government Districts of Malvern and Willenhall, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Sir CHARLES DILKE.
    Bill presented and read the first time. [Bill 176.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Orders of the Local Government Board, under the provisions of "The Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876," as amended and extended by "The Poor Law Act, 1879," relating to the Parishes of Black-Torrington, Bradford, Bridgerule-East, Carhampton, Dodington, Fulwood, High-Hampton, Hinders-Lane-and-Dockham, Holford, Monk-silver, Old Cleve, Pancrasweek, Pleasley, Porlock, Pyworthy, Selworthy, Stogumber, Sutcombe, Upper Langwith, and Withycombe; to the Townships of East-Dean, Hucknall-under-Huthwaite, and Sutton-in-Ashfield; and to the Tything of Lea-Bailey, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Sir CHARLES DILKE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 177.]

    BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, Bill to consolidate and amend certain Acts and enactments relating to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 178.]

    CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bill to amend "The Charitable Trusts Act, 1853," and the Acts amending the same, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 179.]

    TRUST FUNDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. JAMES STEWART, Bill to extend the powers of Trustees in Scotland in relation to the investment of Trust Funds, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JAMES STEWART, Mr. MACKINTOSH, and Mr. CRUM.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 180.]
    House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS— First Reading— Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister * (56).
Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Limerick Waterworks) * (3)
Pluralities Acts Amendment * (42).

SUNDAY OPENING OF NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN,in rising to call the attention of the House to the question of the opening of Museums and Galleries on Sundays, and to move—
  "That, seeing the success which has attended the action of Her Majesty's Government in opening on Sundays the national museums and galleries in the suburban districts of London and in the city of Dublin, and whereas this House was last Session informed by Her Majesty's Government that no opposition to Sunday opening, so far as it had already gone, had come before them, this House is of opinion that the time has arrived for extending the policy of Sunday opening to all museums and galleries supported by national funds,"
  said, that the subject was one which had been several times before their Lordships, and that, therefore, there was no necessity for him to enter into details with regard to it. If he did not enter at length into the question, he wished the House clearly to understand that he did not do so from any doubt as to the strength of the arguments which could be used in support of the proposition he had to lay before their Lordships. He merely took his present course because he saw no object in troubling the House with a twice-told tale. No doubt, the arguments used two years ago were fresh in their Lordships' minds; and he hoped that those arguments, although not then successful, had since germinated and would bear good fruit on the present occasion. He would confine himself to arguing three principal points — first, whether a largo number of the working men of the Metropolis were anxious that a change in the law on this subject should be brought about; secondly, whether such a change in the law would give any large classes an opportunity of utilizing in a proper manner their Sunday leisure; and, thirdly, whether there would be very serious objection raised in any district against the opening of the Museums on Sunday in their neighbourhood. With regard to the two Amendments to his Motion which stood upon the Paper, he might say that he accepted the first— that of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) which proposed that the Museums should not be opened on Sunday until 2 o'clock in the afternoon—with great pleasure, as it undoubtedly supplied an omission in his Resolution, be-
  156
  cause he had not the slightest desire to interfere with the hours of religious service on Sunday. On the contrary, he believed that the adoption of his Resolution would increase the attendance at places of worship by elevating the general moral tone of the people. But the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) he looked upon with very different feelings. In the first place, it was not an Amendment to his (the Earl of Dunraven's) Resolution at all, and he did not know whether it could be moved as such. The noble Earl did not propose to introduce, or add, or interpolate any words, but brought forward an altogether different proposition. He should have infinitely preferred that the noble Earl had met him with a distinct negative. Did the noble Earl think that the opening of Museums on week nights could be regarded in any sense as a substitute for the proposal contained in the Resolution? The working classes, and those for whom he asked this boon, were removed, many of them, great distances from Public Galleries and Museums, and after their return from their daily labour were much too tired both in mind and body to avail themselves of the so-called privilege offered them by the noble Earl and his Friends. He had received a great many letters bearing on this point, and in all of them the same remark was made. Practically speaking, to open Museums on week-day nights would, to his mind, be of no use at all. No one could expect a working man, after he had got home, washed and dressed himself, and had his supper, to leave his wife and family in order to visit a Museum two or three miles away. There was another reason, besides, why the proposal of the noble Earl should not be adopted, and that was that the authorities of the British Museum and other National Institutions would infinitely prefer to have such places opened on a Sunday afternoon instead of on week-day nights, and that mainly on account of their employés. As they all knew, a large number of working men were anxious for a change, such as he now suggested; and, in speaking of working men, he did not confine himself merely to the artizan classes. He included shop assistants, lawyers' clerks, and people of a similar class, who were employed during the entire day. No doubt, there were many people of the

  157
  working classes who did not at all care for the proposed boon, who knew little about Museums, and cared just as little; and he had no doubt that many Petitions had been signed by persons of that stamp against the opening of Museums on Sundays. But he was confident that there was a large and growing number of the artizan classes who were exceedingly anxious that this boon should be conferred upon them. Within the last few days he had received resolutions in favour of his proposal from large numbers of working men's clubs and associations. Again, the opposition to the movement, in the House of Commons, although still very large, was diminishing, and public opinion, it might therefore be assumed, had undergone a considerable change in the same direction. It was true that there was a large majority in the House of Commons last Session against the Motion by Mr. Howard; but that was, to a great extent, due to a very vigorous speech delivered by Mr. Broadhurst, who spoke with all the authority of the working men on a subject of interest to the working men. But Mr. Broadhurst's authority to represent the working classes upon the point had been immediately challenged at a meeting of Metropolitan working men called to consider this question. The delegates present represented 46,000 people in round numbers, and associations containing 45,482 members sent delegates instructed to vote for Sunday opening, while 536 members sent delegates instructed to vote against it. The resolution passed was to this effect—
  "That we declare that those we represent strongly desire to see extended to London the policy of Sunday opening, which has proved such an unmixed good to our fellow-citizens and working men in Birmingham, Manchester, and other provincial towns."
  That meeting was a very remarkable one, attended, as it was, by delegates sent to record the deliberately formed opinions of the majority of the members of the various trade organizations, and distinguished, as it was, by the very high tone adopted by the speakers, and by the strength and fervour of their views. He thought a meeting of that kind deserved to be taken into consideration, and he trusted their Lordships would give it the weight and consideration it deserved. In the name of common sense, why should not the arti-
  158
  zans of London have the same benefits asthose of Manchester and Birmingham? What was the difference between the character and circumstances of the two? The only difference was that, whereas in the Provincial towns the Institutions were in the hands of the municipal bodies, and the working men could make their opinions more rapidly felt, in the Metropolis the question of their being opened or closed depended on the action of Parliament, and the opinion of the working men on Parliament could not make itself so rapidly or easily felt. In this respect Parliament lagged behind the municipal bodies in having a true view of what was wanted for the welfare of the working man. From a view of all the circumstances of the case, he confidently maintained that the policy of Sunday opening had proved an unmixed blessing in those places where it had been adopted. None could know so well as the working classes themselves what was beneficial to them; and the deliberately formed opinion of the vast majority of the working men of London that Sunday opening had proved beneficial in Birmingham and Manchester was an assertion that ought not to be lightly contradicted or gainsaid. If the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) would carry his objection to its logical conclusions, he would bring in a Bill to close Kew Gardens, Hampton Court, and other places of that kind, that were open in the suburbs, and to close the Museums that were open in the Provincial towns, and then their Lordships would see what was the real and true strength of public opinion upon this question. Nor was this a new experiment. It was an experiment which had been tried in all Protestant countries on the Continent. It had been tried in America, and in our Colonies, and the result was pronounced to be good. It had been tried in a great many of our Provincial towns, and, so far as he could judge, the result was good there also. The Chief Constable of Birmingham, speaking of the Art Galleries there, said—
  "These places have been opened since 1872 with the greatest success. In my opinion, no such satisfactory results could have been achieved among the poorer classes of the town in weaning them from the public-houses. They are visited by thousands, and more orderly, quiet, and decently-dressed crowds are not to be seen anywhere."
  Again, the Mayor of Manchester, and the

  159
  chief librarian of the chief public library in the same city, bore similar testimony as to the good results ensuing from the opening of the public libraries and the annual picture exhibition, the chief librarian, indeed, adding that the success of the experiment so fully justified their expectations as to silence all opposition. He submitted that opinions of that kind ought to have some weight in their Lordships' House. The next point he wished to mention was whether the working men would avail themselves of this privilege or not. He was aware it was often claimed that they cared nothing about it, and that where Institutions were open they did not go to visit them. That allegation was not, however, at all borne out by all the testimony of competent observers in the places where Museums and Art Galleries were open. On 11 Sundays of one year 62,000 people visited the Gallery of the Royal Institution at Manchester; the Birmingham Art Gallery was visited by 29,000 people on the Sundays of one year; between 10,000 and 11,000 had availed themselves of the kindness of the noble Duke (the Duke of Westminster), who opened the Gallery of Grosvenor House during the Sundays of two months; the Botanic Gardens at Dublin were visited by 156,000 people in one year; and those at Kew by over 411,000 people. He could multiply facts of that kind; but he thought he had sufficiently shown that there was a strong desire that Sunday opening should be extended to the Metropolis, that it was found where the privilege was accorded that the working classes had most greedily availed themselves of it, and that their being opened had caused no scandal, nor even occasion of complaint. In other words, he had shown that wherever the experiment had been tried it had proved successful. He was quite aware of the strong opposition to the change he proposed; but he ventured to say that that opposition was founded to a great extent on false assumptions and misstatements which, although no doubt involuntary, were more or less misleading. Two or three days ago he received a leaflet from the Working Men's Lord's Day Best Association, commenting on the delegate meeting to which he had alluded, and stating that the names of the delegates were counted twice over. That was not the
  160
  case. A certain number of the members of those associations were affiliated to the London Trades' Council, and so were counted twice over; but the number was comparatively small, and not at all sufficient to warrant the statement that the numbers were counted twice over. He had not been able to quote the exact figures, and it had been impossible for him to find out the exact majority or minority that voted for sending the delegates to those various bodies. A letter appeared in The Times the other day, in which it was stated that the enormous number of the working class organizations—no less than 2,335, representing 480,725 members—had sent to the same Society against the opening of Museums on Sundays. It had been impossible here again to find out whether that statement was correct or not. As a matter of fact, he believed it to be full of mistakes. He wrote to the Association for the pamphlet which he was told contained all the information required; and the reply he received was that the pamphlet had not yet been issued, although it had been sent to the newspapers. In those circumstances, the House ought not to attach any importance to those statements. He had just received a letter from a working man, one of the delegates of the meeting of the London Trades' Congress, which contained more than 15,000 members, who stated that he was morally certain that there w-as not the number of trade organizations mentioned in the letter to The Times in the whole Metropolitan district, and that, even if there were, nothing like such a number as that given expressed the opinion it was stated they had done. He wished to point out also the way in which this information was received. The Society was asked months ago to ascertain opinions in the matter among the working classes, and they gave the result only the day before that on which this Motion was to be made. The issue was not placed fairly before the Societies. The question was not whether the Museums should be opened on week-day afternoons or not at all, but whether they should be opened on Sunday afternoons or weekday nights, and that was not put to the working men. A great deal too much was assumed also in the extraordinary way in which the question was put to them. It was stated in the resolution, for instance, that "it was undesirable

  161
  that Parliament should further promote the employment of Sunday labour;" but he contended that the employment of Sunday labour by the opening of Museums in the way he wished would be absolutely nil, or, at any rate, so infinitesimally small that to place the matter in that way before the public was to put it on an entirely false issue. The various organizations were written to, and the person who was asked to state whether he was in favour of Sunday opening was a requested to state whether he did so as private individual or as secretary speaking for the society; but he (the Earl of Dunraven) had no means of testing the accuracy or representative character of the signatures. He had received one letter inclosing a copy of a resolution passed by a branch of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, and that resolution was a protest against the secretary having signed the document on behalf of the branch in opposition to the opening of the Museums as proposed, knowing, as he must have done, that the great majority of the branch were in favour of it. Doubtless there were other cases of the same kind, and if time were given for investigation he had no doubt that the figures which had been given representing the number of working men opposed to this movement would be brought down to very small proportions. In other respects the statements made against the movement were hasty and unreliable. A little while ago it was stated that the opening of the Art Gallery at Birmingham on Sundays had proved a complete failure, and that the attendance had fallen off. It was true the attendance fell off; but there was nothing remarkable in the fact, bearing in mind that that Gallery was burnt down. Manchester had also been referred to in proof of the failure of the people to appreciate the opening of Museums on Sundays; but in that city there was no Museum at all. Therefore, he asked their Lordships to form no opinion on the subject from the statements made by those societies. Numerous Petitions had been presented for and against this proposal, and he fancied that the majority of them were against it; but he would ask their Lordships to consider whether it was right to balance Petitions for and against a proposal of this kind. It was easy to get up Petitions against it, for all those who had no feeling on
  162
  the matter were willing to sign them; but persons would not sign their names to any Petition in support of the proposal unless they were strongly in favour of it. It was not fair to balance Petitions for and against Sunday opening equally against each other, as though it were a question whether people should or should not be obliged to visit Museums. If his Petition were granted, no reluctant person need avail himself of the privilege. There was no compulsion in the proposal he was making. If people did not want to go to the Museums on Sundays they could stay away. All he asked was that those who were not satisfied with the Day of Rest as it now was should have an opportunity of spending a portion of it in that way which they believed to be most conducive to their own improvement and happiness. That was the opinion of thousands of the working people of this country. Their Lordships had always been solicitous of the interests of the people, and as an evidence of this he might point to the Bill which their Lordships recently passed to prevent the payment of wages in public-houses. He (the Earl of Dunraven) did not believe that this kind of legislation would make the working men temperate. Intemperance among the other classes was not removed by legislation; it died out by men becoming more civilized. If Parliament would only give the artizans and workmen of England a chance of improvement and of healthy and reasonable recreation, if it would only remove the obstacles—of which this was one—which stood in their way, the result would be the same. The main argument against this proposal used to be that it would lead to a desecration of the Sabbath; but this appeared to have been given up, and it was now said that if this proposal was adopted we should be in danger of losing Sunday as a day of rest. But he would ask their Lordships seriously to reflect whether that objection rested upon any solid ground. He believed that the objection was entirely groundless, for the working classes had not the smallest desire to work on the Sunday, and they would not now-a-days be made to do what they did not want. The whole course of legislation and the whole tendency and direction of the action of working men in recent years had been towards shorter hours and less labour. Would not common sense sug-

  163
  gest that if more work was to be done in the week the first effect would be to do away with the Saturday half-holiday rather than to interfere with the Sunday? He had the greatest respect for the feelings which induced the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) to oppose him on that ground; but was not the noble Earl reasoning on facts which, though they might have existed 40 or 50 years ago, had no existence now? The argument of interference with the Sunday as a day of rest was, however, no longer the main objection, and the ground of opposition had been shifted to a certain extent. But at the bottom of all the opposition out-of-doors lay a strong Puritanical religious feeling—a feeling which he looked upon with the greatest respect, but which he believed had upon this subject been excited and aroused on false issues, and which did not represent the true and natural feeling of the people. He had received a circular the other day, which he certainly considered the most extraordinary document that he had ever seen in his life. He believed that he could challenge every statement in that circular, not by any abstruse reasoning, but by the merest common sense. The circular in question was sent by the Lord's Day Observance Society, and in it it was said, speaking of these Museums and Galleries, that—
  "To open them on the Lord's Day by authority would be an encouragement of things in direct rivalry to the public worship of Almighty God."
  That was the most astounding assertion almost ever put into print. It asserted that the contemplation of the works of God, as collected in Museums of natural history, and of the noblest works of man in the shape of works of art, literature, and the like, was in direct rivalry with the worship of Almighty God. He thought that was a most monstrous assertion, and one which he did not suppose would be accepted by the right rev. Prelates. Then he found in another paragraph that the Committee urged that no such demand existed as would justify the assertion that the people wished for such openings; and in another paragraph he found that London would be deluged with the multitudes flocking to those Museums. He would like to know which of those statements was true, as they did not agree very well together. But the last
  164
  paragraph was, perhaps, the most astounding of all. There it said that in Paris, Berlin, Florence, and other capitals the result had been the almost unbroken toil of the great majority of working men, and that in those capitals the state of morality was so much darker that illegitimacy, infanticide, suicide, and murder, existed in a much greater degree than in London, in proportion to the population. As a matter of fact, that was not true; but the astounding part of that assertion was that they were actually asked to believe that the contemplation of natural history specimens and good pictures, and the perusal of good literature, produced suicide, immorality, and murder. He did not mean to say that there were not pictures which might be capable of creating homicidal tendency as against the authors of them, or even pictures which might lead persons looking at them to think that suicide was preferable to a prolonged contemplation of them; but what he had read was a solemn statement to their Lordships and not an art criticism, and they were asked to believe that that was one of the results of opening Museums on Sundays. He merely mentioned those arguments because they were the arguments which were used out-of-doors, though he did not believe they would have any weight with their Lordships; and he asked them not to attach too much value to Petitions and opposition called into action by such extraordinary arguments as those. There was one other point to which he would refer, and that was the question of extra labour. That would be infinitesimally small. As a matter of fact, we had long since come to the conclusion that a certain amount of labour was allowable on Sundays, if it led to good results. If Parliament were to pass a Bill to suppress one out of the many newspapers which appeared on Monday morning, they would put an end to much more Sunday labour than would be incurred by the opening of Museums. Professor Dyer, of Kew Gardens, had said that the Gardens and Museums were generally thronged with visitors on Sundays, and that all that the attendants had to do was to give a little extra cleaning on Monday morning. Since he had come into the House, he had received a letter which suggested that if there was any difficulty about the labour on Sundays, a sufficient number of attendants

  165
  could be obtained from religious communities which kept their Sabbath on a Saturday. There was nothing he would more deeply regret than to see Sunday labour largely increased, or to see the reverence for the Sunday abated or lessened one atom; and he believed that we ran a risk of seeing it lessened if the alteration he suggested was not made. The danger was in the Sabbath ceasing to be useful to us or a great benefit to the people. If this were the case, he feared they would see the reverence for the day greatly diminishing. Sunday was a day of great irksomeness to thousands of excellent people, and its irksomeness was chiefly experienced by men and women who were the most intelligent and who had most influence over their class. He greatly regretted also that anything like a shock should be given to religious feeling, but he did not believe that any such shock would be given by opening the Museums on Sunday. He should be very sorry to think that the religious sentiments of this country rested on such a very flimsy foundation. He merely asked their Lordships, in conclusion, to believe that the extra labour required would, be infinitesimal; and he asked whether it was just to the taxpayers that they should be practically debarred from having any enjoyment or use out of the buildings for which they paid, and whether it was fair that the working men of London should labour under a great disadvantage, as compared with those in our other great Provincial cities? The Motion asked for nothing but justice to the working classes—justice which the Amendment to be moved by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) would not grant. This was a boon greatly desired and most earnestly implored by many thousands of the most intelligent men and women, not only among working men and artizans, but among many other classes whose whole time was taken up in labour. He did not want to coerce anyone against his conscience, but only liberty for everyone to do as he pleased. There was no danger of their losing Sunday as a day of rest, but he would ask whether it was right, kind, or considerate to lay insuperable obstacles in the way of their fellow-countrymen who were anxious to raise themselves, and who could not do so until those obstacles were removed? They only desired to do that without harming anyone; and by so
  166
  doing he thought an enormous improvement would be soon manifested in the whole tone of the national character, and an undoubted benefit would be conferred on all classes. The noble Earl concluded with the Motion which stood in his name.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT,in seconding the Motion, said, he thought it hardly necessary, after the able speech of the noble Earl, to say more than a few words on the question. There appeared to him to be two arguments commonly used against the Motion— the first, that it increased Sunday labour; the second was what he might call the thin end of the wedge. He was sorry to understand that many persons took the view that because Museums were opened, shops, theatres, and other places of amusement would be opened also. He could say that the working people certainly asked nothing of the kind. With regard to the question of Sunday labour, it must be obvious that a certain amount of labour was approved of at present. Much labour was expended on newspapers, much in the traffic of the streets and upon the railways in excursion and other trains. He was much struck by a remark of Mr. Powell with reference to excursion traffic when he said that he did not see why excursion trains should not take the country people into town to see the Museums there as well as the townspeople into the country. The working classes had made it clear that it was impossible for them, after the toil of the day, to visit those Institutions on weekday evenings. Various fishing villages were sending representatives to the Fisheries Exhibition. These poor people had only six days to remain there, and if the Museums were open to them on Sunday it would be a great boon to them and give them a chance they would never probably have again. He could testify to the number of visitors to the National Gallery of Dublin, of which he was a Governor. It amounted on the average to 700 every Sunday, and there was no doubt whatever that the privilege was highly appreciated. The fact indirectly was evidence in favour of the contention that, in refusing to permit the reading of books, the admiration of the highest products of human ingenuity, or the study of the wonders of nature, we were illegitimately depriving

  167
  large masses of our countrymen of privileges to which they were entitled. The late Dean Stanley, who was President of the Society which desired to promote the opening of Museums and similar places on Sunday, made some remarkable observations on this subject. He said—
  "The observation of Sunday more than any other religious question touches the hearts and consciences of the country. The object of the Sunday Society is to maintain the value and importance of the English Sunday to the English people, and, on the other hand, to do the best they can for them."
  Believing that it would tend to promote the proper observance of Sunday, he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion.
  Moved to resolve,
  "That, seeing the success which has attended the action of Her Majesty's Government in opening on Sundays the national museums and galleries in the suburban districts of London and in the city of Dublin, and whereas this House was last Session informed by Her Majesty's Government that no opposition to Sunday opening, so far as it had already gone, had come before them, this House is of opinion that the time has arrived for extending the policy of Sunday opening after Two o'clock to all museums and galleries supported by national funds."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he was certain that it was by an oversight that the words of his Amendment had been left out—
  THE LORD CHANCELLORrose to Order. The Amendment of the noble Lord had not yet been reached.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY,in moving, as an Amendment—
  "That inasmuch as a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Institutions have reported, on the 27th of March 1860, that such institutions as the British Museum and the National Gallery should be opened on week-day evenings to the public between the hours of seven and ten in the evening at least three days in the week, this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when this recommendation should be carried out,"
  said, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven) had begun his speech by complaining that he had behaved somewhat unfairly and disrespectfully to the noble Earl. The noble Earl must have forgotten what occurred in 1880, when, on a Motion expressed in precisely the same terms, he had moved an Amendment in the same form as that now standing upon the Paper. No objection of the kind was then raised, but the Amendment was carried. Under these
  168
  circumstances, he failed to see how he had neglected to treat the noble Earl with the courtesy which he certainly deserved. He must say, however, that he could not agree either to the Motion or the statement of fact with which it commenced. The Motion began by stating that—
  "Seeing the success which has attended the action of Her Majesty's Government in opening on Sundays the National Museums and Galleries in the suburban districts of London."
  That stated too much. The experiment had only been tried at Kew, Greenwich, and Hampton Court—very small suburban collections. Whenever it had been tried for long in Provincial towns it had failed. The great argument in favour of the movement was that it would tend to decrease intemperance; and he would take one case alone—the case of Birmingham—as an example. In Birmingham, where the Public Library and Art Gallery had been open on Sundays for several years, the system had certainly not succeeded in moderating the habit of drinking; on the contrary, that city had seen an increase of drunkenness and intemperance. In 1875 the number of persons proceeded against for drunkenness was 2,507; in 1878 it had increased to 2,851. The number of convictions for drunkenness in 1875 was 1,859, and in 1878 the number was 2,380—an increase of 521 cases. He must assert that the success claimed by the noble Earl would really go for nothing, unless he could prove that there had been a saving of hundreds and thousands of persons from drinking habits, and that those who frequented the Galleries and Museums were persons enticed from gin-palaces and pot-houses. It was stated that no opposition had been laid before the Government. Everyone knew perfectly well, however, that opposition had been shown by the public. The feeling of the House of Commons was shown in the last Session when Mr. Broadhurst resisted Mr. Howard's Motion for opening Museums on Sundays, and defeated it by 208 to 83, gaining a majority of 125. And the feeling of the country on the subject was not less plainly exhibited when Mr. Broadhurst presented to the House of Commons on Friday, May 4, Petitions signed by persons representing 100,740 individuals, and on Monday, the 7th, Petitions from 8,450 employés in different firms. In the House of Lords, Petitions

  169
  in favour of the noble Earl's Motion, if any, were next to nothing. Six, he believed, was the sum total; but there were many against it. To mention only two—one from the Wesley an Conference, representing the whole body of the Wesleyans, and others signed by nearly 70,000 persons, one alone having 49,503 signatures. He was not prepared to say, if the noble Lord's Motion was carried, and the Museums and Art Galleries were opened on Sunday, that hundreds, and even thousands of people would not flock to them; probably the British Museum and similar places would be crowded; but it would not be with gin-drinkers, but with sightseers, who could as well make their visit on some other day —comfortable people, who found time a bore, and rejoiced to make the Seventh Day resemble the other six. But there was another side to the question, and that was the amount of additional labour imposed on many classes of the community. The noble Lord had dwelt only on the small amount of labour which would be imposed on the guardians of these Institutions. But a noble Duke opposite had said last year in regard to that matter, that it was not possible to employ supplementary people for places like the British Museum; they must have people who were cognizant of the details and history of the collections. But he would put that consideration aside. And then let them look at the additional labour which would be thrown on others. Let them consult the omnibus men; they would tell you that they now worked 16 hours, in the day, and that they only got one Sunday a-month off, for which they themselves had to pay. If this Motion were agreed to, their labour would be quadrupled, and they would probably lose that Sunday which they now had per month to themselves. Let them go to the cabmen. They spoke of the proposal with positive alarm. Then there were the railway officials to be considered, and the dangers to the public arising from the overworking of those officials. Again, it was well known that wherever large bodies of Englishmen congregated, liquor was sure to be in demand. Did they suppose that the large crowds of people who were expected to visit these places on Sunday would not require to have refreshments? Many of them would call themselves bonâ fide travellers; and, certainly, drinking
  170
  habits would be encouraged to a much greater extent than they were at present. He had the testimony of a late secretary to the Sunday League. He deposed, before a Committee of the House of Commons in 1868, when resisting the closing of public-houses on the Lord's Day, that the people—he instanced himself, among others—must have refreshments when they went to hear the Sunday bands in Battersea Park. The result, then, would be that great additional labour would be thrown on the assistants in the public-houses. Take the experience of a Bank Holiday last year at the Alexandra Palace, when crowds of people assembled to gaze upon the works of art and beauties of nature there. He would read the figures which had been given by the lessees as to the amount of drink consumed on that day. That would give their Lordships an idea of the amount that would be consumed on a Sunday if these Museums were opened. The amount consumed on Bank Holiday in June, 1880, was 150 barrels of ale and 23,000 bottles of spirits, wine, ale, and stout; and 400 additional waiters had to be employed. This was the populace feasting on the enjoyment of the Fine Arts! The feeling which animated the great mass of the working people who were opposed to the opening of Museums on Sunday was that it was a step in the direction of opening theatres and workshops on the first day of the week—the making a "Continental Sunday" of that day. There was also an apprehension among working men that, in a short time, it would eventuate in a demand by employers that they should receive seven days' work for six clays' wages. The noble Earl had said that these people could protect themselves. No doubt they could in times of prosperity; but let an adverse time come of abundant supply of labour and little or no demand for it, they must accept the conditions of the employer and work on the Seventh Day if he chose to enforce it. He maintained that the large mass of the workpeople were decidedly opposed to the change. It was perfectly true that 62 societies of working men in London were in favour of the noble Earl's proposal; but the noble Earl forgot to tell them that the 222 remaining societies were all against it. He would explain to their Lordships the course he

  171
  had taken in regard to this matter. Last year, after Mr. Broadhurst took the line of opposing the proposal in the House of Commons, and his Amendment was carried by a majority of 125, he consulted several gentlemen of experience in the matter, and sent out circulars in order to ascertain the opinion of the working classes generally on the question. Circulars were accordingly sent out to 2,335 Trade Unions and Working Mens' Associations, Clubs, and Institutes in London and the Provinces, and answers were received from every one of them, signed either by the Chairman or by the Secretaries of the different Associations, Clubs, and Institutes. The question submitted to them was— "Will you accept Mr. Broadhurst's Amendment; or would you rather have the Museums open on Sundays?" The answers sent gave the title of each Association or Institute, the name of the secretary, the number of persons belonging to the Institution; while another column contained various observations; and all those Associations spoke in the strongest language in favour of Mr. Broadhurst's Amendment, and objected to the other proposal without a moment's hesitation. The result was that 480,725 adult men—the choicest men among the working classes of England—all protested in the most decided manner against the proposition of the noble Earl. Was it not manifest, from this statement, that they were forcing that imaginary boon on an unwilling and reluctant people? Now, he himself proposed substantially the same Amendment as that of Mr. Broadhurst. The noble Earl said that it was a vain and foolish Amendment; that, if carried, it would be of no use, and that it would do nobody any good. Well, to that he had to say, in the first place, that it satisfied all those 480,725 working men; and, secondly, where it had been practically applied, it had been accepted. In 1872, the late Sir Charles Reed, the Member for Hackney, presented to the House of Commons two Petitions signed by 84,000 persons praying that the Bethnal Green Museum, which had just then been instituted, might not be opened on the Lord's Day. The Bethnal Green Museum was under the jurisdiction of the South Kensington authorities. Now, about that time or the year following, the South Kensington authorities opened
  172
  the Bethnal Green Museum on the weekday evenings, shutting it up on the Lord's Day; and what had been the result? The noble Earl said that on the week-day evenings no working man or woman would go there; they would be tired and weary, and would rather remain at home. But what was the fact? In about nine years, during the time that that Museum had been opened on week-day evenings, so far from nobody going there, between the hours of 7 and 10 there had been no fewer than 3,200,000 visits paid to the place, a very large proportion of the visitors being working men and women. Well, if those men and women who protested against that Institution being opened on Sunday, and declared that they would not go there on that day because it would be against their conscience to do so, had in nine years paid 3,200,000 visits to it on week evenings, was it not fair to suppose that if similar Institutions to that at Bethnal Green were opened elsewhere on week evenings the working classes would attend them in like numbers? A certain proportion of our working people might be Agnostics, and a still larger proportion might be indifferent to religion; but there was another and a not inconsiderable body of them who were deeply religious, many of them being found in churches and chapels, while a great many were not found in either. Those were men under true religious convictions; and, regarding the matter from the highest point of view, they held the sanctity of the Lord's Day to be so great that they would submit to anything rather than that it should be depreciated. It was a remarkable fact that there should be such a consensus of opinion among working men that the opening of the Museums on Sunday would lead to great social mischief, and that the Lord's Day must and should be respected as a Charter, as a day of rest for all classes of the people. Were not those sentiments to be regarded? And did they not show that there was in the hearts of the people that love for social order which was one of the best securities for the body politic? Those people desired to conform to the religious habits and traditions of their forefathers; and ought not their Lordships to rejoice in that fact, and to do everything in their power to foster such feelings? He trusted

  173
  that the response of their Lordships to that appeal would not be one that would discourage those sentiments; he trusted —nay, more, he believed—that their decision that night would show that the action of their Lordships was in full and joyous conformity with the wishes and, he might say, with the prayers of a large and most respectable body of their fellow-countrymen. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("inasmuch as a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Institutions have reported, on the 27th of March, 1860, that such institutions as the British Museum and the National Gallery should he opened on week-day evenings to the public between the hours of seven and ten in the evening at least throe days in the week, this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when this recommendation should be carried out.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  EARL COWPER,said, it was with great regret that he felt himself differing from the views of his noble Relative who had just spoken. He thought he might take it for granted that nobody would venture to say that in those Galleries and Museums there was anything that was likely to deteriorate the working men, or that the Institutions were bad in themselves. He had heard some people—not very religious people—say that the effect of listening to a long sermon was to make them eat a better lunch. But he did not think there was any good reason to suppose that attending Museums or Picture Galleries would necessarily lead people to drink. He did not believe there was any more connection between the consumption of drink on Sundays and the opening of Public Collections than there was between Sunday opening and the murders committed in Dublin. It was, however, objected that the opening of those places on Sunday would lead to something else which they would not be able to stop. It was said that if the Museums were once opened they would go on gradually opening the theatres, music-halls, and similar places. Now there was hardly any change, however good, that was not advocated by some people who might also advocate some other things which were objectionable; but surely that was no argument whatever against adopting a thing which was good.
  174
  But was there anything in the proposal of the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven) necessarily leading to the opening of other places? There was, he thought, a broad distinction between a public place, supported by public money, belonging to the public, and to which access was free, and allowing places to be opened where money was recived for admission. There was a difference, for instance, between opening Kensington Gardens or Battersea Park and opening the gardens at Cremorne. There was, however, another objection to the Motion, which was more intelligible. That was the division of opinion on the subject among the working men themselves. But there was a division of opinion; for if there were Petitions against the Motion, there were also Petitions in its favour. But it was difficult to get at the real opinions of the working classes, and Petitions were no gauge of real convictions. Those who objected to the Motion made it a matter of conscience, and were consequently much more active in getting up and signing Petitions than those who held, it might be an indolent opinion, that it would be a good thing to open Public Galleries and Museums on Sunday. It was said that the National Gallery and the British Museum required a high degree of cultivation for their enjoyment. No doubt that was so—but it was all the more important to give as many opportunities as possible of improving the taste of the working people. He felt, as much as anyone, the importance of a day of rest, and of giving the sanction of religion to that day. But he could not but think that the observance of Sunday which consisted simply in hearing sermons and compulsory abstinence from all enjoyment did more harm than good. In his opinion, the Sabbath was better spent partly in worship and partly in wholesome recreation which did not involve labour. Certainly those who inflicted gloomy Sundays upon their households were not entitled to enforce their views upon those who did not agree with them. His noble Friend who introduced the question had referred to the labour aspect, which was, no doubt, an important aspect of it. But they all had their dinners cooked on Sundays, and employed their servants in other ways; and he thought it rather Pharasaical to refer to the labour imposed on a few for the sake of the many who

  175
  would be benefited by the opening of Picture Galleries and Museums—as to the drivers of cabs and omnibuses. It would not be an increase, but only a fresh distribution, of labour, because, after all, working men were not in the habit of staying at home now on Sundays. He would certainly record his vote in favour of the Motion of the noble Earl.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, that two or three topics had been introduced into the question with some amount of exaggeration. First, there was what might be called the public-house argument. It seemed to be thought that there was something in that proposal which would have the effect of emptying public-houses, and so promoting the cause of sobriety among the people. This was a very plausible argument at first sight; but, upon examination, it would not be found of much weight. He was one of those who doubted whether the persons who frequented public-houses would be found in the British Museum or the National Gallery. He had not much personal knowledge on the subject, but he had been assured by those who thoroughly knew the working men, and their habits, and that was the view which they expressed. That question, too, was in some measure settled by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Westminster), who had opened his splendid Gallery to the public on Sundays, and who had stated that it was certainly not working men who availed themselves of the opportunity afforded. Public-houses were closed from 3 to 6—precisely the time at which working men would visit the Picture Gallery or Museum—and they were re-opened at 6. Thus the time during which the Picture Gallery was open would be the time when the public-house was closed; and there would be no rivalry between the Picture Gallery and the tavern, and the former would have no means of withdrawing customers from the latter. But when 6 o'clock came round—as looking at pictures was exhaustive work—the visitors to the Galleries would betake themselves to the public-house. In fact, he had been informed that the publicans were in favour of the noble Earl's Motion, and that the public-houses in the immediate neighbourhood of the Public Exhibitions which it was proposed to open expected a large increase of custom. Another argument was that the places already
  176
  open wore much frequented, and that their opening had been very beneficial. He supposed Kew Gardens and Hampton Court were referred to. But there was no analogy between such places and Picture Galleries and Museums. He could imagine nothing more wholesome or desirable than that people should betake themselves to Kew Gardens or Hyde Park or Battersea Park on Sundays to enjoy the fresh air and flowers. What was the test proposed of the desirability of the change? It was always assumed that the number of persons who would avail themselves of increased opportunities was a conclusive argument in favour of the proposal. No doubt, if those places were opened, a largo number of persons would visit them; but the argument did not go far enough. The whole question of the Continental Sunday was involved. If theatres or music-halls or opera-houses were opened, no doubt a largo number of persons would visit them. It was assumed that the opening of Museums and theatres in foreign countries conduced to sobriety; but if that were so, which he doubted, the argument proved too much, for no one proposed that theatres and concerts-rooms should open on Sundays. Such a change was not wanted. He would read to their Lordships an extract from a letter written by a German gentleman of eminence as to the state of things on Sunday in his country. He said—
  "We Germans are, to a great extent, far removed from such a celebration of Sunday. The day of rest and of most elevated joy is too often robbed of its honour. The forenoon of Sunday is given up to work and the afternoon to pleasure. That which can elevate man is often despised, but that which degrades him is sought after. On Sunday the policeman reap their most abundant harvest; on Sunday children occasion the greatest anxiety; on Sunday-evening, above all other days, does the wife anticipate the return of her husband with a foreboding heart. Drunkenness and riotousness celebrate their greatest triumph on Sunday; and most of the misdemeanours are committed on that day, or are intimately connected with the misuse of it. We turn, therefore, to our countrymen with the urgent request that they would, in their various spheres, endeavour to procure for the Sunday a more honourable observance in our land. If the Sunday acquires a different character, the national life will rest on a securer basis."
  He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would not suppose for a moment that by relaxing the Sunday rule in Ger-

  177
  many the morals of the people tad been improved. There was only one other matter connected with this question to which he should desire to refer, and that was with regard to the difficulty, pointed out by the noble Earl who spoke last, of drawing a line. If they did all that this Motion proposed that they should do, where were they to stop? The noble Earl said that he saw no difficulty whatever in drawing a line; but he confessed that he waited most anxiously to hear from him whore they were to draw it. The noble Earl said that they ought to open those Establishments which were paid for out of the public taxation. But, in that case, what was the principle upon which he intended to proceed? Surely it could not make much difference in point of principle whether the working man paid for the maintenance of an establishment by means of taxes or whether he paid for it at the door. Somebody came and said—"Here is an Exhibition exactly similar to your National Exhibition, which you say will elevate the minds of the people, but we charge 6d. at the door." Would the fact that the 6d. was charged at the door be a valid ground for preventing such a private Exhibition from being opened? It was quite impossible to listen to an argument resting upon so flimsy and unsubstantial a suggestion. It might be said that those Exhibitions educated and elevated the mind; but there were many people who believed that the drama educated and elevated the mind, yet it was scarcely proposed to open the theatres in this country on a Sunday. There were others who thought that the performance of music educated and elevated the mind, yet it was not proposed to open the opera-house on a Sunday. This showed how impossible it was to draw the line at that which educated and elevated the mind. After all, the real question was, in whose interest was this proposal made? It was put forward by a Society composed of professors, philosophers, and artists of great eminence, for whom we had a great respect. They did not make the proposal on their own behalf, but on behalf of the working men. But was it the fact that the working men themselves desired that this proposal should be carried into effect? He did not say that there might not be a small number of working men who did desire that these Establishments should be opened on Sun-
  178
  day; but he did say that the overwhelming mass of the working men was opposed to the proposal. Apply every test on the point that they liked, and they would get the same answer. The first great test of the feeling of the working men on this subject was to be found in their Representative Assembly—the House of Commons. What had been the view which had been taken of this question by the House of Commons ever since the passing of the last Reform Bill, when the representation of the country was so widely extended? Since that time there had been three divisions taken on this question, and on every one of them there was an overwhelming majority against the proposal to open the Museums on Sunday. The noble Earl who sat upon the Cross Benches (the Earl of Dunraven) said that the majorities in the House of Commons against the proposal were continually diminishing, and that that fact showed that a change was coming over public opinion in reference to this question. He observed, however, that the minority in the other House had only increased from 83 to 87 on the occasion of the last division, which did not show a very decided increase of public opinion in favour of the proposal. Who took the lead in the other House in opposition to the proposal? Why, it was a working man, who said that—
  "He voted against it in the interest of labour with which he had been connected all his life and on the ground that the seventh day should be kept distinct and as fully relieved from all associations of labour as it was possible. He also opposed the Motion on the ground that there was no sufficient demand in the country to warrant the Resolution submitted to them. He further opposed it on the ground that the Motion could have no effect except loosening the ties which bound them together in defence of an absolute right of having one day in seven free from all labour."—(3 Mansard, [269] 1168.)
  In his opinion, that was a very sensible ground of objection to the proposal; and he was satisfied that Mr. Broadhurst's view of the matter was shared by the majority of the working men of this country. There was not a borough in England which was so completely composed of working men as was the Tower Hamlets, and when this question was discussed at the last School Board election for that borough, Mr. Lucraft, who was thoroughly acquainted with the desires of the working men, when asked

  179
  whether he would vote for the opening of the Museums on Sunday, said—
  "As to opening of Museums on Sunday, he looked at it purely from a workmen's point of view, and he should not like to work seven days instead of six. He therefore could not vote for opening Museums on Sunday."
  That announcement was received with cheers. Last year the two Representatives of that borough voted against the proposal. Then, it was said that the Provincial towns were in favour of the proposal. Mr. Mundella, however, had pointed to the fact that out of the 154 Municipalities in England who had Museums, only four had opened theirs on Sunday, and these Municipalities were controlled, as the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven) had said, by the votes of the working men. In Nottingham, where a splendid Museum of Art had been built at the cost of the ratepayers, the question of opening it on Sunday became a test question at a municipal election; the candidates in favour of opening were defeated, and Mr. Mundella had been informed that the return of the successful candidates was effected by the votes of the working men. As for Manchester, pictures were exhibited at the Royal Institution, which was in the hands, not of the municipal authorities, but of private trustees, who, acting on their own responsibility, opened the building six Sundays in the winter for two hours in the afternoon, to which there was great opposition in the town itself. It was proved to demonstration that the working men, by their action in the Provinces, objected to this Motion. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) who sat behind him told them he was responsible for the way in which the returns of the various trade organizations stating their opinion on this question were obtained. He did not think the noble Earl who sat on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Dunraven) could be aware of what the Society, of which he was the mouthpiece, did with regard to the mode adopted of obtaining the opinion of these societies on the subject of Mr. Broadhurst's Resolution. The Sunday Society, as soon as they heard there was going to be an appeal to the working class organization throughout the country, published an advertisement in The Times and The Daily News in January last, in which, after declaring their conviction that the response to the appeal would be
  180
  to demonstrate the practical unanimity of the working class organizations in support of the objects of the Sunday Society, they actually offered to the Working Men's Lord's Day Rest Association to bear the whole cost of publishing the returns. The Sunday Society were so convinced that the appeal would turn out in their favour that they would bear the whole cost. It was to be hoped they would fulfil their promise. Well, the result was that 480,725 members of the trade unions and other trade organizations were in favour of Mr. Broadhurst's proposal. And what had they to weigh against that? A deputation went to the noble Earl the Secretary of State yesterday, and they put into his hands a document claiming that they had in favour of opening 45,482 working men, as against the number he had stated. But, then, they very candidly said that the total was somewhat in excess of the number of individuals, seeing some members of trade societies were also members of clubs, and, moreover, many of the trade societies were represented on the Trades' Council. Many of the names were counted twice over, oven among the 45,000 just mentioned. Indeed, the Society had made a calculation, and counted between 15,000 and 25,000 duplicate names. But was not this most conclusive evidence of what the working men of the country thought? He submitted it was, and, therefore, he said that the first great question being what the working men wished, their Lordships had every guide and proof that they did not wish for this proposal to be carried; but, on the contrary, that it should not be carried. He held and believed, as many of their Lordships held and believed, that Sunday was a Divine institution, and one of the greatest blessings which Divine Providence ever gave to mankind. There were many persons who looked at the Sunday in its phyiscal bearing, and there were others, working men especially, who looked at it from a labour point of view; but all these ends could and must be accomplished by the aid of the action of Parliament and by legislation. They had legislation in regard to trading, labour, and so on, on Sunday. They might depend upon it they never could maintain legislation upon this subject unless they maintained the sanctity of Sunday as a Divine institution. It was quite impossible on a

  181
  matter of this kind to justify or maintain legislation in the long run, unless legislation was backed by the feeling in the country that they were legislating in defence of that which was a Divine institution. He objected to the movement which was being made by the Sunday Society — it was a singular name by which they called themselves— because it was calculated to destroy this feeling with regard to the Divine institution of Sunday. He was sure the noble Earl had no such intention; but what was the view put forward by the Society? He had in his hand an address delivered under the auspices and on behalf of the Sunday Society, by one of its vice-presidents, a man for whom he had the greatest respect as a man of science. What was the teaching with regard to the Sunday put forward in his address? This was the teaching—
  "Turning over the leaves of the Pentateuch where God's alleged dealings with the Israelites are recorded, it strikes me with amazement that such writings should be considered binding upon us. The overmastering strength of habit, the power of early education—possibly a defiance of the claims of reason involved in the very constitution of the mental organization— were never more forcibly illustrated than by the fact that learned men are still to be found willing to devote their time and endowments to these writings, under the assumption that they are not human, but Divine. As an ancient book claiming the same origin as other books, the Old Testament is without a rival, but its unnatural exaltation provokes recoil and rejection."
  It was impossible for the public to disconnect language and doctrine of this kind from a Motion composed by the very Society whose views were given out in the address from which he had quoted, and, therefore, he dreaded, and the country dreaded, countenance given by their Lordships to a Motion of this kind.
  EARL GEANVILLEsaid, he did not wish by rising then to necessarily close the debate, nor did he speak as representing the views which the Government took on this matter; but he wished to make a few observations, not at all in the way of a formal speech, in explanation of the vote he should give on the subject, for he intended to vote, as he had voted before, in favour of the Resolution. A noble Lord who spoke behind him said nobody thought it was wrong to go to Museums or Picture Galleries on Sundays; but he was not at
  182
  all sure that that was a right or sound assumption. There were not a few noble Lords, and a considerable proportion of people in the country, who conscientiously thought it was wrong to go to Museums on Sundays. He did not, however, intend to argue at all upon the high religious and moral aspects of the question. Mention had been made of the difference between opening the British Museum and National Gallery and descending to the opening of theatres and other places; but it appeared to him to be infinitely more difficult to draw the line between opening Hampton Court and Kew Gardens and the British Museum and National Gallery. He could not help feeling that some of the arguments that had been used were apart from the question. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had complained of the hardships of omnibus and cab-drivers; but that referred, not so much to the opening or shutting of Museums on the Sunday, as to the stopping of all traffic by road, rail, or river on the Sunday, and by that means securing the immense advantage from his point of view of preventing the public, who must use these means of locomotion, from getting to Kew or Hampton Court, or to the other Gardens in the suburbs. What he (Earl Granville) had felt and always said—and he entirely agreed with the two noble Earls opposite —was that this was one of those social questions in which they must be guided very much by the opinion of those who were principally concerned. The noble and learned Lord who had just sat down had gone very minutely into the evidence of public opinion as far as he was concerned. He made an allusion to what had passed at Bethnal Green Museum. He (Earl Granville) should like to know what the opinion of the Rector of Bethnal Green was. He (Earl Granville) thought that that bore very importantly upon this question. With regard to the indication of public opinion, the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) first mentioned what had taken place in the House of Commons, and complained that the noble Lord had said that there had been a change of feeling in that House in that respect. He (Earl Granville) could not help thinking that the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) was mistaken in this matter. What were the actual facts? In the first division

  183
  on the question in the House of Commons the majority against the opening of Museums on Sundays was 328, in the second 203, in the third 142, and last year the number was 125; and these figures, in his opinion, justified the assertion that there had been a change in the opinion of the House of Commons on the subject. But he went a little further. He thought a very much stronger indication than this diminution arose from the fact that one of those who voted in the majority last year was the Prime Minister of this country, who, of course, exercised great weight in a matter of this sort, and the fact of his vote made the decrease in the majority still more remarkable. On the other hand, Mr. Forster and Mr. Chamberlain, who were well conversant with the opinions of the working classes, voted in the minority in favour of the Motion. The noble and learned Earl then went to the opinion of the labouring classes of the country, and his strongest point of all was what Mr. Broadhurst had done in the settlement of this matter. Mr. Broadhurst represented a borough in which he (Earl Granville) had the greatest interest. He was a man whom he knew very well, and he could conceive no more trustworthy man, or one less likely to deceive, or who had a greater acquaintance with the class which he represented or to which he belonged; but, in stating Mr. Broadhurst's opinion, neither of the noble Earls happened to mention that Mr. Burt, who was equally representative of the class, was the person who seconded the Motion of Mr. George Howard on that occasion? Then the noble Earl opposite seemed very indignant, and, from the hints thrown out, seemed to think that the opinion of the working classes had not been quite fairly taken; but he said nothing to impair the manner in which that opinion was taken. He said that they should have been asked, in the first instance, whether they approved of Mr. Broadhurst's Amendment; and, secondly, whether they were in favour or not of opening Museums on Sundays? He must say that he thought the noble Earl quite right. Nothing could be a fairer way of putting the question; but that did not happen to have been the way the question was put. The way the question was put was this—
  184
  "The Committee of Management of the Society approves of the Amendment proposed by Mr. Broadhurst in Parliament for opposing the increase of Sunday labour."
  Was that the way to make an appeal for a fair expression of opinion? It was not a question as to whether they were in favour of the opening or shutting of the Museums, but "Will you have an increase of Sunday labour?" That was begging the whole question. Nobody could doubt what the answer of the great masses of the working classes would be to the question. He was very much inclined to believe the opinion that great masses of the working men of this country were opposed to the opening of the Museums on Sunday. But this Resolution did not affect the whole country. It affected the Metropolis of the country, and therefore it was really very important to ascertain, as far as possible, the feeling and opinion of the working men of the Metropolis on the subject. With reference to the figures that had been quoted to the House, representing the number of working men opposed to and in favour of the movement, he could not help feeling that the case of the 40,000 working men stated to be in favour of it— and their case was not a wit stronger than that of the small shopkeeper, and especially the ill-paid, and hard working clerk—was deserving of some consideration. It had boon said that workmen could spend several hours in the evenings of week-days at the Museums, &c, but this was denied by the men. He put to the deputation of working men, which waited upon him yesterday, a question specially on this point—"Can you make out to me that it would not be as easy to attend on week-day evenings as on Sundays?" And they gave him the time when they left their homes, their hours of labour, the time it took to get back and clean themselves, and they said—"Is it possible that we should be in a state of mind or body to start fresh to go to Museums?" Nobody wished to force those to go to Museums who had moral or religious objections to do so, but the hardship was in preventing those who wished to elevate their minds. One member of the deputation said it was a hard case that after the Government of the country had given them the means of education in early life, they should now

  185
  deprive them, by refusing to open the British Museum and National Gallery on Sundays, of the opportunity of elevating their minds as men, and of thus giving the last touch to their education. He granted that a man who was in the habit of getting drunk in a public-house on Sundays was not likely to be induced by such measures as these to make a sudden turn towards intellectual diversion; but he believed that working men who had received some education—such education, indeed, as their class never before had the means of acquiring— would, if they had the opportunity to choose, go to places where they could amuse themselves and elevate their minds rather than to the public-house, and it might be exactly the turning point whether for the rest of their lives they would go to the public-house or abstain from it. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had said that going to Museums would encourage men to drink as much as going to public-houses. But there appeared to be this difference. He (Earl Granville) could conceive the objection to a man leaving his wife and family in a small room on a rainy day and going away to the public-house to spend his time; but it appeared to him that there was a great difference between that case and that of a man who, after taking his wife and family to a Picture Gallery or a Museum, at the end of the time sought some refreshment for the sustenance of his mind and body. He desired to say, in conclusion, that he did not wish to influence in the slightest degree any noble Lord on that side of the House; but, for his own part, he confessed that he had heard nothing in the debate that evening to induce him to give a different vote from that which he had given on the subject on previous occasions.
  On question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the motion?
  Their Lordships divided: — Contents 91; Not-Contents 67: Majority 24.

  CONTENTS

  Sutherland, D.

  Camperdown, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Cowper, E.

  Derby, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Fortescue, E.

  Granville, E.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Haddington, E.

  186

  Hardwicke, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Innes, E. (D. Rox-burghe.)

  Hawke, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Macclesfield, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Morley, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Onslow, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.) [Teller.]

  Sydney, E.

  Wilton, E.

  Kintore, E. (E. Kintore.)

  Leconfield, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Lovat, L.

  Manners, L.

  Alington, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Auckland, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Monson, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Bramwell, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Romilly, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Coleridge, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Conyers, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Derwent, L.

  Dorchester, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) [Teller.]

  Truro, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Gerard, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford)

  Greville, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Wolseley, L.

  Harris, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp,

  Cranbrook, V.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Marlborough, D.

  Hawardon, V. [Teller.]

  Norfolk, D.

  Melville, V.

  Richmond, D.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Somerset, D.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Strathallan, V.

  Aberborn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Hertford, M.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Bathurst, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cairns, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Dartmouth, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Effingham, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Feversham, E.

  Harewood, E.

  Amherst, L. (V. Holmesdale.)

  Manvers, E.

  Powis, E.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Redesdale, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]

  Byron, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Bridport, V.

  187

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Kinnaird, L.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Mount-Temple, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Penryhn, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Penzance, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Denman, L.

  Robartes, L.

  de Ros, L.

  Rossmore, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Digby, L.

  Dinevor, L.

  Scarsdale, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Ebury, L.

  Silchester, E. (E. Longford.)

  Ellenborough, L.

  Forester, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Head-fort.)

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Resolved in the negative.
  Moved to resolve,
  "That inasmuch as a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Institutions have reported, on the 27th of March 1860, that such institutions as the British Museum and the National Gallery should be opened on week-day evenings to the public between the hours of seven and ten in the evening at least three days in the week, this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when this recommendation should be carried out."—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that he thought in a very few words he could show his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that there were very strong reasons why his Amendment should not be agreed to. He would speak merely with reference to the British Museum, and, in passing, he might say that he was not sure that the class of persons whom his noble Friend expected to attend would be the class who attended it. But the very large addition of labour which would be imposed on the officials and functionaries of the Museums was something very much beyond what the House had at that moment in contemplation, and would amount to no less than £15,000 a-year; and if that expense were large, the amount of labour thrown on the staff would be equally large, and required very great consideration indeed before the House agreed to a proposal of that sort. There was another point; the throwing open the Museums meant a change in many very important de-
  188
  tails, some of which might sound small when taken by themselves, but which, when taken in the aggregate, meant a very great deal. The question of lighting was a very serious one. First of all, it was admitted that it would be dangerous and improper to light the British Museum with gas, and as to the electric light, it was very far from being perfected. As a matter of fact, it had suddenly gone out within the last 12 months in the one department where it was used, and left the place in total darkness. In the Reading Room, with a limited, selected, and very orderly assemblage, such a contingency was unimportant; but if it were to occur in the other parts and the galleries of the Museum, with a crowd of people collected in them, it was impossible to say what the result of five or ten minutes' darkness might be. There was another point which again he must press, and which was important. The cleaning of the British Museum was a serious matter. At this moment, the difficulties, as the noble Duke opposite had said, were considerable, and if they had, on three additional evenings in the week, the entrance of a large crowd of persons, the difficulty would be very much greater. On wet evenings the Museum would be often used as a shelter and a lounge, and the amount of dirt which would be brought in on those occasions would be very considerable. It would thus become necessary to close a large portion of the Museum during the mornings to enable the necessary cleaning to be done; for the cleaning of statuary was a rather slow and nice operation. Sculpture could not be wiped with a cloth; but the dust must be blown away, and occasionally the marble must be washed. For all these reasons, and for others with which he would not trouble the House, he strongly urged his noble Friend to consent to give the House some little time for consideration. He believed the proposal in the Amendment of his noble Friend was not practicable without at least a large outlay and a good deal of consideration. At all events, in order that time might be given to consider the question of expense and other matters, he moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Moved, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  VISCOUNT HARDINGE,as a Trustee of the National Gallery, desired to corroborate the statement of the noble Earl as to the difficulties, and even dangers, that would arise if this proposal were agreed to. The Trustees had often had the subject under their consideration; but in view of the danger which would arise if the building were lighted with gas, and the present undeveloped state of the electric light, they had come to the conclusion that it was impossible at present to do as proposed. He quite concurred with the noble Earl in all he had said, and thought that, amongst other drawbacks, the dust that would be collected by large bodies of working men and others congregating there on a wet evening might be very injurious.
  EARL CAIRNSobserved, that he did not think the noble Earl intended to bind the country to any immediate action in this matter, and it would undoubtedly be useful if further time were given to consider it. He would therefore propose, as an Amendment to the Amendment of the noble Earl, to leave out the words "the time has arrived when this recommendation," and insert the words "this recommendation, in so far as it is found consistent with the safety and the welfare of the institution." That would leave the question entirely open.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am not surprised that the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) has not entirety acquiesced in the Motion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon). It is one of the most remarkable suggestions I have heard made in this House. The whole debate has turned on the wishes of the working classes. The Amendment was moved with all the authority and eloquence of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury). If that Amendment was objected to, it was surely the duty of those Members of the Opposition who were pursuing this after policy to have spoken before the Amendment was put. The majority of the Members of the House have retired, thinking the matter is disposed of; and now, without a word of warning, this Amendment has been sprung upon us. I can only say that what has been done will have a most extraordinary effect upon the country?
  EARL CAIRNS: The Amendment is not put yet. It is only being put now.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The division was taken clearly on the merits of the Amendment.
  EARL CAIRNS: I beg your Lordship's pardon. That is quite a mistake. The vote was simply on the original Resolution.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I object to the proposal being now made after many of their Lordships have retired.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: By far the greater number of those who took part in the division voted on the question of Sunday observance. There is no mistake about the motive which brought down the crowded Benches this evening. Now it is proposed that the debate should be adjourned, and the noble Earl complains that no Notice has been given of the intention to adjourn the debate to consider the much smaller question which has now arisen. No statesman in either House has ever heard of Notice given of any such intention. What is now required is information from the authorities of the British Museum and the National Gallery, who have not yet been heard. I should be willing to adopt the Amendment, deprived of its dangerous and stringent character by the Amendment of my noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns), because there are many questions of a technical and administrative character that are worthy of careful consideration before the proposal can be carried out. At the same time, I think the Motion for the adjournment of the debate is very reasonable.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he would suggest that as their Lordships had not discussed this question of opening Museums on week-day evenings at all, it should be brought forward on a separate Motion. The condition of affairs was much altered since former years. He was also of opinion that at a time when the nation was trying to protect buildings from the enemies of social order, it would be well if the direction in the Amendment of the noble Earl was delayed in being carried out.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he did not see the necessity for the adjournment, though he was not unwilling to accede to a Motion of that character. His present Amendment was identical in terms with one he proposed in 1881, when it was carried without, any question being raised.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he objected to the proposal of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) being put before their Lordships as an alternative for the original Motion. He hoped no one would be deceived by the transparent proposition that Sunday opening of Museums and Art Galleries was not necessary because abundant accommodation could be provided on week-days. No such question was before the House, and the working people, so far as their Lordships were concerned, must go without Sunday opening.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he did not think the majority of the working classes were in favour of Sunday opening, and the information before the House gave a contradiction to what had fallen from the noble Earl (Earl Kimberley) who had just sat down, who was, moreover, not justified in what had been stated by him in reference to their Lordships' House, the statistics being distinctly at variance with what had been stated by the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he must deny that he had sprung any mine upon the supporters of the original Motion. He had not only mentioned to the Lord Chancellor, before the debate began, that he intended to raise this question, but he had consulted the noble and learned Lord as to the particular course which it was desirable to take.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can bear out what the noble and learned Lord has said as to his having mentioned his desire to have an opportunity of giving expression to his opinion in the sense stated. I was not, however, aware that it was the opinion of anyone except himself. Having myself voted with the majority, I must say that I did so in the full belief that that which was recommended was practicable and ought to be done, and I continue of that opinion.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, that if his noble Friend withdrew the Motion for Adjournment, he would move the words he had suggested.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he should not oppose that course; but he thought what had taken place had been very extraordinary.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had not, either previously or now, dictated any special mode of carrying out the Reso-
  192
  lutions of their Lordships' House. It was obvious that there must be different hours in summer and winter.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONasked leave to withdraw his Motion?
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Moved, as an amendment to the foregoing Resolution, to leave out ("the time has arrived when") and in the last line after ("should") to insert ("if and so far as may he found consistent with the safety and general welfare of those institutions" (The Earl Cairns); after further short debate, the said amendment, on question, agreed to:
  Resolved, That inasmuch as a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Institutions have reported, on the 27th of March 1860, that such institutions as the British Museum and the National Gallery should be opened on week-day evenings to the public between the hours of seven and ten in the evening at least three days in the week, this House is of opinion that this recommendation should, if and so far as may be found consistent with the safety and general welfare of those institutions, be carried out.

  APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS—"BRADLAUGH v. CLARKE"—QUESTION.
  LORD DENMAN,in pursuance of a Notice, asked the Lord Chancellor, Why the names of all the Peers who sat on the Appeal of Bradlaugh v. Clarke, on 5th and 6th March and on 9th of April, is not on the rota of Peers kept in the Princes' Chamber?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in answer to the Question of the noble Lord, I have to state that the Paper which is put up in the Princes' Chamber, and which the noble Lord describes as the "rota of Peers," has been for many years past simply a record of attendance of those Peers who have filled judicial office, and are commonly called Law Lords. The noble Lord is well aware that since the case of O'Connell there has been a general consent in the House that it is better that the judicial proceedings should be conducted exclusively by those who have filled judicial office, or who, in respect to their information as trained lawyers, are regarded as Law Lords. The consequence of this is, that this list is exclusively the list of attendances of Lords that are so called; and that such a record should be kept is most proper, more especially since the year 1876, when, by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act,

  193
  it was required that there should be at least three Law Lords who had filled certain judicial offices present for the purpose of determining appeals. Having answered the Question of the noble Lord, I may, perhaps, be excused for adding, with reference to some animadversions of which I myself appear to have been made the subject "elsewhere," that, until the question raised by that appeal— "Bradlaugh v. Clarke"—came before your Lordships' House, I never had occasion to consider, and never did consider, it; nor had I, until I heard the arguments in the ordinary course of my judicial duty, formed any opinion upon it. It has been supposed, because I was Attorney General in 1866, that I must have been personally responsible for the preparation of the Oaths Bill of that year. The fact is not so. That Bill was not in my charge; I had nothing to do with the preparation of it. It was under the charge of, and introduced into the House of Commons by, the then Home Secretary, Sir George Grey; and the only other name upon the back of it was that of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. No controversy whatever arose in the House of Commons as to any of its provisions, except the matter of the Oath itself.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to alter and amend the law as to marriage with a deceased wife's sister—Was presented by The Earl of DALIIOUSIE; read 1ª. (No. 56.)
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.